Why now is better than before, new better than old

[HornTeacher]

Same problem, BRASSO. Could never decide whether to go after the curve emphasizing a left hand lead or a right hand follow through.

[HornTeacher]

No pine tar. Learned that from George Brett.

[Northern Thunder]

The only way you can compare then to now is to put everything on even terms. Today's corps would have to have the vast majority of its membership from within 100 miles of its home base, and they would have to perform on the same instruments as they did in the 1970s.

Oh...... And there would have to be hundreds of corps!

[zigzigZAG]

To the OP:

I don't know you, and you don't know me. You don't know that I spend hundreds of dollars every year on tickets, hotel rooms and sometimes airfare to see drum corps shows. You don't know that I organize a breakfast for the Troopers on the Sunday after the San Antonio regional every year. You don't know that I cheer for every show that gets me going - including the very unusual but gratifying show by Crown last year. AND... you don't know that I marched from 1983-1988 and taught in 1992 and that I am a frequent donor to several OC and WC corps via souvenir sales and fundraising campaigns.

I'm a proud dinosaur who loves that this activity is still clicking along. Do I enjoy narration? Not often. Does it make me want to quit watching DCI? Nope! What about amplification? Still watching and listening. Trampolines? Violins?? Bass guitars???? Nope, still watching and listening. Do I always like it? NOPE - but not because they are new. If it works, it works. If it doesn't work, it doesn't. And honestly, that's a very subjective call. For me, amplification took a long time to settle out into a decent thing. Synths often bug the crap out of me because they are used for sound effects that are much more cool when done acoustically by an instrument, and as a horn crutch for corps that don't need it. 2009 SCV comes to mind in that second regard - LOVED that show, until the synth kicked in, and even then I still appreciated it, and I re-watch it frequently because the artistic staff obviously did its research into the original choreography and source music. It's still a great show! I also very much supported and enjoyed Crown's show last year - and again for me it was because the treatment of the source material was excellent, and the entire performance package was fantastic, in my eyes and ears.

In any case, in your second post in this thread you painted the many, many DCI-supporting "old timers" with the wrong brush, and I think it is important to recognize that.

I didn't mean to paint anyone with the wrong brush, and if it seems I have, I apologize.

For what it's worth, we're just about the same age, marching in the same era.

I'm not a fan of narration or body movement, as I've said in several other threads. I'm also not a big WGI fan either. I like fast, demanding marching, intricate drill, innovative and difficult books, and music that moves the heart and engages the mind. I'm speaking about the increased demand, and the increased skill level of DCI today, compared with generations past.

That's no critique of generations past. Things evolve, people learn from the past, and are - whether they admit it or not - always standing on the shoulders of giants. Giants on the shoulders of giants on the shoulders of….and you keep going and the view keeps expanding.

Still, we shouldn't have the view that in The Golden Age ___________ was better. You can go back to the ancient Greeks and find that same sentiment, that the younger generation isn't as good, moral, skilled, has the best taste, etc. etc. In fact, the phrase "the golden age" is an ancient one too. It's human instinct to do that.

Put a women's basketball team of today against one from the 70s or 50s, and you'd see an absolute slaughter. Same with any team sport, and save a few exceptions, any individual sport. Why do we see world records falling so consistently over the years if people weren't getting better, faster, stronger consistently?

I'd bet my house that any corps finishing from 4-8 this year would contend for gold 20 years ago, and would win gold 30+ years ago. (the only wild card would be rule changes.) That's natural. Put the best sprinters up against the best from 20 or 30 or 50 years ago, and today's runners would clean up.

I'm making a pretty simple point, but one that seems to get some hackles up, unnecessarily. I don't mean to, please understand. I'm just trying to be objective.

[BRASSO]

Ted Williams was the last MLB player to ever hit over .400 for the season ( .hit .406 ). He was asked in his 70's by a young reporter reporter if he thought he could do so today, with today's pitching. He replied with an honest answer... " probably not.. but wouldn've liked to have tried". The young reporter them went on to talk about how big, fast, strong, etc the modern baseball player is. Ted got the feeling the young reporter thought that today's hitting stars could have hit over .400 in a season if they were subjected to the pitchers and the environment of old. So the rankled Ted said.. " you know.. I would like to see if today's hitters, as great as they are, could hit over .400 if we put them back in my time and asked them to travel by jumpity overnight trains to most of their games,put them up in unairconditioned flea bag hotels, had them work a non baseball job in the off season, had them play routinely in day game doubleheaders during the season, gave them no trainers, personal fitness consultants, had them drive themselves to games in unairconditioned autos, hit baseballs that were soft in its texture, had them spend a couple of years away from the game in the military in their baseball prime years, and so forth. Yes, a couple of 'em might have had an outside shot to hit over .400 in a season in that environment... but I doubt any of them could do it. Frankly, I think many of 'em would've probably chosen another career field if they had to play in the times and environment we lived and played in ." The reporter just nodded in agreement and they both chuckled at that.

Edited July 17, 2014 by BRASSO

[The Other Mike]

SNIP

And on and on... just as the OP stated here, everything is improved and better today than ever before.

