crest99

So it's discriminatory by definition when of the roughly 3300 spots available in World Class Corps this summer, about 3260 were available to men and 3000 were open to women. Was that a lot of spots for women? Yes. Was that an improvement over bygone decades? Absolutely. Was it an equal opportunity? No. As I said above, I'm open to the idea that a single gender corps or section offers some special and unique benefit to those members that you can only get by being single gender. That might certainly justify it. Clearly all boys and all girls schools make some version of that sort of argument (though they too are in decline). But I think any nonprofit educational organization saying that only certain folks are allowed in deserves a fair bit of scrutiny. It's hard to speculate about an all-female corps because there hasn't been one in a long time, which in itself says something. But if you were going to defend one and not the other, I think that idea of empowerment from your quote on the Crossmen is the key.

Just a few points in no particular order: The argument that 21/22 corps being coed is good enough boils down to the claim that a little bit of discrimination is OK. As long as you base the argument in the idea that women should not feel bad about having only one door closed to them, then you should at least be honest with yourself that you are defending discrimination. It's been said many times on this thread but it bears repeating: would you be OK with 21/22 restaurants in your town being integrated? I'm more receptive to the argument that a single-gender corps offers such unique benefits to its members that it justifies the exclusion of others. I wish I'd seen more of that on this thread. But honestly most of the time this comes up the values I hear about (teamwork, fraternity, etc.) seem familiar to me as a veteran of a coed corps. I also wouldn't take seriously any argument for a single-gender corps that did not incorporate robust recognition of trans rights, an issue on which the Scouts had not previously distinguished themselves. A number of posters have advanced the idea that these corps are private organizations who can behave as they please, and the rest of us should mind our business. This claim is groundless. While I believe in the importance of autonomy in the nonprofit sector, the tax benefit they receive as nonprofits justifies public scrutiny -- especially when it comes to issues involving discrimination. I'm generally skeptical of all-___ anything (guards, corps, whatever), but I'd push back against the idea that all-male is necessarily equivalent to all-female, etc. For me the difference is the historical connection between single-sex male organizations and power. My guess is that this is the comment people will jump all over, but I don't think you need to be buried deep in academia to understand that relationship. That said, I'd reiterate that I'm still not pleased by the reappearance of all-female guards.

Thanks for your super thoughtful posts. I do wonder about the relationship between the production costs of the field show (props, ever-changing uniforms, etc.) and membership fees. I'd love to see some data on how much expenditures on the former have risen in the past decade or so, and how that compares with rising fees. Not especially on topic, but I'm also curious about your valuation of corps membership costs. What summer experiences did you have in mind when you argued that drum corps is underpriced?

You might as well have written this as the OP.

Worth underscoring that you would have had to say the same thing to a young man whose gender identity did not match the sex assignment on their birth certificate, at least in regards to the Scouts.

I'll take equality over privilege and exclusivity every day of the week and twice on Sundays. If you actually listen to the words coming out of the mouths of the Scouts' leadership, it sounds like they did this in a thoughtful way and for the right reasons. If competitive struggles brought those right reasons to the front rank of their concerns, then so be it. I'm not too picky about the reasons behind positive change. I hope and believe that a more inclusive corps will open up richer experiences for current and future members -- and for alums too. Lots of institutions have found ways to reconcile tradition and inclusivity. My guess is that the Scouts can figure out how to accomplish that too.

Strengthen the financial health of all corps by separating competitive success from DCI's membership compensation structure.

For what it's worth, I usually describe drum corps as "club marching band" to those not yet initiated into the cult. Adults with kids on traveling sports teams usually grasp the meaning quickly enough: (1) not attached to a football team and/or military unit (2) not actual bugles (anymore) (3) really expensive (4) really good.

This. As a marching member, I remember my corps being on both ends when a judge went off the reservation. And I distinctly remember it altering placement for better and worse in some rather important shows (quarterfinals, for instance). As a spectator, I have to admit I kind of enjoy seeing marks go all over the place every now and then. It preserves at least some semblance of the idea that drum corps is a live, spontaneous art-form about which people may form differing opinions. I also have a feeling that any system enforcing judging consistency would only serve to reinforce the status quo in corps placements, keeping the haves at the top and making sure the have nots continue having naught. It would also work against some of the story lines we enjoy most each season: the little guy having an exceptional year, the surging dark-horse, and the half-mad half-genius mid-season rewrites.

