Drum Corps for the Class of 2000 and Beyond
Mr. Richard "Vince" Lamb, Steering Committee Pollster
Contents.
1. Introduction
2. American Demographics and Drum Corps
3. Drum Corps for the Class of 2000 and Beyond
1. Introduction and Demographics.
This past summer, my parents joined my wife, my children, and me in attending the
prelims of the Preview of Champions in Ypsilanti on July 28th. We were all impressed by the
quality of the 20 corps competing. After we put our children to bed, my wife and I chatted with
my parents, who had not followed the activity closely since my corps, North Star, folded in
1982. They were particularly interested in discussing how the activity had changed during the
intervening 13 years. One question was revealing. My mother asked me "So, how many of the
open class drum corps did we see today?" I responded "All of them." My mother's eyes
widened and her jaw dropped. She said "All of them? When you were marching, there were 40
or 50! And now only 20? What happened?"
"What happened?" My mother is not alone in asking this. Many readers of the
newsgroup rec.arts.marching.drumcorps (RAMD) are asking the same question. They are also
asking "Why did it happen?" and are just now asking "What can we do about it?". The RAMD
Virtual Symposium is an effort to answer these questions. In my opinion, it could not be more
timely. I have participated in online discussions of drum corps since 1991 and I have never
before seen as much concern, if not despair, over the state of the activity and its future as I have
this summer. I pray that the other presenters and I do our best to help answer these questions.
Other presenters will focus on factors internal to the junior drum corps movement, such
as the history of the founding of DCI (Christina Mavroudis), what has happened since (Richard
Bosler), how members are valued (Jeff Wise), and how judging is or is not working (Shirlee
Whitcomb). These are all valuable and necessary, but need to be put in the context of factors
external to the movement and affecting North American (particularly US.) society as a whole.
These factors are demographics, particularly the changes in birth rates during the past 40 years
which have affected the numbers of people eligible to march during the past 20 years, and social
trends, which have affected the attitudes people have about youth in general. Today, I will
present the demographic data and projections. On Friday, I will present my findings about social
trends as they relate to drum corps. I am taking Thursday off for my 36th birthday. :-)
2. American Demographics and Drum Corps.
Since April of 1994, I have been working on the effects the aging of the Baby Boom and
its replacement by what is variously called the Baby Busters, Generation X, or the 13th
Generation on the pool of 14-21 year olds during the past 20 years. I have been posting progress
reports to RAMD on my findings at irregular intervals. I posted the first of these bulletins in
May, 1994. Using data from Strauss and Howe (1991), I estimated the drop to be at least 3
million between 1969 and 1991. I noted that my assumptions were such that I suspected a
greater drop. My suspicions were confirmed in July, 1994, when I found there was a drop of 3
million high school students *alone* between 1976 and 1991 (Mirel and Angus, 1994)! I
subsequently revised my estimate to a drop of 5 million in the pool of eligible youth. Since then,
I have examined U. S. Census Bureau data on births (Table 1) and numbers of youth eligible to
march (Table 2) and now feel ready to write that this is my *final* report on the subject.
During DCI's first decade, 1972-1981, people born during the demographic Baby Boom
(1946-1964) filled the ranks of those 16-21 years old, prime marching age for Open
Class/Division I drum corps. People who marched in corps or followed them during this period
remember many drum corps active on the national level. After DCI became firmly established
as *the* national championship in 1974, 40-50 (or more) corps regularly competed in two days
of Open Class prelims until 1982, the last year of this format. Yes, individual corps folded, but
the activity was expanding into new territory, with Spirit of Atlanta, Southwind, and Suncoast
Sound being founded in the South during the late 70s. At the elite level, things looked rosy.
However, if anyone in drum corps had been looking at the birth rates during this decade instead
of the competition, they would have seen the handwriting on the wall. Birth rates dropped
dramatically from 1964--the last year of the Baby Boom--to 1975 and stayed low throughout the
late 70s. There was a youth shortage looming which anyone could have seen...but no one was
looking.
Here is an exercise for the reader. On Table 1, which follows, Trace the drop in births
year by year from 1965. Then scan over the years when each cohort was eligible to march (Turn
14 and Age Out) and think about what drum corps was like then. In particular, look for *your*
birth year and think about how things were when you marched. Then think about how your
drum corps experience differed from those who came before and, if you are an alumnus, how it
differed from those who came after. Then think about how much of those differences might
have been cause by the number of eligible members alone.
Table 1.
Live Births in the United States by year (1950-1995). Data from U. S. Bureau of
the Census (1985, 1989, 1993, 1994).
