Leaderboard

This is certainly an interesting discussion and will be exciting to see where DCI stands after this weekend. Here is an official response from The Troopers organization that was forwarded to me last night. I wonder how this letter will impact any voting for this weekend... 1/23/13 The following is the Troopers Board of Directors' response to the 1/9/13 e-mail letter from the Directors of the "7", titled "re: Drum Corps International and the Future." As the leadership of a founding member of Drum Corps International, one of the very few who initiated the effort to create an independent, viable structure that would allow American Drum & Bugle Corps to thrive, we are greatly saddened by the current divisive state that exists within our activity. Our founder has been oft-quoted as saying "We are the show." The "we" to which he referred was not the Troopers, but to the drum corps of the era. DCI was created as a collective, an organization to work solely in the interest of American Drum & Bugle Corps. We, the leaders of the youth whom we serve, are responsible for maintaining that collective spirit. Therefore, in the name of that spirit, we firmly reject the claims and requests contained in this letter. We believe the claim that the current "tragic" economic realities of operating a drum corps was somehow "inevitable" and out of DCI's control is disingenuous. Obviously, many of the "7" have been responsible for it to a significant degree as they've advocated changes that have made competing more and more expensive while working to maintain a status quo where revenue is concentrated at the top. Equally disingenuous is the claim that the decline of open class corps is a "product of economic times." Times are clearly difficult as we all know too well, but we see this argument as a red herring. The decline is due to a failure of stewardship over the activity as a whole, a failure aided and abetted by the philosophy espoused by the "7", that has funneled the resources to the "haves" while ignoring the need to build capacity at all levels, and has indulged the whims of a few influential corps directors, preventing any real sense of community and mutual ownership of the activity, driving up expenses, and leaving corps without the skills and means to survive the tough economic times. While the "7" seem resigned to, if not even proud of it, we are not content with a situation in which there is a large disparity in "fiscal and organizational abilities." We believe true stewardship demands that resources should be allocated in a way that lifts the level of these capabilities throughout all strata of the activity. Similarly, we disagree with the argument that the governance of the activity should be exclusively in the hands of corps directors. In addition to representation from competing organizations, the governing organization needs to include voices that have demonstrated excellence in nonprofit management and who are motivated solely by a passion for keeping the activity alive and free from the pressure to advance the interests of individual drum corps. Competitive success is simply not the same thing as organizational capability. We are predominantly nonprofit organizations and the nonprofit world is a precise industry with benchmarks and best practices of organizational competence that have nothing to do with scoring well in a stadium. As an example of this, we believe board representation must be gained in legitimate fashion in a manner that is fair to all. Even though the initial DCI board was determined by competitive placement, the leadership of those very finalist corps, which included members of the "7", agreed to change the board to be an elected body. It was a selfless act on behalf of the collective that they easily could have refused to do in the interest of protecting their individual power. The current situation, where none of the "7" are represented on the board is due in no small part to their own deliberate non-participation in the electoral process that those twelve similarly situated drum corps established many years ago, and that we have all agreed to over time. Ultimately, if the "7" truly have some valid claim to superior qualifications, organizational ability and vision, we feel it is incumbent on them to act like it. This means running for election, honoring and following procedures outlined in current bylaws, ending petty bickering, refraining from issuing ultimatums, and participating in the process. To summarize, the Troopers' Board of Directors stands by the efforts of the greater drum corps community to bring stewardship, fairness and parity to the activity, as opposed to the self-serving and divisive demands of the "7". We reject the tactics currently employed by this group, its disregard for due process and parliamentary procedure, its lack of respect for duly established organizational bylaws, its penchant for resorting to disrespectful and aggressive behavior at the expense of mature and mutually respectful deliberation, its lack of professionalism and all of its attempts to undermine the unity of the activity. We are heavily and wholeheartedly invested with our colleagues in governing in a way that will strengthen and grow the activity as a whole and at all levels, including the organizations represented in the January 9 letter, not diminish it as the very name the "7" seems to endorse. To this end, we applaud the recent proposal to create a regular opportunity for board members of DCI member corps to meet, engage in mutual problem solving and share best practices to better serve the activity and the respective members as a whole. It is thanks to the collective of volunteer board members in each of these organizations, who truly bear the fiduciary responsibility for this activity, that all of our organizations are able to put "...the rubber to the road," and it would only serve to strengthen our organizations by allowing the free exchange of ideas between those bases. By tapping into this broad and diverse experience, we are confident that we will soon see an age where our activity will be united once again as a collective, and that the numbers of organizations, experiences, and opportunities for young musicians involved with DCI will flourish and grow. Respectfully, The Troopers Board of Directors Milward Simpson, President

