Do you think going DI/World Class caused some corps to fold?

[KeithHall]

Quebec......limited success at best. Offensive Lions were on the rise and they disappeared. Les Eclipse...on the rise and they disappeared. Les Etoile....rising/disappeared. Acadamie Musicale...see where this story goes?

I really loved watch those corps too. I remember seeing Les Eclipse at a show in Oswego, NY with Royal Brigade. I commented to my brother, "Where did they come from?" How many other corps from Quebec would look good and then be gone?

[glory]

Keep in mind that smaller corps who never made the leap to the top division also lapsed into history. This is relevant because we shouldn't assume that any of the corps who died a top-division death would have survived had they stayed smaller and more local. The paradigm shifted for drum corps, and it affected all corps, large and small.

HH

[JimF-LowBari]

Quebec......limited success at best. Offensive Lions were on the rise and they disappeared. Les Eclipse...on the rise and they disappeared. Les Etoile....rising/disappeared. Acadamie Musicale...see where this story goes?

I really loved watch those corps too. I remember seeing Les Eclipse at a show in Oswego, NY with Royal Brigade. I commented to my brother, "Where did they come from?" How many other corps from Quebec would look good and then be gone?

DCA in the mid 70s to early 80s would have a new French Canadian corps crop up out of nowhere and the previous corps would never be heard from again. Reading between the lines of the History of DC appears tax laws or funding rules really favored new groups. Soooooo, different name probably equaled new group with funding help.

Doesn't really apply to the long term corps you mentioned but think the tax break/funding help dried up which would have hurt things. Also one the Ontario DCPers has mentioned that the Canadain MB scene is dead which hurts too.

[NR_Ohiobando]

Capital Regiment was actually doing VERY well competitively when they decided to take a break the first time. People were expecting them or Academy to be the next to break into finals. I remember hearing that the director was pretty much the reason everyone jumped ship. They came back from the break, but weren't the same.

Anyone else want to elaborate?

[Gabe92]

While many Quebec corps folded because of the lack of money (80-90), my feeling is that in the 2000's many folded because of the lack of volunteers and staffs with the desire to be involve.

Being from Sherbrooke, I can tell you that Academie Musicale folded because they didn't have enough members. That had enough money to keep going. But not enough staff to recruit new kids and motivate the members. They adopted (the staff) the attitude of "bring me the kids and I will teach them" while you cannot think like that anymore in our province.

Stentors have the same problem. Money ahead to run another 4-5 years without any problem. But not being able to secure full time staff for the summer (guard/drums).

[Kevin Doherty]

Sad story. All points well made. Any solutions?

[glory]

Sad story. All points well made. Any solutions?

The solution is the same in success as it is in failure: people.

People lead success and failure both. The difference is the capacity of any corps' leadership to realize a sustainable vision for the corps, to marshall the resources necessary to sustain the corps and to adapt to the inevitable disruptions in vision and resources over time.

BD isn't alive and winning today because they play jazz or wear blue uniforms. (BD's sustainability doesn't even derive from trophies. If that's all it were, then Pioneer, Mandarins and many other corps would be long gone.) BD is successful because it has a leadership cadre able to indentify and achieve a vision of success and to acquire the resources necessary for the task. The leaders of corps that failed - all due respect - came up short on these or similar counts.

I once heard Jack Welch, the legendary former CEO of GE, say: Any manager can manage for the short-term or the long-term. It's managing for both that's difficult.

It is difficult to run a corps. It's hardly an indictment that some fail when the challenge is so big.

That's why we should take note of success as we try to reconcile failure. Failure is easy. Success is difficult and thus something to admire and emulate. It's all about leadership. It's all about having the right people managing for the short-term and the long-term at the same time.

HH

[Gabe92]

The solution is the same in success as it is in failure: people.

People lead success and failure both. The difference is the capacity of any corps' leadership to realize a sustainable vision for the corps, to marshall the resources necessary to sustain the corps and to adapt to the inevitable disruptions in vision and resources over time.

BD isn't alive and winning today because they play jazz or wear blue uniforms. (BD's sustainability doesn't even derive from trophies. If that's all it were, then Pioneer, Mandarins and many other corps would be long gone.) BD is successful because it has a leadership cadre able to indentify and achieve a vision of success and to acquire the resources necessary for the task. The leaders of corps that failed - all due respect - came up short on these or similar counts.

I once heard Jack Welch, the legendary former CEO of GE, say: Any manager can manage for the short-term or the long-term. It's managing for both that's difficult.

It is difficult to run a corps. It's hardly an indictment that some fail when the challenge is so big.

That's why we should take note of success as we try to reconcile failure. Failure is easy. Success is difficult and thus something to admire and emulate. It's all about leadership. It's all about having the right people managing for the short-term and the long-term at the same time.

HH

I totally agree with you. Cause of success or failure is the people.

My point is; there is less and less leadership, less implication, less devotion, ect. Leaving to a few all the responsability and the work.

It is easier to be a great leader when there is 50 people willing to walk with you (instead of 2).

There use to be only 1 per family working to provide for food, lodging, clothing, ect. Now in most family, the man and the woman both have a job and sometime 3 jobs for 2 peoples and they still doesn't make it. Time to invest in non profit is inexistant.

While money was the main cause of failure in the past, lack of members became more important over the years and nowdays, the lack of hands is a serious problem.

Regardless of the talent/vision of the leadership in place, there is less and less people who want to put 10-20-30 hours every week to make it work.

[JimF-LowBari]

Regardless of the talent/vision of the leadership in place, there is less and less people who want to put 10-20-30 hours every week to make it work.

How about people who CAN put in those hours. My old church lost it's Scout troop for the same reason (lack of help). But in that cste, it's in a depressed area and the father/father figures had to work when time was needed at Scouts. No contest when the choice is help the Scouts vs earn money for food/housing.

Edited April 3, 2012 by JimF-LowBari

[BRASSO]

Keep in mind that smaller corps who never made the leap to the top division also lapsed into history. This is relevant because we shouldn't assume that any of the corps who died a top-division death would have survived had they stayed smaller and more local. The paradigm shifted for drum corps, and it affected all corps, large and small.

HH

I agree. As I view it, there is no relationship at to the size of the Corps, nor what division the Corps was in, nor how long the Corps was in existence before folding. When we look at all the Corps that have died over the years, there were both small and large Corps, Corps that were in lower divisions, as well, as World Class.

In my view, DCI may have been been better served to have adopted the NCAA model, instead of the National Touring Model that DCI expected all World Class Division Corps to go on. DCI should have had 3 or 4 regionals, where Corps only competed in their regionals during the competitive regular season. Then the top 2 or 3 Corps only from the Regionals Championships would then go on to a National Championships for those 8-12 Corps to compete for the ultimate DCI Championship that year. It would have possibly led to more regional loyalties on the part of fans and recruits alike. It conceivably could have kept the costs down for all Corps by limiting their travel costs, ie fuel, housing. And it would have made the Champiionships of 3 days more exciting. More Corps might have lasted too, who knows. It was mostly the enormous costs of travel that killed off most of the Corps in the DCI era. Oh well, hindsight is 20-20.

Edited April 3, 2012 by BRASSO