Looking for info from an old thread

[JimF-LowBari]

Relying on my memory here (look out folks) but this is about the third or fourth time I've seen Brians (Northern Thunder) list of corps discussed since I joined DCP. During those times many folks have tried to use the numbers (now a chart) to suit their ideas. I have never seen Brian or anyone else say "We came up with this info to show....". I always had the idea that the year by year list of corps was more of a reference tool to show what corps (or at least the number of corps) were active in any particular year.

To me it's a set of numbers showing what corps were active in any given year. And that's all the chart is saying. IMO, some folks are trying to read between the lines when the only thing between the lines is blank paper <$1 to friend of mine>. IOW, I don't think there is a conclusion to the numbers/chart, it's just a listing of information.

rut-roh - if I can find them I'll PM you links to threads discussing why DC went down so badly in the 60s/70s. Problem is it's been a while and I can't remember off hand what was discussed in DCP and what was in RAMD. Interesting, if depressing, history lesson on our activity.

Edited March 29, 2006 by JimF-xWSMBari

[torn8o]

Relying on my memory here (look out folks) but this is about the third or fourth time I've seen Brians (Northern Thunder) list of corps discussed since I joined DCP. During those times many folks have tried to use the numbers (now a chart) to suit their ideas. I have never seen Brian or anyone else say "We came up with this info to show....". I always had the idea that the year by year list of corps was more of a reference tool to show what corps (or at least the number of corps) were active in any particular year.

To me it's a set of numbers showing what corps were active in any given year. And that's all the chart is saying. IMO, some folks are trying to read between the lines when the only thing between the lines is blank paper <$1 to friend of mine>. IOW, I don't think there is a conclusion to the numbers/chart, it's just a listing of information.

All I know is that I am absolutely amazed that people like the individual I just responded to on my last post is just blindly assuming that the graph is accurate and then wasting time trying to develope further discussion on the "who, what, when, where, whys". I for one am not about to give that graph a shread of assumtion until SOMEONE who is responsible for the graph get's their belly up to the bar and starts showing me a shread of proof for the stupid thing. As far as I'm concerned at this point, the graph is hoax and I will CONTINUE to believe it is a hoax until I see a full list of corps from every year the graph represents WITH divisions and how many that were in attendance in Championships verses those who weren't. Until I see this, the graph is hogwash.

Edited March 29, 2006 by torn8o

[JimF-LowBari]

All I know is that I am absolutely amazed that people like the individual I just responded to on my last post is just blindly assume that the graph is accurate. I for one am not about to give that graph a shread of assumtion until SOMEONE who is responsible for the graph get's their belly up to the bar and starts showing me a shread of proof for the stupid thing. As far as I'm concerned at this point, the graph is hoax and I will CONTINUE to believe it until I see a full list of corps from every year the graph represents WITH divisions and how many that were in attendance in Championships verses those who weren't. Until I see this, the graph is hogwash.

Knowing how hard it is research DC history feel free to come up with your own list.

IMO, knowing Brians reputation I'm willing to bet it's the best he could do with whatever documentation was available.

[torn8o]

Knowing how hard it is research DC history feel free to come up with your own list.

I MAY do that on my own time. It would be fun. HARD! But fun.

IMO, knowing Brians reputation I'm willing to bet it's the best he could do with whatever documentation was available.

Then he should stop flashing the graph around the general public. It's like false advertising, WORTHLESS and sometimes destructive. My request would be...SOMEONE please post the proof for the graph or I don't ever want to see the thing posted on a public forum ever again (just MY own PERSONAL request though - obviously I can't tell anyone WHAT to do).

[Northern Thunder]

First of all........I am not flashing any graphs around. I've never put my data into any graphs. Somebody else did that.

Apparently you aren't familiar with Drum Corps World. My annual junior corps census has appeared in DCW each of the last 15 years. It is simply interesting, and important to know where drum corps has been and where it stands at present. That is the function of any census. Some people are taking things WAY too seriously here. That's one reason why I was skeptical to add anything to this conversation, but when I saw my data (outdated) being scrutinized I had to put things straight.

I do have the complete census in a year-by-year breakdown that shows exactly which corps were active which years. This will no doubt appear in a future Drum Corps World project.

[torn8o]

First of all........I am not flashing any graphs around. I've never put my data into any graphs. Somebody else did that.