1. jskred123 posts text from an e-mail sent by George Hopkins on behalf of “the 7” (hereinafter “SE7EN”) to DCI members. 2. garfield urges caution in interpretation 3. flammaster expresses a lack of interest. 4. HockeyDad imagines DCI’s response, noting the compromises already offered to SE7EN and that agreeing to this proposal gives SE7EN everything they failed to get with their 2010 proposal. 58. danielray argues that many DCI sponsors might leave if SE7EN depart; he also feels that recent discussion of corps’ 990 forms reveal too little information about cash flow situations, due to which even small revenue losses can have a cascading negative effect. --77. (in part) craiga claims that several non-SE7EN corps have good endorsement deals: supposed distinctions between SE7EN and everyone else are largely an illusion perpetuated by SE7EN. ->->85. danielray replies to craiga that he knows enough confidential sponsorship details to state confidently that the deals for SE7EN corps, particularly as regards instruments, are much more favorable than what other groups receive. --83. cixelsyd replies that DCI’s sponsors are mainly supporters of SE7EN with the observation that many of them are also sponsors of other corps, guard, and band associations and takes the point about cash flow to indicate that SE7EN can’t afford to leave DCI. ->->106. danielray replies to cixelsyd by reiterating that the leading DCI corps have a much more lucrative sponsorship than other marching arts organizations. 103. BRASSO responds to garfield with a joke about his namesake. --298. Cavie74 explains the joke. 235. ripper praises HockeyDad’s proposals. 5. SFZFAN wants DCI to respond with a short “no”. 72. bill agrees. 75. RockyGranite offers another terse reply DCI could use. 92. BRASSO agrees, notes the letter’s misspelling of a fellow corps director’s name (Tom Spataro), and feels confident DCI will reject such a transparent power grab. --98. garfield praises BRASSO’s wit. 6. chaddyt looks forward to the discussion here. 7. Rifuarian sees the letter as cover for SE7EN to leave, should they not get their way, and would prefer their departure to their getting control of the board (although an independent board would be better still). 8. Kamarag find SE7EN’s proposal reasonable, on the grounds that the most successful competitors have earned that right to be heard. 9. Rifurian disagrees, because competitive success does not necessarily indicate business acumen. 12. PioneerWebmaster disagrees on the grounds that DCI’s interests are broader than those of SE7EN. --13. En929 agrees with PioneerWebmaster, emphasizing that the struggles of the less-successful corps represent the very problems that DCI is meant to address. 182. perc2100 agrees with Kamarag that with competitive success should come some reward, including greater responsibility, but worries about protecting what in politics would be called minority rights; he proposes as a compromise that a board of twelve be voted on by the full membership. 202. SopSauceBaus agrees with Kamarag’s approval of the SE7EN proposal. --204. Fred Windish responds to SopSauceBaus that the proposal threatens to shut out other corps. --205. (double post.) --214. garfield says that reading the 2010 G-7 proposal would help SopSauceBaus understand why many are suspicious of SE7EN now. 203. RockyGranite disagrees because he sees the proposal as a way for the corps to cement their position without regard to future achievement. 206. BRASSO offers a joke about kicking SE7EN out of DCI. 488. N.E. Brigand notes that the changes proposed by SE7EN will make it impossible for other corps to “get better” as he suggests they do; the changes run so contrary to DCI’s mission that DCI may need to take drastic action like immediately banning SE7EN ringleaders (as DCA had banned Renegades), and N.E. Brigand asks if that move would keep the other SE7EN members from leaving. 490. cixelsyd notes that SE7EN don’t really think that voting power should be derived from on-field achievement, given that BAC isn’t participating in MiM. 541. phan771 replies that there’s no inherent reason to connect high scores and board membership, and reminds Kamarag that corps don’t “simply get better” in a vacuum. --542. craiga responds warmly to phan771 and muses about how Bloo and Crown would have reacted if the then-top 7 tried this stunt in 2000. --546. skywhopper tells phan771 that the lower-ranking corps will all suddenly improve in placement if the current top six (plus one) are expelled. 548. BRASSO provides with a socio-political analogy: SE7EN’S proposal is like changing the laws so only the rich can vote. 10. chaddyt feels it would take a confident leader to act as SFZFAN suggest. 24. Fran Haring feels that much discussion will follow. 35. skywhopper responds that SE7EN’s 2013 MiM schedule already cuts by 25% the income (and expense) that DCI would have received from those shows in other years, suggesting that DCI might survive those corps’ departure. 11. CrunchyTenor offers a compromise (7 of 15 seats) that would give SE7EN a strong but not overwhelming voice. 14. Michael Boo wonders if there is a compromise position between SE7EN’s wish for 7 of 12 seats and CrunchyTenor’s compromise offer of 7 of 15 seats; he expects money is central to any decision. 15. Scottishfan wonders if the demise of Teal Sound and hiatus of Glassmen suggested to SE7EN that DCI had nothing to offer. 16. flammaster wonders about the future of Blue Devils B if SE7EN leave DCI. 17. tcascella is puzzled. 18. garfield suggests that Crown, having shown financial losses in 2010 and 2011, may not be spending wisely by contributing to MiM. 22. garfield notes further that Phantom’s finances seems to be almost as precarious as Crown’s. --207. soccerguy315 suggests garfield ask Phantom directly about the financial uncertainty. --422. BOSMarcher says garfield is wrong that Phantom has only a small cash reserve, and that their fiscal prudence compared to DCI is why they wish to leave. ->->423. garfield says that the 990s show BOSMarcher is wrong, and that Phantom is probably foolish to think they can do better without DCI. ->->424. skywhopper feels that Phantom doesn’t want to leave, or they would already have done so; what they want is control of DCI’s infrastructure; this is why DCI should not support MiM. 68. Jeff Ream concurs that Crown’s finances make their participation in SE7EN questionable. 19. flammaster expresses frustration at change. 23. garfield observes that flammaster seems to have gotten over his apathy quickly, and adds that apathy enables SE7EN. 20. garfield cites Gen. McAuliffe as a model for DCI’s response. 21. Fran Haring is more interested in Notre Dame’s loss. 25. jimwolf359 reads SE7EN’s proposal as extortion. 26. thirdcoast is unsure and notes that a Madison alumnus is involved. 64. Mad75 also expresses disappointment in Pat Seidling. 27. HockeyDad says Hopkins’s letter could have been much shorter. 28. craiga argues that DCI should call SE7EN’s bluff, on the grounds that they cannot survive without DCI. 29. jimwolf359 agrees and stipulates that DCI agreeing to this proposal would amount to DCI agreeing to the 2010 proposal, and reads Hopkins as condescending to the other corps. 30. Daave thinks that Hopkins’s letter may have been written by another SE7EN member. 33. chaddyt adds that possibly neither DCI or SE7EN could survive the split, and expects one side or the other to back down. 31. Stu asks if posting this e-mail violates DCP’s terms of service. 36. Fran Haring notes that if Stu is correct, the discussion will be short. 37. corpsband cites DCP rules in support of Stu’s suggestion. --40. skywhopper disagrees, noting that enforcement history suggests there is some leeway in what communications are permitted to be reposted. ->->41. corpsband replies that SE7EN correspondence was deleted by DCP not long ago. -->-->45. skywhopper interprets Hopkins’s missive as an open letter. -->>-->>48. corpsband feels that Hopkins’s note isn’t an open letter because he didn’t post it for the public. -->>-->>50. skywhopper responds that recipients of unsolicited e-mails are under no obligation to keep the contents private, and that this letter was clearly meant for public distribution regardless of how it was originally sent. -->-->69. Jeff Ream replies to corpsband that previous SE7EN e-mails were deleted from DCP because they included specific addresses. ->->54. MikeD replies that DCP’s rules clearly prohibit posting e-mails from others. -->-->55. skywhopper says DCP precedent indicates that only egregious violations of this rule are enforced. --42. HockeyDad responds that a paraphrase of Hopkins’s letter will suffice if it is deleted, and summarizes the situation as in his post above, with the added suggestion that SE7EN are behaving childishly and disingenuously and with no gratitude for the concessions DCI already granted them. 38. HockeyDad observes that the e-mail, being addressed to all DCI corps, is less private than other communications. --44. Stu responds that a strict reading of DCP’s rules requires the letter to be deleted. 77 (in part). craiga notes the appearance of the letter elsewhere on the web, rendering moot any possible deletion from DCP; and reminds people that one of SE7EN was not in last year’s top seven. 32. Daave suggests that the financial challenges of some SE7EN members makes it impossible for them to leave. 34. skywhopper argues that DCI must refuse because to agree is to cede total control to SE7EN. 39. jonnyboy cannot imagine DCI agreeing to SE7EN’s proposal and feels the renegade corps are in a weaker position than they were in 2010. 255. Jeff Ream that some SE7EN members are only recently successful. 309. N.E. Brigand adds a reminder that BAC was more elite than Bloo or Crown only seven years ago, and could have kept things that way if they’d been part of a rebellion in 2005. 43. skywhopper lists e-mail addresses for all World Class corps directors. 46. corpsband finds it nonsensical to determine cede DCI membership decisions to judges. 47. HockeyDad says that this shows that SE7EN will use any argument to take power. 49. skywhopper agrees and repeats HockeyDad’s point that they don’t care if their reasoning is sound as long as they get the vote; he adds that the other top twelve corps would be fools to agree. --51. corpsband disagrees that Hopkins’s faulty logic can be set aside, and would prefer DCI to respond to the letter on its declared points than on insinuations as to motive. ->->53. skywhopper thinks that SE7EN’s motives are self-evident, and DCI should ignore them. ->->56. corpsband argues that DCI must give SE7EN’s proposal careful consideration, and that in so doing, they will have to reject it as ludicrous. 209. soccerguy315 agrees that music-and-marching judges shouldn’t be determining board membership. --215. corpsband thanks soccerguy, but complains that the discussion largely has become a mere copy of earlier anti-SE7EN threads. --216. garfield jokes about social media. --218. garfield responds to corpsband’s complaint with the observation that Hopkins’s e-mail was a retread, in its own way. ->->221(b). BRASSO adds that there had been little talk of SE7EN for some time before Hopkins’s e-mail appeared. ->->222. corpsband that this e-mail is anything like the 2010 G-7 proposal, and repeats his argument that few comments here respond to the new text. -->-->223. Fred Windish asks what corpsband means by “tired old content”. -->-->230. HockeyDad asks why corpsband continues to participate in this discussion if it bores him. -->-->237. skywhopper points out to corpsband that Hopkins’s e-mail specifically cites the original G-7 proposal, and that Hopkins has consistently requested the same changes, making this history fair game for the new discussion. --220. skywhopper disagrees, noting that most comments have been about this new proposal and not the earlier SE7EN actions, with only a little necessary context added for neophytes. 245. perc2100 concurs that the faulty logic of SE7EN’s argument should be taken seriously and therefore rejected. 523. drumcorpsfever agrees that judges shouldn’t decide board membership. 52. chaddyt faults the letter for not explaining why SE7EN should have control of DCI’s board, particularly given that Hopkins admits to having no ideas about how to improve DCI; given that both sides need each other, he expects no action to be taken. 57. NewSkool offers a compromise based loosely on the U.S. Electoral College in which each corps’ board votes would be determined by a combination of placement and years of DCI membership, on the grounds that longevity is also an indication of merit. 59. KakkoiiOtaku suggests that all World Class corps directors should have board membership. 60. danielray strongly disagrees, feeling that even SE7EN’s proposal would leave too many decision-makers; he would rather DCI had a leader with dictatorial powers. --61. Stu wonders if a dictatorship is at odds with DCI’s non-profit status. ->->63. mobrien suggests that danielray wants DCI to have a commissioner like those in pro sports. ->->65. danielray points to Bill Cook as exemplar of sensible power. -->-->66. Michael Boo acknowledges that Cook was very intelligent. -->>-->>73. bill notes that Cook may have been wrong about the long-term value of bingo as a drum corps fundraising tool. --->>--->>89. troopers1 says Cook was right about bingo, for his times. -->>-->>246. perc2100 makes a joke about Bill Cook’s vast wealth. -->-->87. Stu repeats Jeff Ream’s call for Dan Acheson to have more power, so long as he is reasonably answerable to the board, in contrast to the uncontrolled authority for which Cook had argued, which runs contrary to DCI’s mission. -->>-->>124. danielray praises Dan Acheson and calls for new leadership. --->>--->>132. garfield replies that a visionary new leader would indeed be great for DCI, but the position is too weak to attract that kind of person, and SE7EN don’t want that change. --->>>--->>>147. Fran Haring makes a joke about garfield. -->-->231. Stu asks if it’s appropriate to run a 501c3 organization as a dictatorship. -->>-->>232. Fran Haring jokes about similarities and differences between DCI and the PGA. -->>-->>248. danielray uses a nautical analogy to say a corporation’s board should in fact support the executive rather than the reverse. -->>-->>251. Stu says non-profits do indeed get direction from their boards, which have the ability to fire the executive if necessary—quite the opposite of what Bill Cook proposed. -->>-->>273. danielray talks about duties board members have to their corporations and the challenges non-profits have recruiting people who are qualified but not too busy, the point being that the executive is usually better able to make important decisions; he also feels that the mission is unimportant for day-to-day affairs and best kept vague; DCI has the additional challenge of being a consortia of many other organizations. --->>--->>296. Fran Haring agrees with danielray about the duties of board are “advice, consent, and raising money”. --->>--->>299. N.E. Brigand responds to Fran Haring with a variant on danielray’s comment that DCI’s board members are unlike those of most non-profits in that they do not, e.g., raise funds for DCI; he also discusses a parallel situation in non-profit theatre. -->>-->>316. Stu agrees with danielray’s analysis of how a board should work, and reiterates the point that Bill Cook envisioned something entirely different. -->-->244. perc2100 feels that another Bill Cook proposal would help: giving more weight to non-corps businesspeople, perhaps as one vote on a board of three. --70. Jeff Ream proposes that Dan Acheson be granted full control of DCI. ->->217. IllianaLancerContra compares Jeff Ream’s proposal for Dan Acheson to have absolute power to the structure of NASCAR. --224. HockeyDad proposes that DCI take danielray’s advice, and replace Dan Acheson with a greatly empowered leader in the person of Scott Stewart; he also urges a quick exit to SE7EN, removal of electronica, scoring emphasis on musical performance, reduced touring schedule, and outdoor finals venue. 62. Kazadar1 wants to know if the letter is legitimate. 84. skywhopper thinks so. 91. Fran Haring has doubts about the letter’s authenticity. --96. garfield is confident that it is no fraud. --97. Fran Haring acknowledges garfield’s authority. --99. garfield makes a joke. 138. Jeff Ream believes that the letter is genuine. 67. Jeff Ream acknowledges the boldness of SE7EN’s offer, doubts that every SE7EN member is prepared to abandon DCI if not granted the complete control they request, and ponders Hopkins’s comment about differing visions for DCI’s future in light of SE7EN’s 2010 presentation. 71. mojo67 argues that SE7EN, while claiming to have DCI’s best interests in heart, are responsible for the decline of other corps by voting for the increases in corps size and sees this conflict as a kind of class war in which SE7EN are acting most selfishly, and hints that he won’t follow drum corps if SE7EN take control or split. 135. Jeff Ream is reminded that the SE7EN are largely responsible for the problems DCI faces, and thus are dubious choices to take the lead now. 74. tubabeard42 worries that SE7EN will eliminate Open Class competition, and argues that though SE7EN claim to want to work within DCI, what they really want to do is change it to something else. 76. wallace feels that SE7EN are largely responsible for DCI’s problems by having pushed so often for corps to spend beyond their means, and suggests DCI will be better if they depart. 79. KeithHall notes that the leading corps were winning with expensive innovations even in the 1970s. 82. ibexpercussion is doubtful that SE7EN are more dependent on DCI than the reverse: both would suffer, since SE7EN needs DCI’s support but DCI needs SE7EN’s fan base. 78. KeithHall praises SE7EN for thinking forward by trying to return DCI to its roots, and claims that if they depart, they take most of the younger audience and performer base with them, because they are proven winners and appreciate the “buzz words” important to youth education; he claims that no young people are complaining about SE7EN on DCP, and finally he note the long history of changes in drum corps, with a suggestion that even if some of these were bad decisions, you can’t stop progress. 81. RockyGranite feels this move by SE7EN shows lust for power rather than any view for the future of drum corps. 107. Mario, a current BAC member, isn’t sure that younger fans will follow SE7EN rather than DCI. --122. garfield asks Mario to tell his young friends to post on DCP with their thoughts. ->->125. Armyscout is young and calls the SE7EN proposal a sham. --126. CACTSC notes that his child likewise was turned off by the SE7EN machinations, knows other young people who feel the same way, and wonders how current SE7EN members will feel next year when their corps aren’t DCI competitors anymore. --157. UP Drumline, who’ll age out this year, sees right through SE7EN’s proposal. 136. Jeff Ream notes that SE7EN made a mess of DCI when they controlled it. --144. BRASSO adds that DCI’s newer and younger executive board seems to be cleaning up the mess SE7EN directors left in 2010. 168 (in part). regisminae, a younger fan, doesn’t feel that young people won’t support DCI without SE7EN and prefers the prosperity of the entire activity to the prosperity of a few corps. --269. KeithHall tells regisminae, a recent but not current marcher, that he hoped to hear from the latter. 258. tubabeard42 indicates that he is a young member (in an Open Class corps) with doubts about SE7EN. 80. bawker criticizes the letter’s Orwellian phrasing and significant omissions, but would prefer action to DCI constantly living under DCI’s threats, and suggests that even if SE7EN and DCI might fall if there is a split, that some kind of drum corps will re-emerge afterward. 86. chaddyt muses on Crown having titled their 2012 show “For the Common Good”. 88. dasboot is a corps-age, Cadet and Surf auditionee who disapproves of SE7EN on the grounds that they have abandoned DCI’s mission of mutual cooperation. 90. cixelsyd questions the letter’s sincerity and finds it difficult to reconcile a stated desire to remain in DCI with the action of having formed a separate event-management company. 93. troopers1 guesses either that this proposal is SE7EN’s final desperate attempt to enhance their positions before giving up, or that it is an attempt at political cover for the inevitable split. 95. mingusmonk writes that if the second guess is correct and SE7EN are soon to depart, then this letter is an attempt to cast themselves in a favorable public light. 94. skywhopper sees Hopkins’s writing style shown in unnecessary detail, and he also finds that the letter reveals some of what has been going on between SE7EN members, but is confident that SE7EN is preparing to depart, which means that DCI should throw them out. 100. dans condemns DCP cynicism as mere hatred of George Hopkins, believes the SE7EN proposal is sensible on the grounds that the most successful corps should have the biggest say in DCP’s future, and praises SE7EN for their imagination. 102. troopers1 replies that DCI would indeed benefit from the board participation of these leading corps, but that they effectively removed themselves from power through their previous misdeeds, for which they have yet to apologize. 104. bawker explains that DCI is a cooperative organization, that competitive success isn’t always tied to financial wisdom, and that SE7EN had board representation but threw it away in a clumsy power grab. --110. mobrien says that when it was founded, DCI was less cooperative than nostalgia makes it, and cites Don Warren’s words. ->->111. garfield makes a toilet joke about mobrien’s post. ->->114. bill explains that Don Warren’s remark (“we are the act”) was meant not in reference to other corps but to the VFW and American Legion. ->->115. troopers1 makes much the same point. -->-->123. mobrien says that Don Warren and DCI offered very little help to smaller corps in the 1970s, and set up the very governance model that SE7EN are now advocating. ->->168 (in part). regisminae responds skeptically, arguing that the founders meant to benefit drum corps as a whole. ->->175. BRASSO responds with the assertion that DCI in its early years truly was cooperative and utterly unlike the SE7EN proposal. -->-->180. mobrien claims that DCI really did restrict votes to the top twelve (plus legacy corps, but with limitations) in its early years. -->-->181. BRASSO acknowledges that DCI started with a restricted membership, but quickly opened up voting rights as it developed; this is the opposite of the exclusionary and dismissive changes that SE7EN has proposed, which are shockingly divorced from the mission of drum corps. -->-->185. mobrien responds with reference to the 1979 DCI yearbook, which appears to support a limited voting membership. ->->260. madalumni explains that “the act”, for DCI’s founders, was the corps as opposed to the show producers, who weren’t paying the corps fairly; SE7EN use the term to mean only their few corps. -->-->261. Michael Boo agrees and notes that VFW/AL fees were very small especially for lowest-ranking corps. -->-->266. JimF-LowBari remembers the VFW’s unfortunate show title and frustrating scoring system. -->-->285. BRASSO adds a reminder that the founding of DCI also led to consistent scoring systems, and repeats his point that eliminating corps, an ideal for SE7EN, was never in the dreams of DCI’s founders, and is shameful. 