garfield

So the PM you sent that says essentially all of this was necessary how? I'll respond here as I was about to respond there: You presume too much when you consider how much I care about the whole "Shaw" episode. None of this makes me want to change my screen name.

Excellent sleuthing, BTW

By the wording, only the corps knew of any such "compromise". It was their presumption that the "compromise" would be accepted.

To quote Jeff Ream: "Shhh... facts" 💥

Well, obviously, based on the number of trucks used, drum corps ought to be generating somewhere around $330million in revenue each year. (BTW, TSO donates $1 for every ticket sold to charities in the cities in which they perform. They've donated more than $10million since inception.)

Maintaining relevance includes demonstrating a business model that is workable. If DCI's model is crippled by touring, then they haven't maintained relevance. It's not as though WGI and competitive corps-style bands get a free pass because they still travel weekends, but their model is obviously more maintainable than the one DCI is using. Trans-Siberian Orchestra tours 21 semis, over 30 performers, and over 70 crew and rakes in $70million/year in more than 100 shows in over 60 cities. Taylor Swift tours 17 tractor trailers and a crew of over 30. Obviously, "touring" is not the big problem with DCI remaining relevant.

Correct. That horse is already out of the barn and galloping across the neighbor's field.

And I think you're leaving out the big elephant in the room: Drum corps has failed to remain relevant through all of those larger issues even as WGI and hyper-competitive "corps-style" marching bands have succeeded in growing their relevance.

To: Ray Kimber, Did you ever hear back from Dan Ray about his offer? -G

So true! And we obviously know of their willingness to supplement weak sections, and cross sections from side-1 to side-2, "phase" impacts, and otherwise interfere with the acoustic balance we old pharts desire... Oh, never mind. I'll get off your yard. Today's kids and fans have "grown up" with electronified, whiz-bang audio tricks, and thundering bass. "Acoustic", you say? "What's that?", they say.

I think you miss the point or are willingly ignoring it: your statement above is not reality or even documentable as the rule and not the overwhelming exception. If there were corps beating the "top corps" that did it with substantially less A&E support (in either dollars or pieces of equipment) we wouldn't be having discussions about the "arms race". Re: what's bolded, isn't it reasonably plausible that tech improvement happen each year, and that those improvements add design options that a corps can use to take advantage of especially-high member talent? Would Bluecoat's use of the array of mics and field speakers even be an option for a corps that uses two sidelines speakers? Would those two speakers present the same array soundscape that 'Coats achieved and scored the same "usage" credit as they were? I don't think so. A&E is, was, and always will be a judging issue, not a material asset or talent issue.

In only six posts! That must be some sort of record.

I have no idea what point you're arguing, but I LOVE this reference. LOL

No, wait, it IS true. There IS a deficit before bingo. That's the point of bingo. I'm sure (hoping) I'm catching up and you have already settled this. And it's not the fundraising that is a demonstration, it's the profligate spending by the leaders of said non-profit that demonstrates "poor operation (living beyond one's means). I'm sorry, your last two sentences don't make sense to me.

I'm going to specifically listen for evidence of this next month in Indy. I'll be interested in my observations, for sure. I do happen to disagree with you but I'm willing to get, at least, some anecdotal evidence that what you say is true.