ScoutMello

The average person uses Google for everything, and if the link presented by google doesn't work, they're not going to go through any effort to figure out where the content is they were trying to get to. This is bad for DCI as it means people clicking on DCI content aren't getting to it. Less eyes on their pages is bad. The perception that DCI's website doesn't work is bad. Invalidating all the search engine weight that has developed on DCI.org's existing links is bad. (The 'new' links are probably showing up in Google search results, but not on the first page. If it's not on the first page, it might as well not exist) Say someone has a particular article bookmarked. Well, now that bookmark is broken. Bad user experience all around. On the web, friction is your worst enemy. You want your content to be as easy to get to as possible. The more speed bumps people hit trying to get to your content, the more people give up and do something else. Also, there shouldn't be a transition period. You develop the new site, test it, then flip the switch and redirect traffic. If your new site doesn't have these kinds of details squared away, then you shouldn't be flipping the switch.

No, it's not. You are free to believe and practice whatever faith you want. When you provide a public service, you are expected to provide it to the public. Not a subset of the public you happen to agree with. Either provide the public service, or do not. That is your freedom, and that is as far as it extends. By being expected to respect civil rights, you are not being discriminated against. You are being required to adhere to the generally agreed upon social contracts set by the society you are a part of. You are not being asked to change your beliefs. You are not being barred from practicing your faith. All that is being asked is that you tolerate people different from you just enough that everyone can get through their day unmolested. It's funny how 'tolerance' can have such negative connotations for people in these discussions, when it's really such a low bar to expect. You don't have to love everyone. You don't even have to like everyone. You just need to tolerate them. That's it. Tolerate. "allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference."

I brought this up on Facebook in response to Dann Petersen. I also agree it merits it's own thread.

I do not expect DCI to relocate as a result of this legislation. I fully recognize that such action is practically unfeasible. I do hope that DCI makes it very clear to their contacts in Indianapolis that they have received significant feedback from their customer base about this legislation, that it puts DCI in a difficult decision, and it may have negative financial repercussions for both DCI and local Indianapolis businesses. Will it matter? Not on it's own. But it adds a voice to the chorus of those opposing this legislation. Speaking out matters. There is also the concern that this legislation increases the risk for performing members (and staff/spectators) to end up in hostile, potentially dangerous situations. Thats a concern I hope DCI is voicing to whomever they interact with at the local/state level in Indiana.

I don't think this is something for DCI to dictate, and instead is up to each member corps to decide on their own. Some corps are populist, some corps are cerebral, and the activity is better for the diversity.

So it's bad to celebrate someone who: Starts playing piano at age 4 Composes their first piece at age 13 Is granted early admission to the Tisch School of Arts (NYU) Becomes one of the most successful music professionals in the world Something tells me we could do worse for a role model. Also, you might want to consider that her performances are just as much satire of pop music as they are examples of it. So... you picked a really bad example here.

From what I recall, attendance numbers for the event have been steadily dropping year over year. (Which is why it's no longer a full-roster show)

This is incredibly dismissive. An average horn player will do an average job on that solo. A horn player playing that solo beautifully deserves the same respect as a baritone player playing it beautifully. You also come across as ignorant of the details of Horn. It's widely regarded as the most difficult brass instrument to master for a reason. Here's one tip: The fundamental of a F Horn is actually lower than that of a baritone/trombone. So when your baritone is playing 'pretty high up' to cover that solo, it's also 'pretty high up' for the horn player. The difference is, that's the range horn players are usually playing in: Three to four octaves above the fundamental. Think about playing your instrument that far up in the partial series. Think about the difficulty in slotting notes, of intonation, of tone quality. That is what horn players deal with from day one of playing the thing.

Something we need to keep in mind from a logistical perspective: Where are potential new members coming from? BOA. They're coming from high school and college marching programs. We no longer have the depth in the activity that lends to internal progression. The concept of a 'feeder corps' is pretty much dead. The activity is no longer in a state where young people join up with their local corps to get their feet wet and then move to the 'big leagues' of DCI. They're going from their high school programs to the corps of their choice. So that being the case, it is practically inevitable for DCI to adjust to the experiences and expectations of their potential recruits.

4,000 responses in this poll is still irrelevant, as the polling population is self-selecting from a very specific group, and thus would be extremely biased. Even if you got a response from every single user registered to DCP, it would still be worthless to assess anything more than "What do DCP forum members think?"