105. garfield answers with reference to the 2010 G-7 proposal and the fact that DCI became the troubled organization it is under their leadership. 108. cixelsyd reacts with the observation that like thirteen other World Class corps, SE7EN can vote. 116. Brigadier80 quotes dans but makes no reply. 118. BRASSO says that by dans’s logic, only rich people should be allowed to vote in the U.S. --141. Jeff Ream fears that BRASSO’s suggestion will encourage someone. --253. Tanda applauds BRASSO’s class-warfare analogy. 121. mingusmonk says that competitive and fiscal success are different and notes that dans is, by his own statement, incapable of being persuaded – and thus not worth talking to. 139. Jeff Ream tries to help dans understand why some people are suspicious of SE7EN’s motives. 142. JimF-LowBari can’t understand the claim that SE7EN have no vote in DCI. 482. wvu80 agrees about the good sense in SE7EN’s proposal. 487. N.E. Brigand replies that SE7EN’s unreasonableness becomes evident when one realizes their proposal will lead to the changes they suggested in 2010. 491. Just A Plain Old Fan argues that it’s SE7EN not DCI who refuses to engage with the other, since they haven’t run for board seats since 2010; and that SE7EN can’t be praised for fresh ideas when their e-mail admits they have none, only a retroactive governing model; and finally notes that competitive success is not business success. --492. craiga praises Just A Plain Old Fan’s analysis. --493. garfield also approves, and asks if any SE7EN members have put themselves forward for this year’s board election, thus holding some seats as opposed to none (a compromise position); he also suggests it’s wrong for SE7EN to be withholding their ideas from DCI, and asks if DCI is bound to support groups that don’t return the favor. --503. perc2100 responds that the failure of SE7EN directors to participate on the board doesn’t mean that they haven’t been in discussions with DCI about the future; they certainly haven’t held their tongues in check before. ->->517. skywhopper feels that the phrasing of the letter’s request for communication suggests that SE7EN have not been working closely with the rest of DCI. -->-->518. bmjfelts1988 responds with dismay to skywhopper’s parsing, and adds that both DCI and SE7EN need each other. -->>-->>519. pbeau builds on this by relating the situation to the governmental “fiscal cliff”, and suggests that the American Legion and VFW would call it justice delayed. --->>--->>520. bmjfelts1988 sees 2012’s situation as very different from 1972’s. -->>-->>528. mingusmonk approves bmjfelts1988’s call for compromise. --->>--->>529. N.E. Brigand asks mingusmonk if SE7EN will accept less than their unacceptable proposal, if compromise by DCI will only lead to renewed agitation the following year, what leverage DCI has, and if the closure of Cadets, BD, and SCV are a necessary loss to save drum corps. -->-->527. perc2100 tells skywhopper that his interpretation of the letter seems tenuous. 494. BRASSO says that Hopkins proposed shutting down 20 corps. 101. Crown Phan cannot understand why anyone would object to SE7EN participating both in DCI and a separate circuit. 109. garfield explains that it’s unfair for SE7EN to capitalize on DCI with their separate circuit. 131. jonnyboy says that SE7EN aren’t just performing in a few non-DCI shows but wish to control the organization, the purse strings, and by default if not intent, the survival of smaller corps; he fears that CrownPhan’s naivety is typical of many uninformed fans and acknowledges that there are many people who care only for the top-scoring corps, even though DCI is meant to serve thousands of young performers. 112. cixelsyd laughs at SE7EN’s implicit claim that only they are thinking of DCI’s future, and at their call for representation, in light of their resignation from the board in 2010 and refusal to run for positions since then. 113. garfield says that SE7EN members were actually voted off the board in 2010, a move he praises as the correct response to an attempted coup. --119. CACTSC helps garfield to remember that some SE7EN members did in fact resign from the board after others were voted off. 117. garfield responds further to this ironic view of the SE7EN proposal by noting how their complaints about DCI’s lack of planning ignore the five-year plan DCI approved just before the G-7 proposal came to light. --120. cixelsyd suggests that the G-7 movement was a tacit abandonment by SE7EN corps of DCI management and expects that they would change the bylaws to favor themselves should they be given a controlling share of the votes. ->->153. Gary Matczak agrees that SE7EN effectively relinquished their DCI responsibilities when they began plotting, which is a further good reason the other corps were right to remove them. --127. BRASSO adds to garfield’s remarks with the observation that SE7EN can’t even manage consistency in their own membership requirements. ->->129. garfield anticipates attrition among SE7EN as the four weaker corps no longer have the support of DCI. ->->134. Lead thinks that SE7EN’s post-split competitive rankings also may stagnate. 140. Jeff Ream echoes others’ replies as to what happened with DCI’s board in 2010. 128. ripper will not be purchasing SE7EN souvenirs. 137. BRASSO notes that only one of the SE7EN would have qualified if a similar power grab happened in 1973 – and thus probably never would have had a chance to do so (but the Troopers would still be in charge); this shows how little the SE7EN directors are compared to their predecessors. 130. drumcorpsfever is weary of these backstage machinations. 133. garfield suggests that the problem may be artists trying to run a business and not the reverse. --148.Fran Haring praises the call for better corps business practices. --149. JimF-LowBari, by contrast, feels like business decisions have dominated DCI decisions and discussion thereof; he wants a focus on income. 143. Appleknocker is stunned by the relatively small amount of $3,250 that each SE7EN corps is said to have contributed to the MiM project. 155. garfield agrees that these corps’ financial contribution to MiM casts doubt on their ability to successfully run that circuit: the per-corps figure Hopkins cites is about the same as any one marching member pays to be in their corps. --174. troopers1 follows up with the belief that they must have more money invested than they’ve let on. 226. HockeyDad feels that the e-mail references the small amount collected to fund MiM for no reason other than it popped out of George Hopkins’s mind at the moment. --229. JimF-LowBari agrees that Hopkins is prone to blather. 177. Gary Matczak responds with doubts as to SE7EN’s financial strength, based on what the 990 forms have shown. 145. lvl5drummer, who marches with a lower-ranking corps (and who has read garfield’s 990 thread), was inspired to join DCI because of performances by SE7EN, is dispirited by their selfishness, but wishes they at least would act rather than posture. 146. MikeN is surprised that Hopkins was selected to deliver the ultimatum and asks whether he is SE7EN’s sacrificial goat, later to be undermined by the others. 165. Gary Matczak asks for clarification. 193. Jeff Ream doubts Hopkins will prove to be the SE7EN fall guy, attributing his spokesman status to the others’ reticent public personas. 150. MikeN jokes about DCP needing new forums after SE7EN starts their own league. 151. Fran Haring wants an unfair vote on that possibility. 152. mingusmonk , on the other hand, worries about how contentious the forums will then be, noting what happened in professional auto racing; in fact, he expects some fans to leave entirely. 154. JimF-LowBari expects fan loyalty to be tested. 156. cixelsyd jokes about how SE7EN fans will behave in hypothetical new forums. 194. Jeff Ream add another joke. 158. Neil Plaistow wants to know current board actions SE7EN finds to be so objectionable. 159. mingusmonk responds that it’s complicated, and recommends that DCP create a read-only thread with explanations and useful links. 196. skywhopper answer the request with an explanation of SE7EN’s demands, which amounts to more money and power for themselves and less for the other corps. 160. cowtown doesn’t understand why, if SE7EN think so highly of themselves, why they claim to want to remain in DCI, and supposes it must be to remove the competition; given that, he calls for DCI to cut them off and work quickly to secure post-split sponsorships. 161. Jocko the Wonder Llama proposes that in exchange for letting SE7EN participate in six shows outside of DCI, that they be prohibited from participating in six DCI shows, including regionals and championships. 164. Gary Matczak likes this suggestion. 162. trh thinks neither side would survive a split. 163. N.E. Brigand paraphrases the SE7EN proposal, emphasizing Hopkins’s admission that they have no clear plans to improve DCI. 171. chaddyt likes this précis. 198. Jeff Ream feels that its inability to specify any solutions to DCI’s problems should be sufficient judgment on its merits. 228. soccerguy315 appreciates the summary. 166. Fred Windish supposes that SE7EN’s post-split programming may be more interesting to new fans than what DCI corps provide, suggests that DCI is inadvertently subsidizing its own demise, and asks if SE7EN perhaps should be reimbursing DCI. 172. Gary Matczak argues that DCI needs to issue their own counter-proposal: SE7EN can participate in MiM or DCI but not both. 197. skywhopper says the apparently contradictory claims in the e-mail can be resolved by interpreting support for the “organization” as referring to MiM rather than to DCI. --199. Fred Windish thanks skywhopper for parsing, and remembers Don Whiteley once panning the name “Music in Motion”. 167. whitedawn wants businesspeople not corps directors on the board. 179. BRASSO asks if Cavaliers’ founder Don Warren truly supports the SE7EN proposal, given how contrary to his own vision it runs. --200. Jeff Ream observes that Cavaliers are always cagey in their decision-making. --201. BRASSO jokes about Jeff Ream’s response. 227. soccerguy315 agrees that good artists are not necessarily good businesspeople. 169. Hornhoser imagines what the NFL would be like if it ran as per SE7EN’s proposal: lower-ranking teams would be forever shut out of competitiveness. 176. Gary Matczak enjoys the analogy and argues that SE7EN has forgotten that they need the other corps to succeed (not to mention their own origins). 170. kickhaltsforlife has no faith in the leadership abilities of directors who helped steer the activity into a spending race, and no advantage for them either in getting control of the board or in leaving. 178. CACTSC expects that the egos of SE7EN members will quickly lead to dissension; by contrast, DCI’s executive board has members working to raise the level of all corps. 173. kickhaltsforlife thinks the SE7EN proposal is childish. 183. DCI-86 feels that complaints about SE7EN now are much as complaints about the Combine were in the early 1970s. 184. BRASSO replies that there was no SE7EN-like attempt at permanent stratification in the 1970s. 186. TRacer sees the SE7EN’s actions as a kind of class warfare. 187. BRASSO agrees and adds that the SE7EN have long benefitted from an influx of members from “have-not” corps. 188. JimF-LowBari notes further that the SE7EN were themselves once low-placing corps. 189. ripper comments that a SE7EN departure at least will mean a new DCI champion. 190. thirdcoast enjoys the sturm und drang. 191. corpsband jokes about the same point. 192. 3rd Glasgow BB laughs. 195. dcibrando suggests that a split may be better for the activity if it encourages the growth of smaller groups. 208. DrumManTx expresses anger at George Hopkins, and disbelief that SE7EN should be so bold as to proclaim their importance in the year after one of their number fell to eighth place. 210. DrumManTx apologizes for earlier typos. 212. UNCSQ notes the financial challenges facing some SE7EN members, which casts doubt on their ability to break away and makes this gambit a bluff; there is no hostage and DCI should call them on it; what’s more, Hopkins et al. don’t have the best financial track records. 213. N.E. Brigand asks if SE7EN, once given control, wouldn’t immediately vote to make their status permanent. 219. garfield asks if SE7EN’s proposal was submitted too late for consideration this month. --221(a). skywhopper reminds garfield that late rule-change proposals have been allowed before. 254. Jeff Ream thinks so. 259. corpsband says it depends on DCI’s bylaws. [N.E.B. note: the bylaws are exactly what the e-mail asks DCI to change.] 225. Contra94 makes a Renegades joke about SE7EN. 233. DrumCorpsFan27 notes that SE7EN leaders have been arguing since the 1980s for fewer, bigger budgeted corps. 240. BRASSO makes a joke about woodwinds in SE7EN’s new circuit. --241. Fran Haring jokes about BRASSO’s puns on George Hopkins’s name. --242. HockeyDad remembers once hearing Hopkins long for ocean sounds, something that may finally happen in the new circuit; leaving actual entertainment to DCI. --243. BRASSO wishes Hopkins the best on his maritime journey. 250. perc2100 says all directors, not just SE7EN’s, are responsible for increased costs, and SE7EN’s leaders aren’t clever enough to mastermind a successful conspiracy. --256. Jeff Ream disagrees, arguing that SE7EN directors do bear more responsibility than others for DCI’s troubles, particularly in calling for a national tour and shutting down DCM. --267. Gary Matczak isn’t sure perc2100 is right to deny a long-term SE7EN conspiracy. --268. Kamarag tells perc2100 that it’s not design trends but travel and insurance costs that have increased corps budgets. [*replies spun off into new sub-heading below*] ->->308. perc2100 agrees that travel and insurance costs are a very important part of the rise in DCI expenses, but reminds Kamarag that his point was that SE7EN have not conspired to increase expenses. --295. skywhopper agrees that SE7EN aren’t capable of running a conspiracy, though he feels they are, or would be, failed artists in other fields (whose aesthetics they try to impose on drum corps); they could never even be failed businesspeople—thus the money problems. 234. Jehensley urges SE7EN to depart and DCI to treat them as new or even exhibition corps when they inevitably return; lower-ranking corps are every bit as entertaining. 236. year1buick asks about the possibility of SE7EN succeeding while the rump-DCI fails. 590. tbobaz approves of the idea that should a SE7EN corps be readmitted to DCI after their experiment fails, that they take a new name. 591. tbobaz adds further praise to Jehensley’s post. 238. xbones7480 praises Surf and Crossmen and asks if they are SE7EN members. 239. jonnyboy replies with a list of SE7EN, including a note on their success and self-regard. 247. perc2100 wonders how Renegades’ Lee Rudnicki feels about SE7EN’s appropriation of their nom de nombre. 249. troon8 wonders if CNN will post another story about SE7EN. 252. kickhaltsforlife urges DCI to stand firm against SE7EN. 257. Jeff Ream calls for the Januals to be televised. 262. 3rd Glasgow BB considers what may happen: DCI says no and the status quo remains, DCI says no and SE7EN leave while DCI saves on the cost of running those shows, or DCI says yes and SE7EN increases their stranglehold on the other corps (he also suggests two fantasy possibilities). 263. RockyGranite expects no change, and will not support DCI if SE7EN takes control. 289. BRASSO thinks 3rd Glasgow BB’s third option is impossible. 264. PunkRawkBandGeek quotes Spock in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. 265. craiga enjoys this post. 292. N.E. Brigand adds another Star Trek reference. 268. Kamarag says it’s not design trends but travel and insurance costs that have increased corps budgets.[*spun off from 233 above*] 297. Fran Haring agrees that travel and insurance have been the primary cost drivers. --301. JimF-LowBari agrees about travel costs, though he notes that horns are also much more expensive nowadays. 300. N.E. Brigand asks what part of increased travel costs are caused by the national tour. --322. SkyRider_FMM argues that the national tour has not increased travel costs, which are offset by savings in housing; instead, corps could save money by reducing equipment purchase, shortening the season, or decreasing membership (since their fees cover less than half their cost). --329. IllianaLancerContra adds that more local members would reduce housing and food costs; in the 1980s, there were local DCM shows on the same weekend as DCI finals. ->->445.MikeD tells IllianaLancerContra that the regional model is impossible without many more local corps. --330. michsta8 agrees that reducing corps size would lead to the greatest savings. --332. corpsband praises SkyRyder_FMM’s analysis (while complaining about others participating in “mob theater”) and wants more information about smaller buses, as well as scaling of food costs vs. dues. ->->337. garfield says smaller buses are still widely available, no matter what the corps said when justifying the membership increase; he adds that this increase does nothing for cost, either. -->-->339. corpsband notes that many corps, not just SE7EN, bought into the bus-size (il)logic. -->-->400. Jeff Ream concurs that many corps may have acted on bad information when voting to increase membership. -->-->340. UNCGQ explains that the supposed empty seats might actually have held staff or volunteers, who then needed another vehicle; he attributes increases to an arms-race mentality. --338. UNCSQ says corps could save by using less-expensive staff transportation. ->->350. SkyRyder_FMM answers corpsband’s request on cost-scaling at length, noting particularly that the rule increasing membership meant that no corps could compete at the top level with incurring the necessary costs. ->->357. IllianaLancerContra says staff must be seated somewhere. 308. perc2100 agrees that travel and insurance costs are a very important part of the rise in DCI expenses. 270. drumcorpsfever asks if the e-mail was meant to be shared publically. 272. whitedawn asks if a show featuring last year’s #11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 27 corps would really draw as well as a SE7EN show. 275. mingusmonk agrees that SE7EN currently are a larger draw than the lineup on offer, but says that could change quickly after a split. --276. mingusmonk adds that both sides nonetheless lose if the schism happens. --278. KAW thinks mingusmonk underestimates the time it would take for the lower-ranking corps to draw at the level of SE7EN. ->->281. mingusmonk replies that a complete split would become known to even the ordinary fan who will feel some loyalty to, and get brand recognition from, DCI, such that DCI may be able to spin the affair in their favor. 277. bill says in greater Racine that lineup would sell very well. 279. RockyGranite suggests the list would draw well with the substitution of last year’s #7, 9, 10, 13, and 20 corps. 282. Michael Boo says that DCI is supposed to represent all corps. 284. baja notes that many people can see only the one show within a few hours’ drive, and that they may very well be quite entertained by the listing whitedawn offers. 286. Lead thinks that ordinary fans may find SE7EN’s new format (would it even be called “drum corps”?) to be less entertaining; he also asks about the history of Blast! and whether it was worthwhile; he notes that Madison seems to be more popular than BD; and he is not convinced that SE7EN have any interest in the mission of drum corps. --287. Lead adds the corps listed were indeed more entertaining last year than SE7EN. 288. garfield feels no one knows which lineup will sell more, and SE7EN apparently aren’t convinced enough to leave rather than talk about leaving; his own experience as a tour-event-partner (which may be biased) shows no difference in attendance based on the lineup; a previously-unseen or seldom-seen corps is likelier to draw a few more fans. --293. whitedawn agrees that we all have biases, and suggests that DCP is unrepresentative of most show attendees, who may be largely composed of students brought by their band directors to see examples of the marching arts at their best, while lower-ranking corps are no better than good high school marching bands. --305. CACTSC seconds garfield’s experience as a show producer: corps lineup has little relation to sales; in fact, SE7EN corps may drive people away because they’re not fan-friendly enough. 302. skywhopper suggests that distance to the show is the casual fan’s first consideration; SE7EN will produce fewer shows, don’t have the DCI brand, and have fewer connections to local show organizations that would help drive sales; and are already appearing in fewer other shows, thus are losing appeal; many new marchers will probably prefer to join corps with a shot at DCI’s title; SE7EN’s probable format changes may be a turn off for both audiences and members. --303. corpsband strongly disagrees with skywhopper, on the grounds that SE7EN corps haven’t lost fans due to participating in the ToC shows in 2011 and 2012. --312. Lead argues that SE7EN may do well for a short time, but as a counter-examples, claims that Blast! seems to have wound down. [*replies spun off into new subheading below*] ->->349. skywhopper feels that SE7EN’s audience-visibility in the ToC corps may be less than it seems, and once they split, they could be quickly forgotten by the general audience. ->->353. HockeyDad is frustrated with corpsband’s characterization of the discussion. 