GeneralTsoChicken Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Free instruments, does not "free" make. I would venture to guess, many of these groups would have actually kept more money in the long run, had they forked out the dough and bought a Kanstul Bb line when they first came out. The sponsorship obligations that come with these things come with numerous outside costs. In the case of some groups who have changed makers/brands 2 or 3 times, they have created a money eating system. They require rebranding of all of their materials, including trucks. They also require that certain obligations be met (sometimes concert series or factory visits) which eat up competetive corps time (in either rehearsal or performance)---sometimes corps drive a day out of their way to do these things, that's a lot of money. The corps also spend large amounts of time working kinks out of these instruments and getting them repaired, which is usually not funded by the sponsorship. The corps is also given the responsibility of getting rid of the old instruments. In some cases the sponsorship does not allow the corps to keep all of the difference. In the case of the early King Bb's, the corps were most definitely lucky to have broken even on the instrument itself when it was all said and done. Had the corps broken down and bought the Kanstul line, they would have had a more reliable product, only had to rebrand their materials when other factors forced it (saving a lot of money, especially in 15-45k truck wraps), had instrument continuity (not spending time relearning the different instruments year in and year out---which equals better competative success), and since they wouldn't be selling them off, that time in office could be used to better facilitate the excellence of the corps (not wasting time trying to sell off instruments at cost). Free candy when you have to pay for the dentist bill and diabetes medication, isn't free candy. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Doherty Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 This is an interesting thread and I notice that drummers are weighing in. General, DanielRay,Skajerk, et. al. are making very good points. I have never seen a Contract about instrument usage, but the Corps have as much leverage as the supplier and I hope they are doing financial analyses when making their equipment decisions (big Corps have Accountants, smaller Corps none except someone who works until midnight keeping up with the finances). But another issue has caught my attention within the thread: Soloists, who, like Charlie at BAC, don't like the instruments they've been given. So what are the options? Why can't he or she use a horn of their personal choice, or their personal marching horn, provided it fits with the brass finish for the Corps? (If you're not paying for it, don't complain). Don't know, that's why I'm asking. Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 so if I am reading this right, you don't like them, so everyone else shouldn't either. got it Welcome to the Internet. Some folks aren't happy unless they can be unhappy about something. And if they don't like it, no one else can. I'm played with some of the Jupiter stuff before, and don't find a problem with it. The low brass is great. Yeah, the high brass isn't perfect, but it's not the worst thing in the world. It's just like DanielRay said, it's smarter for a corps to play on Jupiter and stay financially stable than play on King or Yamaha and have to fold because they're out of money. Simple answer. OP, stop being a troll and go find something to be happy about. It's almost June. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralTsoChicken Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I hope they are doing financial analyses when making their equipment decisions (big Corps have Accountants, smaller Corps none except someone who works until midnight keeping up with the finances). Some, no doubt, are. Some, no doubt (because I've witnessed it), are not. Probably, like many other things, the corps that do well, are managed well, and vice versa. I know last season, one corps turned down the opportunity to up a different brass sponsorship, for the reasons I've listed above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Doherty Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 My ancillary question was, why can't Soloists use a horn of their choice including a personal horn? Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiga Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 My ancillary question was, why can't Soloists use a horn of their choice including a personal horn? Kevin I can't imagine a soloist WANTING to use their own horn and subjecting it to the grueling use which is drum corps. Hours every day under blistering sun, 100+ temperatures, playing in the rain, lying in the grass...plus, there's always the whole tripping and falling while jazz running. If it's a corps horn, they get it fixed for free or a replacement when needed...if it's your own horn, not so much.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 My ancillary question was, why can't Soloists use a horn of their choice including a personal horn? Kevin These deals are that the corps plays exclusively on the specitfic brand. The last thing a sponsor is going to want to do is have a soloist on a different horn. Also, if the kid was complaining about not being able to do as well with the horn.... I'd ask if he'd prefer to have a night light or bring his mom on tour to tuck him in at bedtime. The absolute worst horn on the field these days is light years ahead of the best thing out there not that long ago. There were guys killing it on chromed out, dented up, duct-taped, piston-rotor piece of junk. It's never the horn, but if it ever is.... it's definitely the player. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Free instruments, does not "free" make. I would venture to guess, many of these groups would have actually kept more money in the long run, had they forked out the dough and bought a Kanstul Bb line when they first came out. The sponsorship obligations that come with these things come with numerous outside costs. In the case of some groups who have changed makers/brands 2 or 3 times, they have created a money eating system. They require rebranding of all of their materials, including trucks. They also require that certain obligations be met (sometimes concert series or factory visits) which eat up competetive corps time (in either rehearsal or performance)---sometimes corps drive a day out of their way to do these things, that's a lot of money. The corps also spend large amounts of time working kinks out of these instruments and getting them repaired, which is usually not funded by the sponsorship. The corps is also given the responsibility of getting rid of the old instruments. In some cases the sponsorship does not allow the corps to keep all of the difference. In the case of the early King Bb's, the corps were most definitely lucky to have broken even on the instrument itself when it was all said and done. Had the corps broken down and bought the Kanstul line, they would have had a more reliable product, only had to rebrand their materials when other factors forced it (saving a lot of money, especially in 15-45k truck wraps), had instrument continuity (not spending time relearning the different instruments year in and year out---which equals better competative success), and since they wouldn't be selling them off, that time in office could be used to better facilitate the excellence of the corps (not wasting time trying to sell off instruments at cost). Free candy when you have to pay for the dentist bill and diabetes medication, isn't free candy. Bottom line... Horns that aren't that great, but are considerably less expensive, free up cash that can be used for better staff, making the quality of horn a non-issue. Seriously, spending another $10-15k on staff vs. ten times that on horns to get the same result... no brainer. Like the player... if the staff complains that it's the horns... fire them. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Doherty Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I have the same understanding, therefore there should be no complaints. But, there are, and that amounts to immature whining on the part of the soloist unless you have negotiated exceptions with the supplier. That doesn't mean the soloist can't provide input on the quality of the instrument for future consideration. But that doesn't answer all of the question. Suppose your star soloist wants to use last year's instrument and the Corps has changed to a new supplier. Why can't the soloist use last year's horn? Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralTsoChicken Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Bottom line... Horns that aren't that great, but are considerably less expensive, free up cash that can be used for better staff, making the quality of horn a non-issue. Seriously, spending another $10-15k on staff vs. ten times that on horns to get the same result... no brainer. Like the player... if the staff complains that it's the horns... fire them. Huh? That's not even remotely what I'm getting at. I'm saying that straight up buying the horns back then would have saved them more money than these sponsorships have. Mostly because of the numerous monetary obligations that come with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.