Apparently you aren't familiar with Drum Corps World. My annual junior corps census has appeared in DCW each of the last 15 years. It is simply interesting, and important to know where drum corps has been and where it stands at present. That is the function of any census. Some people are taking things WAY too seriously here. That's one reason why I was skeptical to add anything to this conversation, but when I saw my data (outdated) being scrutinized I had to put things straight.

I do have the complete census in a year-by-year breakdown that shows exactly which corps were active which years. This will no doubt appear in a future Drum Corps World project.

"Media shapes public opinion". I am indeed impressed that your census has appeared in Drum Corps World (which yes, I DO know about). However, not impressed enough for it to be proof that your graph is right. Just because something is published in a newspaper does not mean that the information is true. Or do we not watch the local and world news and get the local papers to see the inconsistancies there also?

When you provide that full list, be it on Drum Corps World, here or both - then and ONLY then will I believe the graph. Until then, I will simply disregard it and assume it only for what it is - hearsay. This is my stance on the graph and will remain as such until I see the full lists - regardless of where the census has appeared.

Edited March 29, 2006 by torn8o

[Jared_mello]

Scott, no offense, but it comes across as if you're agressively criticizing someone who really tried to do nothing but provide honest, unbiased statistics. It's like you're trying to pin an agenda on someone who would have no real motivation to have one. He comes across as very objective in his postings, and has clearly done tedious research, and I can't tell why you seem to be working so hard to discredit it.

[torn8o]

Scott, no offense, but it comes across as if you're agressively criticizing someone who really tried to do nothing but provide honest, unbiased statistics. It's like you're trying to pin an agenda on someone who would have no real motivation to have one. He comes across as very objective in his postings, and has clearly done tedious research, and I can't tell why you seem to be working so hard to discredit it.

***Time for me to back up the truck I guess***

I am not criticizing "the person". I'm only criticizing the information. And, I'm really not even doing THAT. I'm just asking for proof that it's true.

I feel bad that I have come accross so aggresively on this but I guess I just get real irritated when I see things that could be damaging to the morale of the activity. This graph is one of those. All I ask is that if it's going to be posted, shed some light on it with proof. Don't just post it and expect it to be swallowed whole.

Northerm Thunder. I apologize for my aggression. It's nothing personal. I just want facts to back this graph up because it's real depressing stuff. And if it's NOT 100% accurate, then it's doing more harm than good.

Edited March 29, 2006 by torn8o

[Blackstar]

I can't stand to read this thread any longer. Torn80, I don't know what to say. Everything points to there being less corps but for some ungodly reason you refuse to see it. Not one but two graphs show less corps over the years. And you say because thier are 5 more corps then 10 years ago everything is okay.

And of course we get the Quality over Quanity. How much will you pay to see the top 5 finalist because there are only 5 corps left. But who cares because thier the best ever.

I'm not trying to stop people from marching but if things don't change the kids won't have anyplace to march in 20 years. According to the First graph thats how long we have left. At least for the touring Juinors.

[torn8o]

Wow! I just got a very long PM from Northern Thunder (at my request). A FRIENDLY one. I must say, any hunch in my mind that he had any form of an ill "doomsdayer" agenda is now completely dropped. The guy really has done his homework. He also is very open to correction and has admitted to making mistakes. With that, I still present the challenge....but with a smile :)...to provide the lists if for no other reason than for the sake of examining it to see if there ARE any errors in it. I'm still skeptical of the 1976 thing - only because of the list that was provided by SkyRyder which showed MUCH LESS of a drop than the graph had shown. Perhaps that is where the "DCI verses NON DCI" mearly comes into play.

In addition to all of that. His census was really not inteded to be a "doomsday graph". He had a lot of very NOBLE reasons for doing it. Reasons that I will rather leave for him to explain if he wishes.

As for you, Blackstar. You just sound negative. That's all I make of your posts. It's almost as if you WANT it to be proven that the activity is dying just so you can prove some point (like "drum corps was better when..."). I as well as SkyRyder have shown you very clearly that there are MORE than "5 corps" (boy that was a ridiculous statement) that have been added since 1995 but you seem to rather dwell on the "oh woe is me" negativity. Also, go to the new thread I started today titled "Corps that we have gained" if you want to see just how many corps we have gained since 1995. You will be floored!!!!

Edited March 29, 2006 by torn8o