Changes that were good for drum corps

[MikeN]

Pls don't flame, I am a brass player, but

What is a 'free-floating" drum? From what I see they still seem to be attached to the drummer.

Just curious

On just about every drum from the dawn of time onwards, drum heads were stretched by tightening the rim on top of them down over the shell below them.

(you tighten the screws at the top, it pushes the rim (and drum head) down over the wooden "shell" of the drum.)

This worked fine until the advent of kevlar drum heads, which are so strong that the drum itself would break if you tightened the head down too much! (It'd either pop those vertical lugs off the side or cave in the entire wood shell.)

In order to deal with the "high tension" heads, free-floating drums were developed.

A second metal rim is now under the top rim, so that when you tighten the top rim, it's now coming down on another piece of metal rather than the wood shell. In addition, the vertical lugs on the side no longer attach to the shell of the drum, meaning that the shell actually floats "free" inside the hardware. (Technically, it's held in place by the bottom drum head on the bottom and it sits under the lower rim on the top, but hey - it doesn't have stuff bolted into it, and that's where the name comes from.)

All of the major companies now have free-floating drums. Pearl's is above.

Yamaha's

Premier's

Ludwig's (these have a double rim on the bottom, too, so you don't need all of those vertical lugs around the drum.)

Dynasty's (rims bolt onto the wooden shell, so it's not technically a "free" free-floater.)

Anyways, that's the reader's digest version for non-drummers. :)

Mike

[IllianaLancerContra]

On just about every drum from the dawn of time onwards, drum heads were stretched by tightening the rim on top of them down over the shell below them.

(you tighten the screws at the top, it pushes the rim (and drum head) down over the wooden "shell" of the drum.)

This worked fine until the advent of kevlar drum heads, which are so strong that the drum itself would break if you tightened the head down too much! (It'd either pop those vertical lugs off the side or cave in the entire wood shell.)

In order to deal with the "high tension" heads, free-floating drums were developed.

A second metal rim is now under the top rim, so that when you tighten the top rim, it's now coming down on another piece of metal rather than the wood shell. In addition, the vertical lugs on the side no longer attach to the shell of the drum, meaning that the shell actually floats "free" inside the hardware. (Technically, it's held in place by the bottom drum head on the bottom and it sits under the lower rim on the top, but hey - it doesn't have stuff bolted into it, and that's where the name comes from.)

All of the major companies now have free-floating drums. Pearl's is above.

Yamaha's

Premier's

Ludwig's (these have a double rim on the bottom, too, so you don't need all of those vertical lugs around the drum.)

Dynasty's (rims bolt onto the wooden shell, so it's not technically a "free" free-floater.)

Anyways, that's the reader's digest version for non-drummers. :)

Mike

Thank you. I am glad it did not involve levitation.

[KungFuCharlie]

All of the Yamaha X335 models (2335, 4335, 6335, 8335 "Xeno") have the same specs: .459 bore, 4-7/8 inch bell. The Xeno 8345 has a larger bore (.462) but the same bell.

The standard dynasty G bugle (which is still available) has a .460 bore and 5" bell. This is the same as the dynasty professional Bb trumpet. Somehow, the dyansty trumpets never really sounded as "full" as the bugles or the yamaha trumpets. Might be the taper of the bell.

In short, some mfrs might be selling "marching" trumpets, but I think there is still work to be done in this area.

Bore and bell tapers can make a big difference. I think the original Yamaha horns The Cadets used in 2000 didn't sound anywhere near as good as the Yamaha horns out now.

[ScribeToo]

Why do I always agree with you? :)

:) Frightening, isn't it?

Stef

[dbc03]

A lot of people here seem to assume that if you don't like one particular change then you must be against all change. Not so! Here is a list of changes that I think were good:

1. Bugles: 1V to V/R to 2V All good. Allowed corps to play in different keys and explore more complex music. Example: the third movement of Channel One Suite. In 1976, it was played on V/R bugles, in 1977 it was played on 2V (at least the sops). I'm sure any BD sop who marched those years would agree that it was easier to play on 2 valves.

2. Bugles: 2V to 3V. Neutral to slightly positive. Allows for truer scoring in the lower register. But even 3rd sops hardly use the third valve and it adds extra weight. The third valve on a contra weighs almost as much as a whole soprano.

3. Drums: single to multi tenor. unquestionably a positive change.

4. Drums: no tymps to marching tymps to grounded tymps. All good. Tymps are cool, but it's silly to try to carry them.

5. Percussion: Grounded pit. Good. You don't want to select keyboard players based on whether they can lug 40 pounds of wood and metal.

