jasgre2000

The top corps aren't good because they spend more money. They spend more money because they raise more money ... because they are good. A spending cap is silly ... as are most comparisons of drum corps to multi-billion dollar sports leagues.

You are seeing less than one percent of what is really happening, which is worse than seeing nothing at all (because it is misleading).

You don't know what they've offered to DCI. All you know is what one letter, which was unprofessionally leaked, said. These negotiations should not be done in public.

How do you know who leaked it? I agree that we don't know the whole story and what others have proposed. Maybe it is someone from the DCI side that leaked this letter unprofessionally, and the G7 is being professional by not retaliating by leaking a DCI proposal. However, if the letter was never written, there would be nothing to leak (except unverifiable rumors). Why are other organizations capable of conducting private negotiations without major leaks? At least some of the blame should go on the person that decided to write this letter. These are the types of things that should be done orally and not in writing. You only put something in writing when you are comfortable with something going public (or when you have a confidentiality agreement in place, with penalties). This whole situation shows why it is important for negotiations to be private and confidential. The only people that should have known about this position are people that understand the importance of confidentiality in negotiations. Maybe I was too soon in my praise for the professionalism of DCI. If they leaked this, they deserve a lot of criticism. The letter never should have been written though. You don't conduct negotiations by email.

Change the structure of the board. Make some tweaks to the rules. Contrary to your completely cyncical view, I don't believe the G7 are interested in destroying DCI. They are unhappy with the current structure of DCI and want to make it better, not worse. I think the way they are going about it is completely unprofessional, but I do believe they are trying to make changes fr the better ... not the worse. There is plenty of room to work together to reach the common goal of making DCI better.

My only problem with the G7 (or Hopkins, if he is disproportionately responsible for this stuff) is how unprofessional they are being. There are differences in opinion in every organization in the world, including the succesful ones like the NFL (don't people remember the lockout a couple years ago?). I don't blame anyone, or any group of people or organizations for looking out for their best interest in a way that allows them to be as good as they can be. This is a horrible way to go about it though. You do not conduct these kinds of negotiations in public. These types of reforms are the types of things that need to be done behind closed doors. And frankly, the G7 would be smart to get an attorney or some other professional to do their bidding for them. Their current approach makes them look like a bunch of pathetic babies. You don't write this silly kind of letter and let it get leaked when you KNOW that the general drum corps fanbase will not be on your side. The way the G7 have acted over the last few years have raised a lot of concern about the competence of their leadership in the context of non-performance issues. It is clear that they know how to design and teach drum corps, but they operate and negotiate like extreme amateurs. They would be smart to hire a professional and get out of the forefront of these negotiations. In contrast, I have been extremely impressed by DCI's restraint and professionalism through this ordeal. They are in a tough position, but they have done nothing but respect the activity and everyone involved.

No. I'm suggesting it was poorly written.

There is plenty of room for compromise.

Brilliant! Cut off your nose to spite your face.

How would it be financially prudent to stay in an organization that would surely die? I don't like the idea of the G7 leaving, but people are delusional if they think DCI could continue to exist in any kind of meaningful way without them.

No offense, but DCI, without the G7, wouldn't last very long either. It is already struggling. Pushing the only corps that really approach financial stability out of the organization will mean the death of DCI. Like it or not, DCI and the G7 are codependent. So if you want to keep drum corps alive, there will have to be some compromises.

I certainly hope there are some in the G7 that have some problems with Mr. Hopkins horribly written letter. While I can sympathize with some of the concerns the G7 has, Hopkins letter sounds like it was written by a whiney teenager that gets Ds in English. I would be shocked if all the directors of the G7 signed off on this letter as it was written.

Haven't really been a fan of a Cadets show in a while. This sounds like one I am going to like. Very excited!

Of course I wouldn't be OK with that, if I marched in an Open Class Corps. But I didn't. I am just giving you my perspective as an outsider. Would you be OK if you invested thousands of hours annually for little to no pay (sometimes putting in your own money to make things work) and had the same amount of influence over the activity as someone that casually participates in the activity while investing about 10% of the time and resources? I'm not saying they are 100% right, but I can see where they are coming from and to write it all off as some kind of nefarious power grab isn't doing any good for anyone. Do people really think all seven of these corps, who are truly the heart and soul of the activity ... and who have some of the best people in the world involved in their management ... put this together with little thought because they were greedy? All I am saying is that it would do all sides of this issue some good if we tried to look at things through other people's perspectives. The G7 needs DCI, and despite their threats to break off, they know it. And the other corps need the G7. Those that think otherwise are deluding themselves. I think it is time to stop throwing bombs at each other and start trying to understand each other and come up with a solution.

This isn't going to be popular, but it is my honest opinion. I understand why people with attachments to corps outside the G7 would be outraged by this presentation, and I do think it could have been handled in a better way, but ... as a relative outsider with no real attachment to any particular corps ... these concerns seem sincere and their proposals seem fundamentally sound. In fact, many of the proposals seem to line up with many of the ideas I have had to improve DCI (and ideas that I have seen others posted here). I understand why people are upset, but I think many neutral observers, especially ones with experience running a fiscally sound organization, would be siding with the G7 here. Take, for example, the suggestion that DCI spend more time focusing on local bands, band directors, and student. That seems like a complete no brainer ... and yet, it still seems like little is being done in this area. The fact of the matter is ... we have seen dozens of threads lamenting the fiscal state of DCI and how things need to change. This is a proposal for change, and the reaction of DCI was to panic and throw everyone that suggested it off the board. That doesn't seem like an organization that realizes the threats it is facing or that is seriously of making adjustments for its long term health. I did not see this proposal as a power grab ... I saw it as a serious proposal to fix the problems facing DCI. These corps have invested a lot in this activity ... in many cases more than any other corps ... it is not surprising that they would be concerned by its current direction.

I love that it pushes the envelope, in terms of being modern, and yet is not completely incomprehensible (like some of the stuff the Blue Devils have done recently). Very excited. P.S. I really liked the Blue Devils this past year.

I'm very excited about this show. Great selections.

The Cavalier's line up is awesome. Should be an exciting, and challenging, show.

Yes I have seen the show, and yes it is clearly intended to mock Mormons. I don't know how any reasonable person could watch and think it wasn't intended to do that. It may be funny, and it may not have offended you, but it was clearly intended to make fun of things that other people hold sacred.

You don't see the difference between celebrating religion and mocking a particular religion in a crude way?

Yes ... really. You don't find mocking other people's religion offensive?

I hope not. It is an extremely offensive show.

I have wondered the same thing, but was afraid making a new thread about this would be shut down because it was about "religion." Do corps members know the show design before the audition? I imagine it might be uncomfortable for some Jewish, Atheist, or other non-Christian participants to be in a show with an overt religious message. I guess there are some corps that you would just expect that to be a possibility with when you audition.

I'm not making a fuss, and wasn't offended at all. I myself am a Christian and don't mind public displays of religion. But it seemed like you were suggesting that the show design didn't have overt religious allusions, when it clearly did. A Jesus fish (or Ichtus) is not a Christmas symbol. It is a Christian symbol, more commonly associated with the end of Christ's life, not the beginning. I just don't think we should be pretending that The Cadets show was anything other than what it was. It was a show that had overt allusions to Christianity that are not traditionally part of Christmas.

Not a big fan of Phantom. Loved the 89 show, but the music hasn't aged well, in my opinion (with the exception of Masquerade, which is a great song).