Amplification/Electronics: 2011 Season

[Hrothgar15]

Drum corps, same with life, society, and technology, are always changing and evolving.

Ah, this. This analogy gets thrown around a lot, but can't escape a serious flaw: the way technology has changed can be seen as nothing but progress in that field. No one complains that operating systems or processors or what-have-you were produced much better twenty years ago than they are today. No one would pine for the days when they could use the hardware and software of the "golden age" of computing instead of today's top-of-the-line multi-core setup or computer that you literally keep in your pocket. It's progress in every sense of the word, in that what was achieved in 1995 could have not physically been achieved five years prior, and technology of 1985 would have seemed like a dream in 1980. (If the travel industry had progressed at the same rate that the computer industry did since its inception, by now we'd be able to travel to the opposite side of the world in a few seconds, no questions asked.)

So here's the kicker: if DCI had decided that a format for shows similar to that of today would have been appropriate for 1980, with amps, electronics, spandex guard uniforms, Bb/F scholastic marching band horns, and an emphasis on visual, they could have made the switch in an instant, from one season to the next (aside from today's geometric drill that computers have helped make possible).

Tons of people want the only form of drum corps to be like it was in 1985. They liked it better, they thought it sounded better, they were more entertained, they felt they got their money's worth more so than today. People have their reasons. Yet no one wants the only form of technology to be like it was that year. No one wants to plunk down $4000 on a 30-year-old Tandy as their next computer. That's a crucial distinction for any argument about "change" and "progress" in drum corps.

Bottom line: in 1980, no one could have fathomed the research and development that would transpire in the next 30 years to arrive at something like the iPhone. That same year, the DCI rule changes that would have had to happen to see shows like we did in 2010 had long since been history in the marching band world.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Hrothgar15

[Michael Boo]

...

Drum corps, same with life, society, and technology, are always changing and evolving.

...

So very true and accurate.

[Michael Boo]

Ah, this. This analogy gets thrown around a lot, but can't escape a serious flaw: the way technology has changed can be seen as nothing but progress in that field.

Ah, this. Not all technological "progress" is good; for instance, newer and more effective ways of killing masses of people, new and easier ways of making illicit drugs that ruin lives, newer ways of governments watching over those they consider to be dissidents, etc.

No one complains that operating systems or processors or what-have-you were produced much better twenty years ago than they are today. No one would pine for the days when they could use the hardware and software of the "golden age" of computing instead of today's top-of-the-line multi-core setup or computer that you literally keep in your pocket. It's progress in every sense of the word, in that what was achieved in 1995 could have not physically been achieved five years prior, and technology of 1985 would have seemed like a dream in 1980. (If the travel industry had progressed at the same rate that the computer industry did since its inception, by now we'd be able to travel to the opposite side of the world in a few seconds, no questions asked.)

fusbone stated that drum corps was in evolution. Although they used the word "progress" elsewhere in their post, the quote you responded to was about evolution as a result of the passage of time, not progress necessarily being necessary for enjoyment.

So here's the kicker: if DCI had decided that a format for shows similar to that of today would have been appropriate for 1980, with amps, electronics, spandex guard uniforms, Bb/F scholastic marching band horns, and an emphasis on visual, they could have made the switch in an instant, from one season to the next (aside from today's geometric drill that computers have helped make possible).

Having chronicled drum corps since the mid-1970s and having sat in multitudes of rules congresses, I firmly believe that no changes could have been made in an instant, as if resulting from snapping one's fingers. Drum corps is and long has been a gradual evolution...but some may perceive the evolution as being more radical or less radical as it really is. Everything took time, from rope snares to lugs to mylar to kevlar to who-knows-what-next. Three-valve horns took a number of years to make it through, as did so many other evolutionary things that some consider progress and others consider anathema.

Tons of people want the only form of drum corps to be like it was in 1985. No one wants the only form of technology to be like it was that year. That's a crucial distinction for any argument about "change" and "progress" in drum corps.

How many "tons" like drum corps today? How many "tons" want it like 1985? I suspect that even those who prefer what it was in 1985 realize drum corps, like time, does not stand still. Just as 2010 was 25 years after 1985, 1960 was 25 years before. Drum corps changed quite a bit from 1960 to 1985. One can pine for the "old days" all they want, but unless they own a time machine, it's not going to happen. In 1975, my first year in drum corps, I heard people complain that the activity wasn't like it was in the years of their preference. Such is life.

[Hrothgar15]

Ah, this. Not all technological "progress" is good; for instance, newer and more effective ways of killing masses of people, new and easier ways of making illicit drugs that ruin lives, newer ways of governments watching over those they consider to be dissidents, etc.