6. Color guard: real rifles to fake rifles. Try getting an M1 Garand through airport security these days.

7. Entrance: Left goal line to back sideline to anywhere. This just gives drill writers more freedom. No one says you can't come in from the goal line and those entrances had a certain drama. A smart drill writer would take advantage of that.

In general, I think most changes up through the mid-90s were positive, then things sorf of hit a plateau. I think that some of the major changes since 2000 need to be re-evaluated. This includes any key brass (it's not the key so much as the construction of the horn. Someone needs to design a proper outdoor marching trumpet rather than just using concert instruments), electronic amplification and amplified voice. If that makes me a rabid enemy of all change in some people's eyes, so be it. Change per se does not equal evolution. It's not until the changes are evaluated, and some rejected, that you can call it evolution.

Had DCP been around back when a lot of these changes were happening there would have been just as much #####ing and moaning then as there is now.

[Slow Adam]

In order to deal with the "high tension" heads, free-floating drums were developed.

A second metal rim is now under the top rim, so that when you tighten the top rim, it's now coming down on another piece of metal rather than the wood shell. In addition, the vertical lugs on the side no longer attach to the shell of the drum, meaning that the shell actually floats "free" inside the hardware. (Technically, it's held in place by the bottom drum head on the bottom and it sits under the lower rim on the top, but hey - it doesn't have stuff bolted into it, and that's where the name comes from.)

Worst idea ever: Premier's attempt to float tenor rims.

[bawker]

:)

So... you're saying you were just mad because there wasn't a real valid argument against what I said?

And I think you know me well enough to know that confrontation is never something I have a problem with..

Stef

No, that's not what I was saying.

The way you present your arguments....both here and over in CE...are of the mindset of "I'm right, you're wrong, the end."

That's anathema to a discussion board, and really, given the disparate opinions here, it's kind of elitist to come down sarcastically on everyone who doesn't agree with you as "experts".

[ScribeToo]

No, that's not what I was saying.

The way you present your arguments....both here and over in CE...are of the mindset of "I'm right, you're wrong, the end."

That's anathema to a discussion board, and really, given the disparate opinions here, it's kind of elitist to come down sarcastically on everyone who doesn't agree with you as "experts".

So you don't like my delivery.. well I can't much help that. Some people "get me" here, you're one of the few who don't.

But the question remains.. absent of all supposed intent, is there a valid argument in opposition of what I said?

Or did you just want to make a dig based on my delivery of my statements? Because if that's the case.. and your issue was with me.. why didn't you just PM it? Or better yet.. put me on ignore?

Stef

[bawker]

So you don't like my delivery.. well I can't much help that. Some people "get me" here, you're one of the few who don't.

But the question remains.. absent of all supposed intent, is there a valid argument in opposition of what I said?

Or did you just want to make a dig based on my delivery of my statements? Because if that's the case.. and your issue was with me.. why didn't you just PM it? Or better yet.. put me on ignore?

Stef

Sure there's valid argument against it...using the "about the kids" mantra in your initial post here doesn't take away from the fact that there are plenty of people who would argue that by changing the instrumentation, the tour etc....that they *don't* get the same things out of it that other people may have.

Would I disagree with your original statement, if it was written differently? Probably not.

However, when this thread was originally started before it was merged, it was

1) a dig at someone elses thread

2) a dig at anyone who disagrees as an idiot

Semantics, to be sure...and yes, the problem is with your delivery more than anything else. But, nevertheless, that sort of subtle baiting doesn't accomplish a whole lot in generating discussion.

I don't ever put anyone on ignore....there's no fun in that. Quite frankly, unless the poster is a troll of epic proportions... that just pretends the problem/issue/poster isn't there, and that doesn't ever solve anything. I don't have a personal issue with you. :)

Besides, this gives you a very public forum to defend what you wrote and discuss it....and that's what good ol' DCP is about, right? B)

[ScribeToo]

However, when this thread was originally started before it was merged, it was

1) a dig at someone elses thread

2) a dig at anyone who disagrees as an idiot

Semantics, to be sure...and yes, the problem is with your delivery more than anything else. But, nevertheless, that sort of subtle baiting doesn't accomplish a whole lot in generating discussion.

That's an awful lot of intent you got out of a very few words, there..

All of it wrong, I might add.. but... my word against yours, I suppose.

My post was an attempt to draw focus onto a POSITIVE aspect of what drum corps is RIGHT NOW and has ALWAYS BEEN.

If I was "into" assigning intent, I might say you were trying to destroy anything that may focus on something positive about drum corps in general.

But I'm not into that kind of thing.

To each his own!

Stef

Edited June 27, 2006 by ScribeToo