304. audiodb says whitedawn’s lineup would have appeal if those corps held high DCI rankings, which they might after a split. --306. corpsband asks audiodb if he means that fans are more interested in placement than quality, which is ridiculous. [*replies spun off into new subheading below*] 317. Stu says that a fair alternate lineup would be last year’s #7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 ranked corps, which would be every bit as appealing to the general audience as a SE7EN slate. 392. Jeff Ream says that SE7EN shows will probably have higher ticket prices than the DCI slate whitedawn offers. 274. KAW is unhappy that this thread is so critical of SE7EN corps (with even suggestions of violence) and reminds commenters that roughly 1,000 young people are members of these organizations. 283. BRASSO asks why SE7EN directors wouldn’t be responsible for a boycott inspired by their shenanigans. --291. Gary Matczak concurs with BRASSO. 307. corpsband seconds the complaint about DCP hatred for SE7EN. --352. HockeyDad expresses sorrow that corpsband’s favorite corps is a SE7EN member. 394. Jeff Ream says fans need some way to share their disapproval with SE7EN. 280. VOReason sees the SE7EN e-mail as an ultimatum, but doubts that there is an audience to support just those seven corps all summer. 290. MikeN asks what happens if DCI doesn’t reply to the e-mail by its Jan. 14 deadline. 396. Jeff Ream suggests we keep the eyes on the usual news sources. 294. Lead offers a compromise for board composition: each rank of five corps votes on one representative for a total of seven members. 306. corpsband if fans are more interested in placement than quality, which would be ridiculous. [*spun off from 272 above*] 310. audiodb asks if corpsband means that DCI ranking is unconnected to quality. --311. corpsband means that first place means less if the best corps is still mediocre. ->->318. audiodb asks, given the argument that a low-scoring first-place corps is not the same as a high-scoring first-place corps, how a SE7EN show in June would draw. -->-->324. corpsband agrees that late season shows sell better than early shows, but feels an early SE7EN show would outsell a late show of #16-22 ranked corps. -->>-->>325. mingusmonk asks why list the lowest rather than the highest non-SE7EN corps, and adds that #16-22 would actually be #9-15 after the split. -->>-->>398. Jeff Ream says of corpsband’s guess that an early-season SE7EN show would sell relatively poorly that the 2011 Texas show demonstrates just this. ->->315. mingusmonk argues that some instructional staff and members from SE7EN corps will probably move to DCI corps if there is a split. -->-->333. corpsband responds opaquely. (What’s a GP?) ->->348. BRASSO says a post-split DCI champion will not necessarily have a low score. 313. Lead says audiences most want to be entertained (possible with SE7EN) but also are interested in supporting the activity of drum corps (unlikely with SE7EN). 314. OldBones claims that rankings matter less than entertainment, and corps currently ranking low, like Surf and Oregon, still were among the most popular at their shows. 321. bawker agrees that audiences care about more than rankings, but suspects that SE7EN will make changes to differentiate themselves from DCI corps, and that this will not be so appealing to members who will opt for the latter; also, the SE7EN championship will be less impressive than the DCI championship simply due to numbers; at any rate, an end to the divisiveness with be worth a short period of quality reduction. --326. CACTSC concurs with this vision of the future, but doesn’t think it will take long for the post-split DCI to flourish: he knows members who don’t want to perform outside of DCI. ->->327. corpsband thinks this assumes too much, because it’s unlikely SE7EN would leave DCI without taking other corps with them, or that they’d add woodwinds. -->-->385. skywhopper agrees that SE7EN would prefer not to have a seven-corps organization, but says their threat to leave must be taken at face value; he also feels that woodwinds are likelier under SE7EN than DCI; and he agrees that DCI is unlikely to expel SE7EN, thought it may seem desirable; he concludes by noting that SE7EN are very nervous about actually leaving. -->-->399. Jeff Ream replies to the complaint about “unfounded speculations” by noting that SE7EN are the directors responsible for DCI’s problems, that their shows would probably be unaffordable, and that some of their alumni will not support a split. [*replies spun off into new subheading below*] -->-->331. bawker admits that he like everyone else is speculating. -->>-->>334. corpsband says that most contributors to this discussion are making lots of unfounded assumptions—as if they were psychic. [N.E.B.: Does this wrongly assume the contributors here are too stupid to tell the difference between possibilities and certainties?] --->>--->>372. BRASSO jokes about supposedly psychic posters and TMIMITW. --->>>--->>>374. Michael Boo jokes about Dos Equis. --->>--->>335. bawker asks if corpsband knows better than anyone else. --->>>--->>>336. corpsband allows that he doesn’t, and adds that even the corps directors don’t know what’s going to happen. -->-->354. HockeyDad asks if SE7EN will take other corps with them to form a new circuit, then why haven’t they done so? -->>-->>355. BRASSO has questions about how ready SE7EN is to leave, wondering, for instance, how many shows sponsors have they lined up; he also thinks a series consisting of only these few corps will lose its luster in a couple years. --->>--->>356. MikeN counters that the top five, at any rate, have a long track record of success –consider Murfreesboro– and notes that many audience members skip the early corps; the pertinent questions are: (1) can the next tier of corps duplicate their success after a split, and (2) will members abandon SE7EN for the DCI leaders? --->>>--->>>360. garfield replies that the show-producing experience of CACTSC and himself casts doubt on the idea that SE7EN draw better than other corps. ---->>>---->>>370. perc2100 informs garfield that he’s heard from show producers who have seen attendance decrease without a SE7EN corps present. ---->>>>---->>>>406. garfield acknowledges perc2100’s evidence showing connections between corps rankings and attendance at other shows, but repeats that in his experience novelty counts for more. ---->>>---->>>401. Jeff Ream answers garfield’s doubts about the drawing power of SE7EN with the thought that they have tried to rig DCI to make them so. --->>>--->>>362. BRASSO says that a Championship featuring only SE7EN would sell poorly compared to DCI 2012. --->>>--->>>364. IMcomguy feels that SE7EN won’t draw as well across a season of shows as they do when meeting less than a dozen times in the year. -->-->358. stevedb1975 argues that SE7EN will be unable to start a new circuit that includes other corps. --351. skywhopper agrees that ending the SE7EN arguments is worth a few “weak” years. 312. Lead argues that SE7EN may do well for a short time, but Blast! seems to be winding down for a counter-example. [*spun off from 272 above*] 328. whitedawn says Blast! is doing very well in Japan, thank you. 344. Michael Boo affirms the continued success of Blast!, and notes the show can survive unchanged through overseas touring. 346. Fran Haring reports on seeing Blast! in New Jersey last year. 363. UP Drumline also mentions seeing Blast! last year. 380. Stu asks Michael Boo if Brass Theater or Blast! actually brought fans to DCI. --381. BRASSO doesn’t think so. --384. Stu takes this as an indication that the example of Blast! is of no use to the SE7EN conundrum. --386. BRASSO adds that more people were exposed to DCI broadcasts than to Blast! tours, and they also didn’t move in appreciable numbers to live DCI shows. ->->388. Stu responds that the comparison between Blast!’s live audiences and DCI’s television audiences may not hold up, citing his own experience of being moved to see one live show by another. --387. Michael Boo says he’s known people who learned of drum corps due to Blast!, and he mentions media articles about Blast! that referenced corps. 389. perc2100 asks Michael Boo if Brass Theatre or Blast! even promoted corps; and why would they? --405. Michael Boo says that there were notes about drum corps in the Blast! program book, and that such text presented no danger of decreased Blast! audience size. --448. MikeD affirms that the Blast! playbill mentioned drum corps. --452. Fran Haring jokes about MikeD’s Blast! experience. --453. Jocko the Wonder Llama jokes at Fran Haring. 450. Stu feels DCI perhaps should have taken out an ad in Playbill when Blast! ran. 454. garfield uses Stu’s Playbill post as a jumping-off point to ask: how will BD describe itself in a post-split program – as champions of “an organization so competitive we had to leave”? --458. 3rd Glasgow BB observes that BD will never be 16-time champs if they leave. --459. JimF-LowBari muses further on the program-listing question --460. Stu suggests to garfield that what worked for the Blast! program would work for SE7EN: they spring boarded from their success in a different field to a new, greater venture. --461. RockyGranite asks Stu if SE7EN corps would need DCI’s permission to refer to themselves as DCI championships in a post-split program. ->->462. garfield doesn’t think so, but suggests DCI could require a disclaimer. --463. garfield suggests SE7EN will find it challenging to describe their former DCI awards in a way that doesn’t raise more questions. --464. BRASSO says the liner notes probably won’t be much of a concern anyway. --465. MikeD says SE7EN simply will bill themselves as the world’s best marching artists. ->->467. Fievel asks how SE7EN can justify their claim without continuing to prove themselves against DCI corps. ->->469. Stu notes that SE7EN have sufficient history of championships to prove their claim (for a while). ->->470. IllianaLancerContra asks for a small clarification of Stu’s championship math. ->->472. Stu corrects the math error. --466. BRASSO expects audiences to be bored by SE7EN. 319. Tyler C. offers a compromise: DCI’s board could be the previous year’s top six (with exclusions based on poor financial management) plus the next six most stable corps plus a neutral voter who votes in ties only; thus a SE7EN member would be out if not financially sound and smartly run small organizations would gain a voice and reduce the effect of (judge-decided) financial standing: “the tax forms are more important than the recaps”. 320. MikeN suggests determining a board of twelve based solely on net assets. 397. Jeff Ream approves of tying voting rights to financial success. 323. flammaster praises Open Class. 444. MikeD acknowledges flammaster’s unusual appreciation of Open Class. 446. N.E. Brigand notes how he enjoyed Open Class corps last summer. 341. cowtown wants less “smoke and mirrors” on the field. 342. MikeN asks which corps “did smoke”? 343. Tyler C. gives MikeN a list of corps. 345. Michael Boo asks what the list means. 347. Stu suggests it lists “smokin’ hot” shows. 500. Tyler C. not it is a list of “smokin’” percussion lines. 506. Michael Boo thanks Tyler C. for the explanation. 359. year1buick doesn’t think that DCI would necessarily improve without SE7EN. 361. stevedb1975 replies that SE7EN can’t leave, because they tried to leave before and needed DCI’s help to survive when their plans fell through; however, if they try, both they and DCI might fall. 365. Highwaydude asks for information on how SE7EN were removed from DCI’s board; he conflates this with Star’s departure in 1994; he is a fan of the SE7EN shows he’s seen. 367. BRASSO misreads Highwaydude’s post as a joke. 368. BRASSO mostly repeats himself. 369. audiodb explains that the G7 is unconnected with Star, and emphasizes that SE7EN corps directors apparently haven’t even run for positions on the board since 2010. 371. Michael Boo describes how Star became Brass Theatre and then Blast! --373. Highwaydude thanks Michael Boo. 375. BRASSO apologizes for treating Highwaydude’s question as a joke. 366. CQuinn suggests Xmen’s director should lead DCI. 376. soccerguy315 says he has apparently helped DCI strike some useful deals. 377. BRASSO confirms that Fred Morrison is DCI’s treasurer. 378. Michael Boo praises Morrison’s down-to-earth qualities. 379. BRASSO lists DCI’s current directors. 391. perc2100 looks over the list and thinks it highly unlikely they would step down to seat SE7EN. --401(b). Jeff Ream responds to what he perceives as perc2100’s sympathy for SE7EN’s lack of board representation with a note that two of them resigned of their own accord. --402. RockyGranite responds with less sympathy for SE7EN. 383. rwmoore001 likens George Hopkins to cancer and calls for him to be removed from YEA. 410. charlie1223 argues that no amoral person would bother running a non-profit. --415. elphaba01 responds with disdain for Hopkins. --427. rwmoore001 replies that it’s quite possible for a non-profit’s director to be immoral. 382. Jeffe77 calls for a return to regional drum corps, and notes that David Gibbs doesn’t agree with George Hopkins about the need for woodwinds. 390. charlie1223 praises SE7EN for acting to save drum corps, noting that the falls of Teal and Glassmen show that something had to be done. 395. Rifurian asks what SE7EN will actually do to save drum corps, noting that Hopkins admits they have no ideas. 418. soccerguy315 answers praise for SE7EN’s forward thinking with the argument that they are in fact responsible for DCI’s problems. 419. BRASSO adds that DCI may be in better shape due to SE7EN directors leaving the board. 428. JimF-LowBari asks what SE7EN will do for other corps. --429. charlie1223 replies that the maneuverings of SE7EN and their separate MiM tour “don’t bother me” because all this is unimportant anyway and the other corps can make their own moves; he blames personal animosity for complaints and wonders who would care if the bottom corps tried to form their own circuit. ->->431. N.E. Brigand asks charlie1223 to answer the question: what will SE7EN do for the other corps, whom charlie1223 claimed they were thinking of? ->->435. skywhopper questions the dismissive reference to DCI as merely “non-profit band”, on the grounds that millions of dollars are at stake; disputes his implication that people dislike the SE7EN proposals only because of Hopkins’s involvement; and affirms that there would be an outcry against extortion attempts by lower-tier corps. 437. audiodb observes that SE7EN claim to want to remain with DCI, casting doubt on the usefulness of charlie1223’s hypothetical bottom-seven rebellion. 441. DrumManTx asks what exactly SE7EN want from DCI besides control. 399. Jeff Ream notes that SE7EN are the directors responsible for DCI’s problems, that their shows would probably be unaffordable, and that some of their alumni will not support a split. [*spun off from 272 above*] 420. danielray calls out Jeff Ream for blaming DCI’s struggles on SE7EN, noting that the responsibility was not theirs alone and that bad decisions often resulted from DCI’s design-by-committee approach, and he adds that without SE7EN, DCI wouldn’t exist; he calls for “bold steps”. --484. Jeff Ream replies by agreeing that DCI’s board structure is problematic, but also noting that SE7EN have shown little skill in working with it. ->->497. MikeD jokes about SE7EN’s board participation. ->->530. Jeff Ream replies in kind. ->->554. IllianaLancerContra nods. ->->564. Jeff Ream nods back. --421. BRASSO disagrees that DCI would have failed if not for SE7EN corps, and feels that the actions of George Hopkins in particular have been detrimental. --425. whitedawn jokes about design-by-committee experiences. ->->430. danielray laughs at the joke. ->->438. garfield nods. --426. Stu says SE7EN are not interested in DCI’s well being, else why start another company? --433. danielray points Stu to the example of Mozilla Foundation as an organization funded by a competitor, just as DCI could be supported by BD or YEA. ->->436. garfield considers the Mozilla Foundation, which may be a prop against anti-trust prosecution; however, their grant-distribution process and skeleton crew might be useful models for DCI. ->->456. danielray talks about the joint non-profit/for-profit structure of Mozilla Foundation as a model for DCI, e.g. to be an events-management company not just a drum corps events management company: “bake more pies”. --432. N.E. Brigand asks danielray, who said that bad leaders should be replaced, how that could happen to SE7EN if they change the bylaws to make that impossible. ->->439. garfield asks N.E. Brigand for clarification of a foreign word in his post. ->->441. N.E. Brigand clarifies. ->->442. soccerguy315 jokes about the clarification. ->->451. Fran Haring jokes about the foreign word. --434. RockyGranite feels that the design-by-committee analogy doesn’t work: DCI is more centrally controlled than the business project he described. ->->455. danielray replies that DCI in the past has been run like the design-by-committee example he offered. ->->457. RockyGranite acknowledges the clarification. 403. TrainWreck asks: if SE7EN are right, what do they hope to gain, and would their departure make DCI more entertaining, and aren’t people deluding themselves to deny that SE7EN are more popular than other corps (consider the top downloads on the Fan Network), and shouldn’t they as headliners have a voice in DCI’s decisions, and aren’t SE7EN’s actions comparable to those of DCI’s founders? 407. RockyGranite reminds readers that all corps now have an equal vote in the Januals, but SE7EN want to take away the franchise of eight corps who might vote against them. --408. TrainWreck observes that DCI’s website certainly relies on images of SE7EN, who therefore shouldn’t be shut out. ->->409. RockyGranite responds that SE7EN corps are not shut out but want to do just that to the other corps. ->->412. JimF-LowBari elaborates with doubt about whether SE7EN have the best interests of all corps in mind. 404. Jocko the Wonder Llama cites The Incredibles as a reminder to SE7EN that if they split, some of them will be seen as the weaker MiM corps. 411. garfield considers what it will cost SE7EN to run their own circuit (with many helpful numbers); it doesn’t look good for SE7EN. 413. MikeN replies MiM tickets are more expensive than garfield estimated. --483. Jeff Ream notes there will be discounts and that not all shows are in large stadiums, and he wonders if SE7EN have planned for all expenses. --414. garfield responds to MikeN with more math; it still looks doubtful. 416. garfield follows up with the observation that DCI seems to have paid more money to corps in 2011, apparently giving SE7EN what they asked for, and that Cadets’ revenue went up that year, further calling into doubt their need for more money. 417. garfield continues with the observation than in 2011, DCI took large steps toward setting up the $500,000 reserve that the G-7 proposal had called for, which seems to show good financial management; he recommends that DCI keep (presumed) plans for future success to itself until SE7EN returns to the fold, and notes that DCI didn’t SE7EN leadership to make these good moves. 443. drmmawresperc suggests someone like Dana White for DCI leadership. 485. Jeff Ream says he would be worse than Hopkins. 447. AlTheKilla says that SE7EN wouldn’t have suggested doing away with Open Class if they cared for the overall state of drum corps, and notes that ToC shows did reduce attendance at other events; he supposes that a split could reflect badly enough on SE7EN that they fail financially; and asks that George Hopkins not be allowed to cause similar trouble in DCA. 449. Pheonix1, a corps director, notes that four of the SE7EN have struggled, meaning that if they split, the other three will have to fund them, which will quickly lead to dissension; therefore not only is it fine for them to leave, but they should be asked to do so (and after failing, be readmitted only on the condition that their current leadership be ousted). 468. 3rd &10 asks how things will go for the last-place SE7EN corps. 471. garfield muses on other low-ranking corps experiences that a SE7EN member will be dealing with regularly. --473. Fred Windish replies with a question about DCI revenue that SE7EN will lose. ->->476. garfield suggests to Fred Windish that SE7EN expects to make more from their own circuit than they’ll lose by not being in DCI. --474. Stu reminds Garfield that SE7EN have had the “first corps on” experience as part of ToC, and adds that the format may be different in a post-split MiM, anyway. ->->475. garfield jokes about Stu’s musing. --477. kickhaltsforlife jokes about garfield’s pondering. --479. IllianaLancerContra suggests MiM may move indoors. 486. Jeff Ream agrees with 3rd&10. 478. thirdcoast is anxious for Jan. 14th to arrive. 480. garfield asks about the significance of Jan. 14th. 481. UP Drumline notes Hopkins’s e-mail asked for a response by Jan. 14th. 489. cixelsyd suggests that DCI allow the 2013 MiM to continue as scheduled on the condition that SE7EN corps agree to leave DCI in 2014. 495. Gold_Bond thinks ahead to the next fundraising letter a SE7EN corps sends him. 496. Dan Balash notes Twitter posts parodying the conflict. 501. MikeN mentions other Twitter feeds. 522. Lead cites further Twitter drum corps parodists. 524. snaredude08 asks Lead about the Twitter feed. --525. BRASSO has a quick joke for snaredude08. --526. Lead answers snaredude08. 498. glory asks how people will respond if DCI accepts SE7EN’s proposal, and how they would respond if SE7EN only asked for minority representation. 499. cixelsyd replies with a third supposition: that SE7EN directors tried to get board participation in the same way as everyone else. 502. mingusmonk makes a joke. 504. perc2100 responds that if DCI feels giving the reins to SE7EN is the right move, he supports it; the only alternative to that would be to find other entertainment than DCI. --505. cixelsyd asks if Hopkins’s e-mail demonstrates that SE7EN haven’t been participating in DCI discussions. --507. perc2100 notes that Hopkins’s e-mail claims to stand for DCI participation. --508. cixelsyd replies that MiM (mentioned in the letter) suggests the opposite of what the letter claims to be SE7EN’s cooperative desires. 509. IllianaLancerContra wants to know what Don Warren thinks about l’affaire SEP7, given that he was part of DCI’s founding. 