HEAVILY Revised G7?

[Fran Haring]

41 minutes ago, corpsband said:

 

You got the G7 announcing gig?  Wow look at you go :-) 

LOL!!!!   I don't think the G7 folks are even aware of my existence.

[corpsband]

14 hours ago, BoaDci said:

First off, I want to say I am very much learning about this activity more and more.  I ask you to bear with me as I join the countless number G7/ George Hopkins related threads.  I first started reading about G7 and found it absolutely repulsive.  The fact that Drum Corps were going to be split by division is disgusting.  All I can see in this is a selfish money grab.  But I think it would be interesting if we revised the proposed G7.  What if we ditched the other "Divisions" and called the "Tour of Champions" the top 7 from the previous year.  That way you are using corps that earned the merit most recently, and it gives a new kind of reward (for lack of a better term) for what was achieved and get to tour with the best of the previous season.   I would still ditch the "AAA", "AA", "A" division system.  I dont know just a thought.  Please dont attack me.

 Things actually were adopted from the ill-fated proposal.    The TOC format was created,  new sheets adopted  In fact TOC shows actually do include corps outside the G7  (meaning those who agree to attend -- some corps apparently turn the option down).   I agree with you that it would make more sense to have last years top 7 be the "TOC" corps in the following year.  

But if you look at placements,  such a provision wouldn't have changed things much.  Since 2011 I think BK would have appeared twice  (Cavies and PR both missed top 7 once). In any case good solutions are when nobody gets everything they want and clearly compromises were made.  Remember that DCI is --  in a very real sense  -- the corps directors.  They voted on everything you see today.  

People were upset with the proposal  -- and rightly so.  Not only were many of the concepts poorly conceived,  the actual presentation was written in such an arrogant style that it was just insulting.  

But IMO it did light a fire at DCI.  Seven finalist corps were upset enough with the current state of affairs to even make the proposal.  Prior to that whole fiasco,  DCI was just on autopilot.   I don't think that's the case any more.  Lots of initiatives (Soundsport, Drumline Battle,  international outreach, etc..).  Were those a direct result of the G7?  Perhaps not but IMO they were certainly fueled by it's implications.

So perhaps in the end there was some "good" that came out of the whole ordeal. 

[BoaDci]

9 minutes ago, corpsband said:

 Things actually were adopted from the ill-fated proposal.    The TOC format was created,  new sheets adopted  In fact TOC shows actually do include corps outside the G7  (meaning those who agree to attend -- some corps apparently turn the option down).   I agree with you that it would make more sense to have last years top 7 be the "TOC" corps in the following year.  

But if you look at placements,  such a provision wouldn't have changed things much.  Since 2011 I think BK would have appeared twice  (Cavies and PR both missed top 7 once). In any case good solutions are when nobody gets everything they want and clearly compromises were made.  Remember that DCI is --  in a very real sense  -- the corps directors.  They voted on everything you see today.  

People were upset with the proposal  -- and rightly so.  Not only were many of the concepts poorly conceived,  the actual presentation was written in such an arrogant style that it was just insulting.  

But IMO it did light a fire at DCI.  Seven finalist corps were upset enough with the current state of affairs to even make the proposal.  Prior to that whole fiasco,  DCI was just on autopilot.   I don't think that's the case any more.  Lots of initiatives (Soundsport, Drumline Battle,  international outreach, etc..).  Were those a direct result of the G7?  Perhaps not but IMO they were certainly fueled by it's implications.

So perhaps in the end there was some "good" that came out of the whole ordeal. 

There always is, thats the beauty of the marching arts

[ouooga]

8 hours ago, garfield said:

One opinion driven home during the actual G-7 events was that the activity is stronger as a whole in myriad ways.

 

 

You used myriad correctly!! You have no idea how excited that makes me.

 

As per my normal off-topic comments, carry on.

[ouooga]

Alright, I've actually read the topic and comments now, and feel qualified to voice my opinion. The problem I see with G7 is that it embraces the divide that's already present, and I only see the activity growing stronger if that divide is closed.

 

But Matt, what divide are you talking about?

