The Practicality of Electronics
Joseph L. Vala
Contents.
1. Introduction
2. Fears, paranoias, and solutions
2.1 "Push a button..."
2.2 "Press a key..."
2.3 "Those darn speakers!"
3. What electronics have to offer
3.1. "The most beautiful instrument of all..."
3.2. The new waves
4. The bottom line
5. The response for which there is no response
6. Summary and conclusion
1. Introduction.
Before I begin, I would like to thank Stuart for responding to my request to be part of this
symposium, and I would especially like to thank those of you who will take the time to read this.
Knowledge can only be acquired through free expression and the constructive exchanging of
ideas, and I am glad to see that there are members of the drum corps community who believe
this to be true by taking part in the open discussions that will be posted this week. Lastly, I
would ask any opponent of electronics to at least read this and approach it with an open mind; if
I've expressed myself correctly, you'll probably find that we agree on many points.
The question of allowing electronics onto the field in some form during drum corps
performances has been looming on the horizon for some time now. The reason that I have asked
to be a part of this symposium is because I believe that there are many fears and questions about
the use of electronics (the vast majority of which I feel are justified) that should be clarified in
some way. I do not claim to be an expert in the field of drum corps, music, or electronics;
however, as a supporter of the use of electronics and as a person who has attempted and
succeeded in some small degree to integrate electronic instruments and amplification to the
bands that I have performed in and the acoustic ensembles that I have taught over the years, I
feel that it is my duty to propose a plan that would allow the use of limited electronics on the
field. I do this because, if done intelligently, it is my opinion that electronics will open up a
whole new frontier to be explored by the music arrangers in this activity that will ultimately lead
to enhanced field programs, and, most importantly, enhanced enjoyment of these programs by
the fans of drum corps.
Before I get into the body of this presentation, I would like to make something clear to
anyone who reads this: I use the words "limited electronics" in the previous paragraph because I
am not now, nor will I ever be, a proponent of unlimited use of electronics in this activity. My
hope is that the use of electronics will someday enhance drum corps programs, not dominate or
destroy them. It has always been my opinion that the best field programs are the ones that
intelligently integrate all of the physical and musical disciplines necessary for a successful drum
corps show. Unlimited electronics usage would throw this all out of whack. With that in mind,
please allow me to proceed.
To begin with, we should divide the word "electronics" into two main groups:
a) Instruments - this would include any machine (such as a synthesizer) which contains a
computer that processes waves into audible sounds.
b) Amplification - this would include any device that would be used to increase the
amplitude of these sound waves generated by electronic instruments to make them
audible, such as a speaker.
These are both extremely general terms and can be broken down into many sub-captions,
but I would like to keep this as simple as possible. For example, in reference to instruments,
there is no reason to go into the difference between analog and digital waves; suffice to say that
waves are processed and electrically generated.
Now that we've separated electronics into two distinct classes, let's move on.
2. Fear, paranoias, and solutions.
"What are you trying to do, turn this activity into winter guard?"
"Yeah, great idea...push one button, and 'Instant Maleguena'...."
"Press one key, and you can cover up for a mediocre horn line!"
"It's bad enough my brother can't find a gig playing drums in a club band; now,
you want to put entire drum lines out of business!"
"It'll take a half hour to set up all of those darn speakers!"
"It's just not drum corps!"
These are only a portion of the responses that I have received over the past few years
when I try to strike up a conversation about electronics in drum corps. I have entitled this
section 'Fears, Paranoias,... " because some of the responses that I have heard are valid concerns
that would need to be addressed, and some of them seem to be based on nothing more than an
obsessive dread of something that is not understood; not unlike a person's fear of heights (or that
feeling I felt the first time I sat down and tried to use a computer). Before I list my reasons on
how electronics can add to this activity, I will address these responses; the ultimate goal being to
create a list of standards that I feel would have to accompany any attempt to allow electronics
into this activity.
2.1. "Push a button...".
The first two quotes that I used at the beginning of the section were responses to the fear of
using pre-recorded music in the form of _sequencing_ on the field. In its simplest terms,
sequencing is the ability to take digitally produced notes and, through a computer program,
organize them in to a series of patterns or sequences that can be played back as if the music had
been recorded onto a tape. Today's sequencers (be they software programs on a computer or
found on-board a synthesizer) have the ability to play multi-track digital recordings, with a
different sound (often called a patch) assigned to each individual track. Although I cannot speak
for anyone else, sequencing has greatly improved my composing abilities; instead of playing a
line of music on a piano and imagining what a baritone horn would sound like performing it, I
can now "record" that particular section of music in with all of the other "instruments" in that
part of the composition and see what the result is.