I still can't listen to Adagio for Strings on the field without thinking of Vanguard.

This is a fabulously talented corps and kind of a hip show. Can someone more learned than I explain how the poles make it better?

Playing the yeti in Regiment's backfield has to be the best assistant drum major gig in the entire long and storied history of drum and bugle corps. Edit - Evil queen, yeti, what's a mistaken villain between friends.

I pray for the day when dancing brass players finally go out of style.

Slow-walk debate must mean a slow Sunday night. Is it football season yet? When I was a drum major back in the early 2000s, the Troopers were invariably classy, nice folks. DM included. Walk wasn't to my personal aesthetic taste, but live and let live. Like the guy above said, we invariably ended up getting to the sideline and waiting for the scores for a half hour anyway, so it's not like we needed to do a wind sprint across the field. I was generally more worried about someone stealing my plate of food than my stride size/pace. Chris

To return briefly to the OP. Part of the issue here is correlating "success" to placement. Many of the corps in the lower tier of the World Class standings are at least as well managed as the top corps. They have smart, creative, and fiscally prudent directors and boards, excellent staff, supportive alumni, and yes, talented members. That they do not consistently place well does not mean the organizations are in danger, or that they cannot handle a tour (or some version of it), or that they struggle to provide their members with a quality educational experience. One could argue that they actually do more real "education" than the top corps, which are essentially semi-pro at this point, but that's not quite on point here. This is not to say that all is well in DCI land, but let's not make the mistake of conflating competitive prowess with organizational solidity. Let's not make that mistake in particular because that is the mistake that many of the top corps' leaders seem to be making these days.... This is true, and has been true from the beginning. Those of you who rant against the G7 (and I am emphatically on your side) often seem to overlook that it's in many ways a logical end of the financial model that DCI has used for 40 years. That is one which pays corps primarily through competition appearance fees -- fees that are structured based on the previous year's competitive standing. No one ever seemed to complain too much about this until the G7 asked for a much bigger cut. But given the earlier payout structure, it really was only a matter of time until they asked to renegotiate percentages. I think the stability and future of DCI actually rests in going in the exact opposite direction the G7 want to take it, with financing and competition entirely separated from one another. Kids should compete. Corps as organizations should not. Financial rewards should not be based on what a corps puts on the field. They should be based entirely on fiscal and organizational evaluations of the member corps that determine their financial health, organizational solidity, and basic quality of education. For the corps at the top who have multiple revenue streams, I doubt this would detract much from what you see on the field, but on the other end it might level the playing field a bit and perhaps (and more importantly) prevent more Teal Sounds, etc. Drum corps' problems are myriad and complex, but removing direct financial implications from a 10-12 minute performance would go a long way towards creating a healthier and more stable activity. At the very least it would help neutralize the poison in the well and reaffirm the activity's status as an educational nonprofit, which some leaders in the activity seem to have forgotten lately. Whether wiser heads have the political will and ability to prevail is, of course, another matter entirely.

This is pretty spot on, both on the history and the present-day dynamics. Also, just to keep it real here, drum corps nowadays is predominately a white middle-class activity -- it takes a pretty big wad of cash to march, let alone set up a corps -- and much of the South is historically economically underdeveloped (see for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States). So at the very least, that's not helpful.

The underlying dynamic in this thread, which is surprise and disappointment that the Troopers are not more competitive this season (filed under "needs more sunburst"), actually points to the enormous success of the corps since its reorganization. Back when I marched in the early 2000s there wasn't much question of the Troopers' competitiveness because, put simply, they weren't. Now the assumption is that they should be competitive, and that's pretty cool. Creating, conserving, and adapting a corps' identity is about more than putting on a scarf or charting a drill move. Think of other old and venerated corps that have climbed out of the ranks of the also-rans with a more contemporary look and program while still preserving their traditions: Blue Stars, Boston, and Spirit, to take more recent examples. No, they don't look like they did in the 1970s. But most of us would agree that they are still clearly the same corps. And if you talked to the members, staff, and board, I'm sure you'd still find that they have the same values as those that came before them. That's even more crucial than a look or sound. The other thing about identity is that it is a dynamic and ongoing process. What the Troopers have (by all appearances) gotten right recently is their financing, staffing, and overall quality of experience provided to the members. That's what will ultimately keep bringing old members back and new recruits in the door, more than the repertoire or superman suit or placement. Finding a clear, appealing, and competitively successful identity on the field may take some more time, and yes, perhaps this year they missed the mark. But it looks like the corps is healthy and will be around for a bit, so be patient while they figure out what works for them.

