Kevin Powell

I was partly joking about the Indian gaming in another thread but that could be a source of a great drum corps. It could also be great for the communities the Indian Gaming serves. You might know, does SCV also have some other sources of income? I am just curious. About owning the buildings outright... that can be good and bad. Just depends on the lease and location. SCV has a great location and are doing well.

You recall correctly. BD and Cadets brought the new horns to the game.

It was not a written mandate. The corporate sponsors made it the only standard fiscal choice up front. By flooding the market with cheap horns to corps who always need financial assistance, the horns would become the new Drum Corps. We all know that the "envy" game is big in the corps ranks so seeing corps get new horns year after year beat down the idea of bugles staying in the activity. NOW... on the flip side. I have listened to many judges tapes "urging" corps to switch "Your corps cannot be competitive with the Bugles" - which I heard on multiple tapes from multiple judges to multiple corps. They really made it sound like they do not have a choice. (These corps ranked from 9th to 20th.) I spoke to three separate corps directors about the decision to go multi-key because I did not like it at the time - all three quoted me "We cannot stay competitive with the bugles". I felt like I was hearing talking points from a political campaign. NOW - Who is left with G-Bugles? I do not play the conspiracy games but these actions were made and corps were directly told that they cannot be competitive with these horns. Knowing what I heard from all these sources, I "personally" feel that corps were forced to make these decisions by the judging community by talking points that seem pretty clear. Is this same thing happening today, with electronics? with show decisions? I am pretty sure that it is. "To Be Competitive" is a very powerful statement when you are trying to fight your way into a top 12. Especially knowing that being in the top twelve helps your corps financially, through sponsors and even event planning. I did not walk away from drum corps without having reason but I did see a enough of these "Boys Club" actions to know that I did not like the way it was happening. Since 2000, I took 10 years off and in - 2011 I have seen all the shows since 2000 on video and in 2011 I did start going to live shows again. I can "personally" say that I am not a fan of the products I see. The heart of the kids and the performers is still there but I am not personally entertained by the shows. I do not want this to become a "my" issues thing. We all have our own issues and gripes. Like I said... the BUGLE was more symbolic to me because I could predict the future once that change was made. My predictions were correct.

and the Oxford dictionary says "typically" without valves... it is a moot point. 2000 was the year that I "personally" saw the change from being more corps like to more marching band like due to a mandate in instrumentation. YES... it was a personal line that I personally drew in the sand.

There are as many variations to the "definition of bugle" as there are variations to the "bugle". The one thing that did remain constant was the conical bore of the horn which is funny - it is not in any of those definitions.

sorry... I just saw this and it makes you realize some things. You can also look at this and think that there might be only two of the remaining corps that has not gone through major financial hardships since the start of DCI. I'll let you pick the two.

I remember a "marketing ideas for DCI" thread a while back that talked about major ad agencies and contacting them and how NASCAR got their agency of record. There are major agencies that do LARGE pro bono work every day. There is one issue in this and that is the same RISK that I just mentioned. Many folks think it is the upfront money to pay these agencies, actually it is not. Drum and Bugle corps is not a CAUSE that helps gain sponsors or pro bono work. For example: Ogilvy donate millions of dollars in time and work to WWF (world wildlife fund)and to many zoos across the country. This is their cause, They happen to be very careful in choosing the correct animal group to fund. Why? Imagine if they picked PETA - They would probably lose their largest account NESTLE (its not just chocolate folks). Imagine if they did something for a corps that also jumped out and got a pepsi Sponsorship... They could lose another major paying account - Coca-Cola.

One major issue with this... RISK. If it were ten to twenty years ago I might agree with you but now RISK is the major concern of these major sponsors. We have kids 14 - 22 years old kids to adults on buses traveling around the country without parental guidance. That is your RISK. If one thing happens, the sponsor company gets a phone call, even worse - negative media coverage, even worse boycotts. What could happen? A kid could die, underage drinking, sexual abuse, a lost kid... All this risk for relatively low exposure of potential customers. It is easier, with less effort and money to advertise directly to their target audience - and there is no risk in that. While I love the idea - this is a reality of today.

absolutely no one... my exact point.

BINGO... this is exactly what I am talking about.

I guess I come at it a little differently. I guess easier to judge might not be the correct term or way to say it. Easier to read maybe or less thought provoking. Not allowing the judges to read between the lines. Putting All the ideas out there rather than leaving a little for creative imagination. The shows end up being a little "choppy" and perception is that they are trying to get technical elements in just for the sake of technical elements. That may just be a perception. As for remembering shows, I look at it straight from the eyes of my background... ADVERTISING. I have to walk away with the memory or it did not sell their product. It is a proven fact that 2 minute ads sell better than 30 second ads and combine that over a ten minute period of time just compare remembering twenty 30 second ads to four or five 2-2 1/2 minute ads. This is the difference between todays show architecture and yesterdays show architecture. Younger generations might like this better - they are bombarded with the latest twitter tweet and other types of unfocused advertising. This actually a reason that "theme" shows work so well because you can tie it all together with a consistent melody. SCVs Phantom is a great example - We all still have that melody stuck in our head. What is happening is that consistent melody is now getting chopped up and they are tying the theme together with visuals. Visuals do not stick in the memory the same as music - Cant remember the study but it is a reason that "jingles" are used so often. It is also the reason your mac or pc has a certain chime when it is turned on. Visual cues sometimes get missed but audible is always caught by your memory. This is the same reason people tend to revisit shows (which I am actually not a fan) but using an overlying melody from older years tying a modern corps to their past. I think we saw this more up to the year 2000. That is actually good because it builds "branding" but if not done well, it can be cheesy.

go ahead... take a look at definitions. Look at a little look at the history of trumpet, cornets and post horns while you are at it.

not to beat the horse but the projection of sound for bugles was also better in the quiet moments... which is what I was a fan of. You hear the entire overtone series and it is like angels on the field. I miss that. SCV was the best at those quiet moments and finding the angels in the horns.

Because they do not have to and it is easier with less chance of human error with amps and electronics. It is an easy button for a similar effect that they will get judged the same on. The electronics removes human error - to me it is an error but I need not go there. And the old way is an amazing effect that works.

to many varieties in concept is bad. That is the only point. Yes, "we let them" every time we spend money on them. So that is a fair statement.