I want a clear, honest, and well thought answer to this

[Lafalot]

And, yes, I agree:

Theater is theater. It's not DC.

BOA is BOA, it's not DC.

Marching band is marching band, it's not DC.

ZZ Top is cool. But it's not DC.

No reason why we can't borrow some elements from other genres to add to performances. But you don't have to completely merge them to make them indistinguishable from one another.

[ekleve]

Think about it this way.....say, baseball - basically the same game now as it was in the days of Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth. Granted, some minor changes have taken place - the DH, lights for night play, no more steel spikes, etc. But basically the same game.

Now, one year someone decides it would be better if we allowed fielders to throw the ball AT the runners, no more balls. only strikes, three pitches and you're gone if you don't get a hit, base runners can run around the bases in either direction, and batters have to hit with a blindfold.

Now you've changed the game. And those of us who love baseball won't like it anymore.

I appreciate what you're trying to say. But I do believe in the very early days of baseball, base runners could run in either direction and fielders could get a runner out by hitting them with a thrown ball. Baseball changed from that into what we have today!

[higherlouderfaster]

Actually, I think the better baseball example in relation to Einstein's question would be this:

Since football is light years ahead of baseball, we should let base runners have blockers, allow the fielders try to tackle the runner, add cheerleaders and bands, and huddle between each pitch.

Look...if bands and indoor groups want to do amplification, woodwinds, and all that other stuff then let them do it...but don't shove it down drum corps throats. As for allowing the activity to become more artistic and theatrical, it has done just fine. I've been around this activity since the 70's and the advances in artistry have been mind blowing.

Now some people may say that the advances happened as a result of putting keyboards in the pit, the shift from dominantly rudamental drumming to contemporary percussion, going from the single valve bugle to the valve/slide to the valve/rotor to the two valve to the three valve and eventually to the Bb bugle, and the amazing advances in color guard and drill, and I agree that these changes are all good and have advanced the activity....BUT...these changes were advances in what already existed within the activity. They were taking what we already had and making it better. Opening Pandora's box and saying anything goes and lets throw anything that makes noise into the mix, is going beyond "improving" drum corps into "changing" drum corps into something else entirely.

Woodwinds are not bugles but they are band instruments. If you want to hear them, go to a band show. Synthesizers are not played with mallets, they are wonderfully useful instruments. However, if you want to hear one, sell your drum corps show ticket and buy a "Yes" album. If you want to hear narration, go to a play or rent a DVD collection of "The Wonder Years."

If you want to hear great brass and percussion displayed within a wonderfully artistic visual package, then go to a drum corps show. If you don't like drum corps anymore, or you have become so much more "culturally advanced" than us die hard "drum corps bums" then go do your thing and leave us alone!!!

[mistofflies]

Ok....after watching this thread explode to 21 pages I feel the need to chip in, and this time it's not going to be a snide/smartass comment like last time. :P

Buckle your seat belts...

I specifically want to address the idea of synthesizers in corps, and the idea that most people seem to have that playing keyboards is easy. And I'm always surprised to find that that bias extends beyond electronic instruments to the realm of even acoustic piano. I had a flute player at the college I attended once say to me "It seems like piano is pretty easy. I mean, you hit the key and note comes out, right?" While that may be true, it is a gross exaggeration of what it takes to play a piano. To be sure, actually creating a "decent" sound on a piano or synthesizer is easy. Both take kinetic energy input and output sound waves, one produced acoustically and one produced electronically, but the actual mechanism of making a sound is, in fact, easier on a piano or a synth than on a brass instrument or woodwind. Not only have I played both piano and trumpet in my life, but I have many nephew who have visited and decided to play on my piano and on my trumpet. It's a lot easier for a 3-year-old to bang indiscriminately at a piano and make something that sounds musical than it is for them to make a hideous sound on a trumpet. I've heard both, numerous times. Ok, but I think we can all agree that there's a huge difference between hearing a classically-trained pianist (or jazz pianist) who has played and performed for 30 years versus a high schooler who may be very technically proficient at making sounds and notes come out of a piano. What makes this difference? An experienced and trained performer knows how to employ techniques that not only allow them to execute passages with blazing accuracy and proficiency, but they can also control very subtle things such as the timbre of the instrument. I doubt that any of you who play piano are aware of these kinds of techniques, and maybe even some of you who do play haven't reached a level where you've been exposed to them. I've been exposed to some, but I'm sure there are many that I am not aware of yet. For example, how fast you hit the note, what kind of pressure you use to attack, how you release the note, what kind of pressure you use to release, how you use the wrist to bounce/attack/release, combined with how you pedal (there are many ways of pedaling, it's not just mash it down and bang away). I've heard pianists who make me want to fall asleep, and I've heard pianist who make the soul of the instrument sing out and captivate me, mind, heart and body. I've had excellent pianist literally put me in a trance due to the beauty and subtlety of their playing.

