cixelsyd

yep.......and I'll say it again now that DCA has even adapted electronics for the pit..( DCA usually way behind ) ya think it's time to drop it?... Food, fuel and insurance are not going away. Think we should drop all discussion about them? I see several posts of this ilk, not just from one person either. Seems there is a sudden rush to declare A&E "mission accomplished" and assert that there is nothing left to discuss. Meanwhile, activity leaders decry cost, and we are left to ponder the possibilities of cutting those costs. What should we cut? food fuel insurance A&E Which are necessities, and which are options? The only one of these items that anyone has labeled "optional" is A&E. (Now before you all start putting words in my mouth, this is not to suggest we repeal the A&E rules - only pointing out that in a logical discussion about costs, you can expect to hear this mentioned as one of those costs.) As to the contention by corpsband that no one wants to discuss food, fuel or insurance - you must have missed a lot here. Group leveraging deals for all three of those have been suggested here. The reality is that leveraged deals for each of those three have been tried by groups of corps before. In all likelihood, the degree to which they are still used reflects the degree to which they help... but any evidence to the contrary is welcome here.

You think Europe is "just in the middle of the country"?

When did Boston ever start their season after July 4th? 1990 6/23 1991 6/22 1992 6/26 1993 6/26 1994 6/25 1995 6/25 1996 6/28 1997 6/29 1998 6/28 1999 6/27 (now making finals) 2000 7/02 2001 6/27 2002 6/30 2003 6/29 2004 6/26 2005 6/22 2006 6/23 2007 6/21 2008 6/21 2009 6/19 2010 6/26 2011 6/23 2012 6/22 2013 6/22

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?

Because of that "if". Corps do not always manage their expenses successfully. Someone was just saying something to that effect a little while ago... let me see... oh, it was you:

Who can say with absolute certainty? We turned some of our marketing attention away from those people when we chose HS marching band kids as our target audience. Woodwinds would be a different story, though. I would think that if you saw the absence of amps as a "barrier" to some HS kids even attending a show, then you should certainly be able to acknowledge the probability of woodwinds being a barrier to the attendance of certain legacy fans, especially when they say so themselves.

Hard to imagine you saying "never" to a future change. There was a day when I said I would not get a cell phone without either a more compelling need for it, or lower costs. Then came a time when greater travel presented a more compelling need, and new service providers presented lower cost options. It became a justifiable acquisition at that point. Oh, I agree that the choices these corps have made, both in the boardroom and on the field, reflect "circumstances". That makes much more sense than your previous post.

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?

I would say it this way - there is a debate over change X having Y impact, but regardless of the outcome of that debate, I think we need more compelling justification than "what if?" before making change Z.

Just to avoid confusion, the quote I think you are referring to above was not an article. It was an excerpt from the 2002 DCI rule change proposal to add amplification and electronics, authored by George Hopkins. I do not see how the absence of amps or any other particular item equates to an audience "barrier". In fact, people are sometimes more curious to watch something they have not participated in. How many NASCAR fans have actually driven in such a race? More importantly, there is a distinction between focused marketing to a demographic vs. targeting them to the exclusion of everyone else. If the latter was the proper course of action, then DCI should have just become a marching band circuit from the day they decided to focus on the youth demographic back in 1996. What do you think?

Do you think that is somehow analogous to this discussion? The idea being discussed (adding woodwinds to drum corps) does not widen the product line - it does the exact opposite. DCI would become marching band, a product that already exists, while the drum corps product would be taken away. You have that part correct. Drum corps has never been just one flavor. Not in 2013, not in 2003, not in 1993, not in 1933... not ever. And it has never been frozen in time, not even when rules remained in place from year to year.

How so? I am not aware of any instance where that has been tried.

