ouooga Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 I see a lot of people talk about "the old days" and "before we had electronics" and "g bugles" and "why are they dancing?" and "where's the drill" and "why is there a stage?" and so on. I'm personally a fan of the new stuff, but this isn't about me defending it. I want to ask the purists on here, was there more that could have been done with the old style(s)? Go back to 1999, or 1989, or any year that you consider to be "the last year of real drum corps", and take that into the present and beyond. Was there more that could have been done within that box of rules? Ideas that weren't explored, music that got lost, drill that never saw the light of day, etc? Or would we have seen the same ideas perpetuated over and over forever? If the latter, is that the goal? Just something that's been on my mind. I'm curious to hear the thoughts. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anstigback Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 I wish things just paused with shows like the ones performed from years 2000 to about 2011. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfrontz Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 I guess we'll never know. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowtown Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) Great, another condescending OP trying to paint people that may be opposed to some current aspect as irrelevant ‘purists’ and then challenge them with a false premise by not really understanding what’s on the field today as opposed to what was on the field then Take away anything that goes through an amp, the new brass rule that allowed trombones and the extra bodies on the field (membership increase) and everything done today could have been done in the old rules. So you tell me. Judging rules emphasize certain aspects we see more of today but they still could have done it So unless you’re cheering amps, most everything done today could have been done under the old rules A lot of the promised creativity that sold the rules changes never materialized. Go amps, did you hear that Yamaha mixer, it sounds like tubes. Blue Devils has the best sound guy doing the mix but Bloo has the best subs Edited August 9, 2017 by cowtown 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterGibbons Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Interesting topic for me as I have given this some thought. About 5 years ago I reignited my interest in the activity after not really paying attention for about 10-15 years. To me shows started to stagnate in even the 90s. Seemed like a lot of the same thing. When I recently started paying attention again, I was your typical old man who wants people off their lawn. I hated narration, hated amplification, even hated trombones. But I was thinking the other day that if the activity had not evolved as it had, I don't think I would be paying attention right now. It would seem to be the same old thing I started getting tired of in the 90s. So I have come to appreciate the 'new stuff'. My all-time 'go-to' show is 1981 27th Lancers. But my favorite show this year is Blue Devils, which obviously is a lot of 'the new'. My point is that I've come to accept the evolution and even old me has embraced it. The issue for me now is not narration or dancing or props galore or amplification or sampling. Rather it is the same old question - is the show good, and is the 'art' being designed well. Crappy shows existed before, and the problem with the modern shows is not so much the new rules, is is bad design. So to directly answer your question, no I don't think much more could have been done the old way, at least for me. Which is why I stopped being interested. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrothgar15 Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) 48 minutes ago, ouooga said: I see a lot of people talk about "the old days" and "before we had electronics" and "g bugles" and "why are they dancing?" and "where's the drill" and "why is there a stage?" and so on. I'm personally a fan of the new stuff, but this isn't about me defending it. I want to ask the purists on here, was there more that could have been done with the old style(s)? Of course. There are hundreds of drum corps shows that could have been designed and performed under the 1999 rules from 2000 to 2017. It's not like every piece of music that could have been played had been played, nor every amazing drill move that could have been marched had been marched. We had barely scratched the surface of drum corps shows that could have been designed, performed, and enjoyed under the 1999 rules. There could have been so much more. Some of them, music and drill wise, would be similar to the ones we've seen the past 17, just modified (read: improved) to fit those rules. Others we would see as a consequence of not being able to rely on spoken word or electronics so much. On average, I think these shows would have been higher quality and more entertaining (for performers and fans) than the shows we've seen from 2000 to 2017. I get chills thinking about about being able to hear the Cadets perform the 2000 show on G bugles, or the Bluecoats duet at the end of this year's show screaming away sopranos unamped, or Crown's singer this year soaring on a mellophone instead, or how they would have adapted Rach Star for acoustic instruments, or how inventive the Cavaliers would get portraying the ideas from Men or from Mars through music and drill only, or Santa Clara's unplugged pit going above and beyond to capture the nature and otherworldly sounds from the past two years, or just the general creativity that becomes mandatory when when working within an intentionally limited art form. And that's not to mention the shows we'll never see that we would have if design teams were forced to not go with some of the modern show designs that only work with electronics and voice (and have fallen flat entertainment wise), and instead something totally different--potentially great as or greater than any show from the '80s and '90s. Edited August 9, 2017 by Hrothgar15 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouooga Posted August 9, 2017 Author Share Posted August 9, 2017 18 minutes ago, cowtown said: Great, another condescending OP trying to paint people that may be opposed to some current aspect as irrelevant ‘purists’ and then challenge them with a false premise by not really understanding what’s on the field today as opposed to what was on the field then Well that definitely wasn't my intention. I didn't mean to be condescending, consider anyone irrelevant (though I think purist is a correct term in this context), and I do consider myself knowledgeable of what is on the field today and long ago. But I'm sorry you were offended. ::hugs:: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouooga Posted August 9, 2017 Author Share Posted August 9, 2017 19 minutes ago, PeterGibbons said: Crappy shows existed before, and the problem with the modern shows is not so much the new rules, is is bad design. I fully agree with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowtown Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Not offended but thanks for offering… If you really wanted to tap purist, you’d have to go back a lot further than 89 or 99 Outside of amps, judging emphasis has had a bigger impact on show design than rule changes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfrontz Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) . Edited August 9, 2017 by mfrontz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts