Read another letter

DCW editor,

I for one am in favor of both options, amplification and electronics. I started marching in a little parade corps at age 10 1/2 in 1964. I marched snare, the drum swinging from a single sling with a knee rest to steady it on my leg. I moved on to a class 'B' Garden State Circuit corps, where I marched in '68 and '69, first on snare and then as our drum guy decided to "go modern," on a double bass, two basses of differing sizes laid flat, stuck together with wood and attached to ME with a series of slings.

Later I joined the Cadets for the 1970 season, which might have been the first year they marched timpani, again hung with slings. I played concert cymbals that first year. In 1971, I played the first multi-tenors -- triples -- that we used in the corps. Multi-tenors, another step along the road of progress in percussion.

The '70s saw an explosion of new and exciting things in drum corps percussion, from the SCV use of match grip and the special bars they used to hook their drums up… to marching mallets… to tuned basses… to roto-toms.

We hung all sorts of bags of traps from snares and tenors to permit us a wider array of percussion sounds, from afuches to vibraslaps to agogo bells to woodblocks to triangles, finger cymbals and just about anything you can think of.

The corps I wrote for and taught in that era made use of every available sound I could think up, all while remaining, as today, based on a rudimental style of drumming. Later came grounded percussion leading to today's pit. In my humble opinion, it's one of the great things to have happened to marching percussion.

Now ANY acoustic percussive effect could be performed. So, today we are looking at, yet again, the opportunity to pass electronics amplification.

In my humble opinion, it fits in just fine with the changes that have gone on the past 35-plus years that I've been around corps. Instead of being a "why?" kind of person, be a "Why not?"

So consider me a "Yes" vote for both.

Thanks,
Mike Davis
marched from 64-72, including Garfield 70-72

Agree? Disagree? Send YOUR letter to the editor!

Read another letter