cixelsyd

I did not attribute it to anything. Of course, one of our most knowledgeable corps leaders is voicing concern about the high cost of operating a corps, even at a startup level. Should I disregard his concern?

Where do you get that question from? You described how amplification, and the variety of mallet selection it facilitates, result in improved sound. Music judges then evaluate this improved sound, and therefore award it higher scores. Anything there that you disagree with?

I think you missed the word I bolded above - that might explain how you and I are reading that statement so differently. Meanwhile, what do you consider a "substantial number"? Since 2003, we have lost 45 corps that I know of. DCI only had 40 left in 2013, so 45 seems substantial to me.

What I like does not matter. If these changes (or any future ones) are intended to "improve" the judged product, that is fine. Just say so - before, during and after they are proposed and ratified. Do not tell critics that they are "options" or "taste preferences" before passage, and "improvements" after. While you may be technically correct that no one is literally "penalized" for not using certain equipment "improvements", it is clear that not using them reduces your ability to score points the way your peers do - like competing with one arm tied behind your back. The connotation is no different. The more of this bait-and-switch I see, the more I think we should presume that any such change that emerges with approval from the judge/instructor caucus WILL be evaluated as an "improvement" when judges are assigning scores. Lesson learned.

And when "someone" = "the judging community", the change is not just an "option".

You could take any isolated cost and make the same case. For instance: "As to "wiping out" corps by rising fuel costs...I have never seen one mention of a corps that folded just because they had to buy fuel. A corps that could not afford to buy fuel, yet did so anyway, had far larger financial issues than the small increase in fuel price. Please provide us with a list of a "substantial number" of corps that were "wiped out" only due to fuel costs." The larger point is the contention that overall costs are a problem. Hundreds of corps have folded citing inability to meet those overall costs. Each component cost is a contributor to the overall problem. (Edited because strikethrough is currently not working. Mods, any insight on that?)

"Optional enhancement"? Clever oxymoron there. And so it continues. Even now, proponents of these changes contend they are "optional", yet also competitively advantageous. That talking point has been pervasive all through the rules change processes of the past 15 years, whether in writing or not. I do not have all 15 of the amplification proposals, so I cannot say which ones actually put that tactic in ink. But the any-key brass proposal was full of it (so to speak).

I cannot believe we are still having this debate. I have watched people squirm for years now with this bait-and-switch routine. New equipment is introduced in a proposed rule change. There is always an underlying premise that it improves the sound... otherwise, why introduce it? But the added cost will inevitably raise concern. It is disingenuous to contend that these "improvements" will not become part of the cost of outfitting a fully competitive corps; yet, the campaigns in favor of each new equipment class are inevitably fluffed up with rhetoric about options, colors, the sonic palette, and so forth... whatever it takes to drown out the criticism. This duplicity returns whenever the equipment is questioned. They are all "improvements", unless we are debating their cost - then they are "optional". But many judges are also instructors. You are both an instructor and a judge. When you work with your band, you use amplification and a variety of mallets because you believe it improves the sound. Therefore, when you judge, you still believe that proper use of those tools improves the sound... like you say here: So when you admit the above, is it really that irrational a leap to suggest that this impacts the cost of equipping a fully competitive corps? I guess not, because you admit it yourself: Going forward, can we drop the bait-and-switch, and at least have a sincere discussion about the costs/benefits of these "improvements"?

For the sake of full perspective: a. Pesceone was also in charge when DCI decided to make long-term commitments to rotate championships between locations selected entirely based on... well, who knows what... but certainly not suitability for the corps or audiences. The first of those championships (Jackson, MS, in 1993) is still cited as the most life-threatening disaster of DCI history. Then, the man they brought in to fix things (Sam Mitchell) convinced the BOD that the cure was worse than the disease. By the time of his firing one year later, the BOD had found it necessary to take more of a hands-on role in running DCI. b. The DCI BOD hires the executive director, and gives that ED their cues on how to do his job. For some time, when the DCI BOD was populated with corps directors who all had day jobs in addition to their corps responsibilities, they wanted a DCI ED to operate more autonomously, and to be their idea man. Decades later, we have some day-job corps directors, and they see themselves as idea men; thus, they are less interested in policy and creativity from the DCI ED. They would rather he just implement BOD ideas.