I rarely post here, but a few things: 1) All the best to Teal Sound's members, parents, and management. I cannot imagine how disappointed I would have been if this had happened to me during my marching years. 2) I have read most every one of the 36 pages of this thread, and have not learned any substantive or verifiable facts that were not contained in the original press release. It's your right to discuss and certainly my privilege not to read, but dear lord drum corps interwebs.... 3) Not to add to the speculation, but the problem in part appears to be not that Teal Sound did not have the money to tour, but that they did not have the money to complete the tour the management scheduled with DCI. Remember this the next time you post a whiny rant about why a corps has not competed in 2 weeks. It's a good bet that corps will be back the following season, and the one after that. 4) The vast majority of the discussion on these boards deals with the top corps. That's fine, they are pretty impressive and I enjoy watching them too. But the old adage is that the health of a society should be judged on how it looks after its weakest members. The same can be applied to drum corps. Drum and bugle corps has always featured high turnover, it's been a part of the activity since the 1920s and 1930s. But there were a lot more back then, not so much now. The top groups may very well be getting better and better every year, but does that make this a healthy and sustainable activity? I'm not so sure. /sermon Chris

I think you can get pretty much anything on PBS as long as you have an underwriter. But frankly if someone had that kind of cash to give to the activity I'd rather see it go to the corps themselves rather than a one-off broadcast program. The Bravo idea was glib but it actually wouldn't be a terrible pitch for a reality program. I daresay that ample footage of tanned and shirtless men running around a football field might contain some appeal for Bravo's target demographics. How that would further drum corps' educational mission is perhaps a question best left unconsidered.

My point about BAC was not to compare performance levels - much less to disparage Boston, which I would never do - but merely to suggest that corps that endure will eventually have their day in the sun. Anyone who knows anything about the City of Boston in the 1970s or has spoken to members from that period knows it was a tough time for the organization. The other half of the comparison was to note that people get away with saying the most outlandish things about Pioneer on these forums that they would never dream of saying about other corps, and yet the corps and its alumni seem to shrug this off with more grace than I could muster in the face of such criticism. That's all I have to say on BAC - this thread isn't about them and anyone who takes issue is more than welcome to PM me. In addition, I have to say that I personally find the up-or-out, all-or-nothing competitive mentality expressed by some posters as a justification for relegating Pioneer almost unbearably pretentious and potentially harmful to the activity as a whole. DCI is not the Premier League, nor is Lucas Oil Stadium the Thunderdome. As good as they are, most of the kids in these corps will never be professional performers, and I would guess that 10-20 years from now the average alumnus of [insert top-placing corps here] will have a lot more in common with a Pioneer alum than with a member of the New York Phil. Both will be better for their experience in drum corps, and where they placed won't make a darn bit of difference. Yet the kind of exclusionary thinking that begins with "Pioneer isn't good enough to play in the same sandbox with my corps" is the same logic that leads you to something like the G8/7/6/5/4/3/2/1.... It's arrogance and short-sightedness a shrinking activity can ill afford. C

The presumption here seems to be that the staff and board of Pioneer - like most of the members of this forum - measure their organization's success primarily in terms of competitive placement. I have a feeling that is almost certainly not the case. Pioneer's motto is "better every day," not "place 17th or bust." Take a look at their mission statement (http://www.pioneer-corps.org/about/mission-statement.html) as well as their discussion of vision and values (http://www.pioneer-corps.org/about/vision-a-values.html). Competition is mentioned once, and then only "as an opportunity for constant improvement and measurement of the growth of our performers." I bet if you talked to Pioneer's members tonight and asked them how their experience on tour stacked up against the objectives in these two documents, they would compare favorably. I'd call that a good season. As for this discussion about moving to Open Class, it's nonsense. This was a little before my time, but I believe the Boston Crusaders fielded less than 20 horns during at least one of their darker years. I tremble to think what would have happened to you in the parking lot if you suggested they move down to A60. And it took a while, but BAC isn't looking so bad nowadays. Pioneer puts a credible corps on the field and does the tour every year. As far as I can tell, over the long term they have been more stable in terms of finances and organization than many corps that placed ahead of them tonight, and many more that are no longer around. Can they get bigger and improve competitively? That would be great. But I think they're doing just fine where they are, and I very much doubt they need our advice. /sermon Chris

