garfield

No! The corps don't have any more idea of their free-market value than you or I! Their fees are set by a guiding authority, negotiated by the corps themselves. So, in that context they know their fee schedule based on performances. But that doesn't accurately reflect what their worth is in the "open market" of local Tour Event Partners. I don't think you understand what drives a local show! But regardless... I've got a stadium that seats 5000. We've had a show there for 5 years. It's clear in our minds that Top Tier corps have drawing power, but we've had good attendance in years where only one top 6 corps performs. The problem is a practical one. I don't mind the negotiation, but what's the mechanism I use, as a TEP, to judge the value in my pockets of any corps based on seat sales? Again, don't I have to have one show of all top-6; count the attendance; then another show that excludes the top-6; count the attendance? What incentive do I have, as a TEP, to organize a lower-drawing show and possibly lose money on it? In order to prove that Cadets justify a bigger draw from my gate? Shouldn't they have to prove that to me? We're the only show in central Ohio. How do I measure the attendance based on fans' desire to see ANY show, Top-6 or otherwise? Do I run another test and exclude out-of-towners? Do I distribute a survey asking them why they came that night? Seems DCI is already doing that. My business is in the financial world as an unabashed capitalist pig, and I contribute time and energy to local arts (mostly musical) activities. I've been reading 990s for years and I've seen how professional music unions negotiate contracts. One thing I've learned is that, while some of the ideas of free market capitalism can improve management of a non-profit, the basic theses of the two methodologies are oil and water. They don't mix. The capitalist profit motive has little validity in the world of non-profits in general, and musical arts endeavors, most specifically.

The data in the survey refute your claim. It says that 15% of all, and 31% of the top 6 corps' MM's have prior experience in World Class, and footnotes that "Some Top Tier Corps Have Nearly 50% With Prior Experience In Other World Class Corps" That says that either by their own doing, or by a desire on the part of the MM, they certainly are monopolizing the market for WC experienced marchers. And if you equate "more experience in WC" with a greater talent to perform there, I can't see how you dispute the data. The data also suggests that at least 50% of MM come from some other source, reasonably the largest majority of which come from prior Open class corps. I think the data suggests the most top-tier performers choose to stay, and get picked to be, in the top tier. I also think it shows that the pull from Open class is an important feeder of membership. It would make sense to protect and grow it, not discard it as unworthy. If, on the other hand, you want to "realign" with the direct-high school talent pool, then you must remake the activity to emphasize them instead of Open class. Does the folly of the G7 only strike me, or are there others out there who see the irresponsibility of it?

As a current show "sponsor" (a misnomer of a phrase in its use here), I'd like to know how to quantify the worth of Cadets, who want $3000 to perform in my show, or Pioneer, who wants $1500 (and would love more)? How can I (or they, for that matter) quantify their worth? By having a Battle of the Corps? See who draws the most? Does the show sponsor get guarantee that this will work? If I could quantify the number of BITS that Pio would bring vs. what Cadets would bring in, then I'd be in a position to negotiate an appearance fee. But in one context your point is correct. For 99% of the season's performances, the singular thing the local show sponsor is focused on is getting BITS. I'm actually kind of curious, how would you propose to test the drawing power of each corps?

How does this thread's question jibe with the survey results that show more marchers considered being part of DCI to be the most important factor over being in a particular corps? Wouldn't that suggest that kids are more willing to "step down" to get some experience in DCI than posts here have suggested? As opposed to sitting out the season, that is. And I know there are exceptions and isolated incidents. But on the whole the survey suggests they stay in and get reps instead of sitting out a season, if it's at all feasible for them to do so.

This is a good thought, but I'd be concerned having a student be the Local. An arriving corps wants to know there's an adult there, who can unlock doors and make decisions. I think THE Local would need to be an adult to "accept" the corps into the facility. That said, having a band kid tag along during the day would be great. He could be a runner, a "go-getter", a helper-outer to the administration of the show. Even a liason between the corps director and the event staff. I can't speak for other areas, but our show is run by a central group of six volunteers, and a host of school staff who do things like sell food at the show, be ushers, etc. The local band director(s) are not involved; heck we have to remind them a dozen times to make show plans with their kids. No luck getting them involved in the actual show admin. They're "on vacation".

Catching up... Negotiate with whom? The only negotiation they get is in the DCI BOD meetings, going up against the likes of the G7. I'm not sure how last place went down from $1000 to $500, but it's surprising.

What a great idea! I could envision a "Local" being assigned to each arriving corps, with the first question asked: "What do you need?" I think I'll implement this idea into our local show. Great idea.