Summing up a century of spectator trends in one sentence requires some simplification. You are correct to point out that the total audience is an amalgamation of people there to watch friends/family march, people drawn to the vicinity by a larger community event, people who are alumni and/or fans of the activity, and so on. Since both activities have alumni and marchers with family/friends, and both have staged events in conjunction with larger events in the community, it would appear from simple deduction that the difference must be in the "fan" category. You must be new here. We have had a number of lively discussions over the years regarding whether instruments added to DCI via rule change are "optional". I think you can answer that question just from observation. Take a look at the three recent rule changes - Bb/F brass pit amplification electronic instruments - and ask yourself how many DCI corps you see opting not to use any one of those components. I am not one of those people. I think the sustainability of competitive drum corps has been an issue throughout history. Or maybe the unchanged aspects of drum corps are keeping it afloat.

Maybe you should read them again. It seemed clear enough to me that this excerpt from the amplification proposal asserted that the change was intended to increase audience:

If there was a simple answer, we would not be having this discussion. We have a fundamental disconnect between the consumer and the provider. The consumers prefer drum corps - always have. For nearly a century, we have had drum corps and marching band competitions staged side by side, and drum corps has drawn the bigger fan base. However, the providers prefer marching band because there is another source of money to be considered - school music funding. And scholastic music has more $$$ than the fan base. You want sustainability? Go where the money is. That is what many people have done - gotten involved with scholastic music. Even the people complaining about the sustainability of drum corps (like Hopkins) are themselves involved in scholastic music in some way. When the top junior corps looked at the landscape in 1971, they knew they had a choice to make. The support of American Legion posts, VFW posts, churches and the like were declining due to declining membership in those civic groups. Just as they were starting to discover the excellence that comes from multiple-week tours of full-time focus on drum corps, they were also facing the challenge of having to pay for it all. Ambitious corps formed DCI and developed stronger programs, while others sought a path of lesser resistance in the scholastic music world, where they grew what was then referred to as "corps-style" marching band. DCI is a drum corps circuit made up primarily of independently funded touring corps. Always has been, always will be. The sooner DCI acknowledges this, the quicker they can pursue a constructive path forward. What did I mean by that last paragraph? Take it literally. Drum corps - DCI is drum corps, not marching band. Drum corps is different from marching band. Fans prefer it. DCI should realize that, and profit from it. Independently funded - Drum corps has never had the advantage of tax-subsidized funding like scholastic music. Until recently, they also had the accompanying common sense to avoid adding every conceivable instrument to their sonic palette. That is what marching band is for. Bands use a wide variety of instruments because they are all about education - and because they can afford those instruments. Drum corps should select only the instruments that are best suited for field use (as they once did), and stick to that formula. (Which instruments those are is subject to interpretation, but I will stipulate that woodwinds are not among them.) Touring - a topic for a thread of its own. I will just say that the top corps are going to tour no matter what, so DCI would be best advised to continue providing an efficient tour model. Note that I said DCI is made up "primarily" of touring corps, though - the model must also address corps that tour less. Okay, say a bunch of changes were made based on promised benefits that never materialized. In the end, is there a difference?

They also sell Coca-Cola. In fact, despite the wide product line, the company name and brand remain Coca-Cola. Now, if you want to make your analogy stick, find me someone who is trying to change Coca-Cola into orange juice one step at a time against public and corporate opposition by first removing the coloring, then adding orange juice concentrate some other year, then removing the cola flavoring several years later... Success? The apparent sister thread to this one was spawned by a George Hopkins blog, and further developed by postings from Chuck Naffier. They both echo the sentiment that drum corps is not a success - that it is in fact unsustainably expensive. Is that the thick-skulled legacy mentality to which you refer?

Okay, name some other activities where teams of 150 people each, using several thousand dollars of equipment per person, come together to compete for a national/world championship.