This is where I feel the first limitation on electronics in drum corps should take place.
Although I am very fond of this relatively new technology, I believe it has no place on the drum
corps field. Part of the beauty of a drum corps show is the ability of the marching musician to
coordinate his\her musical and visual responsibilities along with the rest of the performers to
create a finished product that is unlike any other art form in existence: Having people march
around to computer program would strike at the very essence of drum corps; therefore, my first
restriction would be to ban any pre-recorded or sequenced music.
2.2. "Press a key...".
The third and fourth quotes in this section may be the most common argument against
electronic instruments; specifically, synthesizers (or "synths"). I feel that this fear is quite
justified and would deserve the most amount of attention. As we all know, synthesizes are
capable of reproducing sounds that are excellent facsimiles of wind and percussion instrument
sounds. Initially, the fear of reducing the amount of playing members or the attempt to augment
the volume or quality of sound produced by field musicians would seem logical.
However, I feel there are some points that should be made which would make such an
attempt impractical. When we are listening to a recording that is using a synthesizer in place of
an acoustic instrument, we are hearing a finished product that has had the advantage of highly
scrutinized and well-perfected recording, mixing, and mastering techniques. When listened to
through stereo speakers or headsets in a controlled environment, even the well-trained ear would
have a rough time distinguishing one from the other.
On the field, all of these advantages would be taken away.
To begin with, trying to find a "patch" that would exactly match the timbre of a bugle or
a marching snare drum (along with the nuances of dynamic control and the emotion created by
acoustic instruments, which I feel will never be recreated completely by computers) would be
virtually impossible. If you add to this acoustic variance from stadium to stadium, field
conditions, tuning, and amplification limitations (which I will delve into later), this would make
any attempt to re-create any sound that already exists out on the field impractical. Therefore, for
the sake of the skeptic _and_ the arranger, my 2nd restriction would be to not allow any sound
that can be acoustically generated by the instruments that are allowed on the field to be played
by an electronic instrument: No doubling a real vibraphone with a "synth" vibraphone sound, for
example.
2.3. "...Those darn speakers!"
The problem embodied the fifth quote is actually twofold; how much electronic
equipment can be used, and how long will be allowed to set up and break down all of this
equipment. Once again, this is a legitimate concern. A friend of mine went so far as to say that,
if a particular corps had the financial resources (more on this later), they would have tried to
"turn Rich Stadium into Madison Square Garden", with the reference being that they would have
used stacks upon stacks of speakers and mixers to "mic" (pronounced "mike") some of the
instruments (like you would see and hear at a rock concert). I agree that this concern needs to be
addressed; however, I think the solution is quite simple.
First of all, attempting to use an intricate sound system to amplify and mix certain
instruments would be problematic, at best. For example, I am currently playing in a wedding
band that has seven instrumentalists (four of which also need vocal microphones) an two
separate vocalists. It takes us approximately ten to fifteen minutes to "soundcheck" our band
before the guests arrive, and this band has some well-trained sound people working in it. If it is
this difficult to prepare 9 instruments and six voices inside a relatively small room, who would
want to be bother with the unenviable task of "mixing" and entire drum corps in an outside
arena? Therefore, I would propose the following restrictions:
a) Volumes of electronic instruments must be controlled by the performers themselves;
no outside person is allowed to coordinate "mixing" during a performance - this would keep the
performance in the hands of the performers.
b) NO alteration to set-up and break-down time will be allowed for units wishing to use
electronics - this would keep anyone from turning a drum corps contest into a psuedo-Woodstock.
c) NO miking of acoustic instruments will be permitted (with one exception, that I will
get into later)- we've never needed it in the past, and I don't see why this should change; the
properly constructed music program will allow all instruments to be heard when the need
arrives.
I will address the final quote at the end of this presentation.
