cixelsyd

Exactly. Usually, I agree with you - and yes, begging is not the answer. But I see no reason to dismiss correlated funding ideas. In fact, I would prefer correlated revenue streams over non-correlated. If the core product of a drum corps program can be sold in different ways other than just DCI contests (clinics for cash, drumlines for major league sports franchises, small ensembles for corporate gigs, or the old staple of parade bookings), why pass up those ideas in favor of running a totally unrelated business effort to fund the drum corps? That is not the only problem with non-correlated funding. As we have seen over the years, corps funded by a bingo-conglomerate-supporting-arts-programs have no better luck than average - not just because of failing bingo, but because the bingo-conglomerate-supporting-arts-programs often decides that competitive drum corps is too difficult (expensive), and that their revenue is better spent on a cheaper program like a winter guard, drumline or parade corps. Anaheim Kingsmen, Freelancers, San Jose Raiders, Pride of Cincinnati and New Day are the most prominent examples of bingo programs that outlived their competing drum corps by decades. Come to think of it, Star of Indiana was funded by non-correlated income, and they left the competitive drum corps activity too. Wait - you were the one who just said that "begging" was not the way to go. Again, I must disagree about, well, anything being "the only viable answer" for funding. And corporate sponsorship (at least, in the forms we have received so far) is just another fickle source of non-correlated income, with another list of long-gone corps starting with Star of Indiana, Suncoast Sound and the Knights. I say "undesirable". Talk about the rich getting richer. You think we have disparity now? To even allow such a venture to take place with totally disparate investments by different corps will cause far greater disparity, with the only lingering question being that of direction. If the venture succeeds, the heavy investors gain a decimal-place advantage over their peers. If it fails, the heavy investors might fail with it. I give you credit for thinking outside the box, garfield. Maybe you can think outside the box of concerns I have presented here. So far, this corporation you propose to form sounds like another of the schemes periodically presented here to attract corporate sponsors with nothing more than the marketing information they can obtain from the drum corps participant demographic. I am not convinced that: a. this marketing information is worth the 8-figure pie-in-the-sky numbers some have suggested. b. this marketing information cannot be obtained elsewhere in a more economical fashion. c. the eventual sponsor would continue sponsorship annually after obtaining the desired information. Is your idea different? Does it involve DCI providing something of uniquely greater and more lasting value? Something more correlated?

Oh, great! It is that easy! We now have the answer. So if we could just persuade some of these other 35 corps to "want to win DCI", the balance of power will be restored.

No, take it another step further. The designers are not cutting it. Certain pit instruments simply do not have as much dynamic range as brass or battery percussion. Therefore, if brass and battery percussion use their full dynamic range, you cannot balance all pit instruments with that ensemble at all times. You have three choices: 1. Accept the above fact, and have pit musicians select the appropriate instrument for the appropriate dynamic level (i.e. pre-2004 drum corps). 2. Reduce the effective dynamic range of the brass and battery (i.e. amplify the pit, and drown out the low end of the field ensemble dynamic range). 3. Have a sound board operator constantly ramp the output level up/down with the music in an attempt to create artificial "dynamic range" for the pit. We are hearing the results of ideas 2 and 3 in present day drum corps.

Stop them from what? The reason there is no boycott is because there is nothing to boycott. All shows are still under the DCI umbrella.

With only 40 corps left, I hesitate to suggest any change from what the surviving corps want to do. But then again, that may lead to a single class outcome anyway just through attrition.

Nailed it. Yes, that designer thinks it is so clever to fill every millisecond of the show with some different noise coming out of those speakers. But for those of us who want to hear the quality of a full hornline releasing a note in perfect unison, well, we cannot have that pleasure anymore. The pit people gush about getting to use softer mallets, while I can no longer hear the brass playing softly because of the constant 16th note phrasing of 8 to 10 marimbas/vibes playing forte non-stop, amplified another 20 decibels electronically.

Better yet, eliminate 1b. We already have the printed program, the spiel the corps gives to the PA announcer to read off at ordinary shows, and the option of playing a pre-recorded show explanation over the corps pit speakers during the pre-show (and narrating during the show). Not to mention that corps can extol the virtues of their design symbolism all over the Internet, and hand out librettos to those spectators too old school to have done the required research there. If after all that, it should still be necessary for more time to be dedicated to explaining shows to judges, then the show design is overreaching. Judges should experience shows in the same way that fans do. If they did, the effects of show design would work for everyone, instead of being targeted for judges at the expense of fans.