Agreed. Absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

Having chronicled drum corps since the mid-1970s and having sat in multitudes of rules congresses, I firmly believe that no changes could have been made in an instant, as if resulting from snapping one's fingers. Three-valve horns took a number of years to make it through, as did so many other evolutionary things that some consider progress and others consider anathema.

Sure. I'm only talking about technology available at the time, not how long the proposals would have taken to pass. Please reread my argument. Bb marching trumpets, amps, and electronics were all readily available in 1980. (I did leave out the change in percussion instrumentation erroneously.)

How many "tons" like drum corps today? How many "tons" want it like 1985?

No idea. With so many people averse to statistics in this community, I doubt we could find a legitimate answer any time soon.

I suspect that even those who prefer what it was in 1985 realize drum corps, like time, does not stand still. Just as 2010 was 25 years after 1985, 1960 was 25 years before. Drum corps changed quite a bit from 1960 to 1985. One can pine for the "old days" all they want, but unless they own a time machine, it's not going to happen.

Of course it's not going to happen. Nothing, again, to do with my argument.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Hrothgar15

[charlie1223]

Ah, this. This analogy gets thrown around a lot, but can't escape a serious flaw: the way technology has changed can be seen as nothing but progress in that field. No one complains that operating systems or processors or what-have-you were produced much better twenty years ago than they are today. No one would pine for the days when they could use the hardware and software of the "golden age" of computing instead of today's top-of-the-line multi-core setup or computer that you literally keep in your pocket. It's progress in every sense of the word, in that what was achieved in 1995 could have not physically been achieved five years prior, and technology of 1985 would have seemed like a dream in 1980. (If the travel industry had progressed at the same rate that the computer industry did since its inception, by now we'd be able to travel to the opposite side of the world in a few seconds, no questions asked.)

I would say, like Mr. Boo said, That not all technological progress was good like the computer, and some progress was also indifferent too. The indifferent evolutions can be seen in Art for example. Look at the number of evolutions art had gone through from Classical, to Middle Ages, to Renaissance to Pre-Modern to Post-Modern... I mean, that certainly evolved but at the same time one can't prove that one age of art was better than another in an empirical sense. But we of course have our preferences.

so evolving doesn't necessarily mean it's to better or worse, it just means its different.

Edited December 30, 2010 by charlie1223

[Hrothgar15]

I would say, like Mr. Boo said, That not all technological progress was good like the computer, and some progress was also indifferent too. The indifferent evolutions can be seen in Art for example. Look at the number of evolutions art had gone through from Classical, to Middle Ages, to Renaissance to Pre-Modern to Post-Modern... I mean, that certainly evolved but at the same time one can't prove that one age of art was better than another in an empirical sense. But we of course have our preferences.

so evolving doesn't necessarily mean it's to better or worse, it just means its different.

Exactly. My only point is that no comparison of the evolution drum corps to the evolution of technology can ever be valid.

[Michael Boo]

Agreed. Absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

Okay. I'm confused. What is your argument?

[Hrothgar15]

Okay. I'm confused. What is your argument?

No comparison of the evolution drum corps to the evolution of technology can ever be valid.

[charlie1223]

So here's the kicker: if DCI had decided that a format for shows similar to that of today would have been appropriate for 1980, with amps, electronics, spandex guard uniforms, Bb/F scholastic marching band horns, and an emphasis on visual, they could have made the switch in an instant, from one season to the next (aside from today's geometric drill that computers have helped make possible).

I'm pretty sure electronics and mics were more expensive back then and weren't as readily available as they were today. The personnel needed to use electronics was also probably not readily available to 1980's drum corps. I mean these were corps that could barely afford to travel down the road in their crappy buses! I think corps now (in a general sense some are not so lucky) are "richer" now then they were in the 80's. So that heart beat change I think is not so likely...

Also, it would be impossible for 1980's DCI to know if 2010 shows would be appropriate. It's like saying... If people in the middle ages thought that Cubism would have been appropriate art expression they would just start painting faces in cube shapes because the materials that they needed to do that were readily available (paint, brush and canvas). But that doesn't make any sense. No one at that time realized these ideas so they wouldn't just randomly make that switch.

Frankly, your point is a little ambiguous... Could you clarify please? Your entire argument?

Edited December 30, 2010 by charlie1223

[Michael Boo]

No comparison of the evolution drum corps to the evolution of technology can ever be valid.

So what are you getting at? Am I the only one that doesn't get it? Bueller? Anyone?