cixelsyd

So you are contending that top corps do not teach? And that the top corps experience is not educational?

You have brought this idea up repeatedly. And it has been pointed out that it will never happen because of the concern that a group of 7 corps might use that opportunity to do an end around on DCI copyrights, claim unfettered rights to their historical DCI audio/video, and then leave to do the Music in Motion, Inc. tour. Market based booking is already available now - in the open market. Any corps that prefers market based booking is free to leave DCI and try it.

According to posts here, those corps put their money where their mouths were. $3250 each, in fact. But that is nowhere near the amounts you are discussing.

TV? Been there, done that - not cost effective. Evolving technologies have replaced the drum corps TV telecasts with theater shows and an endless array of Internet options for accomplishing the same things the telecasts did, but at much lower cost. As for the $150,000 buy in, I invite every corps who is up for that to post here. That will show us how many corps are willing and able to make that kind of initial investment.

Pretty much? No, each of those characteristics is manifest in a different set of corps. And they are not as easily stereotyped as either A or B, the way you make it sound. Once again, the groups you called out for separation were: Corps who do not tour nationally (only a few out west) Corps who do not compete on the same level (by your context, the bottom four WC corps) Smaller corps (only four small corps remain, two out west and two that tour to DCI Championships) Community-based corps (this varies without strict correlation to class or competitive stature, and without distinct demarcation) Teaching corps, as opposed to corps with mostly college aged, experienced kids (again, this varies without distinct demarcation) Your comments were full of other remarks mixed together, like: Do not have the inclination or ability to raise money Do not have the interest in doing a national tour Smaller corps perform simpler shows Fledgling corps After seeing so many of these remarks, and seeing you still claim contrary to reality that all these different factors appear in the same corps, I can only surmise that you do not really understand these corps after all – you just want them out. Get off my lawn! I do not know why else you would continue to try and paint them all with one broad brush. But I still have no idea how many of “them” you want off your lawn. I will ask again, then – why does that matter so much to you? Businesses are capable of marketing more than one product. They already are. Open class has their own separate BOD, their own separate coordinator, their own separate budget, their own separate tour, their own separate sheets, and their own separate championship. How is DCI resistant to that? All those separate things I just mentioned were created by DCI direction. Why do I have to look at this as a business question? I choose to look at both business and mission, as I would expect from the people running DCI. But you cannot establish that unless those corps are competing (and defeating) the other corps. Separating them so that they never compete head to head, as was done 2003-2010, leaves doubt as to how many of them really are the top X corps. Creating a separate league for the 7 would create similar doubt surrounding whether they even are the top 7, in contrast to the knowledge we have from 2012 competition where they were the top 6 plus the 8th place corps. So anyway, seems from the above that what you are really looking for is a “top 18” separation. If I am misinterpreting or oversimplifying, please correct me. Okay, so say we are looking at the top 18 becoming your enhanced world class (with Glassmen out, that would now include Oregon Crusaders). Tell me why Jersey Surf should be evicted from WC, based on your numerous criteria for separation above. They do the DCI ordained “full tour”. They compete at the same level. They are not a small corps. Their members are not locally limited. It must be because they are a teaching corps, then – but how does one know this? No, we refrain from saying it because it is not true. The DCI system for class division is based on financial and organizational criteria, which makes sense because the fundamental difference between the classes is the amount of touring they do. So corps are measured by attributes that determine their ability to do that amount of touring. If you would rather go back to having a class division based on competitive placement, just say so. That is an outdated notion, but some still hold it. DCI has moved on because they found it made more sense to bring in corps to their touring division who were financially capable, rather than corps with a few good years of competitive results who would not last.

You can make that claim for DCM, but DCE and DCW were just plain merged under the DCI umbrella. Nevertheless, my statement stands - the 7 were among those urging for merging of all three of those circuits into DCI.

Once again, there is a far more significant difference between professional sports leagues and high school. DCI is just two subdivisions of youth drum corps, one of which tours more than the other. What is the big fuss? How much of the DCI resources are consumed by open class, anyway? There is probably more money and effort expended by DCI on the bottom two or three WC corps than all of open class. Why is it such a big deal that the two divisions are promoted by one organization? Frankly, it makes the top corps look that much more impressive, like they are king of the mountain instead of just king of the hill. But if it is that big of a deal, would a separate DCI-OC.org satisfy your concern?

