Why don't the audiences go nuts like they used to?

[drumcat]

I think you're also noticing that people aren't as mic'd as they were in the past. Instead of having mics 10 rows back, they're all over the field. In fact, this year, there were 24 mic positions. 24! Needless to say, it's pretty plausible that you're noticing the reduction of crowd noise as an end result of mixing the audio that way.

Not to say that there isn't merit with what you're saying, but using the recordings as a barometer will lead you to false conclusions with that data alone.

[sobe]

I think you're also noticing that people aren't as mic'd as they were in the past. Instead of having mics 10 rows back, they're all over the field. In fact, this year, there were 24 mic positions. 24! Needless to say, it's pretty plausible that you're noticing the reduction of crowd noise as an end result of mixing the audio that way.

Not to say that there isn't merit with what you're saying, but using the recordings as a barometer will lead you to false conclusions with that data alone.

Ala 96 Madison.

Reports were the crowd was going nuts throughout the performance, but you mostly hear the drums on the recordings.

[Keith Laubhan]

I dunno.. this year, at finals, the crowd absolutely lost their minds at the end of Phantom's show... several other times over the past 6 finals I've been to.

I think if you're referencing recordings, that might color your perception. It's clear to me that the mix is different... Which is fine with me. I'd much rather hear the onfield product than every goofball who wants to make the CD by yelling something stupid.

[Hrothgar15]

I always think about this, but I'd be torn to pieces if I ever posted a topic on it.

I think it boils down to two reasons: shows are not designed with audience reaction in mind as much as they used to be, and (in many cases) shows do not feature as high quality musical repertoires, visual repertoires, and musical arrangements (though there are exceptions...thanks Phantom Regiment).

For example, the Cadets 2005 show I believe was masterfully written, but the show did not end in a traditional, baby-throwing, fortissimo, chordal way. Instead, it ended with extremely staccato, fortissimo, three dotted quarter notes. Does this mean the music was not written as well as it could have ben? No, just that it was written with a different intent than was usually the norm.

Also, compare all of the original music heard today, which some do not consider has high quality as, say, an established orchestral, jazz, or musical theater piece, to shows like Vanguard 1978, or Blue Devils 1988.

Just my opinion, of course. It's all relative. Obviously there are many different interpretations to this question. :)

Edited January 30, 2007 by Hrothgar15

[victrussell]

The crowd at 2006 Semi-finals went absolutely crazy over the performance of the Madison Scouts Alumni Corps. Admittedly, I haven't heard this kind of response for several years prior to that performance. .

[2CoolVK]

This topic is more important than you might think. With all the time spent on whether electronics should pass or not, here's a chance to voice your thoughts on what makes you jump out of your seat. If anything should get a petition going - it's this.

Keep it going!!!!!!!

Design a show that makes me throw babies from the top deck again.

Edited January 30, 2007 by 2CoolVK

[dbc03]

Must be the US educational system. They aren't producing enough PhDs in Music Appreciation to understand what's on the field anymore. To think, a decade ago all you needed was a high school diploma.

Maybe the problem is with you and not the shows.

I majored in Computer Science and I understand what's going on.

[LaneS]

I think the style has changed a bit, Hornlines today are playing more complex "artsie" Books. We need to bring back the volume!

[Jimisback]

Maybe more corps are using musical mechanics (educated in music but that is all), rather than musicians that FEEL the music. I saw it in the old days. We had people that could play the music just as it was written, perfect. But there was no emotion, the flaw that makes it music. The gut emotion that you see as well as hear. Like playing something that you really can't play, But you do it and you play it well, because you don't realize that you can't play it. To put it a better way, sometimes you are only limited by what you THINK is true. If you don't know, then you just do it. I just can't say it better, I am no writer. That is obvious though. ;)

Edited January 30, 2007 by Jimisback

[dbc03]

Maybe more corps are using musical mechanics (educated in music but that is all), rather than musicians that FEEL the music. I saw it in the old days. We had people that could play the music just as it was written, perfect. But there was no emotion, the flaw that makes it music. The gut emotion that you see as well as hear. Like playing something that you really can't play, But you do it and you play it well, because you don't realize that you can't play it. To put it a better way, sometimes you are only limited by what you THINK is true. If you don't know, then you just do it. I just can't say it better, I am know writer. That is obvious though. ;)

I disagree.

I think too many times people use "emotion" as an excuse to play poorly.

Emotion is great, and I think that corps today still play with emotion and "feel" the music, however they focus the emotion towards playing well instead of playing loud.