What is the point of me sharing all this? To make this very simple, yet seemingly profound statement: The ease with which a sound is produced on a musical instrument has no bearing on the talent or difficulty that it takes to actual play that instrument well.

To continue that analogy, I'm sure many of us could make a sound on a percussion instrument or a harmonica, but very few of us could mesmerize an audience with a performance of Steve Reich's Six Marimbas or our soulful rendition of a delta blues piece in a New Orleans nightclub. Capice?

Now to specifically address electronic keyboards: First of all, I'd like to point out to drumcat that not all synthesizers are "samplers." There are many different ways of creating the sound that a synth produces, as well as the difference between electronic and analog, but I'm not going to delve into that here (primarily because I don't even understand it too well, although I've been reading and trying to figure it out). Second, many of those same advanced performance techniques can be applied to a synthesizer, especially if that synth has the aftertouch ability (in other words, you can manipulate the sound after you press the key by adding or reducing the amount of pressure that is applied to the keys). Additionally, many synthesizers come with a huge variety of effects that can be employed to create an infinite variety of effects. An experiened synth player would be able to expertly master all those knobs, control and patches to create the appropriate sound effect, often having to spend hours tinkering and exploring to find the right combination, and then being expected to switch settings on demand multiple times with seamless execution during a performance. Sound easy? Hardly. In addition, if the synth is a "workstation" you have the ability to edit your patches in several ways. One of the big ways you can edit a patch is in the attack/sustain/release area. In other words, how much pressure does it take to play it a note and how will it attack (hard, fast attack like a pizzicato string section or slow build?), how will the note sustain, and then when you release does it taper off or release immediately? In addition patches can be layered to create new combination of sound effects. And knowing how picky corps directors can be, I imagine that any kid playing a synth on tour is going to spend a LOT of time tweaking patches to create "just the right sound." And of course, there's always the limitation placed on how many sounds/effect can be played at one time (in other words, how much memory does it have?) which can tax a synth player's creativity if they're running out of memory.

So there's more to playing a synth than just "hitting a note" and having a sound generated. At least, there's more to playing a synth well.

