seen-it-all

Oh, if it were only that simple. It reminds me of the classic Steve Martin comedy bit called, "How to be a millionaire and never pay taxes." Step one, get a million dollars.

We're pretty much already there.

There are many schools in that region that refuse to house drum corps for this very reason. And some of the incidents go back a long way. That's all it took was just one time and from then on, they said, "Never again." Hopefully, a lesson learned for those corps who did the damage and all corps in general.

Just thinking out loud... All this "DCI needs to do something" stuff is certainly well-intentioned, but it seems like the only way to accomplish the kind of true oversight necessary (on a variety of levels) would be to scrap the entire DCI operating model and start over from scratch to create some sort of actual comprehensive governing body, made up of an independent board of directors and administrative team and NOT of current individual DCI corps directors. In the early 70's, the corps directors wrestled control over their destinies from the old service posts and the end result was DCI, the corps making the rules, the corps in charge of themselves, etc. It was a radical concept at the time and for a while it seemed to work. Clearly, in this day and age, it seems as if an activity of this scope simply cannot be run this way anymore. Maybe all these concerned voices here and elsewhere should be lobbying their brain power, energy and efforts into the formation of a true drum corps governing body, one that seeks not only to foster the growth and safety of current corps (of all ages), but putting forth a strong effort into the creation and development of NEW corps all over the country (and world?) to help expand the activity, something the current DCI model has historically been incapable of doing by nature of its intended design. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone involved at the higher levels of DCI would have any interest in going back to the drawing board.

Well, OK then. I guess that settles that.

This is so true and it can get pretty disheartening after a while, especially when you're marching with or teaching one of those corps on the bubble of moving from one competitive sandbox up to another.

It's not a sport. Just sayin. Continue...

Fair enough. Yet in some cases, the volume on the solo mics sometimes isn't balanced well with the rest of the ensemble, and then it's a case of a different kind of (at times) problematic option to be dealt with. Not to mention having to adjust all of that into the overall mix from a sound board from one stadium to the next. Frankly, most of the acoustic solos I've heard in DCI over the years sounded what I would call "appropriate," given the arena and the overall acoustic sound of the rest of the ensemble, but that's just me. As long as it's played well and it sounds right among all the other musical stuff that's going on around it, I'm fine with it.

So all those great soloists from the past who were not mic'd were simply blasting?? No natural tone in there anywhere?

All I know is that when I wanted to see really innovative and out of the box design during the years I mentioned, I would much rather have gone to Dayton/WGI or Indy/BOA because that's where I was seeing it.

Ehhhhh, I would say DCI owes a lot more to BOA and WGI in terms of design trends starting in the early/mid 2000's or so. The designers had more free reign in the band and indoor world to go crazy with whatever they wanted, and with the top band programs they had large budgets to work with that would allow them to pull that stuff off. I would agree that in DCI, taking into account a stronger overall assemblage of on-field talent, it allows the DCI designers to push the design envelope even further, but all of these modern characteristics that many old school fans are confused by or dislike sprung forth from the indoor/band realm and led the way to what we're seeing in DCI now.

It seems to me that the general audience at a DCI show is made up of people largely associated with "the activity" to some degree, whether that means current/former marching band members, indoor color guards/drumlines, former drum corps members or potential future members. It's kind of a closed loop with little to no "outsiders" and while I don't have any numbers to back this up, I'd say a decent percentage of them have seen their share of WGI events and BOA events. And the very thought of a DCI corps entering the field in 2018 without some kind of massive props or wild costuming or mic'd solos or vocalist(s) or extensive choreography would be completely alien to them. I could definitely understand if a sort of "seen it" mentality starts to slowly seep in. Especially when some of those BOA bands are twice as large (as is the spectacle they present) as DCI corps. The basic difference in design quality when it comes to the very upper echelons of DCI, BOA, WGI, et al, has gotten closer and closer. Even the performance qualities have gotten closer, though DCI will always have the edge there considering the amount of intensive rehearsal time they get to perfect their shows. Taking all of that into account, I can definitely understand the "sameness" argument. Someone a few pages back asked, "What more do these people want?" A possible answer could be, "Something they've never seen or heard before." There was a time when DCI corps offered that. There was nothing in those other circuits that looked or sounded like a DCI corps. Now? Well, I'd say the difference is not so great. Also, as a related anecdote, a good friend of mine attended the show in San Antonio this past weekend. She marched back in the day, spent 7 years with the same corps, was an absolute beast of a performer. Since then, with life and all, she's only been to a few shows here or there. She messaged me about having seen the show and I asked her what she thought. Her reaction was muted at best and the comment that stuck out most to me was when she said, "Thank god for the PA announcer, otherwise I would have had no idea which corps was which. What's up with THAT?!" I think she has a point there, and hey, I get why corps are following the leader so hard on the costuming thing. But she brought up a good point about that idea of "brand identity" and how crucial it is in the real world, how long it takes to establish, and to see it just discarded to the point where you really do need someone to tell you which corps is which (aside from a few groups who have held onto certain semi-identifiable details). Especially if you don't spend time online following each corps' twitter or Instagram feeds, or come to places like DCP to get a glimpse at what all the corps are wearing this year, etc. For the record, I don't characterize any of what DCI is doing now as better or worse than it used to be. It's just different than it used to be. People can make up their own minds about whether they like it or not and want to follow it and support it. I, myself, don't find myself nearly as interested in it as I used to. The performance quality is better than it's ever been, and I acknowledge and appreciate that. But for me, there definitely is an undefinable quality that's just, for lack of a better word, missing.

I wonder who will win the DCI Fancy Brigade division this year?

That about sums it up perfectly. Well said!

