Michael Boo Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 (edited) I've been thinking about this, as I've seen the term "acoustic drum corps" used on the forums here. Aren't all our instruments, amplified or not, still acoustic? When a guitarist does an "acoustic" album, they're still playing into a microphone...they might even be amplified, but their instrument is still an acoustic guitar and not an electronic one. So, aren't our instruments still acoustic even if they're amplified? We're not using electronic means of producing the sound...the sound is still produced manually by striking the percussion instrument and the voice is not altered through electronic means...it's all just brought out more so it can be heard...at least how I see it. I don't want this to turn into a shouting match. I'm actually curious about the perceptions here. PS: And since the topic title will likely generate a lot of hits...I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage all to submit stories for future Fanfare columns on DCI.org. That was NOT the purpose of creating this thread. I swear. :) Still, it would be a missed opportunity... Mike boomike@dci.org Edited May 21, 2006 by Michael Boo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vferrera Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 So, aren't our instruments still acoustic even if they're amplified? We're not using electronic means of producing the sound...the sound is still produced manually by striking the percussion instrument and the voice is not altered through electronic means...it's all just brought out more so it can be heard...at least how I see it.Mike boomike@dci.org There is no precise definition of "electronic" vs. "acoustic" It's all just a matter of where the amplification occurs. For example, you could say that an electric guitar is acoustic, by your definition, because it depends on a vibrating string to make the sound. It's just that the string vibration is directly converted to an electrical signal. In an acoustic guitar, the base of the guitar does the initial amplification, which can then be further amplified by a microphone either outside or inside the instrument. The only purely electronic instruments are things like moog synthesizers where the sound production involves no physical process other than electrons racing around a circuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 PS: And since the topic title will likely generate a lot of hits...I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage all to submit sotries for future Fanfare columns on DCI.org. That was NOT the purpose of creating this thread. I swear. :) Still, it would be a missed opportunity...Mike boomike@dci.org Suuure it wasn't the reason for starting the thread. :P I'll think about it on the drive to practice Mike, never gave it a thought before. Back to OT: I have some classical guitar albums (yeah 12 inch records) and have heard classic guitar in concert settings with and without amplification. For guitars I can't tell the amped/non-amped difference with my untrained ear. Wondering if that is because of better equipment, studio magic, an indoor setting or just not cranking the crap out of the amplifiers. One of the two amped corps I have heard, one "cranked the crap" to the point what was going thru the amp overshadowed the rest of the corps. (It was the first show of the season which may account for the mis-balance.) Let's see do I have a point...... oh yeah. Actually you make a good point on definition of "acoustic" and reminds me of the discussions over definition of "Alumni corps". Maybe "Keep it Acoustic" should be changed to just "Keep it Non-Amped". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevingamin Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 If we're going to determine how to define "acoustic" drum corps, we should first define "acoustic". The following is from dictionary.com: a·cous·ticadj. also a·cous·ti·cal (-st-kl) Of or relating to sound, the sense of hearing, or the science of sound. - Designed to carry sound or to aid in hearing. Designed to absorb or control sound: acoustic tile. [*]Music. Of or being an instrument that does not produce or enhance sound electronically: an acoustic guitar; an acoustic bass. Being a performance that features such instruments: opened the show with an acoustic set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GmenBari78 Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 When amplified voice and singing were introduced in 2004 shows, and the anti-amp folks (self included) started to sound off about it, someone suggested writing to the div 1 directors and giving voice to the issues. I did that and one of the things I said to all of them was to keep DCI "acoustic". What I meant by that, and I did explain myself to them, was to keep it MOSTLY instrumental, and not turn this into American Idol songfest competitions with instrumental backups. As soon as we introduced voice and singing more to the forefront via amps, our attention immediately becomes drawn to the voice. This was especially apparent with Crown 2004. If this becomes the primary rather than secondary performance focus, with more singing, less playing, we are not what I would consider to be drum corps anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madscout96 Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 I think that the term "Acoustic Drum Corps", the way it has been used on DCP and among people in our activity, has come to mean a corps that uses no amplification, and doesn't need electricity at all when performing. Like all corps were before 2004. I'll go by that meaning regardless of what the dictionary says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaminbenb Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 Think about this, have you ever seen an "electric" contra bass bugle? I've always considered the term acoustic to relate to an instrument that does NOT need amplification to be heard (an acoustic guitar make an acceptable sound when there's no sound reinforcement, but a "solid body" electric guitar does not, even if you are up close to it) Drum corps USED to be all acoustic, but with this sound reinforcement and electric instrument crap....I'l stop..... ^0^ I've been thinking about this, as I've seen the term "acoustic drum corps" used on the forums here. Aren't all our instruments, amplified or not, still acoustic? When a guitarist does an "acoustic" album, they're still playing into a microphone...they might even be amplified, but their instrument is still an acoustic guitar and not an electronic one.So, aren't our instruments still acoustic even if they're amplified? We're not using electronic means of producing the sound...the sound is still produced manually by striking the percussion instrument and the voice is not altered through electronic means...it's all just brought out more so it can be heard...at least how I see it. I don't want this to turn into a shouting match. I'm actually curious about the perceptions here. PS: And since the topic title will likely generate a lot of hits...I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage all to submit sotries for future Fanfare columns on DCI.org. That was NOT the purpose of creating this thread. I swear. :) Still, it would be a missed opportunity... Mike boomike@dci.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monoemono Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 This makes me think of the "MTV Unplugged" issue. I've always like the show and the concept, but have you noticed how much electricity is required to make an "Unplugged" show? Kind of funny... I was showing school kids scenes from "Drumline" the other day. I left out the Morris Brown performance, which is the most forgettable of the film. If you've watched it, everything is focused on the vocal performer. What did the band do? I dunno. They could have been running into each other and knocking each other down for all I know. The excitement wasn't being produced by the band, it was being produced by the superstar singer. The band was more or less a prop. Instead, I showed the scene in the credits where Morris Brown is on their own, doing their thing. Dancing, playing, singing (no mics), and getting down. THAT song has been in my head all week. All acoustic music. The BAND is the focus, the stars, the excitement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashofthunder Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 Saying that an instrument is acoustic simply because they play into a recording mike is like saying that we're not really watching the stuff on tv, we're watching a box with a big chunk of glass on it. It's technically correct, but words are being twisted to say something about what no one uses it for. That's why I don't think that dictionary definitions have much use in an debate; it's a definition from one POV, that doesn't take into account all real world applications of the word. English is a living language, and not everything has a word that describes it to the point of not leaving a question as to what's being dicussed. I define "acoustic" as being undistorted by electronics. A guitar playing into a mike for the sole purpose of producing more volume(i.e. amplification) is acoustic. However, once the sound is changed and given a different timbre, it is no longer acoustic, but electronic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 if a mic or amp is involved, it isn't accoustic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.