Ok, you're moving up into the mid 90's % wise

[The Other Mike]

I really really like waffles.

I had stayed away from here long enough so as to not see that coming.

[caliswift]

Ted Williams was the last MLB player to ever hit over .400 for the season ( .hit .406 ).

Tony Gwynn hit .394 in the strike shortened 1994 season. With that said, for the 162 game stretch from July 27, 1993 to May 13, 1995 Tony Gwynn hit .402. Tony also held this average over 624 at bats (162 game season) versus Ted Williams' 1941 season where he only had 456 at bats (154 game season).

Source

Additional Article

[zigzigZAG]

You clearly have no real education about Reagan or FDR and the impacts of their actions, and you surely don't remember the "Crying Indian" of 1960's television.

The rest of your points are rendered moot by your severe lack of understanding of historical fact.

Back to the show.

Wow - I love ad hominem attacks.

As for my understanding of facts - I do. Seems you don't though. The crying Indian commercial wasn't from the 60s, as you said, but it was aired in the early 70s, a response to the first Earth Day, when the eco-terrorists started taking over the country, passing out flyers, terrorizing everyone, and ruining everything. I'm glad that those eco-terrorists can't even take a video of a hog confinement operation where animal abuse is occurring, without trespassing, even from a public road in Iowa or Illinois or several other states without being arrested. Ag gag laws. Look 'em up. Crying Indian, indeed.

You put Reagan and FDR on the same level. Odd. Let's compare facts: Reagan - went to a podunk high school in rural illinois, undergraduate degree in sociology from Eureka College, an institution I've never heard of outside of being his alma mater. FDR - graduate of Groton (#2 prep school in the country), then Harvard, then law school at Columbia. Reagan's work experience - sports radio announcer, actor, then into politics. Qualifications for politics? None. It showed. But he did know how to read a speech well. FDR - worked as an attorney in one of the country's top firms before entering politics.

Yes, education and qualifications matter. As does mental capacity, which Ronny (in)famously lacked as he was growing rapidly senile in his last term in office. He was just too old. He hardly had any press conferences to save the white house from embarrassment, and he was instructed to pretend he didn't hear reporters questions, and his helicopter pilot purposely revved the engines so that he'd never have to give off-the-cuff answers to anyone. Look FDR was too old, maybe, but his mind was sharp. Then again, it was his fourth term.

FDR averaged 70 press conferences per year. Reagan averaged 5.5

Source: http://www.fofweb.com/History/MainPrintPage.asp?iPin=EOAPR0531&DataType=AmericanHistory&WinType=Free

Effects on the country of their policies? Facts - After FDR's term we had the greatest era of economic growth and social improvement in american history. After Reagan, we had a crappy economy that sank Bush I's re-election bid and only recovered in the mid 90s, toward Clinton's second term.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions, though.

Now back to the show.

[The Other Mike]

Lots of vitriol on this topic in several other threads.

Why do we insist that people and activities don't get better through the years?

A top horn line of today does things that other horn lines simply didn't or couldn't yet imagine doing, have more demand (marching and playing), and have better technology (3 valve bugles to name one).

Most importantly, they have the benefit of all the years of previously great corps and horn lines to learn from.

Name almost any area of human achievement - basketball, skateboarding, computer code writing, dance, bowling, drum corps - and you'll find that in general, the performance level is constantly rising. (Granted, there are a few areas where achievement is even, such as writing. Hard to find someone better than The Bard today, but still, you have so many different styles, so much more of the human experience described, new forms, etc., you could still make a case that if Shakespeare were born today, he would be an even better writer than the Shakespeare of his era.)

I watched the great skateboarding documentary "Dog Town and the Z-boys" last night. Every day the level of performance rose as the kids experimented in playgrounds and empty swimming pools, pushing the limits, eventually going vertical over the lip of the pools, and on and on. Technology improved too. People learn new tricks, new possibilities, learn to imagine differently, push each other harder to achieve.

Same in DCI.

A high school football team today is significantly better than 40 years ago. Like 35-0 better. So much more training, skills camps, complexity of play books, etc..

Same in DCI.

I'd bet that any top 10 corps of today would probably win gold at any contest in the 80s. Because they're better - more demand, better design, more skilled marchers and players who have received better music education over the years.

Think about what women's sports were 40 years ago, and what they are now. A good girls high school volleyball team would DESTROY most college vball teams of 40 years ago. Or basketball.

Ever watch highlights of college or pro basketball in the 50s? Very slow moving, dribble dribble dribble, and maybe a layup. Today's good high school teams would beat college teams of the 50s easily.

Ever watch how low the demand was for guard in the 60's and 70's? Dance was barely heard of, and so that's a skill they didn't need - so they marched and spun. Moving flags left and right, some spinning, maybe a few tosses here and there (avoid mistakes at all costs, so aim low) and marching here and there was a lot what you saw. DCI guard of that era doesn't even compare to a good high school band these days.

Still, my favorite show of all time is Garfield '87, in part, because that show transcended the limitations of that era.

But that show wouldn't place in the top 5 today. Maybe not in top 8.

So new is better than old.

Oh good God I miss the days of RAMD