Replies

  • sometimes it does. a small band wouldnt sound as full as a big band (if they can hold they weight) because the bigger the brass/woodwind sections the richer the harmony.
  • No. A battle is not about VOLUME (Though it does add for shock value, IF it sounds good also......). A battle is about execution of your own style and the way you present your ensemble to the crowd. You have to know your target audience and what they expect/ want.
  • Nope, when I was at Kennedy,we had a battle on June 5th 2001. every band was 100 to 150 members.. We had 42 Members . we weren't the "Loudest" but we sounded way better than the rest of the bands up there . lol

    Note: Our Band Camp didnt start til June 12th for New Comers .. else had their spring/summer band members at the battle . other wise they wouldnt have been as large .lol
  • Ain't the size of the dog in the fight.....its the size of the fight in the dog
  • I agree... As a Matter of fact: I won't use names, BUT..... A feww years back a certain all-star band had 250-300 members and Memphis All-Star had maybe 64 members and they smashed this certain all-star band. And I have it on tape...lol

    TBoneSuave said:
    Ain't the size of the dog in the fight.....its the size of the fight in the dog
    does a size of a band matter when it comes to a battle???
    if so give some examples
  • su was killin everybody when they were smaller
  • I recall Jackson and Clinton having 32 apiece and giving people the business.
  • post the joints! lol

    Mr. Williams said:
    I agree... As a Matter of fact: I won't use names, BUT..... A feww years back a certain all-star band had 250-300 members and Memphis All-Star had maybe 64 members and they smashed this certain all-star band. And I have it on tape...lol

    TBoneSuave said:
    Ain't the size of the dog in the fight.....its the size of the fight in the dog
    does a size of a band matter when it comes to a battle???
    if so give some examples
  • Of course most people are going to say size doesn't matter, but I can think of several cases where the bigger band always gets the benefit of the doubt. A BOTB a few years ago featured a 64-piece band(Band A) from Louisiana, a 128-piece band (Band B) and 200-piece band(Band C) from Texas. Band A did an excellent drill with many formations and had a very good sound. Band B did a solid, but very simple drill, did an excellent dance routine with great energy,and had an okay sound(nothing spectacular especially for their size). Band C barely did a drill, but had a great, massive sound.

    Here were the results:

    1. Band B by 1 point(simple drill, great dance routine, decent sound)
    2. Band A by 1 point(excellent drill and very good sound)
    3. Band C (horrible drilling, great sound)

    The judges saw the competition as even despite the fact that Band A had the best show period while having a good sound. The fact that they not only lost to Band B, but only beat Band C by 1 point made me think that Band A was punished because of their size. In the judges' minds, a smaller band has to do a lot of excellent stuff to beat an average big band. Had Band A been the size of Band B or C, there is no doubt that they would have easily won the competition.

    It is all about perception, think about it, with no prior knowledge of the bands, what would you think if you saw a 64-piece band lined up against a 128 and 200-piece band.
    http://competition.It/
    See related links to what you are looking for.
  • We do tend to assume things about a group based on its size. But I've learned a few lessons about assumptions over the years...
This reply was deleted.