That is laying it on a bit thick. While it is trendy to call corporate sponsors "partners", and suggest that they just "give money to the activity", that is not accurate. They are in it to make a buck, not give bucks away. Their discounts and ad buys merely reduce the cost the activity pays to use their products. Equipment vendors do not keep the activity afloat - that is the responsibility of individual corps leadership and DCI. In all the overreaching rhetoric used to sell the any-keyBb/F brass change, I never once heard anyone claim "arrangers could write better music". Music can be written just as well in any key. But I digress. There are too many misconceptions above to address all at once, so let us focus on the path forward. Pretending your premise has merit, you are now suggesting - no, insisting - that DCI add woodwinds. In order for the instrument makers to use this change to sell more woodwinds, they will need ranks full of them in world class DCI corps. An occasional amplified woodwind solo will not suffice for that purpose. That raises two questions. a. How much will it cost ($$$)? Unless manufacturers plan to donate 80 woodwinds to every DCI corps, I think most of us understand that even after the sponsorships and ad deals, this change will impose a net cost to the corps, at a time when people are claiming that the cost of the activity is the #1 crisis. b. How much will it cost (fans)? What really sustains the drum corps activity is their fan base. Decade after decade, drum corps has drawn paying audiences in ways that marching band has not matched. We know woodwinds would drive away part of that fan base, so without a demonstrably larger countereffect, this change would deliver another devastating financial blow to the drum corps activity. First of all, the post of mine that generated this response went no farther than to point out that recent instrument changes have not generated growth. How that equates to crucifixion is beyond me. More importantly, regarding extinction... what you suggest (adding woodwinds to DCI) would transform DCI into marching band, thereby rendering the American junior drum corps activity extinct. How ironic. Some of the directors voting "no" to these ideas have 30 years experience on us too. You think you know better than them... and here you are, saying so on a message board. Why should the rest of us not have that same privilege?

The first time Cavaliers used Bb/F for a full year (2002), they won brass.

Besides just the account you give here concerning amplification, the any-key brass transition made by the Cavaliers was quite odd. The corps had a frustrating 2000 season (IMO) in which their spectacular brass section, using G bugles, was dumped (IMO) into third place in brass performance behind the two Bb/F hornlines at DCI finals. Nevertheless, there were no plans to change as they began preparations for 2001. Then, after several months, they sent a forum message out to their members to bring their band brass instruments to the next camp. Following that came an announcement that the Cavaliers would be using Yamaha Bb/F brass instruments in 2001. I do not know of any other highly competitive corps making a fundamental change like this in late February or March. The corps had a comparatively weak (IMO) hornline in 2001, and it is entirely possible that rearranging music and adapting to new horns 4 months later than their peers had something to do with that. This made no sense to me... until I heard the rumor that during the annual DCI meetings, in informal communication between judges and staff, Cavalier staffers were told in so many words that there would be no more G hornlines winning DCI.

Bear in mind that this letter was written in January of 2002. The 2002 proposal was voted down by the corps directors.

The latest additions (i.e. synthesizers, electronic violins, etc.) did not exist 50 years ago, so DCI is definitely not giving us the "target ensemble" of 1963.

In the context of the conversation ("natural progression"), I think it is important to point out that the true "roots" of competitive marching band were planted a long time ago. The corps-style band phase that transpired at least 50 years later was definitely significant in shaping, organizing, and growing participation in competitive marching band. I do not dispute that.

First of all, you are forgetting quite a lot. I do not wish to wade into those weeds, but just to make a point, consider this example from January 2002: Try to remember that the amplification change was the result of a 15-proposal campaign that did have some verifiable opposition. Anyway, you failed to respond to my question. If after all your previous assertions, you really cannot point to anyone else as a proponent of these changes comparable to Mr. Hopkins, then I guess he has had a unique role in all of this. (And by the way, why is there even an argument about that?)

We only disagree on the wording. It is obvious that drum corps people influenced the marching band activity in the 1970s, Larry McCormick being one prominent example. The "roots" of the marching band activity were planted long before that, though. And acknowledging the dramatic influence of such individuals on marching band in the 1970s only reinforces my claim that neither drum corps nor marching band have followed a "natural" progression... they have both been prodded in various directions by individuals and groups with specific agendas for change.