MikeD Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 So when you left the Imperial Guardsmen and joined Garfield, you were the very first "import" in the history of drum corps? Notice I said 'local corps'. Garfield was a national level corps even back then. There was a difference between the top corps and the smaller local corps (a la GSC). If I did not make what I was talking about clear, my bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Notice I said 'local corps'. Garfield was a national level corps even back then. There was a difference between the top corps and the smaller local corps (a la GSC). If I did not make what I was talking about clear, my bad. Oh, I thought your comment was saying every corps was like that back then. Thanks for clarifying. So in the '68-'69 Imperial Guardsmen, no one came from more than two towns away. Got it! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Well, your memory I have to admit is WAY better than mine. You just told me above what a new person you met told you ( in your words : ) " at halftime " of a football game in ( your words : ) back in the" early 70's". I can't remember what someone told me at a halftime of a football game from a few months ago let alone one from 40 years ago. If someone told you 40 years ago that they went to" lots of Drum Corps shows ", but that " they hated" them, they were probably pulling your leg. Sure, there are girlfriends, family, boyfriends that go to shows... even today, that " hate the shows ". That is certainly true in any era. 1970's or last year. But they are not representative of the audience. There are people that go to the Symphony or Opera that hate the symphony or the Opera but their loved one drags them along " lots " of times.. But this is not representative of theatre goers at all either. So I would not be bambozzled by what somone allegedly told you at a halftime of a football game 40 years ago. He might've been tailgating, had a bad ice cube in his drink and so it might've been the alcohol that was talking to you, and he really goes to the football games because he likes to eat and drink and meet new friends,etc yet he hates football as much as he allegedly did the 27th Lancers... who knows.... and his alleged comment that " all the Corps and all the shows " in the 70's were the same, is just silly. Nobody can say that the Hawthorne Muchachos, 27th Lancers, Velvet Knights,Boston Crusaders, Bridgemen,Cavaliers, Caspar Troopers, Blessed Sacrament, Madison Scouts, Anaheim Kingmen, Kilties, Arbella All Girl Corps, Garfield Cadets, were " all the same Corps... with the same shows" Someone can say they may not like the Corps,.. thats appropriate... but to say "the Corps( and shows )were all the same " is to be simply severely eyesight deficient at the very least. So your new found friend might've caught a bad icecube in his drink that day at the tailgate, or he really was just pulling your leg, or something else was amiss there at halftime of that game 40 years ago on what he supposedly told you. You know, if you're going to accuse me of being gullible, naiive or perhaps even stupid, then you really ought to make a more credible argument. Because you've made assumptions that aren't valid, substituted conjecture for fact and generally missed the point (both about what transpired between me and a college classmate and what was happening at drum corps in the 70s). HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 But bands haven't "replaced" corps. Perhaps you see them as interchangeable (and choose to ignore people who don't). But even if you accept the band = corps premise, your statement still isn't true. Ever since your marching days, the junior corps experience has been available to kids throughout the 13-21 age range, with no systemic geographic limitations. Competitive marching band is only available to high-school kids whose schools are among the 20% of schools that have a competing marching band. If your kid sees a marching band and wants to join, but your town's HS doesn't have a competing band, tough luck. You can't join the band in the next town. Bearing that in mind, for marching band to have literally "replaced" drum corps, the programs would have to be located in the towns where these drum corps used to be. But reality is quite the opposite. Marching band grew more prevalent in areas that historically lacked junior corps activity, like Texas, Indiana, and several Southern states. Even in the Northeast, the locations of competitive marching band programs don't correspond to past drum corps hotbeds. I don't see scores of competing marching bands hailing from Newark, Garfield, NYC or Boston. I do see lots of them in suburban towns that had no drum corps heritage. ahhhh logic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Interesting that people get so caught up on semantics and what used to be.. what didn't. Only thing that matters right now is that currently is (though "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing") the present and future. Who cares if bands replaced local corps or didn't .... if there were mostly local corps vs. now touring. What is not IS NOW. If there was something that was in the past that isn't anymore... and it seemed pretty #### good/useful/reasonable... give a nudge and try to reintroduce, reencourage. To simply lament.. what is the point in it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 First of all, that is pure fiction. Here are some 1971 contests with placement order different from your supposed "hierarchy": Looking at the local shows on corpsreps, which is what I said...in reference to the East coast hierarchy I noted... There are 12 local shows listed for Blue Rock in 1971. The only two they did not win had Anaheim winning. 5 had 27th at them and they were they were the next East coast corps behind Blue Rock in 3. 6 had Garfield, and 4 of the 6 the hierarchy still fits. Plus other shows not on corpsreps... If you were around East Coast drum corps in 1971, that 1-2-3 was pretty much the expectation. 