And in addition to that, I've read a lot of people implying the argument that if electronic musical instrument are allowed in drum corps they're going to "replace" the hornline. Um...where do you get that idea? To be frank, it's kind of ridiculous. No one is trying to replace the hornline by proposing using electronic instrument. I highly that the horn/drum books are going to get watered down because of electronic instruments. There is a certain range of techniques and mastery that a hornline has to master in order to be competitively successful. If a corps director intentionally the show "dumbed down" just because he has a couple of synthesizers on the sideline capable of being programmed to flawlessly reproduce a section of music, he would essentially be committing competitive seppuku. Can you imagine the Cavaliers, PR, BD, SCV, or anyone else doing that? No! They're going to continue to produce the same creative, integrated, quality shows that they are known for. In addition, if shows were written that primarily featured synths, what would happen if there was a performance in the rain? It's only common sense that electronics would have to be "disposable" to deal with weather conditions and other problems a corps might encounter on the road (vandalism, theft, etc.). I think what Einstein is saying here, and most of you seem to be missing, is this: "What would it be like if a drum corps staff had the ability of expanding the artistic palette to include some of the sounds and effects that are impossible to produce with acoustic brass/percussion instrument alone?" I think it would be pretty sweet, personally. And maybe that's because I'm more familiar with music that actually utilizes synthesizer music well than many of you might be. Just because many bands that use synths use them very simplistically (and I do have to add that some of them do, but for many of them it only seems simplistic because you might not know what to listen for), that doesn't mean that a drum corps would! Of course, if electronic instruments were ever used in drum corps it might take a few years before it begins to be used successfully. It would take a lot of experimentation to figure out how to make it work. I mean, many corps still haven't figured out the amp thing when it comes to finding an appropriate balance with the front ensemble and hornline. I know many people complained that (and I do feel the same way) many pits overpowered the hornline due to the amplification. And to those of you who would say that, I counter with this: Give it time. Drum corps perform in hundreds of different acoustic environment every summer, it's going to take some time to figure it out. Even the kids on the field have a hard time adjusting sometimes, depending on the performance conditions. Give it another few years and it'll be worked out. Synths would likely turn out the same way. The first couple of years there might be one corps that uses them well and the others might use them very simplistically or in ways that don't necessarily appeal to the audience well, but in a few years these design teams will figure out how to integrate those sounds into the show and into different performance venues.

Ok, I think I've covered the bases on synths. But now that I've said all that, I'll say this: I don't think electronic instruments should be in drum corps.

Now why would I say that?

$$$

With many corps, even top-12 corps, struggling financially (I marched in a top-12 corps that is struggling financially), electronics might break the back of many-a-corps. Granted, not every corps would have to use electronics but using them well just might give a competitive edge to corps that have really a really good staff/design team and plenty of money versus a corps that does not have those resources available. In addition, electronic equipment is very fragile and the rigors of tour life (environmental stress, travel, constant moving/packing/bumping/jostling) would quickly ruin many-a-synth. Plus you'd have to have more amps, you might want to add mixing boards and other equipment, etc. etc. Oh yeah, and you'd have to add more kids to actually play/handle the instruments and that of course is going to add cost for other factors such as liability, storage space, travel, food, etc. In my mind, watching the activity dwindle down to the 5 or 6 corps who would actually afford things like this is not worth the possibility of expanded creative output in show design. I mean, I'm sure that some corps would come up with some really kick-### stuff but the activity has already dwindled in terms of numbers far enough, in my opinion. Sure other things have gone up, like the average talent level of performers, the demand of the shows, etc. Todays drum corps shows are a lot more intricate and subtle than they were, say, in the 1960s. And I applaud the way the activity has grown and evolved over the years, but let's lose our bird in the mouth for the two in the bush.

Oh I forgot to add that if any of you want a couple of resources to actually learn about these incredible wondrous instruments, here's a couple of good sources:

Harmony Central

Synthesizer WIKI

Edited April 19, 2007 by mistofflies

[mellodramatic]

Wall of Text crits you for 96129384629134723.

You die.

Oops forgot what forum this was.

Edited April 19, 2007 by mellodramatic

[perc2100]

What the OP seems to want is for BOA bands to reach the level of the top drum and bugle corps

[audiodb]

Now to specifically address electronic keyboards: First of all, I'd like to point out to drumcat that not all synthesizers are "samplers." There are many different ways of creating the sound that a synth produces....(snip)

But some are.

While your expansive essay on the finer points of keyboard performance may have been an eye-opener for some, it is a moot point here. In DCI, judges evaluate the sound. They don't give extra credit for how it is produced - they just evaluate the end result. Ask any brass judge if a corps gets extra credit for achieving competitive sound quality on obsolete equipment (bugles with less than three valves, G/D bugles, horns held together with duct tape, etc.). We have already asked, and they said "no".

Same will apply to synthesizers/samplers. If a corps has the technology to produce a currently desired sound artificially via electronics, why would they continue to produce that sound the old-fashioned way and risk performance issues?

In my mind, watching the activity dwindle down to the 5 or 6 corps who would actually afford things like this is not worth the possibility of expanded creative output in show design.