511. BRASSO echoes the interest in Don Warren’s p.o.v. 531. Jeff Ream relates his doubts that Don Warren will permit Cavaliers to actually harm DCI. 510. Fred Windish complains about a lack of specifics from SE7EN. 512. skywhopper tells Fred Windish to look at SE7EN’s 2010 proposal. --513. Fred Windish is not pleased with what skywhopper describes. 514. barigirl78 notes that SE7EN are free to explain themselves, but the changes that occurred when they held DCI board seats tended to make running corps more expenses, and suggests that there needs to be a way to rate corps based on whether added expense brings in added revenue and not just a higher score. --516. Fred Windish replies with hope. 521. soccerguy315 says SE7EN’s 2010 proposal lays out their deleterious plans. 532. Jeff Ream observes that Hopkins has explicitly stated that SE7EN has no plans for DCI’s future. --534. perc2100 feels that Hopkins’s statement can also be read as a way to not claim to have answers that others don’t, i.e., to not talk down to other corps’ directors. ->->555. Jeff Ream agrees with perc2100 that Hopkins’s claim to have no ideas has a purpose, presumably sinister. 539. cixelsyd lists various SE7EN ideas that have been implemented at ToC shows, and largely received an indifferent reception. --545. skywhopper says that the implemented ToC ideas, including the new scoring system subsequently adopted for all DCI shows, have proved to be unimportant. --558. Jeff Ream agrees that SE7EN’s implemented ideas were just window-dressing for the power grab. 515. skywhopper asks if DCI responded to the e-mail, since the deadline passed. 533. Gator Eagle dislikes what drum corps has become, and notes that corps need to connect to audiences, many of whom indeed want something that reminds them of what they once loved; he also thinks that a split from DCI would by its very nature be contrary to the mission for which the corps were founded; he also urges DCI to hire a proper fundraising staff. 535. Michael Boo replies with a note on how fans seem to love most what they knew and how nostalgia colors memory. --556. Jeff Ream says the nostalgia argument is an insufficient reply: there aren’t enough new fans, so corps indeed must cater to the old ones. 536. TerriTroop suggests DCI and SE7EN collaborate on an “all-star” group to perform at special events with proceeds distributed back to the group based on their contributions. 537. garfield says that BD is doing something like this already. 538. RockyGranite notes that the idea while interesting probably wouldn’t help the current situation. 557. Jeff Ream makes a joke. 540. MikeN asks if there’s any news, post-deadline. 543. cowtown has heard nothing. 544. garfield says that DCI is unlikely to have offered more than a non-committal statement about how the proposal will be considered with other business; he can’t understand what SE7EN hoped to gain by setting a deadline. --547. mingusmonk suggests SE7EN were trying to gauge the ferocity of DCI’s response. --550. corpsband feels SE7EN wanted a response only as to the matter of moving the proposal to the top of the discussion list. ->->553. CACTSC guesses that the letter was timed to prevent DCI from discuss the request and to give SE7EN time to act based on DCI’s response before the Januals. ->->561. garfield wonders if SE7EN would skip the meeting if DCI declined to make their request a priority. ->->565. Jeff Ream jokes to garfield. --560. Jeff Ream replies that the deadline was meant to give SE7EN time. 559. Jeff Ream makes a joke about the missed deadline. 569. garfield restates his question: what will SE7EN do if their proposal is voted down? --571. N.E. Brigand asks if SE7EN can afford to leave DCI in 2013, i.e. what would it mean for them to walk out of the Januals? ->->575. garfield says SE7EN are not ready to leave; furthermore, if they did, DCI might be able to sue them for breach of contract. -->-->578. whitedawn suspects garfield is correct about 2013 contracts being in place. ->->576. danielray jokes to N.E. Brigand about the name “Seven”. ->->579. ShortAndFast replies that DCI voting no to the proposal means only status quo: SE7EN are dissatisfied but present. ->->585. corpsband says N.E. Brigand’s question is nonsense. -->-->588. N.E. Brigand wishes corpsband were right that SE7EN won’t leave, as it gives DCI some leverage against them; will they leave in 2014? -->>-->>597. corpsband doesn’t think SE7EN will split in 2014 either, because they must know a seven-corps circuit will fail; either they will work within DCI, or convince other corps to join them in MiM with payout incentives; additionally, he doubts SE7EN would agree on everything even if granted full control of the board. --->>--->>598. N.E. Brigand says the other corps would need assurances in writing from SE7EN before agreeing to their request; he offers a compromise arrangement whereby the bylaws are changed to give them 7 of 12 votes but also to require a vote of the full membership to make many of the changes called for in the 2010 proposal. --581. cixelsyd wishes garfield were right, and that SE7EN would walk out. --584. corpsband replies to garfield that knowledge of DCI’s bylaws would be needed to determine what happens if the proposal is not given immediate consideration. --592. N.E. Brigand asks if DCI should take any action against SE7EN after the proposal is voted down to prevent them from causing further trouble in the future. ->->606. ripper replies to N.E. Brigand that if SE7EN leave, they should be readmitted to Open Class. --600. skywhopper agrees that the deadline was meant to give SE7EN time. ->->605. BRASSO thinks that SE7EN simply cannot have expected DCI to agree, and therefore have contingency plans ready. ->->609. Jeff Ream jokes to skywhopper about the deadline and Hopkins’s writing skills. 549. whitedawn [echoing corpsband] asks why it would be ok for judges –who are essentially DCI’s vendors (contractors?)– to decide board membership. 551. corpsband agrees, although he notes that it was the practice when DCI was founded. 552. OldBones suggests instead that board membership be based on a combination of financial requirements, longevity, and member-evaluation. 563. Jeff Ream makes a joke about whitedawn’s post. 562. charlie1223 asks what good DCI did for Teal or Glassmen and seems to recollect the G-7 proposal calling for corps to be held responsible, which he finds reasonable, and expects SE7EN are “poised” to consider such matters. 566. Jeff Ream suggests a look at the 990 forms, which show some of the SE7EN could be restricted to regional tours in the model he proposes; he agrees that it might be valuable for DCI to require a financial review. --572. charlie1223 replies that SE7EN are more financially honest than the other corps; he adds that just because SE7EN directors made some bad decisions in the past doesn’t mean they should be prevented from proposing changes now. ->->574. N.E. Brigand asks charlie223 who is preventing SE7EN directors from proposing changes. -->-->577. charlie1223 agrees with N.E. Brigand that of course SE7EN are allowed to propose changes. --567. MikeN adds that Pioneer has more liquid assets than Crown. ->->570. garfield jokes about the 990s. 568. garfield replies that it appears DCI did give Glassmen money when they were hurting, and contributed to return Teal members home safely after their tour ended, but also notes that DCI’s policy is not to interfere in individual corps finances; finally he adds that the G-7 proposal included nothing that would help out corps overall. 582. cixelsyd asks if charlie1223 would want DCI to restrict corps activity based on finances if it turned out a SE7EN member was so troubled. --583. charlie1223 says yes, and blames DCI for not reviewing corps regularly. 599. skywhopper agrees that many factors resulted in Glassmen’s failure, including mismanagement, but notes that SE7EN’s proposals would make it even tougher for them to succeed in the future. --601. danielray replies that a corps which goes under because of a $2,000 electronics purchase is already mismanaged; he adds that all companies fail due to cash flow. ->->602. JimF-LowBari notes that it’s never one $2,000 purchase that makes the difference. ->->604. skywhopper explains that electronics cost much more than that, and that SE7EN have rigged the system such that corps need to spend those many additional thousands to stay competitive. ->->607. Fran Haring agrees with danielray’s comments on cash flow. ->->610. MarimbasaurusRex notes that the cost for electronics is not less than $20,000. ->->612. Mello Dude piles on danielray’s anachronistic notion of electronics costs. ->->618. barigirl78 observes that electronics are just part of the additional costs now required to be competitive. -->-->619. ShortAndFast agrees that indeed each corps finds a small point advantage in paying these extra costs, but taken as a whole, the cost is unlikely to be matched by ticket sales; it’s a “Red Queen’s Race”: Cadets spend far more in 2013 than they did in 1983 for the same results. -->-->620. NakedEye observes to barigirl78 that corps in the late 1980s-1990s were already spending a lot of money. [N.E.B.: isn’t that when people first complained about escalating costs?] -->>-->>623. skywhopper replies that while it was already expensive to run a corps, the rule changes since 2000 have vastly increased those costs; what is needed now is not new additional expenses or SE7EN’s unjustifiable power grab but a scaling back on costs. -->-->630. MikeD replies that Cadets achieved the same result in the 1940s, so why does their 1983 budget matter now? [N.E.B.: it might, depending on a cost comparison between 1940s and 1980s.] --621. glory says that Glassmen went under because of bingo losses. --697. charlie1223 asks what DCI has proposed to help lower-ranking corps survive. --699. JimF-LowBari replies that, on this point also, too little is known. ->->741. Jeff Ream agrees about our lack of knowledge of DCI board minutes. 700. danielray says DCI ought not to be responsible for individual corps management: “DCI is an event and media production company serving a consortia of drum corps”. --742. Jeff Ream cracks a joke. 703. cixelsyd notes that lower-tier corps voted in 2009 for a DCI business plan that would indeed have helped them, but then SE7EN took action against it—which didn’t prevent those other corps from acceding to SE7EN initiatives like the ToC. --745. Jeff Ream praises cixelsyd’s post. 573. MikeN notices belatedly that the 2010 proposal called for board members who aren’t corps directors to lose their voting privileges, which he thinks is wrong. 580. jumpball15 is saddened by the whole mess, blames SE7EN for driving up the costs, and urges DCI not to give in, so SE7EN will have to back down. 586. Fred Windish asks if SE7EN have publically stated that they will leave if their entire proposal isn’t approved, and defends their right to make proposals. 587. JimF-LowBari agrees that SE7EN won’t leave, because they’re not that stupid, and because Hopkins has a history of having his proposals voted down. 589. N.E. Brigand observes that SE7EN asks for just one thing: total control of DCI, and that Hopkins’s e-mail hints that failing that, SE7EN will leave DCI. 593. cixelsyd points to various clues in the e-mail about SE7EN’s contingency plans for acting outside of DCI. 603. skywhopper says that the letter is clear in its threat of SE7EN departing. 614. Fred Windish hopes SE7EN are just playing chicken. --617. skywhopper replies that he thinks SE7EN really are playing chicken, but it’s a dangerous game. 594. cowtown considers what SE7EN would do if DCI approves the proposal, and how long it would take the worm to turn. 616. jonnyboy imagines cowtown’s hypothetical first day as a movie. 595. soccerguy315 doesn’t want SE7EN to split, but would prefer DCI cut them off sooner than later. 596. N.E. Brigand agrees on both points, and asks how SE7EN could prove to DCI that they had mended their ways: would it be sufficient to replace Cavaliers with Boston in the 2013 tour and dissolve the MiM corporation? 608. Jeff figures that some of the SE7EN would probably never leave, but that DCI probably can’t throw them out this season without incurring lawsuits. --611. N.E. Brigand responds that it is unfortunate that DCI is apparently forced to help SE7EN raise money to help with their eventual departure. ->->613. skywhopper replies that SE7EN cannily waited until the schedule was in place before making their proposal. ->->615. cixelsyd tells says DCI ought to have required SE7EN to leave in 2014 as a condition of allowing the MiM in 2013, and castigates SE7EN for offering no solution to DCI’s problems; it would be poetic justice for them to end up being readmitted as Open Class corps – set apart from the other World Class corps, as they so seem to desire. ->->644. Jeff Ream supposes that 2013 also gives DCI time to prepare for a post-split situation. 622. glory offers, as analogous to the current situation, the U.S. presidential election of 1864, because a vote against Lincoln was a vote to let the Confederacy split, and Lincoln allowed the vote even though it might go against him; similarly DCI needs to give a vote to the disenfranchised SE7EN, even though they might destroy DCI, because there is risk inherent in the practice of democracy. 624. BOBSMYTH issues a reminder that SE7EN corps do have a vote like all other corps, but that their proposals are causing more harm than good. 625. cixelsyd notes that SE7EN have, in fact, not been disenfranchised, except as board members because they resigned. --626. glory replies that some of the SE7EN must be included on the board, where they are now excluded. ->->627. MikeN responds that they aren’t excluded: they left and can always run for office again. 628. BRASSO explains that SE7EN’s proposal would take away others’ votes. 629. garfield suggests that SE7EN members are free to throw their hats in the ring and asks why they should get the special treatment requested in their letter. 631. N.E. Brigand questions glory’s historical analogy by pointing out that Lincoln was willing to kill a great many members of the Confederacy to keep them from leaving, implying that DCI should treat SE7EN very harshly. --634. glory responds with a note about Ulysses Grant. --640. N.E. Brigand grumbles about receiving negative votes but no intelligent response for showing the flaws in glory’s historical analogy. --647. Jeff Ream responds this historical fact-check with a joke about Gen. Sherman. 645. Jeff Ream replies to glory’s paean to democracy with a reminder that this is exactly what SE7EN do not want for many corps. 632. Jocko the Wonder Llama tells SE7EN corps that they’ll never get his money again; he also asks if DCI holds the rights to their media content. 633. glory calls for solutions rather than blame, and says SE7EN must be represented on the board; they’ve taken a step toward DCI, and DCI needs to reciprocate. 635. skywhopper asks why SE7EN members particularly need to be represented, and observes that their letter is no kind of move in DCI’s direction. 636. BRASSO writes that DCI has conceded more to SE7EN than the reverse. --639. skywhopper agrees that ToC and MiM are significant concessions by DCI. ->->650. corpsband replies to skywhopper (with some hostility) that DCI’s concessions to SE7EN may very well have been nothing of the sort, but a rational attempt by DCI to experiment with new show formats and management structure, though they’re are being treated on DCP as if they were achieved through blackmail; and asks shows run by T.E.P. aren’t essentially fundraisers by DCI for those groups. [N.E.B.: Who ran the shows that MiM is replacing?] -->-->657. skywhopper agrees that local organizations (including corps!) run shows as fundraisers and lists a variety of ways that corps could make shows more profitable, but emphasizes that the letter says nothing about that. -->>-->>661. corpsband reminds skywhopper that he doesn’t think SE7EN’s proposal makes much sense, and then complains that most of this discussion doesn’t respond to the actual e-mail. --->>--->>666. garfield praises corpsband’s rejection of judge-selected board members. --->>--->>667. kickhaltsforlife agrees with garfield’s praise. -->>-->>672. corpsband notes the odd situation that is DCI where creative staff have to handle organizational problems, and he agrees with SE7EN that DCI’s activities must be evaluated in terms other than “that’s the way it’s always been done”; he further suggests that the incorporation of MiM needn’t be read as a step toward SE7EN’S departure but as a sensible way to manage a new line of shows (as opposed to “a shoebox and an excel spreadsheet”). --->>--->>705. cixelsyd is skeptical about the reasonableness of such a letter as Hopkins offered; as regards corpsband’s suggestion that the incorporation of MiM makes sense as a tool to manage the new shows, cixelsyd doesn’t understand why DCI couldn’t do that in-house. --->>>--->>>731. corpsband replies that it “follows logically” on DCI’s earlier decision to let SE7EN manage the ToC—perhaps SE7EN asked for a chance to prove they could do it better, though their results may not prove much, since every show won’t have that lineup. [N.E.B.: didn’t SE7EN already need DCI’s help with ToC?] -->-->675. garfield feels that one reason DCP posters come to cynical conclusions is that neither side has provided much public information; that permitting the ToC shows can be read a peace offering by DCI (rather than as either giving in to blackmail or a genuine interest in trying the different format); and that he is hopeful of further compromise. -->-->694. Jeff Ream asks corpsband how successful the ToC shows have been. --->--->732. corpsband says that no more is known of ToC paid attendance than for any other DCI show, but they looked full. -->-->707. cixelsyd offers a historical summary of how and why the TEP show-management structure developed and how DCI or the corps may eventually run all the shows. 637. Jocko the Wonder Llama responds that DCI’s “step” should be to a hardened position. 638. cixelsyd reminds glory again that SE7EN are self-exiled from power and can return following the same channels as any other corps. 641. cowtown echoes others’ responses. 642. Rifuarian offers further information on how SE7EN came to hold no seats on the board, and questions the idea that they’ve moved towards DCI’s positions, when the reverse would seem to be a truer description. 646. Jeff Ream echoes other comments about SE7EN corps resigning from the board. 643. jumpball15 expects the 2013 season to run fairly normally, but has no idea about 2014; ToC experience suggests SE7EN aren’t very good at running more than their regular shows; DCI’s forbearance in dealing with them is admirable, but should not lead to appeasement; finally, Cavaliers, Crown, Phantom, and Cadets in particular have reasons to be ashamed of their anti-DCI actions. 648. garfield wonders what this discussion has accomplished, how its negativity reflects on DCP, and how the participants can be more reasonable. 649. Jeff Ream argues that only the directors can solve the problem, and that while they read DCP, only lesser complaints raised on these forums will yield results; this subject is too important for discussion here to matter. --652. garfield asks why directors would read this thread if nothing said here matters, and repeats the call for positive discourse, on the slight chance it could make a difference. ->->692. Jeff Ream says directors watch DCP not for any guidance but for entertainment and to figure out who’s leaking information. --688. BRASSO makes a joke to Jeff Ream. 651. Fred Windish seconds the call for more temperate comments. 653. corpsband says this thread is more of a stoning of the SE7EN than a discussion. --654. garfield replies that responding negatively to negativity is not a positive action. ->->659. corpsband agrees with garfield that a discussion that reaches “mob mentality” is irrevocably hopeless. -->-->660. skywhopper dislikes the implication n that most DCP commenters are mob-like. -->-->670. HockeyDad finds corpsband’s complaint about mob mentality to be unintentionally ironic. --720. cowtown nods at corpsband’s stoning joke, with a further jab at the e-mail. 655. JimF-LowBari feels this discussion shows how passionate the fans here are about the future of drum corps, i.e. that the directors’ decision needs to be carefully considered. 656. kickhaltsforlife claims that this discussion, which was inevitable once the e-mail was revealed, is positive in allowing people to explain their opinions about the problem. 658. ShortAndFast says that the 990s thread was very helpful; he also notes that DCI has acted with a calm public face, thus making it easier for SE7EN to stay without losing face. 663. barigirl78 suggests that any inflammatory reputation DCP has acquired is partly due to DCI itself offering no public way for fans to express their opinions; she also asks how fans can contribute to a solution if they can’t agree on the problem. --685. MikeN that DCI tried hosting forums for a brief period. ->->686. kickhaltsforlife thinks that DCI’s forums appeared at a particularly contentious time, which may have hastened their demise. ->->689. Michael Boo thinks DCP fills the need. 665. kickhaltsforlife observes that sports discussion forums are much worse. 701. cixelsyd first explains that negativity here derives from two causes (1—the appearance of willful blindness and hostility toward drum corps by SE7EN; 2—a need to explain to others just why SE7EN’s plans are so outrageousness) before suggesting a positive step: raise all corps’ appearance fees, which have held steady while post-season revenue sharing that favors top corps has increased. [*replies spun off into new subheading below*] 706. Stu argues that it doesn’t much matter because no one takes DCP very seriously; it’s like a barber shop. --846. N.E. Brigand jokes about Stu’s barber reference. ->->714. BRASSO says the DCP barber shop may be less heated now than the DCI “saloon”. 662. kickhaltsforlife argues that it is reasonable for fans to be upset at SE7EN’s proposal, which offers no actual solutions to DCI’s problems; he suggests the board get an influx of businesspeople to help fix the mess. 668. garfield suggests that fans consider things from SE7EN’s point of view: they –or the three best-funded members thereof– likewise have a right to be frustrated by middle-tier corps that unimaginatively repeat them for years with no advancement or growth. 669. garfield adds that while their methods may be troubling, it may help to appreciate their reasoning. 674. garfield asks what good comes from posting that fans have a right to be upset: how will that get SE7EN to agree to a compromise. 