100% of the time? No...I didn't say that. Every now and then someone else could sneak in (e.g. BAC), and on occasion one of the 3 would have a bad show...or get hit with penalties as happened to Blue Rock at the Shriners. It certainly wasn't the free-for-all that you are claiming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Interesting that people get so caught up on semantics and what used to be.. what didn't. Only thing that matters right now is that currently is (though "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing") the present and future. Who cares if bands replaced local corps or didn't .... if there were mostly local corps vs. now touring. What is not IS NOW. If there was something that was in the past that isn't anymore... and it seemed pretty #### good/useful/reasonable... give a nudge and try to reintroduce, reencourage. To simply lament.. what is the point in it? right, so in other words, forget learning from some of the mistakes of the past, and just push forward. I'm not saying we need to return to 1971 or even 1991. But some elements of back then clearly worked, and have been pushed aside for the sake of change. Not all change and evolution is good. Baseball has changed little, yet draws millions of fans. it makes changes when changes are NEEDED, as opposed to making changes just to change, Why must drum corps always change just to change? If you don't learn from the past, you are doomed to not succeed. In many ways, drum corps has not learned from the past, it just changes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) Interesting that people get so caught up on semantics and what used to be.. what didn't. Only thing that matters right now is that currently is (though "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing") the present and future. Who cares if bands replaced local corps or didn't .... if there were mostly local corps vs. now touring. What is not IS NOW. If there was something that was in the past that isn't anymore... and it seemed pretty #### good/useful/reasonable... give a nudge and try to reintroduce, reencourage. To simply lament.. what is the point in it? So it's useless to relate the past to today (paragraphs 2-3) but use what was "good/useful/reasonable" in the past (para. 4). Ahh... make up my mind here... If anyone thinks they can help the activity while ignoring what went on during it's history is sadly mistaken. Activity has gone thru a ton of changes since it exploded after WWI. To not want to look at what worked, what happened, what hurt, etc, etc and try to work that into todays world is taking an over simplified and harmful approach. IOW - let's just make the same #### mistakes over again.... Edit: My old car hobby kicked in: Ford Motor Co almost went under in the late 1920s because Henry kept wanting to build Model Ts which weren't selling anymore. What saved FoMoCo was going to the Model A which used the Ts concert of a sturdy affordable car plus what people were looking for at the time (less butt ugly and spine breaking). IOW - combine what was learned in the past plus what would work for "today". ("Today" = 1928) Edited May 2, 2012 by JimF-LowBari 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) You know, if you're going to accuse me of being gullible, naiive or perhaps even stupid, then you really ought to make a more credible argument. Because you've made assumptions that aren't valid, substituted conjecture for fact and generally missed the point (both about what transpired between me and a college classmate and what was happening at drum corps in the 70s). HH Well, I certainly TRIED my best to make a more convincing argument to you that your halftime conversation 40 years ago was less than persuasive to me on what your friend allegedly told you about his particular position on 70's Drum Corps. Besides, your alleged halftime conversation from 40 years ago is representative of this particular non Drum Corps fan's observation. We draw no sweeping generalization on the activity's appeal to audiences on the whole back then with the "early 70's " Drum Corps based upon a single observation of a nonDrum Corps fan that you said went to " lots of shows " but hated all of them "... and that in his view " all the CDorps then and all their shows were all the same ". Drum Corps was a niche activity in the 70's and it remains so today. That aspect has not changed in the intervening 40 years. Your point was a feeble attempt ( imo ) fo us to draw a general observation of the appeal of audiences to Drum Corps of the 70's based upon a momentary comment in time by a single non Drum Corps fan's observations from 40 years ago. Surely you recognize that we can likewise find a non Drum Corps fan of today that goes to " lots " of Drum Corps shows, but " hates " the modern Drum Corps of today too. But that non Drum Corps fan's multiple visits to shows and " hate " for it, is not representative of today's modern Drum Corps nor their audiences either. So I'm really not sure why you'd want to share with us a halftime conversation from 40 years ago with a non Drum Corps fan as somehow representative of Drum Corps audiences back then. If you are telling us that most of the audiences for Drum Corps shows in the 70's were made up of " haters " of the Corps and their shows, well then thats simply preposterous. And I don't think I can be more clearer than that on this. Edited May 2, 2012 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 right, so in other words, forget learning from some of the mistakes of the past, and just push forward. I'm not saying we need to return to 1971 or even 1991. But some elements of back then clearly worked, and have been pushed aside for the sake of change. Not all change and evolution is good. Baseball has changed little, yet draws millions of fans. it makes changes when changes are NEEDED, as opposed to making changes just to change, Why must drum corps always change just to change? If you don't learn from the past, you are doomed to not succeed. In many ways, drum corps has not learned from the past, it just changes I don't really see any outstanding mistakes still to learn from... just a lot of decomposing mistreated horses. Attention should be focused instead on generating more cash to keep organizations stable and lower the barrier to participation to open the experience up to more kids. For the record... baseball is something that appeals to a broad audience. Marching band is a VERY niche activity... and drum corps is a micro-segment of the marching band niche. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.