cixelsyd

A simple "yes, it was some of each" would have sufficed. As for the whole Holy Name/1958 saga, please do not misunderstand where I am coming from. This was a corps at the pinnacle of the activity, both on and off the field, IMO. Their character and leadership carried them through this transition and made them a role model for other corps as the activity evolved. Their accomplishments are a source of pride for all of us who love drum corps. May your holiday season be a joyous one.

Yes. Blue Devils folding Bluecoats folding Santa Clara Vanguard folding Carolina Crown folding Cavaliers folding Boston Crusaders folding Blue Knights folding Blue Stars folding Cadets folding Mandarins folding Crossmen folding Phantom Regiment folding Spirit of Atlanta folding Pacific Crest folding Academy folding Colts folding DCI folding DCA folding another sex abuse scandal woodwinds

Does it matter? Score worse: some here will be butthurt. Score better: some here will be butthurt. Fold: some here will be butthurt.

Sorry... did no one answer this question? Of the 22 world-class corps, 20 are voting members. Genesis and Music City are non-voting WC corps.

Compromise, as in both parties working out an agreement in advance of the event? Not in this case. More from that same Dave Shaw account: "All parties connected with the Corps viewed this as a temporary, single-event venture, independent of the Church. The name, the equipment, the uniforms, and the funds from the Holy Name Cadet account were not used. It was assumed, therefore, that when the "Garfield Cadets" returned from Chicago, the Cadets would resume their identity as the Holy Name Cadets once again."

Then present your "facts". Better yet, why take either your word or mine? Why not go straight to the source - people who were actually there back then? As Dave Shaw, Cadet alum 1950-1958, describes it (or read the whole webpage yourself at http://theholynamecadets.org/history/history_58.php)... So to review: corps knows church does not want them to go to Nationals corps goes anyway corps "assuming" compromise will go over well proves they did not communicate about their plan to the church corps procures equipment, uniforms corps adopts new name Again I ask, who pulled away from whom? (Spoiler alert - both corps and church pulled away from each other.)

And how does the DCI tour compare? over 100 semis over 4000 performers over 1000 crew rakes in less than $20 million right around 100 shows, mostly in different cities So your reaction is... ?

No... I am saying it was some of each. That is why I said, "Not all were for the same reasons, of course." That is why I responded to your sweeping, errant generalizations in the first place. JimF-LowBari understood what I wrote:

I love the "us vs. them" spin you put on all of drum corps history. Sponsors "pulled away" from drum corps. Oh, those evil sponsors! To be fair, there has been quite a bit of drum corps pulling away from sponsors. Numerous drum corps programs were formed/sponsored by churches, veterans posts and other civic organizations, to serve the youth of their constituency with an inspiring, character-building, yet practical program. Corps programs like these often operated for many successful years. And all through the decades, many of them ceased operating, or parted ways with their original sponsor, even after having been successful. Not all were for the same reasons, of course. But one common issue was "mission creep". Over time, some corps pursued their competitive ambitions by recruiting members outside of their sponsoring constituency. Senior corps recruited members outside of their sponsoring civic/veterans organization. Junior corps recruited kids from outside of the church, out of town, or out of area. Another competitive ambition was to pursue higher honors than those available within the practical travel range of the sponsor. Regional, national or international competition may never have been the intention of the sponsor. Growth of the corps program beyond the sponsoring mission often severed the relationship between sponsor and corps. In other cases, it simply meant that the corps grew to develop additional means of funding and administration, supplementing those of the sponsor. You need to ask who was pulling away from whom in each of those cases. If this is not a teachable moment, what is? Your own corps caused its dissolution/reorganization precisely because of their "touring" (as it was in 1950s terms). The Holy Name Cadets were happily sponsored by the church of that name for many highly competitive and well traveled years. But in 1958, the church had some infrastructure to take care of, and expected their corps program to understand that it was their turn to cut back on travel, and pitch in. The corps not only refused... they kept on traveling, raising funds for their trips by competing with their own church for the charitable attention of their community. The corps knew they were going to cross a line that would cause dissolution of the "Holy Name Cadets"... and they crossed it. So who pulled away from whom?

That is stretching it, in several ways. 1. If by "most", you mean slightly over 50%, you may be correct. I hope you are not implying we should ignore the other 49%. 2. Before those things you mention, we still had the percussion arms race, the first three of the five total brass choir replacements, and expanded travel. 3. Like most things, "modern rolling stock" worked its way into the activity as an "option" that eventually became "necessary". You could stow 1970s instrumentation in the storage compartments of buses, but many DCI member corps had developed a full eighteen-wheeler equipment/uniform trailer by the time the pit rule was passed in the early 1980s. So they were immediately able to pile on full concert marimbas and racks of assorted pit percussion that would not fit in bus storage. Just one of countless examples of how the top 10-25 corps passed rules that had "unintended consequences" for the other 400 corps... make that 300... no, wait, 200... 100...

1. No, that has not been explained time and time again. Because if it was, someone would have pointed out that of the six major vehicles needed to "move a corps today", two of them are only necessitated because of the equipment arms race of the past half century. 2. If there are other costs that we cannot control, that is all the more reason to focus on the ones we can. Or are you suggesting that the rising cost of any one item be used as an excuse to abandon all budgetary discipline? (Would like to be at your place on the 25th, if that is your philosophy.)

Once you admit money matters, it becomes difficult to dismiss the cost side of that equation. If only we were talking about just a marimba, or "an amp" (whatever that is). Instead, the activity has added brass voices one by one, and replaced the entire brass choir five times. Percussion started buying extra bass drums so that they could saw them in half and make tymp-toms, then they added actual tympani and various mallet instruments that were a challenge to carry. So then we needed a place to put those heavy things down (the pit), which opened the floodgates for equipment we could never carry. Guard equipment changes. Props. Amplification. Electronic instruments. Nationwide touring. A caravan of buses and trucks (now multiple trucks for the equipment, and another one for the mobile kitchen). If you still think cost was irrelevant, and that "everybody followed suit" when only 10% as many corps still exist, then we will just have to agree to disagree. (But even your disagreement seems to admit agreement.)

You think increased costs are irrelevant to why there are only 40-something corps left in the junior drum corps activity?

The myth that "cultural relevance" is essential. Drum corps did not become popular because it was culturally relevant - exactly the opposite. The military, veterans organizations and civic groups had already moved on to full-fledged bands. Drum corps became popular in the 1920s and 1930s while performing right alongside such marching bands, because people were amazed by the effects that could be produced with more limited, culturally irrelevant instrumentation.

Considering less than 50 corps remain from the hundreds upon hundreds we used to have, it is hard to claim "just about everybody followed suit". Oh, the irony. You are the one always saying that judges can only judge what is presented, not what is absent. Now you let the truth slip out.