cixelsyd

"Amazingly"? Between the astronomical costs (largely self-inflicted), and the systemic resistance to allowing new members into the private club that now monopolizes competitive drum corps in the Western hemisphere, most people interested in starting a corps end up either discouraged, unsuccessful, or redirected toward joining existing teams instead of starting new ones.

If you are not sure what the point would be in forming a drum corps today, you may be in the wrong forum.

I suppose that had someone started a new corps back in October/November and brought most of the former Cadets members/staff together under a different banner (say, Magic of Meadville), then that would be okay?

How far does that extend? Do we all have to avoid naming a corps "Cadets" from now on? If SCVC ever comes back, do they have to pick a different name? Will too much maroon and gold get you swept up in a lawsuit? At least this explains why corps now change all their costuming every year.

That can be said about 1,000 other towns. But corps in Erie have also made comebacks. Not many other towns can say that.

No, that would be Silicon Valley. Silicone Valley is further south...

Going forward, it will be "DCI Annapolis - presented by attorney for the plaintiffs".

Most corps have folded. But I guess what you meant was that, out of the corps who made it to "recent years", most of them are still with us.

Yes, but there is a difference between charitable donations vs. revenue earned from providing goods/services.

I only meant that in a business context, where the distinction between amateur and professional is made. No DCI performer or designer is making a living (i.e. profession) in drum corps. There are a few designers who can subsist by designing for a wider array of marching arts, but most have other professions such as scholastic music education or some other arts field.

"Business acumen"? The activity operating model has never been much of a "business". It charges participants half of what the experience costs, then tries to make up the difference largely by begging for charitable support. In your context, "business acumen" is merely finding more ways to attract someone else's money to solve the chronic shortfall. Maybe instead, it should be having the courage and tenacity to challenge that model. The activity product is derived from the music of others by amateur designers, and performed by amateur youth. Those immutable characteristics will prevent revenue/exposure from providing the sustainability solution all by themselves. Something else will need to change... something activity-specific. That seems to be the point of the post to which you were responding. And it seems that Nate recognizes it too, judging from his interview.

VMAPA has a CEO now. Are any of these other VMAPA employees answerable to the CEO? Does he have the power to fire anyone?

Amid the DCI Policies and Procedures, one of the triggers for an organizational review is "Signed request by five member representatives for an audit of an organization". If I was the representative for any corps who uses charitable gaming as a legitimate funding source, I would absolutely be one of those five right now. If this is what it smells like, it could bring down far more than just VMAPA bingo.

If people believed your second sentence, they would not behave as described in your first sentence.

According to this forum, this same person resigned his position as director at Blue Knights because career plans in another line of work would not allow such a time commitment. Anyone want to update, clarify or correct that?

2015

Yes and no. Sacrificing a little size for quality can work in your favor. But 100 vs. 165 is sacrificing too much. It also depends on which standards are at stake. If a brass player or front ensemble player cannot play a certain part, they can be taken off of it. A snare/tenor/bass drummer cannot hide in that manner, so a minimum standard is more important there. Hard to hide anyone visually, so standards matter more there. And the most important standard is attitude.

When the season gets underway, you are going to be tapped out (so to speak).

Not when the law (or its interpretation) on "wrong doing" changes, and what once was standard operating procedure becomes categorically unacceptable.

And it ran into an iceberg because...

To my best recollection, Pioneer was welcome to return as long as they were under different leadership. So if there is any "perma-ban", it only applies to the person(s) in leadership. The corps was not permanently banned. Quite possibly, yes. From the idea that corps failures in that area should not count toward evaluating activity sustainability. If that is not what you meant, I am relieved... but maybe your initial word choice was not the best. All I said was "I do not think it is hyperbole to ask questions about sustainability, with that as our recent context". I was not contending that every single one of those 10 lost corps was proof that the activity is unsustainable. That said, it is fair to point out that history usually gets rewritten by the survivors. The DCI boardroom does not normally invite the directors of the failed corps to their meetings, to learn from their experiences. So if the earlier assertion is true and the survivors have concerns about activity sustainability, that would be worth one raised eyebrow.

But they are inextricably related. And as a result, sustainability is a product of the relative availability and skill of corps managers, and the changing external demands of the society and economy. You cannot ignore those links and just assign blanket blame on "incompetent management" every time a corps ceases to operate. By extension, a quick look at finances and member treatment in the past would suggest that ALL corps had incompetent management BITD. That would be a stretch... oh, look - that IS basically what you are saying: Then I guess they should have all folded back in the 19_0s. (Fill in whichever decade you wish.) I do not think Cadets have folded. They are just taking a year off. Why the hyperbole? Two thoughts on that: 1. I think the rising bar of a society that takes a more proactive interest in member health and safety is part of the sustainability equation. 2. Contrast Cadets with Shadow. As I understand it, as soon as Shadow discovered one of their staffers was grooming - fired. I cringe to even hint at how long Cadets management dithered (or worse yet, defended) in their case. Which corps had the better management?

What? First, no corps has ever been permanently banned from DCI. For any reason. Second, it sounds like you just said that member safety is not required for this activity to be sustainable. Would you like to rethink that?

If you take a moment to look beyond just the "major corps", you would notice that we have lost quite a few in the past 5 years: Oregon Crusaders Pioneer Encorps Incognito Shadow Watchmen Louisiana Stars Vanguard Cadets Legends Southwind I do not think it is hyperbole to ask questions about sustainability, with that as our recent context.

It has always been that way. Throughout its existence, DCI has behaved as if its mission is to make drum corps more sustainable, but only for some number of corps between 12 and 25 (recently, around 20 or 21). And over that same time, the number of corps pursuing the DCI experience has plummeted from 3-digit numbers to... well, around 20 or 21. Mission accomplished? Meanwhile, dozens upon dozens a dozen other corps still persist, pursuing another experience currently called "open-class". Think of it like the sustainability crisis previously mentioned, but 100 times more severe. Can you believe we are past Wednesday after the Januals, and not a WORD from DCI about open-class?