cixelsyd

About those words I underlined in your post: Only some have stayed as you describe. Quite a number have moved on (out), and are not looking back. They are not sending daily letters to the drum corps market. And I think you are correct when you say those who do stay cannot get what they seek in other places. But that pokes holes in your sprouts analogy. This is not about an open market, where people can choose from a selection of products. DCI monopolized the competitive drum corps activity on their continent, and then changed it to the point where in the opinion of some people, it is not drum corps anymore.

But these other sonic sources are not widely advertised. The circuit is literally named "Drum Corps International". They judge captions for percussion and brass, but not for A&E, human voice, or woodwinds. Even you characterized this as "inside baseball". The proper analogy is people paying for apples when apples are widely advertised, in fact where the store itself specialized in apples, is named for apples (no, not that Apple Store), and you received apples from them for decades. But now they serve up oranges, with no explanation, no remorse and no refund policy. Some people have allergies or intolerances to specific foods. That makes them snobs? Meanwhile, if you like both apples and oranges, but today you are in the mood for apples, are you a snob? Yes, I do. I also understand what overreach is.

The rules for what qualify as "drums" or "bugles" have expanded to the wider scope of percussion and brass. DCI uses these terms as synonyms. But the focus has shifted, as a consequence of introducing all these other sonic sources. It should be what it says it should be. Since DCI insists on calling it "drum & bugle corps" (colloquially abbreviated to "drum corps" in most usage), then it should be drum & bugle corps simply for the sake of truth in advertising. If they would rather use the wider array of marching band instrumentation, then they should have called it "marching band", named their organization something more appropriate like "Marching Band International", and aligned their mission statement with that from the beginning. Truth in advertising. If you pay for apples and get this instead... ... are you a snob for still wanting apples?

Oh, I see where you lost the plot. See where I said "two sonic sources"? Reducing that number is not the only way to change it. They still call it "drum & bugle corps", but it is now drum & bugle & amplification/electronics & human voice & solo woodwind corps. Is anyone really surprised that amid all this change, brass is not perceived as having the same degree of focus as it had before those changes?

That claim has not been made.

The "drum & bugle corps" activity is based upon the premise that brass is one of the two sonic sources that matters (the other being percussion). Expecting that to remain true, and disappointment when it does not, is not snobbery.

The comments regarding brass either playing 90% of the time, or being the focus 90% of the time, were general references to an era. While 1987 Garfield had brass involved over 98% of the show by my count, that was not typical practice.

Impossible, you say? Electronics made it possible to deliver non-musical content, as well as content whose only performance aspect is the press of a button.

The thread asks a simple question, and elicits visceral responses. But then it has a title slapped on top, implying a theme whose meaning is trite to begin with, and whose conformity to the content is a matter of debate. Seems like the metaphor is spot on.

There was never, ever a time where brass has even played 90% of the time in drum corps... so I see why you question that.

It costs less to do that vs. running separate events for open-class. The "haves" have always known they need to string along some "have-nots". Been doing it since 1972.

I am sorry, but the purpose of the drum corps activity is not to create new revenue streams for an industry of artists. And what I am really sorry about is that the Blue Devils thread has to be derailed because someone creating a show reveal teaser copy/pasted AI-generated stock graphics instead of copy/pasting AI-free stock graphics. As if copy/pasting stock graphics is a high art that must be kept pure?

Not so fast. There are still premium appearance fees for selected corps at the same events... they just let the "Tour of Champions" moniker expire. As for open-class, they have fewer options, not more. Open-class events are vanishing all over the place, even the most successful TEP-operated ones. That is true in both past and present tense.

In retrospect, it seems to have worked just fine for them. The top corps got special treatment from DCI. Most of the elitist ideas they had been presenting were implemented (i.e. TOC, more money for them, less money for the other members, no money for non-members, a division with "no real service"). Most importantly, the 2009 agenda for growing DCI instead of just making the rich richer got derailed permanently.

Four out of seven are still involved with their corps. Gibbs and Coates are in more senior positions. DeGrauwe is chairman of the BOD. Glasgow is a corps BOD member. Both Glasgow and Valenzuela have other business going on as Stanbury sales reps.