2muchcoffeeman

I dig unison work, the attention to detail such as stick heights and step length. For me, that was the bridge from band to corps, the way that 100% of the attention of 100% of the members was focused on 100% single-mindedness. Not just playing together, but playing together with such minimal tolerance for variation that the result was a single, articulate sound. Unison rifle work is like this, too.

Here is the entire post from @wolfgang to which I responded: I don't see what you claim to see. In any case, you and I don't disagree on the problem: DCI's governance model has its various pathologies and could be improved. The issue is whether the fact of self-governance is, itself, the problem.

That's an argument against the substance of the decisions being made, not against the idea of members governing themselves. They may be insular. They may be self-defeating. The answer, then, is for them to stop being insular and self-defeating. The only way through this problem is persuasion. As a practical matter, any of the alternative government methods you list above would require approval of the governing members anyway. So here's where I land: Win the argument. Stop wishing for governance structures that can't happen unless you win the argument first.

Oh, yeah, I get that. Those words, too, have been used many times. My question remains: What's the point here? Why is this considered to be the brilliant flash of insight, the discussion-ender? The analogy is flawed. An asylum is, by definition, a coercive institution; people are there under court order, almost always not by choice. Does it need explanation in this room that DCI is a voluntary association of like-minded organizations? Ofcourse those organizations are going to manage DCI affairs. I mean, who else would?

. . . and Americans govern themselves. What's the point here? I never get why this is always offered as some kind of insight.

No, of course not. I didn't make an argument for time travel. My argument is that the show you put on the field in August is the strongest recruiting tool you have for audition interest in November. Yes, correct — and again not related to my argument. My argument is not connected to the actual time of year that designers get busy. My point is that, based on what they saw in August, prospective members have an idea of what they may be able to participate in next June. August is the most recent, most available point of evaluation. "I want to be part of a corps that does shows like ________." That's what motivates 19-year olds, not the work schedule of designers. (And, just to be overly clear, I'm not hung up on August per se. August is just shorthand for "the kind of shows that a corps does," which is most fully expressed in August). . . . and what correlates with competitive order of finish? Say it with me: Design budget. As long as GE is 40% of the sheets, I expect this to be true.

The Elephant in Room: Will 19-year-olds pay for this execution-forward experience? They did in 1980; will they do it again 45 years later? The biggest revenue driver is camps and tuition. Camps and tuition revenue are directly correlated to prospective-member interest level. Prospective-member interest is driven, first, by the show design that the corps put on the field in August. Show design drives member interest; prove me wrong. Kids want to be part of something they think will make them cool among their peers. The Colts are clean. Dollars to donuts that camp numbers at Colts are a fraction of the number at Bloo, and it's not because Bloo is incrementally cleaner. Nothing against Colts; it's just the way it is. Captivating, spellbinding — read: Expensive — design in August draws crowds in November and December. tl;dr: Does the customer want to buy what you're selling?

I have no reason to dispute this, but just out of ignorance, what would make a show theme exceptionally expensive? I suppose extravagant props could add some cost, and props can be either cheap or comparatively expensive, but I don't think props have ever amounted to a significant share of any corps' operating budget. Prop costs, even expensive props, don't move the needle much. So, setting aside props, what drives up the cost of a show? Everyone licenses, arranges and teaches essentially the same amount of music. The mechanical aspect of show design would seem to be fairly constant, i.e. the task of mapping out drill moves in software is essentially the same from corps to corps, no? So what's the big variable that would take the cost of show design from the realm of the possible to impossible? As far as I can tell, Mandarins weren't bringing in a whole new team of higher-priced design talent; they were sticking with their current design team. Did they all demand big raises? Did they pick music with ridiculous licensing costs?

Man. That is a shame. I applaud the sober management, but feel for the members who were looking forward to next year. The timing is puzzling; Drum Corps Planet posted a Mandarins auditions recruitment video just yesterday.

She leaves a hole as large as a sunburst. HLD.

This topic is a staple of the DCI Board Consortium and it gains little traction, not for lack of interest, but because it doesn't really pencil out, especially logistically.

Yeah, I felt bad for him when it happened. I never suspected that he had been sloppy, only the victim of corporate opaqueness.

Deleted. Wrong quote.

I still remember when he announced a health-services partnership with Wal-Mart, and within something like 24 hours the mothership in Bentonville announced it was getting out of the health-care game. Hope he checks the back door on whatever the next deal is.

Level up? Troopers edged out Phantom in percussion.