I agree with you there.

[mistofflies]

But some are.

While your expansive essay on the finer points of keyboard performance may have been an eye-opener for some, it is a moot point here. In DCI, judges evaluate the sound. They don't give extra credit for how it is produced - they just evaluate the end result. Ask any brass judge if a corps gets extra credit for achieving competitive sound quality on obsolete equipment (bugles with less than three valves, G/D bugles, horns held together with duct tape, etc.). We have already asked, and they said "no".

Same will apply to synthesizers/samplers. If a corps has the technology to produce a currently desired sound artificially via electronics, why would they continue to produce that sound the old-fashioned way and risk performance issues?

I actually addressed that in my earlier post. You're asking why they would get credit for achieving the same sound quality on obsolete equipment, and thereby making the analogy that acoustic brass and percussion instruments are, in comparison to electronic instruments, "obsolete."

When it comes to this discussion, that's a fallacy. Judges DO give credit for the demands and difficulty that a horn book places on the performer - IF - those demands are executed with proficiency. Therefore, no realistic corps director is going to have his show designed with less demand just because he has electronic instruments at his disposable, for numerous reasons. The reasons include the possibility of instrument malfunction, weather interference, vandalism, theft, and the drive to remain competitive. The judges WILL NOT reward a corps for simply taking all of the demanding sections of a horn book and delegating it to front ensemble and electronic instruments.

I could take the same argument many of you are using against synths and turn it against acoustic keyboard percussion instruments. "Well, all you have to do is hit the key and it makes the sound, and if judges only evaluate the sound that is unfair because there's no real difficulty involved in producing the actual sound waves." I could talk about how you don't have to tune a xylophone, or how you could simply take out all of the difficult technical passages and give them to talented keyboardists to play...but does that happen currently? Not really. I mean, look at the Cadets! They have been one of the biggest supporters of electronics and vocals in drum corps, and they ALSO have one of the hardest horn books every year! Have you listened to the sound clips on their website for this year? It's insane!

I think that a lot of you out there who have a problem with electronics are imaging this kind of dystopian unreality where drum corps turns into a hornline marching 8to5 back and forth down the field while someone in the pit presses the "play" button. And that's completely ridiculous.

[audiodb]

I actually addressed that in my earlier post. You're asking why they would get credit for achieving the same sound quality on obsolete equipment, and thereby making the analogy that acoustic brass and percussion instruments are, in comparison to electronic instruments, "obsolete."

When it comes to this discussion, that's a fallacy. Judges DO give credit for the demands and difficulty that a horn book places on the performer - IF - those demands are executed with proficiency. Therefore, no realistic corps director is going to have his show designed with less demand just because he has electronic instruments at his disposable, for numerous reasons. The reasons include the possibility of instrument malfunction, weather interference, vandalism, theft, and the drive to remain competitive. The judges WILL NOT reward a corps for simply taking all of the demanding sections of a horn book and delegating it to front ensemble and electronic instruments.

I could take the same argument many of you are using against synths and turn it against acoustic keyboard percussion instruments. "Well, all you have to do is hit the key and it makes the sound, and if judges only evaluate the sound that is unfair because there's no real difficulty involved in producing the actual sound waves." I could talk about how you don't have to tune a xylophone, or how you could simply take out all of the difficult technical passages and give them to talented keyboardists to play...but does that happen currently? Not really. I mean, look at the Cadets! They have been one of the biggest supporters of electronics and vocals in drum corps, and they ALSO have one of the hardest horn books every year! Have you listened to the sound clips on their website for this year? It's insane!

I think that a lot of you out there who have a problem with electronics are imaging this kind of dystopian unreality where drum corps turns into a hornline marching 8to5 back and forth down the field while someone in the pit presses the "play" button. And that's completely ridiculous.

No, I think you're missing my point. Perhaps the example you should imagine (for now) is the marimba vs. a cabinet full of electronics. Which permits easier training of a "performer" to produce a consistent marimba-like sound? Which eliminates more of the variables of individual performance?

[sday88]

I'm bored with this. I'm going elsewhere.