You make me think of the old saying, "which came first, the chicken or the egg". Evidently, you think the chicken came first. Lots of potentially popular ideas start small (i.e. Facebook), and scale up as they prove their value and refine their operation. I think you are missing the point. SoundSport is a blend of new and existing. There are several existing performance formats that have similarities conducive to participating in the SoundSport arena. The SoundSport format is attempting to create a new format that reaches out to these existing groups, and fosters new startups. To do that, the SoundSport format needs to provide alternatives to the known challenges of traditional DCI participation such as large group size, high travel costs, lack of suitable venues and a host of other barriers to entry that come with an activity ripe with thoroughly developed rules and worldwide standards. I think it is wise to introduce SoundSport with a somewhat open format, as DCI has done. Certain parameters have been set to assure that the above objectives are met (the 50 member limit and venue size specification being examples). Some of the more specific refining, however, ought to be done with the feedback and consent of the performing groups as they develop. This activity needs to grow organically. This is not just a "product". It is an activity. I agree - the DCI leadership (BOD) has become increasingly unwilling to allow a penny to be spent, and increasingly unable to agree on where it would be spent. So the DCI working staff found a way to move forward within the parameters set by their BOD leadership. Good for them. Okay, then if you are correct, and 50-person groups of anything-goes performing in smaller spaces are the next big thing, you should be glad DCI had the foresight to step forward and become the ringmaster for this movement. Had they instead waited for 30 such groups to develop first, and come to agreement on their rules, events and marketing, they could easily have lost the opportunity to be involved at all. At that point in development, those 30 groups could have formed their own organization, or partnered with WGI, DCA, MFA, or Fred Windish instead.

So even with DCI developing the tour, directing revenues to the corps, providing event production and support services like DCI.org and Fan Network, making their own rules, AND corps electing their own BOD... we would be "back where we started" if the elected BOD members were not corps directors? No, "back where we started" would be when "outsiders" did all those things. Tour (if any) was created by a number of independent show sponsors who did not necessarily work in concert. Revenue sharing with the corps was entirely up to the show sponsor (the primary reason corps got fed up and created DCI). Rules and event production were also done by others, and lack of standardization complicated things for corps. Support services often did not exist. The few that did (audio recordings, for instance) were provided by yet more separate entities, requiring another layer of negotiation or it would not happen.

Because the part I bolded has been called into question by the director of a top 5 revenue generating corps.

New corps do not have million dollar budgets.

Just wanted to quote this first. Now you may begin walking it back. For starters, take a look at the last time the kids of Sudbury, Ontario, had a visit from these "much better corps" you speak of. Honestly, the only Sudbury kids who get to see those corps are the ones who already toured with Blue Saints.

Yes, it is a matter of opinion. You see varied opinions on it here. However, in the judging community, there is a single prevailing opinion.

Well, if that is what you call the G7 thesis - the first part was already implemented 10 to 40 years ago. The national tour part came with the formation of DCI, while limiting it to financially capable corps was implemented via "world class" and the evaluation process as prerequisite to enter the class. Depending on how you define it, the rest of it may be in place already too (second tier that tours distinctly less).

Then why is George Hopkins saying that costs are the problem? Does he have it wrong? That might be interesting - but ultimately, it will make no difference unless the judging takes that input into account in some way. The judges are the primary "focus group" designers are going to listen to.

Sounds like these corps should be evaluated by DCI to verify their financial ability to continue touring the way they do... including the top dogs. That is interesting. So if each member corps is equally responsible for the state of DCI, then each member corps should receive an equal proportion of revenue sharing, right?

Oh, is that all? Mission accomplished, then. We already have some corps on the national stage and some not. World class and open class. Better yet, corps are selected for these classes with consideration for their financial and organizational ability to tour - as they should be. I did not see this before posting earlier today. That explains a lot.

My list of dates were all contests in which Boston competed. Their season has started before July 4 every year ever since they took the name "Boston Crusaders". Now, if your definition of "season" starts whenever you want it to, then we can both be correct.