Obviously someone currently involved in the activity does, or else the proposal wouldn't have passed.

Drum Corps simply isn't big enough to support something like this. The 'MBI' acronym is already taken. By a drum corps. On a serious note, something like this is really a non-starter. Drum Corps simply isn't big enough to support this kind of thing. Fracturing is the last thing it needs.

This will shrink the audience and potential performer pool. We've seen bits of shows cut from recordings due to rights issues, and more importantly, people CARE that those bits are missing. Playing music that is currently culturally relevant is something that needs to continue. Corps that don't live within their means fold. There is no reason to make a rule that says "Don't fold or we'll cut you"

Hope no one from the IRS is reading this. Thats just what corps need right now: AUDITS.

Apologies, for some reason I read it as a discussion of judging execution vs design. I misread and retract.

Any new band director taking over an established program would beg to differ.

I don't think this has ever been a stated goal of judging, and it's entirely unrealistic. If it were true, a corps could come out and do an 8-5 marching block across the field playing Mary Had a Little Lamb and potentially win because they execute the crap out of it. Once you start taking into account attempted difficulty, you're judging show design.

I'm going to be harsh: If you turned down the opportunity to play in a world class drum corps hornline because of the key of the horns used, you're an idiot. Full stop. Playing a G horn instead of a Bb horn is not a 'musical challenge' nor is it a 'new instrument'. The key is an implementation detail. What matters is the music you're playing, the musicians you're playing it with, and the staff teaching it to you. I doubt any potential marchers care about the key of the horn. I doubt switching to Bb/F had any appreciable impact on new member interest. The switch from G to Bb/F was entirely about economics and logistics. Companies were not going to keep making Bugles for a shrinking number of ensembles. Simply because of numbers, the quality of instrument was going down, and the cost was going up. With Bb/F brass, we benefit from economies of scale and a massive second-hand market.

It's not [iNSERT DECADE YOU THINK DRUM CORPS WAS GOOD HERE] anymore. Maybe we should do some things like we did before. Maybe we should do other things we've never done before. Those decisions need to be made with the current context of the activity in mind. The current cultural climate. The current economy. The current expectations of potential performers. The current expectations of potential audiences. Etc. Just because it worked in [DECADE] doesn't mean it would work today. That's a faulty assumption based on nostalgia.

No one is saying it's necessary to replace horns that often. They're saying it's more cost effective to do so. This is only possible now that corps are on Bb brass, and can sell their horns to band programs that need them. Bands get near-new horns for less than retail. Corps are able to keep their lines in consistently better condition from year to year for less overall cost. Everybody wins.

It's more like getting angry when people keep calling your sedan a car.

Organizations shouldn't cater to any particular part of their member base. The organization should cater to the good of the organization itself. DCI should be concerned with making their circuit successful. It's up to the member corps to be successful within the confines of that circuit. If we're going to keep making sports analogies, I'm sure there are many rule changes that have happened in sports that specifically limited some of the more successful teams. (Salary caps, for example) It can make sense to accommodate the less successful groups when the circuit as a whole benefits.

Oh please. The drum corps you marched was wholly different from the drum corps that came before you, just as the drum corps that came after is again wholly different. (I don't know when you actually marched, but it doesn't matter) We all think the version of drum corps we marched was 'real drum corps', and such a position is entirely nostalgic and entirely irrational. You are not being 'disrespected' by those that came after because they do some aspect of drum corps differently. The people marching today do not have the same context as you did when you marched. The people in the audience do not have the same context as they did when you marched. The world has changed. Culture has moved on. Analysis of what drum corps is doing today needs to be done in the context of the present. Comparing it to drum corps that existed in whatever historical context you arbitrarily determine to be 'correct' is a waste of time. Heck, compare drum corps of the 30's to drum corps of the 60's. Then compare the 60's to the 90's. I would feel comfortable saying that drum corps changed more in the first timeframe than the second. (and again more in the second timeframe than from the 90's to current day)

I'm not saying that all the changes made over the years have been successful. But right now the activity does not appear to be in a healthy and sustainable state, and that being the case it is wholly inappropriate to 'stay the course'. something something definition of insanity something something...

Given the how the activity is shrinking, do you think continuing to do the same thing is a viable approach? If things aren't working, then evolution is a necessity.