It depends on whether or not the tradition is still relevant and not something that could possibly be hindering growth or even survival.

http://www.profootballhof.com/players/oj-simpson/ Just sayin's all...

Note to mods: As OP, I'd prefer that the discussion remain on topic. There is already a thread devoted to all things Morrison/Moody, no need to rehash every single detail here.

This might seem crazy, it might not, given the recent circumstances, but it crossed my mind and I'm going to throw it out there to see what people think. There's been much talk (and deservedly so) about sexual harassment in drum corps dealing with administrators/instructors, whether that harassment occurs within their own ranks (directors and their subordinates) or crossing the line towards the actual performers in the corps. The need for more stringent guidelines when it comes to hiring practices, as well as expected professional behavior on the job, has been made obvious and is long overdue. What do the members and prospective members (or their parents) deserve to know about these people before making their decision to join or audition? These are all necessary conversations to be had and I'm glad we're having them. But what about sexual harassment within the "rank and file" corps membership itself? Certainly, if it comes as little surprise that sexual harassment has been going on virtually unchecked between and among staff members, or between staff and performers through the years, would it surprise anyone to imagine that the same hasn't been happening between and among the performers as well? Would it surprise anyone to imagine that the problem may actually be worse? Thankfully, one of the positives to come from all these recent events has been the mention of creating hotlines for people to call if they are the victims of such incidents, no matter who the person is doing the harassing. But what of that expectation of what people deserve to know before getting involved with a specific drum corps to begin with? We all know that most (if not all) corps require background checks for their employees which hopefully (but not always) weed out those with "checkered pasts" who should not be around young people. Some have even requested that this information should be posted online for people to see so they can have a better idea of what they're getting into. A step too far? Perhaps. But shouldn't people be made aware if an administrator or instructor has a prior criminal record? How far should we go with this? Should we also require psychological evaluations for all admin/staff? And should that information be made available as well? And to the point of this particular thread, what about the performers in the corps itself? Is any consideration being given to the thought that someone with a "checkered past" (whether they have an actual criminal record or not) could possibly audition for and become a member of any drum corps they wish and wind up marching right alongside our son or daughter? Do we then have the right to know those things beforehand as well? Should background checks and/or psychological evaluations also be part of the audition process so those people can be weeded out? Another step too far? Again, perhaps. This has been on my mind lately because I can recall in my marching days (long ago) discovering that someone in my own section not only had a criminal record but had actually spent a brief time incarcerated for their crime which revolved around some pretty extreme emotional problems leading to violence. Thankfully, we never saw any real hint of such behavior during the tour itself. But apparently, the director and the staff knew about it beforehand and decided to let this person march anyway. I have to be honest, if I knew that I'd be marching next to someone who did the things this person did, it would have made me extremely uncomfortable, to say the least. As I said, thankfully, that behavior never manifested itself (and to my knowledge has never since manifested itself) and this person wound up becoming a friend. A friend who made some really stupid mistakes when he was younger. In a way, I'm glad we weren't told about it. But maybe I'd be singing a different tune had something bad happened. This is definitely NOT a black and white issue (for me, anyway). I can also recall being an instructor later on and being told a laundry list of issues related to kids in the corps, ranging from severe emotional problems (very common!) to actual prior borderline (if not unprosecuted) criminal acts. Some of which involved violence or "inappropriate sexual behavior" leading to expulsion from schools, none of which was ever made aware to any of the other performers or their parents. Should it have been? What if something had happened? Is what I'm talking about anywhere close to being in the same realm of what we're currently dealing with today, in light of the current social climate? Where does individual privacy end and the safety of others begin? How far is too far? I really don't have an answer for that but I'm interested in what others have to say about it.

Try reaching out to her and suggesting it. She's very open to comments from what I understand.

I do not in any way wish to demean or blame any individual who has a complaint about sexual harassment, but I think it's important that if they do have a complaint, even if they believe nothing will be done about them reporting it, they should lodge that complaint anyway. Get it on record, make copies, or do it in person and bring someone with you as a witness. Document every step of that process as accurately as you can. Then if the complaint is ignored or turned down, there will be a record of when, why, how, and who. Just MHO, as a cautionary thing so that these kinds of events have a more clear timeline of what exactly happened and when.

The Blue Devils. Duh! (The odds are usually favorable to make that prediction)

My mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.

Myth. Actually, their total visual numbers in the area of visual proficiency and visual analysis improved when they made the change at the Chester show and stayed right in the thick of things* through Allentown, Buffalo, Massillon, and even Indy prelims (2nd in visual proficiency). What killed them when it was all said and done was a combination of their color guard being a clear notch below their nearest competition and the Bluecoats surging at the right time. And if the uniform change had a negative impact on the Cadets' GE scores, I guarantee it was not nearly as negative an impact as their color guard had. That guard just didn't look like they belonged in the top echelon of corps, in content or performance. So much so that even if the corps had kept the maroon and gold, things would most likely have finished exactly the same way. (* in relation to Crown and Bluecoats. By this time, BD had begun their inevitable separation from the others)

The music of Slash?? ;)

They say in the business world that the first rule in rebuilding trust with your employees, stockholders, clients, and customers after some sort of public scandal or calamity is openness and transparency. It's clear that the new braintrust at YEA thinks that matters such as these really ARE "that important in the grand scheme of things." So they're not, in fact, putting someone else's agenda (if that's what this is) ahead of their own, their keeping their word to be more open and transparent with what's going on to the people who clearly care about the corps and want to see it come back from this. Any way one looks at this little episode, the outcome is very good and gives further credence that this board (and chairman) are really doing the right things to get the organization back on track.