No, it is not. Once again, junior corps are often made up of kids with free time, and therefore use weekdays to full advantage at times, both on and off tour. Once again, most open class corps tour to a national/world championship. Their membership varies - some are local, some are international. (Membership in WC corps also varies in that regard.) Yes, there are. More than just the few I am presenting.

Maybe there is an opportunity to spin out a top-corps-centric, touring circuit? I imagine if this existed, maybe 7 corps would move over.

Okay, now you want to separate the corps who do not tour nationally. There are only a few of those left, all on the west coast. Okay, now you want to separate Pioneer, and I suppose all of open class too. Okay, now you want to separate smaller corps. Okay, now you want to separate community-based corps. Okay, now you want to separate corps who are there primarily to teach... You really ought to decide just what or who it is you want to separate, because it is not going to be practical to impose as many separations as you have listed here.

Really? Looking back at the G7 proposal recently, I was amazed at how much of what is being said and done now still comes straight out of that document. By the way, what is "teletive" information?

Are you at all familiar with DCA corps? Or the open class and less traveled world class DCI corps? DCA is all-age. It is weekend-only, because it is all-age, and open to the possibility of working adults participating. DCI is a youth activity, thus many participants have the summer off. Virtually all DCI corps tour, and convene on some weekdays even when not touring. The only DCI corps that even might be weekend-only are in areas where there are no weekday shows. Open class corps are clearly better aligned with DCI, not DCA. If that were not true, they would have pursued deeper relationships with DCA already in the natural course of events.

Well, it is a youth athletic league. DCI markets to youth participants based on the educational value of being a youth activity, and their staff (not just teaching, but most of the designers too) are professional educators. If you want a drum corps circuit to max out as an entertainment business, you need a circuit that drops the age rule and the education focus. Now, before I forget - why do you presume that a more egalitarian approach is "less promotable"? Is it only because you envision an entertainment business, rather than a youth athletic league? In that case, it would make sense to entertain with only your best act, and jettison the others. As a competitive league, however, closer competition sells. On the contrary. DCI does not prevent any corps, or group of corps, from toning up and relaunching (see Star - Blast). Of course, if they want to relaunch as something other than a competing junior drum corps, they need to relaunch outside of DCI. How do you know he did not? On what basis? Awful lot of speculation in there for someone who does not know the people involved. From what I know of them, this is off target.

That is so true. As an example, I recall some time ago, people from both sides of the discussions here suggesting something along the lines of handing a portion of the GE judging (maybe 5 or 10 points) over to people from outside of the DCI trained judging pool. Whether they be experts from related arts activities, celebrities, or just randomly selected members of the public, the idea meets with vociferous resistance.

As some are fond of saying here, you cannot compare DCI to major league sports. But seriously, unlike NFL vs. HS football, the needs of open class and world class DCI corps are in far greater alignment. The open class corps tour for fewer weeks, but they still need to eat, sleep, practice, and transport similar equipment day after day in the touring environment. They are both youth activities premised on music and visual arts education coupled with life skill learnings through competition. Sports at the high school level has similar ideals, in stark contrast to the highly paid adults who earn their livings in the NFL, and the difference in scale between the two is of far greater magnitude than OC vs. WC drum corps. I agree. Why not? But that just presents DCA with the same problem you claim DCI has. Remember that very few of the DCI corps we are talking about are weekend only - nearly all do several weeks of through-the-week touring.

Judge for youselves. The DCI mission statement, as last posted here, reads: Drum Corps International is a cooperative fraternity of its member corps. We seek: To promote, develop and preserve the operational and artistic standards of the competitive musical sport; and To provide organization and leadership for the activity; and To develop and successfully operate musical events for the participating drum corps community. Drum Corps International is the promotional, educational and service arm of the drum and bugle corps activity. It establishes rules and regulations; develops educational programs, such as the PBS broadcast of The Summer Music Games World Championships and the annual Management and Promotion Seminar; publishes DCI Today, a bimonthly publication; produces promotional videos and brochures; organizes judging seminars; showcases the top corps in North America in an annual summer tour; and promotes the activity worldwide. My opinion would be that given the number of references to the activity, rather than just the member corps, DCI has declared their mission to extend beyond just their member corps. While Stu appeared to be overstating that at one point, his subsequent posts seem to line up with the above. Good - you get that too. Now, can you tell Daniel Ray?

I am going based on what is in writing. You are the one contending that what is in writing is no longer true. I think it is clear which one of us is indulging in conjecture.