Oh, who cares what it looks like from down low? Only fans sit there. What matters is how it looks where the press box judges are seated on the second Saturday of August.

Maybe he was expecting "Georgia on My Mind" and "Let It Be Me".

That may be - but the organization was already supporting several youth groups prior to Gibbs becoming director, namely the three drum corps field programs, the twirling corps, winter guard, and the Blue Devils Music School.

How many competing bands were there in 1971?

Sure - but that is a mighty big "if" - especially since these are not "extra" or "additional" shows, as you claim. TOC shows are an alternative to the typical balanced-lineup shows of the DCI tour. If instead of running two such balanced shows tonight, we have a TOC show and a non-TOC show, the result may well be one show that makes more (the TOC show), but also one show that makes less (the non-TOC show). The net result is probably close to the same.

There were plenty of competitive marching bands in 1971. Doubtless, they have grown in number since then, and have more events to compete in nowadays, but it is not as if we traded in 400 drum corps and got 4000 marching bands in return.

You speak as if there were no bands BITD.

Sorry for carpet-posting this thread... arrived here late. a. Do you seriously believe that any possible historical path would see us still using compulsory high mark time and rule-regulated tempos in 2013? Seeing that these two issues are linked, and that everyone but VFW had abandoned the "cadence" rule prior to the Combine's formation, it is hard to imagine any scenario where these issues would not have evolved in the same way and at nearly the same times. b. Your description of pre-DCI drum corps... well, I will just say that it is not entirely accurate in stereotyping. Also, after the show tunes and Americana I have seen so far in 2013, the comments are somewhat ironic. c. I have no idea whether you have any real knowledge of how "well run" any of the corps were prior to your birth. Suffice it to say that they were well enough run for what they were doing (local/regional activity). What the Combine corps and DCI founders envisioned was something different - national touring. Over the 40 years since, their singular focus on the national touring model has coincided with the relegation of local and regional corps to endangered species status. It is easy to blame the local/regional corps for this, as if they were all bad managers for failing to grow into touring corps themselves. It is just as easy to blame the touring corps, for failing to support the local/regional systems that nurtured them in the first place. Like most things, the truth is somewhere in between.

Well, yes, there was quite a bit of grief over the Combine. Other corps and their supporters objected; editorials were issued in the drum corps press; nasty cartoons portrayed directors of the Combine corps running the other corps over with a farm combine.

Exactly. The complex tradeoff of plusses and minuses involved whenever we divide the activity to showcase top corps to the exclusion of other corps is difficult to quantify, and therefore, each of our feelings on the matter must be at least partly in the realm of "opinion". With that understood, you have stated your opinion here: Now I will state mine. Like I said above, there is a tradeoff every time we showcase top corps to the exclusion of other corps. Whether it is simply a prelim/final contest format, or a schedule of appearances in reverse order of prior contest results, or an event that segregates the top 8 of last year (or last week), or a "world class" separate from an "open class"... or, taken to the ultimate extreme, even having competitive results... all these actions have a certain degree of elitism in them. Elitism has a deleterious effect on the activity, discouraging participation at the lower levels (i.e. the levels being excluded) and eroding the size of the participant base. Therefore, one must keep the above in mind when conducting a cost/benefit analysis of each of these ideas. For example, competition is a basic driver of fan and participant interest in the activity, and a key factor in the performance quality we see, so simply having competitive results is, IMO, well worth the cost. When it comes to all the other examples I gave above, all variations on contest formats and lineups, I imagine DCI and their participating corps have a fair amount of financial data they can analyze to forecast whether a given idea will generate a net benefit in dollars. I do not need to see these numbers; it is reasonable to assume that the decision makers act in their best interest, and therefore choose the options which appear to offer the best financial outcome. What is interesting to note, however, is who the decision makers are (and therefore, whose "best interest" is really being served). Decisions in DCI are not made by all of the participating corps. Usually, they are not even made by all of the world class corps, as there are often a couple of WC corps who do not have full voting rights. Further, via the political processes of the representative BOD and this separate group of 7 corps issuing their own agendae periodically, the decision making power is concentrated in even fewer hands, and leans toward serving the best interests of even fewer corps. So, in my opinion, I suspect that DCI has determined a net benefit to ideas like the top-12 world championship finals format, holding a single regular-season top-8 event (Murfreesboro), and staging regional focus events with either prelim/final format or seeded performance order to put the top corps on in prime time. Whether a series of top-8 events like the 2011 and 2012 TOC is beneficial to DCI as a whole, or just beneficial to those top corps, is not entirely clear... but from what I know of the financial details, human nature, and the political process that created the TOC (and again, in my opinion), I suspect there is a net benefit to the top corps, but not to DCI as a whole. Similarly, changing the TOC to a private club of 7 corps instead of whichever 8 earn it competitively is another move I suspect benefits those 7 corps, but not DCI as a whole.