664. garfield creatively proposes that the e-mail is not an ultimatum but a peace offering. 671. ShortAndFast replies that SE7EN ought to know that George Hopkins doesn’t make the best peace messenger. 673. kickhaltsforlife finds it difficult to see things from SE7EN’s perspective, since four of them are financially in no better shape than many other corps; he also wonders whether the focus on entertainment in recent meetings was a mistake when attention should have been on improving finances. --676. garfield says that both sides have corps with fiscal troubles, and repeats the suggestion that Hopkins, Gibbs, and Fiedler fear that the circuit in which they participate will be sunk by other corps not advancing and not securing their finances. --677. garfield adds that kickhaltsforlife’s call for a focus on financial stability is just what the big three have been asking for; they feel their “life’s work” is being put at risk by the other corps. SO WHAT CAN WE SAY HERE TO HELP THE SE7EN UNDERSTAND THAT THIS SENSE IS APPRECIATED BUT THAT THEIR OWN ACTIONS ARE THREATENING EVERYONE ELSE? OR HAVEN’T WE SAID THAT? 678. garfield adds a disclaimer that he nonetheless doesn’t like how SE7EN and Hopkins in particular have managed the schism; but, with respect to the other groups, despite the good financial footing of some, how have they “advanced” drum corps? --679. barigirl78 asks for standards by which to determine who is “advancing the activity”: attendance, general popularity, more youth participation, who gets to decide, and if it’s about providing experience to members, than a super-majority were served by non-SE7EN corps. ->->680. garfield replies that for purposes of this discussion, “advance” as defined by SE7EN is probably mostly about placement, and then good finances, and then outreach/engagement. [N.E.B.: But if Boston isn’t part of the group, how much does placement really matter to SE7EN?] --681. JimF-LowBari responds to garfield that drum corps needs to survive before it can advance. --682. audiodb that “the G7 haven't advanced in competitive placement lately either” and asks whether they’d be comfortable placing lower if it meant that more corps were advancing. ->->861. N.E. Brigand enjoys audiodb’s comment. --684. audiodb offers the reminder that Pioneer has been involved in overseas outreach for far longer than BD before suggesting the DCI reward corps for undertaking activity that promotes DCI (like clinics) by adjusting the revenue-sharing model. ->->730 (in part). jonnyboy thanks audiodb for mentioning Pioneer’s South African work. --687. skywhopper says that nothing SE7EN has offered is likely to solve the problems garfield identifies. --690. AlTheKilla feels that middle-ranked corps who stay solvent and serve members year after year are arguably doing more than those that spend too much trying to win: “There has to be something honorable about participating for the sake of participating”. --695. Jeff Ream asks garfield if BD and Cadets, rather than advancing drum corps, have not been detrimental to it by producing audience-unfriendly shows. 683. danielray says that the struggles of DCI and the corps come from not diversifying and making the most of their abilities; for example, DCI’s operations department could be running other kinds of events and funneling money so earned back into drum corps; such departments would probably be separate for-profit LLCs; finally, DCI should hold no inventory but produce on demand. [*replies spun off into new sub-heading below*] 693. Jeff Ream asks garfield how the e-mail could be a peace offering if it asks for total control. 683. danielray says that the struggles of DCI and the corps come from not diversifying and making the most of their abilities; for example, DCI’s operations department could be running other kinds of events and funneling money so earned back into drum corps; such departments would probably be separate for-profit LLCs; finally, DCI should hold no inventory but produce on demand. [*spun off from 664 above*] 696. Jeff Ream likes much of this argument, though he thinks there may yet be value in DCI producing CDs and DVDs, as older fans often still prefer that to pure digital. --698. danielray suggests that DCI should give away content to promote interest, as is often the case now in the music industry. --747. skywhopper notes that DCI would lose money giving audio away if the license holders didn’t also waive their fees. 718. cowtown has doubts about danielray’s suggestions, and also about garfield’s call for positivity, because he fears it will let guilty parties off the hook. --751. danielray says that DCI operates like a company in the mid-1990s. ->->752. Michael Boo asks danielray to explain why this is not just his opinion. -->-->754. danielray explains that DCI uses technology like a 1990s company; the Fan Network is better, but Youtube would be better still. -->>-->>755. MikeN agrees about Youtube. -->>-->>758. Jeff Ream observes that the Fan Network is good for live broadcasts, though Finals ought to be shown there. -->>-->>760. stevedb1975 thinks danielray may be right about Youtube – and DCI does have a channel that they seem not to be making sufficient use of. --->>--->>763. perc2100 asks if better Youtube content would reduce subscriptions to the Fan Network. --->>--->>768. Jeff Ream says the Youtube challenge is licensing. -->>-->>761. scottgordon notes that Youtube options may be limited by what was agreed on by the license holders. -->>-->>766. Michael Boo asks danielray to create an “abbreviated abstract” of ideas for DCI improvement. -->>-->>767. drumcat explains that Youtube options have been carefully considered, and found wanting in comparison to the Fan Network; DCI’s live products in particular are respected in the A/V industry. --->>--->>769. danielray agrees about the quality of Fan Network’s live broadcasts, but that wasn’t his focus. ->->757. Jeff Ream argues that DCI’s backwardness doesn’t justify giving control to a group selected by on-field judges. ->->759. stevedb1975 observes that the organization he calls “stuck” in the 1990s nonetheless managed to twice save SE7EN, who must therefore be stuck even further back. 691. flammaster randomly praises today’s shows. 701. cixelsyd suggests a positive step: raise all corps’ appearance fees, which have held steady while post-season revenue sharing that favors top corps has increased. [*spun off from 648 above *] 702. JimF-LowBari asks whether show producers could afford this. --704. Fred Windish expresses concern for local show producers (and thus local fans and sponsors) if appearance fees should be raised. ->->709. cixelsyd explains that T.E.P. expenses needn’t go up if appearance fee increases are offset by the post-season cut he previously mentioned. ->->713. skywhopper replies that increased appearance fees are just what SE7EN have received through the ToC. 710. troopers1 that something like cixelsyd proposed may have happened already. --711. cixelsyd believes this to be true only for ToC shows. 712. garfield isn’t sure about the math, but doubts that this proposal, no matter how positive, does nothing significant for SE7EN corps, whose frustration seems to be less about money than about mistreatment by other corps after all they’d contributed (and “a lack of growth ideas that are substantial and not subject to screw up by the DCI staff, or watered-down into ineffectiveness by the group think”). --715. skywhopper thinks garfield may be right about SE7EN’s reasoning, but questions how realistic they’re being, since no one has heard of their ideas being rejected lately, and before 2010 many of Hopkins’s proposals had been approved; possibly he just wants an easier path to change, but even if SE7EN had control, he might not get it. ->->727. cixelsyd tells skywhopper that the sum of appearance fees is not the same as what TEPs are charged to host a show. -->-->728. Gary Matczak clarifies cixelsyd’s comment: TEPs pay more to DCI than DCI pays to corps. --724. cixelsyd explains why the appearance fee math works; he adds that while it might not matter to SE7EN corps, it might have kept Teal and Glassmen going through the season; he also questions garfield’s citation of $2 million spent by a corps on programming; finally, he wants to know why garfield thinks SE7EN is less interested in money than respect. --749. Jeff Ream says that SE7EN are indeed motivated partly by money, which was clearly part of the 2010 proposal; he remains bothered by their inability to offer even one solution to DCI’s problems, which instill no confidence. 725. troopers1 says that SE7EN have taken the money that cixelsyd wants to distribute to the other corps. 708. joelw19 recognizes SE7EN corps as the biggest draw but wants to know what they plan to do to help DCI as a whole, whether they really think they can survive without DCI, and how a circuit with only seven corps would be structured. 716. mobrien feels DCI should only exist to sell event tickets and merchandise; it makes sense that the leading groups want a say in that activity; as a compromise DCI could accept SE7EN’s “proposals” in exchange for, say, DCI remaining “brass and percussion only” and increased spending on marketing—the latter being important and presently insufficient. 717. MikeN likes mobrien’s post (quoting from an unedited version), but questions why SE7EN deserve to be returned to the board en masse and notes that garfield found no difference in attendance at his show based on which corps perform. --719. mobrien says garfield’s experience may be unusual, and that it’s probably safer to have some top corps in each lineup than not. ->->721. CACTSC replies that top corps cost more in appearance fees ($5K/$3K/$2K are the levels) than is earned by increased sales. -->-->723. skywhopper asks for more information about TEP costs. -->>-->>729. CACTSC doesn’t know how DCI breaks it down; he notes that on top of the fee to DCI, which is more than $25K, they pay for stadium, advertising, housing, and more. -->-->730 (in part). jonnyboy observes of CACTSC’s experiences (#721) that while SE7EN corps may add branding value to DCI overall, they may not be worth having at any particular show. -->-->733. ripper replies to CACTSC that more TEPs should host Open Class shows. --->--->738. CACTSC would welcome Open Class corps if their tour came near him. -->-->734. jonnyboy offers language from the DCI TEP contract; he also wonders whether unsanctioned shows are allowed. -->>-->>743. garfield replies to jonnyboy that corps may only participate in unsanctioned shows if no other corps is there. --->>--->>748. skywhopper replies to garfield’s observation about unsanctioned shows with interest as to what that means for MiM shows. -->>-->>736. CACTSC asks jonnyboy for clarification; he figures that DCI gets $20K for appearance fees and $6K for other administrative purposes. --->>>--->>>739. jonnyboy quotes from a DCI e-mail responding to his inquiry on TEP costs and suggests that a different rate may be charged for shows with more than eight corps participating. ---->>>---->>>753. CACTSC tentatively accepts this hypothesis. -->>-->>744. garfield notes that early season shows are cheaper than late season shows. -->>-->>746. garfield asks for more information from jonnyboy about the contract. -->-->735. AlexL replies that CACTSC’s experiences suggest that, unlike DCP contributors who can tell the difference, the average fan is entertained as much by non-finalists as higher corps. --750. Jeff Ream thinks SE7EN making no legitimate effort to regain some board seats relates to their artistic mindset. 722. skywhopper explains that DCI does not directly sell tickets to the big events and leaves most merchandise sales to corps; rather DCI arranges tour/event needs, markets drum corps, and creates the brand; he also suggests that danielray may be right about how to organize certain other services. 726. cixelsyd notes again that SE7EN can vote along with the rest of the membership. 737. jumpball15 suggests that smaller judging panels would save DCI money, and praises corps who aren’t “keeping pace”, no matter what SE7EN think. 756. Jeff Ream seems to agree that panels (which only double up at DCI’s own shows) could be smaller. 762. bluesman wants DCI to hold firm against SE7EN’s “extortion”. 764. Tekneek feels that George Hopkins has been a leading proponent of increased drum corps costs, thus (inadvertently?) creating a situation ripe for hostile takeover. 765. Mello Dude says that people who predicted this outcome years ago were accused of conspiracy-mongering. 799. JamMan asks what he meant by saying Hopkins was responsible for increasing all corps’ costs. 770. joelw19 asks if SE7EN’s championships would winnow corps through a prelims and semifinals. 771. Tekneek seconds joelw19’s sarcasm. 774. BRASSO asks if SE7EN would subsequently limit the vote within their group to finalists. 772. charlie1223 asks if the leaked e-mail violates DCP’s terms of service. 773. garfield reports that this topic has already been discussed [see post #31] and the e-mail, by virtue of not being deleted, seems to have passed muster. --775. charlie1223 expresses disapproval of private e-mails being made public, and urges DCI to reprimand the staff person who leaked it. ->->777. CACTSC asks how charlie1223 knows the e-mail was leaked by a DCI staffer. ->->778. Tekneek says we don’t know how private Hopkins meant the message to be. ->->779. garfield seconds CACTSC’s question. -->-->788. Jeff Ream notes that he’s known YEA employees to leak documents. ->->782. skywhopper asks why charlie1223 assumes the leaker works for DCI, notes that the e-mail was certainly meant for wide distribution, and adds that the recipients presumably did not promise before receiving it that they would not make its contents public. -->-->784. charlie1223 responds that the letter had to come from DCI because that’s where it was sent. -->>-->>785. CACTSC explains that DCI’s board members are not “staff”, and furthermore, it may have reached DCP through several further recipients. -->-->795. N.E. Brigand notes that even in the case of the private e-mails between SE7EN members that were previously posted to and deleted from DCP, someone in that group felt they ought to be aired. -->-->783. Tekneek agrees that the e-mail is presented as an official statement. 776. Jeff Ream compares the leaker to Mark Felt (“Deep Throat”) in the Watergate reporting. --792. perc2100 criticizes Jeff Ream for the implication that this affair rises to the level of Watergate. ->->796. N.E. Brigand tells perc2100 that Michael Boo referenced Deep Throat very early in the discussion. -->-->800. Michael Boo suggests he was a man ahead of his time. -->>-->>822. Jeff Ream says he was joking with the Watergate comparison. --->>--->>823. Jeff Ream jokes about “Deep Throat”. --->>>--->>>825. Michael Boo jokes back. --->>>--->>>848. Jeff Ream returns the favor. 780. ShortAndFast tells charlie1223 that the provenance no longer matters; the e-mail has become a public document—and quotes the maxim, “sunlight is the best disinfectant”. --781. Tekneek queries ShortAndFast’s use of the phrase “marching band circuit” to describe DCI. ->->799 (in part). JamMan asks when drum corps was not marching band. -->-->818. Tekneek replies that once it was widely understood that drum corps and marching band were separate activities. -->>-->>820. Stu says there can be good business reasons for not insisting on the distinction. --->>--->>821. MikeD feels that to make the distinction is “elite posturing”. --->>>--->>>826. Michael Boo suggests that many people differentiate drum corps and marching band not because of elitism but because of genuinely perceived differences and deep love of this activity. ---->>>---->>>840. Fran Haring laughs. ---->>>>---->>>>842. Michael Boo nods. ----->>>>----->>>>843. Fran Haring nods back. ->->804. MikeD says that DCI has always been marching band. -->-->819. TerriTroop notes that MikeD tends to repeat himself on this point; she argues that there is a useful distinction between the terms. 786. skywhopper suggests that the new Drum Line Battle and Sound Sport initiatives call for a board not restricted to finalists. 787. ScoutMello says that DCI may be foreseeing the end of traditional drum corps and thus will move on while SE7EN destroys it. --794. danielray believes that understanding is topsy-turvy, but admires DCI’s plans. ->->797. ScoutMello indicates he was joking, and looks forward to DCI’s new projects. -->-->798. danielray notes that he fully supports the new ideas. 789. MikeN asks when the Januals begin. 790. Michael Boo tells MikeN that it’s a week away yet. 791. skywhopper asks why DCI’s new projects were announced now. 793. perc2100 responds that an announcement now demonstrates to SE7EN that DCI is thinking of new ways to support drum corps—unlike SE7EN, who admit to having no solutions. 801. BRASSO seconds perc2100’s feelings about the timing of the announcement. 802. N.E. Brigand asks if MiM is the most that SE7EN has any real hope of managing on their own, and exists mainly to bluff DCI into giving them leverage. 803. skywhopper says SE7EN probably believes they can manage a full tour, but are testing the waters this year; even so, he doesn’t think they can sell the same show over a whole season. 815. N.E. Brigand belatedly notices that UNCSQ [in post #212] had already suggested SE7EN were bluffing; he wonders if a line from The Big Lebowski about hostage-taking is apt. --821.(b) drumcorpsfever praises The Big Lebowski. 805. Fred Windish feels that DCP commenters are being hypocritical in endorsing DCI’s new initiatives when they criticized similar proposals from SE7EN. 806. soccerguy315 replies that the concern here has been SE7EN’s proposals to disenfranchise and impoverish the other corps, and DCI’s new plans don’t do that. --807. Fred Windish says that he was referring to comments here that the “radical changes” pushed by SE7EN had hurt drum corps. 808. ranintothedoor notes that it wasn’t SE7EN’s ideas but their attitude toward other corps that have turned people against them; additionally, DCI’s programs differ from SE7EN’s proposals in several ways. --811. Fred Windish acknowledges ranintothedoor’s response. 810. Stu criticizes Fred Windish’s logic by showing how the new initiatives, unlike what SE7EN have proposed, will not detract from the existing corps. --812. Fred Windish is taken aback by Stu’s criticism. ->->813. Stu is unimpressed by Fred Windish’s sarcasm. -->-->814. Fred Windish repeats himself. 816. N.E. Brigand affirms his sense that DCP objections to SE7EN derive from their plans to permanently stratify the activity. 817. skywhopper notes that SoundSport differs from SE7EN’s proposals in offering a new situation for these ideas, rather than forcing (possibly expensive) changes to what corps already do. 824. N.E. Brigand reposts garfield’s observation that DCI seems to have building a cash reserve, something SE7EN had requested in their 2010 proposal. 827. danielray claims garfield’s numbers don’t show underlying dependence on a line of credit. --828. N.E. Brigand asks if the cash reserve makes it possible for DCI to make less use of the line of credit. ->->829. garfield says that a line of credit ought to appear on the 990 form, and asks for more explanation. -->-->830. danielray replies that there are (quite legal) ways to keep a line of credit off the 990s. -->>-->>831.TerriTroop asks for further clarification. --->>--->>832. danielray indicates that only people inside DCI would know. --->>>--->>>838. garfield tells danielray his speculations appear unfounded. ---->>>---->>>850. Jeff Ream cracks a joke for Garfield. --->>>--->>>839. MikeN notes the inscrutability of danielray’s reply to TerriTroop. --->>>--->>>849. Jeff Ream doubts the accuracy of danielray’s analysis. 833. garfield wants to continue discussion of danielray’s points in the 990 thread. --834. danielray says he doesn’t care to further discuss this subject. 835. garfield notes that barring any clarifications from danielray or others, it does appear that DCI has been working to satisfy SE7EN’s financial concerns, and wonders that nothing about this was mentioned in the e-mail. 836. garfield informs danielray that he’ll continue this branch of discussion in the 990s thread in the hopes of getting more information from someone connected with DCI or the corps; he maintains the 990s are accurate snapshots of organizational finances. 837. skywhopper guesses that SE7EN wants some of that cash reserve. 841. jumpball15 urges DCI to hold their ground, and predicts that if SE7EN do split, they’ll quickly suffer from internal divisions. 844. skeptic cryptically says “They do it in DCA”. 846. N.E. Brigand asks if skeptic meant that DCA selects the voting membership based on the judges’ opinion of on-field performance, and if so, why that wouldn’t work for DCI. --851. Jeff Ream says DCA has lower budgets and smaller egos and that Buccaneers are sensitive to other corps’ concerns. --859. UNCGQ agrees that DCA’s system might work because the great majority of Open Class corps thus get representation. ->->860. cixelsyd corrects a small detail in UNCSQ’s post. 852. N.E. Brigand lists nine compromises that have been offered in this discussion that would give SE7EN a shot, or more than that, at getting seats on the board. 853. cixelsyd says his preference is that DCI take a tough stance, that SE7EN cannot survive without the other corps, and that the best way for SE7EN to get a seat on the board is to run for election; the system had already been overhauled just four years ago, and is fair to all members, and encourages them to generous with one another. 854. Jeff Ream agrees with cixelsyd, and doubts all SE7EN corps would leave if it came to that. --856. perc2100 feels the other corps might not elect a SE7EN director to the board because they feared further conflict, and that SE7EN directors probably haven’t bothered to run for this reason. ->->858. cixelsyd says SE7EN shouldn’t sell their futures short: they can yet contribute to the board, if they’re willing to compromise. 855. bneid26 wonders how serious SE7EN are and how committed the SE7EN directors besides George Hopkins are to the plan. 857. perc2100 feels the situation is probably not as bad as DCP commentary suggests, because (a) few if any who post here have significant insider information, (b) the e-mail is probably posturing, and © Cadets have a history of not following through on their threats. not listed above 211. (deleted) 271. (edited to naught by thirdcoast) 393. (deleted) 809. (deleted) 845. (edited to naught by Fran Haring)