First off, this event is amazing. Great idea by DCI. Second, this schedule presents huge hurdles for the top Open Class groups. Looks like SCVC - the third place OC corps - goes on a full hour and a half before Pioneer, which it needs to beat in order to get to Friday. That's going to require a long memory on the part of some judges.... Hope everyone in Indy has fun tomorrow, especially the kids on the field.

Even if you stipulated that corps are roughly equally good at cleaning, one would expect that in general as a corps gets better (especially among the very top groups, late in the season) there is less to clean, the remaining issues are smaller in scope, and that consequently they would receive less credit for these improvements. So you'd think a corps outside the top 17 that was still fixing big things would see bigger jumps in their score down the home stretch than a top unit that's basically polishing a finished product. Change in placement (or the lack thereof) is an interesting, but slightly different, issue.

In a moment of extraordinary boredom today, I compared the World Class scores from San Antonio and Allentown. I frankly have been a little frustrated with my old corps' stalled score, and I wanted to see how its number over the past couple of weeks compared with other units. What I found more or less proved my personal grumbling baseless. In fact, what surprised me was how little variation there was in the increase in each corps' score, especially between the top and bottom corps. To explain a little more, the average increase in score for 22 WC corps between San Antonio and Allentown (not including Surf, which was not in TX) was 4.06 points. The high was 5.15 (well done Mandarins) and the low was 3.05 (Pioneer). Obviously 2 points is a pretty big spread. But the weird thing (at least in my mind) is that the average increase in score among the top 7 (4.16) is virtually the same as the bottom 7 (4.11). The same is true when you compare the current top 12 (4.02) with the bottom 10 (4.12). I know judging in this activity is not only subjective but also relative, which is to say that scores generally have more to do with the differences between the corps before and after you than a nominal figure. Still, intuitively one would think that the rate of improvement would decrease - even just a little bit - as you move towards the top. In plain English, I would have expected to see the improvement among the top corps be smaller than that of the bottom corps, especially as the top units start to max out the sheets. I was under the impression that it's harder to go from a 94 to a 95 than from a 74 to a 75. A few caveats here: I know Allentown was 2 nights. But it was back to back and I would guess that even if you used different data the trend would hold up. Also, I should add that I think the judges are good and honest people, and I'm not trying to beat the slotting horse or imply any kind of conspiracy or cabal. Please take unfounded allegations elsewhere. S.A. Allentown Increase Blue Devils 90.95 95.25 4.3 Cadets 90.4 95.2 4.8 Cavaliers 91.05 94.85 3.8 Crown 89.55 93.7 4.15 Phantom 87.4 91.5 4.1 SCV 86.15 90.6 4.45 Bluecoats 86.6 90.15 3.55 Boston 84.55 88.25 3.7 Madison 83.8 87.2 3.4 BK 82.9 86.7 3.8 Blue Stars 82.9 86.1 3.2 Spirit 79.05 84 4.95 Glassmen 78.6 82.4 3.8 Troopers 78.55 83.05 4.5 Academy 77.75 81.8 4.05 Colts 76.55 80.65 4.1 Crossmen 75.8 79.85 4.05 PC 73.3 76.95 3.65 Mandarins 70.45 75.6 5.15 Teal 70.65 74.9 4.25 Cascades 68.45 73 4.55 Pioneer 66 69.05 3.05

With him on this. I believe this is addressed in Brass Roots, the old DCI history video from the 1990s. "International" was meant to make the Canadian corps happy, nothing more. It is still nominally accurate, although with most people I miss the many inactive Canadian units of the past. I honestly think this is pretty much a non-issue. There's never been any impetus to having large numbers of European or Japanese corps compete in North America, either before or after the formation of DCI, nor would such a goal be realistic even if DCI wanted to actively pursue some global mandate. When individual do units do come over, they seem to have a good time and entertain their audiences, and I don't think anyone either in DCI or these corps loses much sleep over how they fit into our competitive system.