YEAR BIRTHS BIRTH RATE TURN AGE OUT
PER 1000 14
1950 3,632,000 24.1 1964 1971-1972
1955 4,097,000 25.0 1969 1976-1977
1957 4,300,000 25.3 1971 1978-1979
1960 4,258,000 23.7 1974 1981-1982
1965 3,760,000 19.4 1979 1986-1987
1966 3,606,000 18.4 1980 1987-1988
1967 3,521,000 17.8 1981 1988-1989
1968 3,501,000 17.5 1982 1989-1990
1969 3,600,000 17.8 1983 1990-1991
1970 3,731,000 18.2 1984 1991-1992
1971 3,556,000 17.2 1985 1992-1993
1972 3,258,000 15.6 1986 1993-1994
1973 3,137,000 14.8 1987 1994-1995
1974 3,160,000 14.8 1988 1995-1996
1975 3,144,000 14.6 1989 1996-1997
1976 3,168,000 14.5 1990 1997-1998
1977 3,327,000 15.1 1991 1998-1999
1978 3,333,000 15.0 1992 1999-2000
1979 3,494,000 15.5 1993 2000-2001
1980 3,612,000 15.9 1994 2001-2002
1981 3,642,000 15.8 1995 2002-2003
1982 3,704,000 15.9 1996 2003-2004
1983 3,618,000 15.6 1997 2004-2005
1984 3,669,000 15.6 1998 2005-2006
1985 3,761,000 15.8 1999 2006-2007
1986 3,757,000 15.6 2000 2007-2008
1987 3,809,000 15.7 2001 2008-2009
1988 3,910,000 16.0 2002 2009-2010
1989 4,041,000 16.4 2003 2010-2011
1990 4,148,000 16.6 2004 2011-2012
1991 4,111,000 16.3 2005 2012-2013
1992 4,087,000 16.0 2006 2013-2014
1993* 4,086,000 15.8 2007 2014-2015
1994* 4,055,000 15.6 2008 2015-2016
1995* 4,024,000 15.3 2009 2016-2017
*Estimates
Look again at the numbers for those born between 1972 and 1979. These babies grew up
into everyone who was 16-21 during 1994 and 1995, i. e., nearly all the members of Division I
corps during the past two years. These are the smallest birth cohorts in the chart--all below 3.5
million--and includes four years (1973-1976) with 3.1-3.2 million births, more than a million
fewer than were born in 1960! These are also the birth years of the 18-21 year olds of the just
concluded season. This age group composes the backbone of most finalists. Well, could you
have predicted a youth shortage in 1978, when these figures became available? I marched in
1978, but no one talked about it then!
The birth data alone indicate that we are in the middle of a youth shortage, but they do
not by themselves indicate the magnitude of the shortage. The late 70s and the 80s were years of
high immigration, which may have made up the balance. Therefore, I have also compiled
census data for the 14-17 and 18-21 age groups to see if the drought in marchers that could have
been predicted from birth data alone materialized (Table 2).
This time, look at the years you marched and see what happened to the marching age
population during that time.
Table 2.
Numbers of U. S. residents aged 14-21 by year (1970-1995) with projections for 2000
and 2005. Data from U. S. Bureau of the Census (1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994).
YEAR AGED 14-17 AGED 18-21 TOTAL 14-21
1970 15,924,000 14,719,000 30,643,000
1975 17,128,000 16,674,000 33,802,000
1979 16,611,000 17,505,000 34,116,000
1980 16,142,000 17,531,000 33,673,000
1981 15,599,000 17,432,000 33,031,000
1982 15,041,000 17,284,000 32,325,000
1983 14,720,000 16,890,000 31,610,000
1984 14,704,000 16,369,000 31,073,000
1985 14,866,000 15,810,000 30,676,000
1986 14,797,000 15,252,000 30,049,000
1987 14,468,000 14,908,000 29,376,000
1988 13,983,000 14,913,000 28,896,000
1989 13,496,000 15,075,000 28,571,000
1990 13,340,000 15,372,000 28,712,000
1991 13,423,000 15,240,000 28,663,000
1992 13,648,000 14,609,000 28,257,000
1993* 13,802,000 13,766,000 27,568,000
1994* 14,088,000 13,607,000 27,695,000
1995* 14,591,000 13,691,000 28,282,000
2000# 16,045,000 14,883,000 30,928,000
2005# 17,333,000 16,366,000 33,699,000
*Estimates
#Projections
The youth shortage is real enough. The marching age population peaked in 1979 at 34,
116, 000 and fell steadily until 1989, when it hit 28,571,000, 5.5 million fewer marching aged
people. It then stabilized as the relatively high birth cohorts of 1969-1971 passed through
college. After they aged out, the marching age population fell an additional million, dropping to
27,568,000 in 1993--6.5 million fewer than in 1979. That is a 19 percent drop! Even though the
number of 14-21 year olds has risen slightly since then, there are still fewer eligible people than
in 1989, so we are still feeling the effects of the baby bust.