Posted this on the G7 topic, but I was leaked an official response letter from the Troopers that is going to be presented this weekend. 1/23/13 The following is the Troopers Board of Directors' response to the 1/9/13 e-mail letter from the Directors of the "7", titled "re: Drum Corps International and the Future." As the leadership of a founding member of Drum Corps International, one of the very few who initiated the effort to create an independent, viable structure that would allow American Drum & Bugle Corps to thrive, we are greatly saddened by the current divisive state that exists within our activity. Our founder has been oft-quoted as saying "We are the show." The "we" to which he referred was not the Troopers, but to the drum corps of the era. DCI was created as a collective, an organization to work solely in the interest of American Drum & Bugle Corps. We, the leaders of the youth whom we serve, are responsible for maintaining that collective spirit. Therefore, in the name of that spirit, we firmly reject the claims and requests contained in this letter. We believe the claim that the current "tragic" economic realities of operating a drum corps was somehow "inevitable" and out of DCI's control is disingenuous. Obviously, many of the "7" have been responsible for it to a significant degree as they've advocated changes that have made competing more and more expensive while working to maintain a status quo where revenue is concentrated at the top. Equally disingenuous is the claim that the decline of open class corps is a "product of economic times." Times are clearly difficult as we all know too well, but we see this argument as a red herring. The decline is due to a failure of stewardship over the activity as a whole, a failure aided and abetted by the philosophy espoused by the "7", that has funneled the resources to the "haves" while ignoring the need to build capacity at all levels, and has indulged the whims of a few influential corps directors, preventing any real sense of community and mutual ownership of the activity, driving up expenses, and leaving corps without the skills and means to survive the tough economic times. While the "7" seem resigned to, if not even proud of it, we are not content with a situation in which there is a large disparity in "fiscal and organizational abilities." We believe true stewardship demands that resources should be allocated in a way that lifts the level of these capabilities throughout all strata of the activity. Similarly, we disagree with the argument that the governance of the activity should be exclusively in the hands of corps directors. In addition to representation from competing organizations, the governing organization needs to include voices that have demonstrated excellence in nonprofit management and who are motivated solely by a passion for keeping the activity alive and free from the pressure to advance the interests of individual drum corps. Competitive success is simply not the same thing as organizational capability. We are predominantly nonprofit organizations and the nonprofit world is a precise industry with benchmarks and best practices of organizational competence that have nothing to do with scoring well in a stadium. As an example of this, we believe board representation must be gained in legitimate fashion in a manner that is fair to all. Even though the initial DCI board was determined by competitive placement, the leadership of those very finalist corps, which included members of the "7", agreed to change the board to be an elected body. It was a selfless act on behalf of the collective that they easily could have refused to do in the interest of protecting their individual power. The current situation, where none of the "7" are represented on the board is due in no small part to their own deliberate non-participation in the electoral process that those twelve similarly situated drum corps established many years ago, and that we have all agreed to over time. Ultimately, if the "7" truly have some valid claim to superior qualifications, organizational ability and vision, we feel it is incumbent on them to act like it. This means running for election, honoring and following procedures outlined in current bylaws, ending petty bickering, refraining from issuing ultimatums, and participating in the process. To summarize, the Troopers' Board of Directors stands by the efforts of the greater drum corps community to bring stewardship, fairness and parity to the activity, as opposed to the self-serving and divisive demands of the "7". We reject the tactics currently employed by this group, its disregard for due process and parliamentary procedure, its lack of respect for duly established organizational bylaws, its penchant for resorting to disrespectful and aggressive behavior at the expense of mature and mutually respectful deliberation, its lack of professionalism and all of its attempts to undermine the unity of the activity. We are heavily and wholeheartedly invested with our colleagues in governing in a way that will strengthen and grow the activity as a whole and at all levels, including the organizations represented in the January 9 letter, not diminish it as the very name the "7" seems to endorse. To this end, we applaud the recent proposal to create a regular opportunity for board members of DCI member corps to meet, engage in mutual problem solving and share best practices to better serve the activity and the respective members as a whole. It is thanks to the collective of volunteer board members in each of these organizations, who truly bear the fiduciary responsibility for this activity, that all of our organizations are able to put "...the rubber to the road," and it would only serve to strengthen our organizations by allowing the free exchange of ideas between those bases. By tapping into this broad and diverse experience, we are confident that we will soon see an age where our activity will be united once again as a collective, and that the numbers of organizations, experiences, and opportunities for young musicians involved with DCI will flourish and grow. Respectfully, The Troopers Board of Directors Milward Simpson, President