Since the Combine never persuaded VFW or AL to change a series of their own contests to exclude non-Combine corps, I fail to see how the events of 2013 follow the precedent.

Yes, there must be some other idea that starts with a "G", and has a "7" in it, but is more concise.

Really? Beacuse when I read the post you are replying to, I see no such declarations. In fact, I only see one sentence speculating any such knowledge - the idea that Gibbs would place priority on the survival of the organization he runs - so unless you dispute THAT, what could possibly be your issue? So if you think Plan9 is misquoting Gibbs: a. Take it up with him, not Garfield. b. Let us know what Gibbs really said.

You are partly correct. There is no outrageous goal of seeing all non-TOC corps dissolve. As for the rest of it... it is public knowledge that those 7 corps have isolated themselves repeatedly, starting with their secret meetings in early 2010. The show series that starts tomorrow is a timely reminder of this recurring isolation, as great pains were taken behind the scenes to renegotiate the TOC series to include ONLY those 7 pre-selected corps, and no one else regardless of competitive merit. Of course there are - particularly if you look back to 2009 or earlier. There is so much wrong with that statement, I do not know where to begin. I will just say that there are many corps who have accepted advice or assistance from BD in the Gibbs era, most obviously the B and C corps... and the six other corps who currently partner with BD in this special "TOC" show series that follows the Gibbs blueprint. Well, you got that right. What has been proven to work in one situation does not necessarily work in another. To illustrate, there are quite a few things that a defending champion from California can do that simply do not apply to other corps who lack that competitive track record to trade on, or who hail from states with more restrictive laws on charitable gaming. It is up to the individual corps to evaluate ideas and advice against the context of their own situation (like you suggested in a later post as I was typing mine). I must sound skeptical to many of the people reading this. But I have been around long enough to see several fine corps directors take advice from similarly illustrious peers. I met one a couple of years later, serving food at the camp of the corps from which he took that advice - his own corps gone for good.

Well, then, by all means, reach out. Advertise, via paper, on the air, and in cyberspace. Flood YouTube with clips, or full shows if you prefer. Have corps give free promotional performances in cities, at shopping centers, on talk shows, or wherever else they can get exposure to people. Hold a show with no admission charge. Put drum corps shows on TV. Put the drum corps experience on TV in documentary form. Put drum corps in the theaters, and on stages nationwide. Is that the kind of outreach you are looking for? (P.S. It has all been done before. And it will all likely be done again - as it should be.)

I guess not, because I do not agree that there is an "inability" to add new fans. I am certainly in favor of reaching out to new fans, and (equally important) retaining existing fans.

No, not from what I have seen here. If your preference for A can be equated to intolerance for B, you are toast. Intolerance is a capital crime in contemporary society. You will be branded as a dinosaur due to your intolerance for amplified voice in drum corps. You and I are of like mind. I also prefer my drum corps without A&E. I hear the harmonics and rhythms, and recognize that Crown is using amplified voice with greater skill, expertise and musicality than any of their predecessors. I still wish for a little less of it (maybe less vocal repetition early on), but the show may well become my favorite of the year despite the voice, on account of the many incredible brass effects they create.

More important than any of our opinions - what do the members want? If for example, those 35 horn players all want to compete in open class and/or tour less, and there are 15 more brass ready to join in that event, then they should look into that option. But if most of the current members are there for the world class experience, then they should stay the course.