Happy New Year. For one of your new year resolutions, could you start reading what I post? You do not see me touting regional tour limitations. I actually AGREE with your point that they could affect ticket sales negatively. Furthermore, others here have pointed out that touring is touring, regional or not, so the costs are not much different. To cut costs significantly, you would have to shorten the season. That will not work - less time leads to less excellence. A shorter season would punish the corps who are capable of doing the full 8 week tour. Healthy corps should be allowed to do the full tour. Under the G7 proposal, healthy corps would NOT have been allowed to do the full tour. Suddenly, corps not part of the self-appointed 7 would lose access to Friday and Sunday shows. How does that cut their expenses? That only cuts their revenues. Meanwhile, corps outside of the next group would have their tours arbitrarily limited based on their competitive ranking, not their financial/organizational ability to tour. How would they improve their competitive ranking if they are denied tour access even when they can afford it? As ludicrous as your G7 assertion was, you had an even bigger blooper here - the idea that DCI has done nothing to connect with bands as potential audience. Talk about head in sand! That has been the primary focus of DCI policy ever since the mid-1990s. Where do you think those busloads of band kids come from? They are there because of outreach from DCI to school bands... direct contact with band directors, marketing materials for the kids themselves, and group discounted admission packages to shows. DCI and their corps have staged clinics in conjunction with many shows as an additional incentive to draw large groups of band kids to DCI events. DCI runs a show at the BOA Summer Symposium, a nationwide "band camp". How can you look at that, and say they do not even ATTEMPT to connect with bands? Even in the off-season, DCI attends educational clinics, conventions and some marching band and winter guard events to keep the band kid outreach going year round. There is not enough time in the new year to correct every one of the misconceptions contained in your response, but as one example... no, it was not me who said that the ideas I just described have failed. In fact, I think the clinics in particular have been a major factor in closing the sale to prospective marchers. When DCI made those clinics a widespread campaign, we swung from recruiting to auditioning, from filling holes to making cuts. But to get back on track... these conversations started because of something George Hopkins wrote. I am not here to hang him in effigy. How about we take him seriously instead? He contends that even his corps, one of the 7 most capable, cannot afford to keep doing what they are doing. So tell me - what costs should the Cadets cut? What do YOU suggest? From your post, the only idea you present is "Leave the national tour to the corps that can actually do it -- the rest of the corps will have to be content with staying alive and doing less." Should the Cadets curtail their tour? See, here is the thing - we do not have an easy answer. The big line items in the budget are either impossible to cut, can only be cut by a small percentage, or have been cut already. Meanwhile, a smaller line item that can be cut completely could offer bigger savings. I am not seriously suggesting we cut A&E... I hold no illusions of DCI leadership repealing those changes, nor any illusions that such a repeal would cure all ills. But as long as we are presented with the contention that costs need to be cut, and in the absence of any better ideas, it is curious to observe how certain people want to ban the mere mention of the idea. So what costs should we cut instead?

Depends on whether we are listing all challenges, or the ones we think we can actually do something about.

If that is your point... glad I could help. However, there have been some changes since 1988. Most notably, the regional circuits which made your vision happen are gone. Some of the corps, shows and organizational infrastructure of those regions have been preserved within DCI, but not enough to replicate the conditions of 1988. As I understand it, one of the reasons corps moved toward season-long tours is because the activity was allowed to erode to the point where corps were too few and disparate to stage events of the same degree of competitive interest that the regions held when they were formed. I think it got to the point where activity leaders predicted that the increased cost of moving certain corps between regions would be offset by increased ticket revenue. Naturally, that calculation should be reviewed whenever new data on costs or revenues might change the equation. But that requires looking at both costs and revenues. Staying home, literally, by not competing as much would reduce fuel costs considerably, but it would also reduce the number of paydays for the corps. Staying in region and doing just as many shows still requires fuel - need some details on the tour to assess the difference.

So the people who voted "no" to amps for 14 years, and "no" to electronic instruments for 18 years, were all really in favor of them all along?So in your world it is never possible to learn new things and then change your mind and grow with the times? Maybe it was a combination of newer foks doing the voting along with some who learned about the benefits and changed their minds. In responding to this question which was not directed to you, you seem to have missed the context in which it was asked. Maybe this view will clarify. So you see no connection at all between the high rate of failure of corps over the years and the magnitude of the financial/organizational challenge they confront? Why do you think well over 90% of corps have failed? Because well over 90% of people are incompetent?Corps at all levels failed throughout the history of drum corps, going back as far as you want to look. The difference was back in the day there were more corps starting up to pick up the slack. In responding to this question which was not directed to you, you seem to have missed the context in which it was asked. Maybe this view will clarify. Okay, now I have to ask if you have any interest in moving the conversation forward? It is pretty clear that drum corps and marching band are two different things - otherwise, this discussion would not exist. In fact, if you consider "all of drum corps through history", as you suggest, you find that when the American Legion led the way in establishing organized drill contests, they created separate competitive divisions for marching band and drum corps. Why would they do that if drum corps was the same as marching band? We understand that you would like DCI to switch over to marching band. Believe me, we get it. You have made reasoned explanations for your position in the past, and will probably do so again in the future. Continually regurgitating the semantic "drum corps = marching band" mantra in the manner you do, however, does not help your case.

Okay, we get it - you had a few experiences with poor management among the hundreds of corps you have worked with. I am not disputing those cases of poor management... only the degree to which you are extrapolating that across corps managements throughout history. When you declare well over 90% of corps managements incompetent, mostly sight unseen, it starts to sound like your personal experiences might be coloring your judgment. But leaving the past behind, what do you think of current corps managements? DCI has 22 world class corps, and another 18 in open class. What percentage of these corps have poor management? That would be fine with me (great, in fact).