Marching aged population fell from its high of 34,116,000 in 1979 to a 30 year low of
27,568,000 by 1993, a drop of 6,548,000 (19%) during 14 years. This population loss correlated
with the decline of open class corps from more than 50 competing at DCI prelims during the late
1970s to only 20 at Preview of Champions prelims this year (1995). Looking at the birth data
and population projections, these same data give hope, though. Starting in 1980, births rose to
more than 3.5 million. In 1985, births reached 3.75 million. Finally, in 1989, they regained their
Baby Boom levels of 4+ million a year (Table 1).
The Census Bureau predicts that this will result in a dramatic rise in first 14-17 year olds
and then 18-21 year olds during the next decade. The projection is for high school aged people
to reach 1980 levels (and 14-21 year olds to be at 1985 levels) by 2000 (The projections are for
16,045,000 14-17 year olds, 14,883,000 18-21 year olds, and 30,928,000 14-21 year olds. The
U.S. currently has 14,591,000 14-17 year olds, 13,691,000 18-21 year olds, and 28,282,000 14-21 year olds. That means 1,454,000 more 14-21 year olds, 1,192,000 more 18-21 year olds, and
2,646,000 more members of the marching-aged population) and for the marching age population
as a whole to regain its 1980 size by 2005.
The projections are for 17,333,000 14-17 year olds, 16,366,000 18-21 year olds, and
33,699,000 14-21 year olds. That means 2,742,000 more 14-21 year olds, 2,675,000 more 18-21
year olds, and 5,417,000 more members of the marching-aged population than today--a 19% rise
in 10 years! The next decade has the potential to be a great one for drum corps if we can survive
the present crisis.
This assumes that the upcoming generation (the Echo or Millennial Generation) and their
parents (mostly Baby Boomers) will be interested in drum corps. If not, the activity is in real
trouble. Unfortunately, I think that the way the activity is currently structured and how Echo kids
and Boomer parents will perceive it will make it unpalatable for many, keeping drum corps from
realizing its potential. I shall explain why I think this to be so and what drum corps can do about
it.
3. Drum Corps for the Class of 2000 and Beyond.
During the first winter of drum corps on USENET (the first few months of RAMD in
1993), readers were posting their reports of winter camps to the newsgroup. This allowed me a
look at drum corps from a member's perspective, something I had lost once I aged out in 1981. I
saw a very different activity than the one I had left 13 years ago. The contrast was striking.
During the late 1970s, most of a corps' members were local and attended twice weekly
rehearsals during the winter and spring. The out-of-staters (called "imports" in my first corps,
the Anaheim Kingsmen) would either move to the hometown of the corps during the winter and
take jobs (the case with most of the imports that marched in Anaheim Kingsmen other California
corps, such as Blue Devils) or they would carefully choose a corps during the winter, have the
music mailed to them, practice at home, and then fly to the corps' hometown when school let out
(this is what I did the two years I marched with North Star, including 1979, when I was their
very first import). Corps had many local performances, including standstills in the winter and
parades during the spring, which were also important for local recruiting. Then the corps,
having been near full strength for several months, would make its final local recruiting push,
perhaps pick up a few people from out of state, and then start all day, every day rehearsals
between the time school let out and first tour. Only at the end of my time in junior corps did
"camps" appear, and then only one held over the Memorial Day weekend by North Star in 1981
to complete the show before the local circuit began. What I read on RAMD told me that this
was no longer the case.