As you can see, the limitations that I propose are extensive and, in my opinion,
necessary. Once again, I am not in favor of replacing musicians or covering up competitive
weaknesses. I am merely trying to propose a system that would allow for the usage of electronics
in a practical and fair way; a system that would allow electronics to add to the overall experience
of listening to a show.
So, now that I've tried to cover what types of electronics I think should be banned, let me
now begin to describe some of the ways that I think electronics would add to drum & bugle
corps.
3. What electronics have to offer.
If I may be so bold, let me say that I believe that we are in the process of hitting a
creative brick wall in this activity from a musical standpoint. When compared to the virtual
explosion of creativity that has been seen from the visual aspect of drum corps in the past 15
years, new musical concepts have comparatively stood still. Yes, the charts may be more
intricate from a technical standpoint, but what about the use of new sounds? Hasn't this "visual
explosion" been due in a large part in the easing of regulations regarding the usage of props that
are allowed to be manipulated, the acceptance of dance interpretation, and the breaking of old,
stoic "norms" that were connected to drill writing? Haven't we all accepted, if not embraced,
these alterations in visual concepts?
To illustrate my point, I will use as an example the Madison Scouts' version of
"Maleguena" that was performed in 1980 (this is but one selection from many during time period
that can be chosen). If you take the exact arrangement from that year and put it on the field next
season, would it not still hold its own from a competitive standpoint? I believe the answer is a
resounding "yes"; in fact, many musical selections over the years have been "retro-ed" and done
very well. Can the same be said for the drill or the guard routines? Although it may viewed as
nostalgic, any drum corps that attempted to do an entire show of 15 year-old drill and guard
concepts would be doing nothing less than committing competitive suicide. I feel that it is time
to allow the creative growth in music that has been allowed from the visual end of this activity,
and it is my opinion that electronics would help open the doors.
How? There are two main areas that I feel can be explored through electronics :
3.1. "The most beautiful instrument of all...".
...Is how the human voice has been defined my many musicians over the centuries, and it
is an instrument that has not been explored to any great length in drum & bugle corps. Allowing
limited amplification would change this and open up a new avenue of exploration for the
musical arranger, and most importantly, the listeners of these arrangements. We have already
heard singing to a limited extent on the field already; why not take it to the next level? What is
the difference between using a soprano bugle or a soprano voice as a soloist to carry a section of
a show ? There is no difference, in my opinion; it would just be another new way of relaying a
musical idea to the audience, and it would be a fresh approach.
Of course, the skeptic has an answer to this, also:
"What are you trying to do, turn this into a chorus competition?"
First of all, any intelligent music coordinator uses solos with temperance. I'm sure that
this person would approach adding a vocal solo the same way that he\she would and an
instrumental solo. Second, if the restrictions that I have outlined earlier in this paper were
followed along with the existing rules, there would be no way anyone would be able to use a
large amount of vocalists for any extended period of time, anyway.
To finish this portion and to address anyone who thinks using "the most beautiful
instrument of all" wouldn't work, I am reminded of the mellophone solos used in the Garfield
Cadet's "West Side Story" show that won DCIs in the early 80's; I believe that a vocal soloist
would have had the same effect (if not better) on the crowd that listened to that show.
3.2. The new waves.
One of the advantages of synthesizer technology has been the ability to electronically
manipulate sound waves to create entirely new sounds. Some of these sounds are violent, some
are eerie, and some are beautiful; but, regardless of the type of sound, I feel that this is another
use of electronics that can add to the overall musical programs. (Side Note - this is where a
"Virtual Symposium" becomes a hindrance to making my point; for those of you reading this, I
wish I could play some of these sounds and integrate them into acoustic sounds to give examples
of how they could be blended together. I guess we'll just have to use our imaginations : ). Once
again, the arranger would need to use the highest degrees of temperance and sensitivity to make
this work; I believe that I speak for all of us when I say that no one is interested in turning a
drum corps performance into an electronic music listening lab. However, if done correctly, this
would also be a new addition to musical repertoires of drum corps.
To finish this section, there are some gray areas that would need attention before
electronics could be practically applied to the drum corps activity; the use of guitars, piano
"patches", how to enforce rules, and a host of other topics, all of which I haven't drawn a
conclusion on. For example, I have no desire to see a field performance turn into a rock concert,
but to think of performing "Jesus Christ Superstar" and utilizing a small segment of the show
with the instruments that this show was originally designed for...well, it makes for an interesting
discussion, if nothing else.