 

Well, I'm glad you asked! I think we can all agree, there's a quality difference between a group of corps (not necessarily the top 7, but around it) and the rest of the activity. And not just even a quality of show, though that's present, but quality of show design (they're different) and even quality of summer for the members. 

 

An example of this is always found in the "what show would you show someone who has never seen the activity" threads that pop up. Of the entire discography of drum corps shows out there, only a small percentage of shows are chosen in those threads, and an even smaller roster of corps. That's a quality issue. We only want to showcase the truly awe-inspiring shows, which leaves many in the dust. That's the divide I'm talking about.

 

While the corps that consistently "get it" can and should be the focal point of the activity from a growth/fan-retention standpoint, finding more ways to get all corps involved with those select few is the optimum solution. I'd rather see show designers and instructors at these groups mentor the rest, or have DCI offer guidelines that help the corps get there, so the discussion of "let's just focus on the top echelon" never even needs to happen.

 

Can you imagine if every corps came out with a Top 6 production every year? That's a competitive activity!

[Stu]

BAC made the best statement on this subject in their 2014 Animal Farm Show when they briefly formed a giant G7 on the field indicating that, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".  Brilliant!!!

[Stu]

8 hours ago, corpsband said:

So perhaps in the end there was some "good" that came out of the whole ordeal. 

If you mean it is sort of like positive changes in other things outside of DCI which have occurred after an attempted rape, then I agree with you.

[BoaDci]

.

Edited July 9, 2017 by BoaDci
Hello Random person. I made a post here critiquing a corps that my opinion has changed on, I am now editing it.

[garfield]

On 1/20/2017 at 10:10 AM, BoaDci said:

It irritates me more that the "Top 7" are corps that he decided were the best.  It wasnt based on placement.  

I missed the reference where "he" is identified but, regardless, the decision of those seven was based on the tangible and verifiable facts of how many years a corps had been in existence, how many years they placed in the top-12, how many years they won, and tons of other little justifications of why the biggest "winners" were identified as they were.

When one steps back from the emotion of it, their rationale for inclusion in their "winners" club is not wholly unreasonable.

But I also think (or maybe I'm deluding myself into believing that) something was askew in the communication chain that kept all of the seven "in the loop" on what was to be presented.  I'm obviously speculating but, based on some of the conversation at the time, I'm not convinced that the entire group was aware of what was going to be presented to the whole of the BOD and member corps.  Again <speculating> maybe they heard a good idea and trusted the details to their representatives, then somewhat surprised by both what came out AND the fierce push-back that they got.  If I recall, Don Warren was the only one of the "qualified" group to refuse joining.  Maybe they were all convinced it was just a "talking paper" to bring up discussion.  It's hard for me to accept that they were all that nefarious at the same time but, again, maybe they were and I'm just unaccepting of the fact.

Regardless, all seven were speaking out that about their dissatisfaction.  While, IMO, what was done by the O-15 was exactly correct and perfectly acceptable in the face of the threat, it benefited everyone when those who wrested control had the clarity to not throw the Seven under the bus.  Instead, they gave one of the G-7's ideas a try by allowing them to run the TOC format and keep a bigger portion of the gate out of DCI's hands to share with the other corps.  We now see that, for whatever reason, those format changes were ineffectual and didn't last.  

I continue to believe that the activity is stronger together than segregated into classes, but that doesn't mean that there aren't some adjustments that couldn't be put in place to help grow the activity for all's benefit instead of concentrating the dwindling DCI pie into a season of G-7 shows, leaving everyone else to their own class and tour.

I get the impression that there's a lot more cooperation among corps in various ways.  I don't remember what it was like prior to 2010, but I really never thought I had to pay attention to such things in drum corps, I guess.

 

Edited January 21, 2017 by garfield

[N.E. Brigand]

18 hours ago, garfield said:

the decision of those seven was based on the tangible and verifiable facts of how many years a corps had been in existence, how many years they placed in the top-12, how many years they won, and tons of other little justifications of why the biggest "winners" were identified as they were.

When one steps back from the emotion of it, their rationale for inclusion in their "winners" club is not wholly unreasonable.

Had the G7 formed just five years earlier with the same apparent criteria applied, I think its membership would have been a little different (well, five corps would be the same). The "coup" seemed to me like an attempt to make a temporary status quo into a permanent elite.