I do....it's about discussing ideas individuals think are good. And if anyone thinks withdrawing all real service from open-class is a good idea....do I really need to finish this sentence? Is that really up for sincere debate? It was only leaked after it was presented. They had as many meetings as they thought were needed to develop the proposal to the point of presenting it to the DCI board. Well, then, if the G7 proposal is what results from four months of in-person meetings and numerous teleconferences among these seven directors, I can safely "speculate" that I wouldn't want to hand majority control of the DCI board to them.

First of all, does that make it OK if they only "brainstormed" to remove all service from open-class? Secondly, the G7 PowerPoint presented in May of 2010 was the result of four months of collaboration by the G7, where they had plenty of opportunities to take those brainstorms and refine, vet, and reach consensus. How do we know this? Because those seven corps told us so in their septuple press release: Much as you'd like to believe otherwise, the G7 proposal was vetted for four months before being presented to DCI.

The response was dated Jan 23. We are just now seeing it here on Jan 25. Try again, and next time, check before you speak and YOU keep it classy. edit: thanks for the thumbs down as well!

You can donate to the corps directly from their website using Paypal or a credit card. I just did, and I encourage all of you who agree with Troop's position to do the same.

That letter was certainly a better constructed, and more realistic assessment of the activity than the letter that started all of this.

Fantastic response. I especially applaud this line: "Ultimately, if the "7" truly have some valid claim to superior qualifications, organizational ability and vision, we feel it is incumbent on them to act like it."

Who cares about achieving something that has no risk?

I wonder how many here will spend an extra buck or two at Troops souvie stand this year? I wonder if the other directors realize the marketing and support position they could command by taking a similar position public as Troop has.

Seconded. I like the Troopers. I like them even more today after reading this.

Fusion is pleased to announce that Richard Warga has joined the Administration as Business Manager. Richard Warga has been contributing to the drum and bugle corps community as a performer, instructor, judge and administrator for more than 50 years. His participation dates back to his days as a baritone horn player with the Bridgeport CT PAL Cadets junior corps from 1959 to 1968. He played baritone and soprano horn and marched as drum major of the New York Skyliners from 1969 to 1977 and again from 1984 to 1993. He played soprano horn when he performed with the Hawthorne Caballeros from 1994 to 2000. Richard taught Marching and Maneuvering and served as caption head with a number of well-known junior corps from 1969 to 1977, including Kingston Indians, Westchester Horizons, Fairfield CT Colonades Drum Corps and color guard, Avant Garde of Saratoga County NY, St. Raphael’s Golden Buccaneers of Bridgeport, the Garfield Cadets, Milford CT Shoreliners and Waterbury CT PAL color guard. He served as M&M instructor with the Long Island Sunrisers in 1980. Richard was the New York Skyliners drill designer and instructor from 1974 to 1977, and taught M&M from 1989 to 1993. He taught M&M with Hawthorne Caballeros from 2001 to 2003, and he judged M&M and color guard with the Metro All American Judges Association from 1969 to 1976 and has served as an advisor to a number of associations and circuits. Richard was business manager for the Bayonne Raiders Junior Drum and Bugle Corps in 1998 and 1999. He served as Assistant Director with New York Skyliners in 1992 and 1993. He was Assistant Business Manager for Hawthorne Caballeros from 2003 to 2008 and was their treasurer from 2009 to 2011. In 2012, Richard served on the board of directors for the Connecticut Hurricanes. He is also the founder, charter member and first director of the Skyliners Alumni Drum Corps. In 2009, Rich was inducted into both the New Jersey Drum Corps Hall of Fame and the World Drum Corps Hall of Fame. Welcome Richie!

TROOP A LOOP

No, they definitely are not. He's a greedy ### #####. I wish he would leave the activity. Just get out now and leave the rest of us alone. You think things would've gotten this bad concerning the G7 without him? Hell, it probably wouldn't even exist. They realize that they can't act on their own, so might as well go back and have control over what is currently working (even if it's not up snuff by their definition). I can guarantee that the rest of the G7 aren't getting along right now. I wouldn't be surprised to see them disband this effort after it's all said and done (here's to wishful thinking!). I hate seeing the corps I love get into this mess and having their name run through the mud...but they did it to themselves. They don't even like George and sure as hell hate BD. I don't know what kind of sales pitch they were given to be complicit in all of this nonsense.

I am so over all this ########. Shut up, get along, get out on the road, and throw it down.

Mr. Jones would be proud.

I always remember the Colts. I realize that they haven't made top 12 for a while, yet I do remember them year after year. In fact, this year they have made some moves that make their opportunity to advance even greater. I'm excited for the corps members that can be part of this. I really hope they enjoy their experience with the new staff members. Some of the above discussions bring me back to Phantom 2003. On Youtube there are two recordings posted in 2009 of an early camp from April 2003. For those of you who haven't seen them, they are titled "Phantom Regiment 2003 - April Camp - Rare Recording!" Going back to 2003 I can't remember any camp recordings of Phantom being released early. In fact, if I had heard these recordings before the 2003 show year I would have started the season with a different impression of their show music. However, for those of you who remember, Phantom shocked many with their show in 2003. In fact, at one point in the season they were considered a darkhorse. Listen to the above recordings to note how different portions of the show sound compared to what we heard on the field. Phantom 2003 excited a lot of long time fans of the corps. New uniforms, new Bb King horns, new percussion arranger. The surprise was well worth it when it was finally revealed. The above videos don't portray how the product on the field turned out. I sincerely hope that the Colts corps members experience the same thing. The fact that leaked videos are dealt with does not bother me one bit. I also respect that there are corps that let people know every step of the creative process. To be honest though, this fan loves a great surprise!

WOW! Holy F U! I'm cutting a check to the Troopers tonight

Congratulations to the Troopers organization! Your letter was truly one of a caring organization that is willing to stand up for the activity in a time of turmoil. YOUR voice should be heard loud and clear as you are one of the founding members of DCI. I hope to see the other "non G7" corps stand up and be heard as well. I surely will support a the Troopers a bit extra this year as a "Thank You" for there stand for DCI.

Impressive summary Rock on Troopers !!!!!

Thank you for sharing this.

Classy, well written and succinct. Thanks Troopers for expressing in writing what many of us wanted to say.

I agree with this 100%. Holding drum corps design as if it's a national secret is goofy to an extent, but if that's what a corps director wants, so be it. IMO, getting all worked up about a corps keeping stuff a secret is just as goofy as a corps keeping a secret, you know (insert line from STAR WARS: "who's more foolish: the fool, or the fool who follows" :tongue:/> ) *edit* I'm honestly not calling anyone out who is looking for more content for corps in the winter camp months for being goofy. I'm merely saying that both 'extremes' of the "argument" are silly

REALLY happy that they're at least exploring the idea of streaming Finals! :thumbup: I was pretty thorough in my explanation that I don't attend finals anyway due to financial issues, however I could definitely afford to pay a premium for streaming Finals.

NO! "They can add into a show and attend champs but no real service is provided" It is not saying the corps provide no service... It says that no separate competitive arena/circuit will be provided. They tag along with existing shows. And others were talking about appearance fees... How can you infer that? That particular slide is too vague. Really vague... No wonder the confusion. It's so wrong that this is what is spread but about G7 when in reality, the context clues show otherwise! WoW thanks corpsband for looking it up.

In the summer of 1968 (If memory serves) I walked up the road to my local VFW post to take a look at this "drumcorps thing" my sister was a member of. The director of this drumcorps put a Baritone (valve/slide) in my hand and an instructor taught me how to get a sound from the horn. I wasn't all that interested in the horn, but the girls I saw in the colorguard were "interesting". That was enough to keep me there for the day. At the end of the rehearsal, I joined the corps. Doing so was a wise decision. If not for this corps director, I would most likely be dead or in prison today. Earl Huff is a name most of you won't recognize. He marched with a Cincinnati Corps named "Men of Ohio". He is retired now. He was a "father" when I needed one, a role model and a mentor. Something about this activity brings out the absolute best in a person, be they a marching member or a corps director. Earl never won a DCA championship. He isn't a member of the hall of fame. He doesn't have any rings or medals hanging on his wall. No, Earl Huff isn't famous. He just "slogged it out" on a VFW practice field full of inexperienced kids, day after day, year after year. This I can tell you: every one of those kids are today, successful adults. We are his championship, his hall of fame and his "ring".

Booming synthesizers and narrations have soured my desire to buy the newer DCI DVDs. I substitute by watching brass-only warmups or practices on youtube. --SiletzSpey

lol That's cause we're all members of the Steve Cooley fan club...

The survey is just to learn what you think to help them better serve you in the future. But it's also a way to keep contact info up to date, just in case you're no longer walking the earth. Different surveys are organized in different years to get a pulse on buying trends and to help plan future products. Over my years with DCI, I've seen the LPs discontinued, as well as the audio tapes. I'm hoping DVDs stick around, but with the incredibly cheap price of Blu-Ray players, who knows? The survey is the flip side of people who have stated in the past that DCI doesn't care about them. I think this is preferable.

And yet this recent letter - which some would have us believe came directly from the pen of Hopkins himself - doesn't track to the PPT. There are many elements of the PPT that can't be found or supported in the letter and vice versa. So which is definitive? I'll answer that question. Neither. Both were meant to provoke discussion. Neither are carved in stone. Neither represent an ultimatum. Both are in fact unique points on an arc of discussion and ultimately compromise. It's gonna be okay (except for all the economics and demographics and natural catastrophe and Ann Hathaway getting married without giving me a shot and ...). HH

I'll ... just go stand over there for a while, thanks. Mike

BAM. A+ from the Troopers. Seems like they made many points that have been mentioned here.

Thanks, Troopers, for standing up for the drum corps activity with your letter in response to the "7"! I hope everyone here considers making a donation or buying some merch from Troop here in the off season.

I’d love for some corps to play something really obscure and academic, perhaps something with really odd keys and difficult time signatures.Something that you had to be ‘in the know’ to appreciate but could never actually enjoy. But you’d could pretend to enjoy it to show people how refined and cultured you are It’d be cool if that composer died in a horrible fashion in a country that no longer exists and you couldn’t pronounce their name...someone like Chinua Achebe but dead

Now that is how you write a letter. My love for the Troopers organization has instantly doubled.

Yesterday took my Annual Anti-Terrorism Training and never going to Los Angles if I can help it. Kidding... training had you going to LA and lot of bad crap going down around you, topped off by getting a gun in your face and being taken hostage. But part of the training applied to real life in how to be aware of what's going around you and things you can do not to get yourself in bad situations in the first place. Which got me thinking...... Corps have a lot of younger people, many of who are away from home in the first place. In this day of preditors, ID theft, stupid Internet activities, being in strange towns that might not have shows in the best places, etc, etc what do corps do to help the members protect themselves? Can't watch over them but IMO they (the members) should have information to cut down on the chance that they will become a victim in some way. Anything being done like this?

A hands on exhibit similar to a science museum, where the physical differences between a G Bugle and Bb instrument are described complete with cross sectional illustrations, cutaway horns, etc. The exhibit will then conclude with a large screen video of Carolina Crown's hornline playing their 2012 standstill rendition of Fanfare for the Common Man on their Bb intruments in its entirety while standing in an arc outdoors. A digital decibel meter would be displayed in the lower corner of the image as CC plays. Then, as the video continues to roll, they will be asked to pull their mouthpieces and put their Bbs on the ground in front of them, pick up 3-V G bugles already laid out, insert their mouthpeices and replay FFTCM with the same number of musicians. Given the telent level CC draws there is no doubt in my mind they could pull this off.

God knows I'm not a drummer and was never a Skyliner, although I loved them and loved to compete against them. Just saw the passing of Eric Perriloux. Eric had to inspire more young drummers and by extension musicians and fans than almost anyone in History. Another giant passed on. Rest in Peace.

I'd like to see exhibits on the evolution of drum corps stuff... •uniforms from heavy wool through washable stretch bibs that allow for greater movement, hat/shako styles •flags from single colors and designs through multiple colors sewn together to new computer printed designs •rifles from the heavy ones with the bolts built in to lightweight contemporary ones and Air Blades •bugles from valve and rotor models to 2-valve and 3-valve models in G and into trumpets and bell-front tubas •mouthpiece evolution, Jet Tone mouthpieces for screaming •snare drums from rope-tensioned through evolutions of shells to accommodate additional strengthening and more lugs •drum heads from calfskin to plastic and then Mylar and Kevlar heads and why those heads necessitated stronger shells and more lugs •tenor drums from single drums to doubles, triples, quads, quints and beyond, plus the North tenors •bass drums from single pitch to multiple drums •drum materials from wood to composites to plastics (Ludwig Vistalite) and other materials •mallet keyboards and timpani from models we had to carry to those in the pit •Larry McCormick's flapjack timpani •unusual pit instruments •drum harnesses from plain leg braces through T-braces •reinforced drummer harness vests and today's light-weight carriers •stationary drum harness set-ups that people can stand inside to see what it's like to play snares, tenors and bass drums •tracing of the controversy of amplification and electronics,•Astroturf and other artificial grass surfaces •oscilloscope readings of reverb in famous stadiums, both open and enclosed •a computer with elementary drill writing software to allow visitors to try their hand at creating a drill form •souvie items from old-style buttons and t-shirts to today's offerings •recordings from LPs and then cassettes to CDs, DVDs and Blu-Ray •drum corps album art •guard costumes from looking just like the rest of the corps to dance costumes •sleeping arrangements from sleeping bags on bare floors and cots to Aerobeds •sunscreen protection from the pre-SPF days to now •hydration changes from plain water through electrolyte offerings •food service changes from simple offerings on a table to the food trucks of today •corps equipment vehicles from U-Haul trailers to step vans, fifth wheels and semis •have an actual food truck and equipment truck parked outside at major shows for fans to walk through •devices and training methods developed for athletic conditioning and injury prevention •photos of each DCI World Championship stadium (including Division II/III-Open Class venues) showing view from performers' perspective •tickets •classic videos of DCI founders and Hall of Fame members talking about what they did •more, more and more

In the mid-1970s Cavaliers, we were told, "Don't do anything stupid." We were also told that if we did do something stupid, to be sure we weren't wearing our corps jackets at the time. Some of my fondest memories were of free time in Montreal, where my buddy and I went to check out the old French influence of Old Montreal, Boston, where we went on the historic walking tour of gravesites of our nation's founders, and Manhattan, where we went on a self-guided tour of modern architecture to check out Frank Lloyd Wright's Guggenheim Museum and Mies van der Rohe's Seagram Building. Granted, those probably weren't the sort of things most members chose to do...(Shakespeare festivals, indigenous art galleries, poetry readings, volunteering in soup kitchens), but we were into different interests. Still, compared with today, we lived in much simpler times then.

Oh, man, I hope you are right. In addition to being a ton of fun, it will have the added feature of driving the drum corps dinos insane. Winning!

So instead of this turning into a anti-G7 thread can we hear any updates or possibly video clips anyone may have from the camp.

Pretty sure back when DCI had the 'All-Girl' division the winner had a female center snare. Unless they had an even number of snares that is!

Cadets 2005.

Also, the young man who was going to be drum major for the Glassmen has found himself as one of the drum majors for bd now this year. Great seeing Glassmen finding new homes.

Amen!

To: George and the directors of the "7" From: The Membership of Drum Corps International Re: Your previous failed coup attempt and math Salutations, We find it interesting that you are communicating to us by that most impersonal and ineffective means of relationship building, email. But we digress. Since your failed attempt to overthrow the DCI board of directors in 2010, culminating in your removal from the board, we have attempted to work with you to retain you within the DCI family. The fracture of such a small organzation can only produce negative results, and as such it's our desire to remain together. To that end we have allowed you, within the DCI framework, to organize, run, and retain the profits from 6 events this coming summer. We wish you well. Your proposal to return to the DCI board of directors and revise the board membership to the directors of the top 12 corps was reviewed. However, a simple math calculation shows that with 12 voting members, 7 of which likely coming from the "7", means the "7" will gain control of the board of directors. Since you proved yourselves untrustworthy in 2010 and have done nothing to change that perception, we're going to have to say "no thanks" to your very thinly veiled "offer." With best wishes for the new year, THE Membership of Drum Corps International :cool:/>

2013 Glassmen: "See You Next Year" Here's hoping your financials get in order and we see you again. You're a class organization. You will be missed this year!

Now if they would bring back their classic look from the 70's and re-establish their identity like the Scouts have done, they would take a giant step forward.