What I read on RAMD at first amazed me...and then appalled me. Many elite corps did
not seem to rely on local member bases and regular weekly rehearsals. Instead, they had
national member bases and monthly camps into which members and potential members would
fly in for. Some corps even had camps, not where their hall was, but where their members were,
sometimes several states away! The loss of a local base was disturbing enough, but what
bothered me more was the attitude members displayed on RAMD. People were going to a major
corps' camp, trying out, taking notes, and then posting their findings to the net. Then they would
go to another corps' camp and repeat the procedure. Then they would compare notes, both their
own and those of others posting on the newsgroup. Then they would make their informed
decision and join the corps they thought would be best for them. They were shopping for drum
corps! I was astounded. Of course, they were doing something that had been done on a local
scale for decades, but I don't recall my peers from 70s and 80s drum corps being so open and
explicit about it--and never on a national scale! From an 18-21 year old member's perspective, I
could imagine having the freedom and opportunity to engage in this sort of adventure would be
exhilarating, if expensive. As an ex-member, I could see how this would be advantageous for
both the potential member, provided the resources were available to pursue such a shopping trip,
and the corps able to draw on the national recruiting base. From my perspective as a parent
with a now 11-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter who might one day consider joining a drum
corps, however, I was aghast. If this is how elite junior drum corps is structured in five to ten
years, when first one and then the other would become eligible to march, then I would not want
my own children to participate in the activity which I enjoyed so much 13-17 years ago.
That was when I first realized that the activity which I love could be in serious trouble,
even before I saw the top 25 shrink to the top 21, found out that the telecast of finals which had
interested me in the activity in 1975 was cancelled, and read that DCI had given up its planned
rotation of championship week sites to be associated with Disney for two years. If even half of
the people who once marched and are now parents of children eligible to march during the next
ten years feel as I do, then competitive junior drum corps may lack the recruiting base to survive
the next decade, let alone expand. If the alumni feel like that, then imagine how parents who
*never* marched might feel! That would be a great shame, for despite the current structure of
the activity at the elite level, which is, I think, a rational if unpleasant reaction to the
circumstances of a limited, widely dispersed, highly mobile, and very competitively minded set
of potential members, drum corps has many redeeming features which today's parents would
find very appealing.
Parents of the next generation of potential marching members are very different people
from the parents of the generation marching during the 80s and early to mid 90s and are raising
their children just as differently. I should know, I am one of them. These people are nearly all
Baby Boomers. Unlike the Silent Generation (born 1925-1942), who were the parents and
educators of most of the marchers during the 80s and whose cultural influence can still be seen
in the raising of the current crops of marchers, their primary interests are not fairness, openness,
refinement, and expertise and they did not raise their children permissively, with the message
"enjoy yourselves, do what you want (and grow up fast so you can stay out of our hair!)".
Instead, they (mostly Baby Boomers, which include the victory babies of 1943-1945 along with
standard 1946+ demographic bulge) are interested in principle, religion, and education (i.e.,
strong standards of right and wrong, a spiritually based community life, and people well trained
to carry out their agenda), and they tell their kids "I'm the grown up, you're the child, I know
what's best for you, and you're going to do what I tell you;" and they expect the child to say "Yes,
Mom," "Yes, Dad", or "Yes, Sir!" They are reintroducing uniforms not only to private schools
which lost them during the 70s, but to public schools, such as Burrville Elementary in
Washington, DC (Strauss and Howe, 1991). These parents would not want to see their children
traipsing about the continent pursuing an activity that was purely oriented towards entertainment
and competition. If it has no higher purpose and contributes nothing to rebuilding the sense of
community that they feel has been lost, then they would want nothing to do with it and they'd
have the authority to impose their will.
The oldest children that these strict, principled parents are paying this no-nonsense
attention to are those born in late 1981 and early 1982, the high school class of 2000, the peers
of Emily Mavroudis, hence the title of my essay. Ask Christina about how much attention she
and her fellow parents are lavishing on their children. Then, if you marched during the past
dozen years, think about how much attention was given to you, especially the strict direction I
described in the preceding paragraph. Now think about the discipline and motivation to work
for a common goal that drum corps teaches. If drum corps could sell *that*, along with gearing
the activity to local, community, goals, drum corps will thrive. If competition and entertainment
for a national audience remain drum corps' emphasis, then the activity will wither away. Too
bad, as the kids coming up will make *great* members and could get a lot out of the activity.
We just have to sell it to their parents.
Here's a final thought for you. When I aged out in 1981, everyone who marched on the
field at finals this past August had already been born. As of this writing, everyone aged 14-21 in
*2009* has already been born. Make sure we plan for them better than we did planning for
today's marchers in 1981. I want there to be an activity there for them if they want it.
References.
Mirel, J., and D. Angus. 1994. High Standards for all? American Educator, v. 18, no. 2.
(Enrollment for High School Students 1976 vs. 1991)
Strauss, W., and N. Howe. 1991. Generations: the history of America's Future, 1584-2069:
William Morrow and Co., New York. (Description of Boomer personality and philosophy of
raising children)
U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1985, 1987-1994. Statistical Abstract of the United States. (105th,
107th-114th Editions) (Births and numbers of marching aged people by year)