No. The G7 proposal was full of spots marked "work to be done". The 7 agreed on what they presented, but had not worked out all the details. In other words, they did not have all the answers yet (and still do not), and they did not agree on all the details (and still do not). None of that supercedes the G7 proposal that they do agree with.

Yes, there was nothing in the proposal about a time frame for delaying the end of service to open class. The proposal is the prevailing evidence of where they stand on that issue. Until they provide similarly definitive evidence to the contrary, the G7 Report is their most definitive, detailed and recent statement on their future vision for open class. It has been nearly three years since then, a very long time in which any or all of the 7 could have developed a modified proposal, issued a press release, given an interview, leaked an email, or simply posted right here on DCP. They could still do so today, in fact.

But you just said they do. In fact, you said they pay more. But that is what DCI has been focusing on for the past few years, and as a result you say their leadership should be fired. Maybe you would not be making such demands if they had focused on getting kids to join more corps, and grown the activity instead.

To continue with the pie analogy - yes, the next pie need not be the same size as the last one. I would greatly prefer DCI focus on making the pie bigger, rather than bicker on how to slice it. For a brief moment in late 2009, the leaders of DCI were in near unanimous agreement to do that, and they developed a five-year business plan focused on growing the pie. The ensuing G7/the7 saga has disrupted that focus. That is somewhat true. But we cannot seem to make the G7/the7 stop wasting their energy in this manner. Like you said, the answers to those questions will vary quite a bit. For instance, I think the marketable aspects of the activity boil down to two simple things: a. the brass-percussion-drill-guard thing (the art) b. the competitive event format (the sport)

Less than one, by my estimation. It would be quite a stretch to contend more.

Couched in the terms I underlined - no. I understand the whole "showcase the top corps" thing. Now, I do not know your background, as this was your very first post here (welcome!). So maybe you have not noticed the many ways in which top corps are already showcased. Finals vs. prelims. Performance order. Marketing of video and audio media. Preferential ad placement. Headlines in show coverage. Extended tours. And lately, a growing number of separate, exclusive shows. We do that already. We have been doing that all along. It is part of the DCI mission statement, so we will continue to showcase the top corps. We should not throw all the other corps under the bus in the process, though. But that is not necessarily true. If we, as you say, "focus more energy" (and money) on showcasing the top corps by doing what they have proposed (having DCI route more revenue to them, less to the other corps), then we guarantee that even if there is more revenue in the future, it will not be available to other corps. Well, it is a little early to start painting people with such a broad brush. I think that any situation where a subset of the participating organizations suddenly start hatching their own plots to make massive and largely undefined changes that they admittedly are not fully decided on themselves, but want exclusive voting power so they can impose them on everyone the instant they do decide - you will see many react with instinctive caution. They would all look like traditionalists at that point.

And this is what the debate really boils down to - how to slice the pie. The fewer slices, the bigger each slice can be. No, but it should be challenged. For instance, in this case, on what basis do you justify taking away the pie slice allotted to open class? It is already so paper thin that it is probably better thought of as the crumbs left in the pie plate. Do they provide no real service of their own to DCI, and thus deserve "no real service" in return? Because in my judgment, if open class serves any purpose at all to DCI, say, as a source of replacements for attrition at the world class level, or even just as part of the greater activity that gives credence to the DCI "world championship" label, then it provides a real service to DCI. Sure. But that is all relative. The pie is currently carved into 22 legitimate slices for the member corps. Those slices are nowhere near equal in size. Thanks to the DCI revenue sharing formula, current and historic "top corps" get slices much larger than other WC corps. Honestly, it makes little difference to each member corps what we do with the open class crumbs - but it makes a huge difference to those open class corps. That is all they get, and it has been proposed to take it all away. Meanwhile, the corps already getting bigger slices demand more still. That would inevitably have to come from the other WC corps. They often tour just as far and work just as hard as the top corps. They need to eat too. Why they are currently fed less is already a matter of debate, in my opinion. But to feed them less still would clearly be an issue with "the quality of help they receive", as you put it. Or are you suggesting that we cut the pie into fewer than 22 slices?

Before I just sigh and resolve myself to "agree to disagree" status, one question. How much money are we talking about? As I understand it, the only money open class receives from DCI that is up for debate here is the occasional appearance fee when an open class corps appears in a world class tour show. The entire open class tour is run on their own separate, balanced budget.