Slingerland

Of the Finalists in that mid-70s era, Muchachos, Kilts, Regiment, and Guardsmen all had Vistalite Challengers at one point or another. I "think" Blue Stars tried Slingerland's me-too TDRs in clear in 74. And yes, the TDR was a much better snare drum. 😂

In the case of the latter, they'd be found in a VHS box containing the classic "Up In Smoke".

Non profit compensation isn't what it was 20 years ago, where it involved taking a vow of poverty. The $600k number has to be an anomaly; for an org BD's size, somewhere in the $160-240k range would be more common (keeping in mind Bay Area inflation on salaries). An org in the $1m-3m range could be expected to pay $100-180k for their C-suite execs, $45-80k for leaders a rung or two below that.

BSA re-branding is a business move, which won't do anything to fix the wrongs in their past, but will allow them the illusion, in the public's eye, of being 'different' from what came before. They can afford to do that, given the size of their clientele and the dollars involved. Cadets are, in effect, a small local business, with annual revenues that are probably dwarfed by half of the mom and pop businesses in Erie, but with financial liability issues that are on a scale several times their actual annual revenue model. No one would insure a re-brand of that business, and no one but someone who enjoyed paying out legal settlements would invest dollar one. They're dead. Let it go.

Have listened to it plenty of times. It usually doesn't reach the threshold of mature (the clip of the guy misspelling a euphemism for breasts isn't really funny, it's just obnoxious). It's much more sports talk radio than "Fresh Air" (which, I recognize, is not what DCAF is aiming to be).

I wish there was an intelligent, mature, informed podcast that discussed the art form and the business of drum corps, one where the folks who actually know what's what would be willing to go on and discuss the activity and provide insight and clarity to listeners. Something very different from DCAF, in other words.

Guessing he's pretty happy with the gig in Rosemont these days.

All of this feels accurate, though I'm not sure who would be counsel for them in court, since being behind on legal bills last fall was the first shoe that caused them to go on hiatus for this season.

I wouldn't consider 40 years "a short memory." There are no doubt several other individuals who could be encouraged to file claims against the "Not Cadets", since the new organization would be attempting to use the reputation of the old corps to their advantage, which outside eyes could rightly see as an attempt to pretend like they're not selling the same product. Not sure who would be willing to put any money or effort into a risky venture when there are much safer ways to give back to the activity. Support Jersey Surf or any of the other smaller east coast corps, and help build them up. Cadets are a movie whose end credits have already rolled.

What would be the point? Anyone attempting to say that their organization shares any DNA (or tries to claim they share that DNA) will have a massive target on their backs from the day they announce. Nothing called "Cadets", nothing referencing the Garfield/BergenCounty/YEA/CAE Cadets, no uniform designed to mimic the Cadets traditional uniform, no efforts of any kind to draw a connection between the "new" corps and The Cadets would be considered safe, and you'd likely find no individuals who know anything who'd be willing to serve as Board members for a corps that is "The Cadets But Not The Cadets." Consummatum est. May their memory be a blessing.

There's no chance anyone would be silly enough to touch anything Cadets related for the foreseeable future. The brand is dead. Their members have hopefully all found new homes for this season. What was the most likely conclusion 6 years ago when the GH stories started breaking has come to pass, despite the best efforts of the CAE org. Life goes on.

Great, now I have that sh__tty Frankie Valli song celebrating statutory rape in my head.

Find where I said "nobody knew" in what I wrote. Good luck. What I said, for the hard of reading, is that DCI was not given any tools by its founders to screen and manage employees of the participating corps. They, as an organization, were not unique in that fact. I wrote that because it's accurate and provable. I try not to state things as facts that are not so. == BTW, re: the Catholic Church, you might want to consider that the priests involved in those scandals were actual employees of (wait for it) the Church. Nobody working at any of the competing corps were directly hired by or managed by the DCI offices. See the difference?

Muchachos and Crossmen both were busted of rules violations regarding age of members, something that was clearly spelled out in DCI's charter. Might as well say "Regiment got a .1 penalty in 1978, but DCI looked the other way on sexual predators." One thing has nothing to do with the other. DCI was not given the right or the responsibility by its founders to mandate background checks of corps staff in the 1970s/80s/90s. You can say "that was stupid" and you'd be right, but the fact is, no one else in American society in that period was background checking either, for anything besides criminal pasts.

That's the equivalent of "I'm leaving to spend more time with my family." My recollection is that DCI's membership committee or exec leadership specifically told them to sit the year out and fix things.