4. The bottom line.
"It'll cost too much!"
I have often heard this from opponents of electronics in drum corps, and it is yet another
totally valid point. We all know that it is hard enough as it is to fund a drum corps and keep it
on the road; adding the cost of electronics would add to the "bottom line", making the financial
burden on the members even harder. However, this burden can be kept to a minimum. Here are
just three suggestions:
a) If the guidelines that I have proposed were enacted, the "indoor arena rock concert
sound system" that some fear wouldn't be practical; therefore, it wouldn't need to be
purchased.
b) If you think the competition between such companies as Premier and Pearl for drum
equipment is fierce, it pales in comparison to the competition between sound
amplification companies like Bose, Yamaha, and the like (compare the size of the
marching drum market to the size of the home sound system\DJ\music amplifier etc.
market, and you'll see why...). With the opening of this highly visible market, it is almost
a lock that sponsorship would be available on either a limited or total extent for those
drum corps who go after it.
c) Devices called "tone generators", which are essentially synthesizers without the keys,
are available to be purchased. Without getting into technical conversation, a tone
generator can be connected to a lower price electric keyboard to produce high-quality
synth sounds at a fraction of the price of buying a state-of-the-art synthesizer.
Keeping all that we have discussed in mind, a drum corps can outfit itself with 2
instrument units, two separate PA heads, six quality speaker units, a good microphone, and all of
the necessary wires for approximately $5000 (_without_ bulk discounts or sponsorship); about
the price of a two average quality contra basses. By saying this, it is not my intention to propose
that this is cheap. However, when compared to the total cost of running a drum corps, it is but a
fraction of what the "bottom line" would end up being.
5. The response for which there is no response....
"It's just not drum corps"...
If you remember, this was the final quote of the list of anti-electronics responses that I
have heard over the past few years. For all of the other quotes, I believe that I have come up
with viable options to alleviate any worries that may arise with the allowing of electronics
(whether you agree or disagree with the allowing of electronics is up you, all I've tried to do is
show how this can be achieved). However, for this quote, I have no definitive answer. This is
because all of the other quotes were based on real, tangible concerns that need to be ironed out
before any attempt is made to allow electronics. Saying "It's just not drum corps" is not as much
of a concern as it is an opinion. I have written this paper to explain how electronics can be
practically used and what advantages they might lend, not to tell anyone what they should think
drum corps is (or isn't, for that matter).
To all of you who feel that adding electronics "just isn't drum corps", I can only respond
like this: Over the course of the history of competitive drum corps, many changes, both
philosophical and tangible, have been introduced an implemented. Some of these changes were
met with gladness; some were fought tooth-and-nail. Here is just a small list of things that
"weren't Drum Corps" when they were introduced (there are many more; these are listed in no
particular order):
a) asymmetrical drill
b) not having a "color-pre"
c) singing
d) dancing
e) not having high leg lift when marking time
f) not having an American Section
g) allowing women to march next to men
h) keyboards
i) starting or ending a show with a soft musical statement
j) spinning of weapons, ect.
Would limited use of electronics be a big change compared to the shock waves that some
of these changes created? Maybe in the raw ideology of adding a new class of instrument, but
not in the practical application. If handled correctly, it would just be another step in the
evolution of this activity.
6. Summary and conclusion.
To reiterate the restrictions that I feel would need to be implemented:
a) no sequencing or pre-recorded music.
b) no recreation through an electronic instrument of a sound that can be generated
acoustically.
c) volume controls must be handled by performers; outside "mixing" would be
prohibited.
d) no alteration is set-up or break-down time to allow the setting up or testing of
electronic instrument and\or amplification systems.
e) with the exception of the human voice, no miking of acoustic instruments.
Lastly, it has not been my intention to try and change your mind about using electronics,
because it is not my place to stand on a soapbox and preach to you about what drum corps is or
should be. What I have tried to do is prove that limited electronics can be practically
implemented to add a new dimension to the world of drum corps music. Of course, I am for
adding electronics to drum corps shows (with a new millennia fast approaching, what better time
to add the technology of the future?), but even if it never happens, I will always be a fan of this
most unique of art forms.
Once again, thanks to Stuart for adding me to the roster this week, and special thanks to
all of you who took the time out to read one man's thoughts.