How can this poll be skewed, Jeff? Or it's results? Or were you just talking generally? Is there any way to eliminate the possibility of skewing this poll's results for a particular agenda?

yes, I believe it's wrong to confront the souvie people in this venue. If you must discuss with them their personal opinion of what the director of their corps is doing (both G7 and non-G7) then the right time to do it is NOT at the show. Having a discussion with you about the philosophical position of the director is not their job at that moment, and to intentionally interrupt their ability to sell stuff to people who aren't there to talk shop is rude and inconsiderate of you. That said, I would feel perfectly comfortable approaching the souvie staff after the show, after they've packed up and are waiting for the rest of the corps to hit the road. Accosting a MM with the same question is beyond irresponsible. It is none of your business why that MM has chosen to march that corps. It is not the MM who casts a vote at DCI. To interrupt the MM's routine of the show just so you can make a point is equally reprehensible. Should that student take your comments back to the director I can guarantee that that director will sequester his MM's even more to prevent you from distracting them from their task. [ I ] certainly would (and I'm a G7 proposal hater!). That director's job is to protect his kids from harm and field a corps that gives that kid the best experience he can. That does NOT include dragging a MM into the business decision of his director. If you've got an issue with the director's vote in DCI then take it up with the director if you must. But to involve the MM is destructive to his routine and the corps' mission for the season. I would keep you away from my entire staff if I identified you as contentious with my kids.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or scream. Am I correct in assuming a [/sarcasm] at the end would be appropriate? Otherwise,

Yeah, this is it. Someone point me...I really want to read the crazy conspiracy theories about the A-town show...

I sure hope you're not describing me in your mind, because what you say here certainly don't reflect my feelings at all. You reference "some people". I'm wondering if you would be so kind as to point me to threads, or comments, from people who are spinning "crazy tales" about A-town on DCP. That's my point. I don't recall seeing the "amazing numbers" of conspiracy theory comments about the A-town show here. Help me out?

Stu, I've read your Utopia with great interest, and I failed when you put this up. I'm afraid that the money part is almost always the deal-killer. I was intrigued by your concept because I appreciate new ideas to help the cause. But I must admit that I glazed over when you talked of paid, professional players for the ML class. Someone else posted my thought of "...how can that work when they're breaking even now?" Pay comes from the gate and sponsorship. I wonder if enough people even care to support a paid activity, and I'm inclined to doubt it. Sponsorship won't follow if it's not. While I understand your reference to symphonies, our local symphony is dying on the vine (literally, in player numbers) because the Board wants to cut them back and the musicians union is losing the battle. So, while the symphony reference is not accurate on a local level, I accept that it might be true for the big "G7" of symphonies around the world. I also felt that your proposal carries a flavor of what the G7 structure is trying to attempt (admittedly without the care of the lower-finishing corps). Maybe its the stratification that's apparent in both proposals (yours and G7) I don't know for sure. But its "re-invention" nature seems to grind against my feelings that "the sky is not falling".

I take it all back, apparently. If these points were the purpose of your previous post, that I disagreed with, then I mis-spoke in my objection. Other than your spelling (yech! Sorry, it's a pick of mine), I agree with every sentence of this post.

It should be little doubt to any regular readers of DCP that I'm a DCI honk and strongly oppose the G7 contentions and intentions. That said, a thought crossed my mind today: Is it possible that the DCI info is inaccurate, or somehow misleading? I'm a facts guy, so I'm mostly talking about the abbreviated financial numbers, and the research data provided by Vaticinate. Considering that DCI is, for practical purposes, fighting for its life in the G7 discussion can we, should we, trust the data they provide? Is it reasonable to presume that Steve Auditore is such a DCI honk that he'd risk his company and his reputation to honk "messaged" data for DCI's benefit? Is there ANY reason why we should distrust what DCI has made public in this discussion? I'm trying to be unbiased in my analysis. I'm not reflecting a natural tendency towards conspiracy. Please discuss why we should, or should not, trust the DCI and, for that matter, the G7 data as being well researched, documented, transparent, and legitimate? For example, could we see audited financial statements and hear actual audited (or reliable) attendance figures?

I very much appreciate the enthusiastic nature of this post. It sounds like it will be interesting, for sure. But I have to ask, and I read DCP every day. Did I miss the threads of why these three corps, for 2 days, only? Was there a serious discussion about the facts around this show? If there was and I missed it, (and I've never frankly wondered about the "why's" of the show), I apologize in advance. But doesn't this post almost sound ingratiating?

Bruckner's got this argument closed. Excellence must continue throughout the activity, from performance and marketing at the corps level, and marketing, scheduling, and promoting at the DCI level. If any of the myriad of people involved with the process don't buy into that concerted level of excellence the system breaks down. Even down to our local show. If we don't market and put BITS the upstream promotional assumptions within DCI change. That relates to corps' scheduled stops (shows and income), and promotion (clinics prior to, and to help market, the upcoming show). Every piece of this activity is tied directly together, and it's a beautiful part of the system as it's intended. That's why splitting it apart is ultimately destructive which, admittedly, some in the activity feel must be done. Excellence as a "team" of participants is the healthiest way forward. Giving up and tearing it apart is not. Off my soapbox now. Anyway, good post Bruckner. (and 1000 classical CD's?? Good God, and I thought is was a serious classical wonk at about half that!)

Jeff, this is a bad comparison, IMO. Pop culture (which I agree is mostly crap) is a commercial enterprise that doesn't relate when to the "Arts" community. I think people understand the difference between the two. But if you mean that, based upon what the public buys from pop culture, it's hard to expect that they'll appreciate the Art of drum corps, I agree. If I misunderstood your post, pardon me for accosting your opinion.

Try snarescience.com. Tons of stuff here, printable, and play-along video demonstrations. Good stuff for the marching enthusiast.

I'm a drummer with a pretty good pitch ear. Do you hornline people even hear a pitch to intonate? All I hear is bees.

WIN! Close thread.

All right, Stu, I'm following you. Two questions, then go on: What's the difference between this and the existing WC/OC system, except that the upper age limit is gone? Isn't it supposed that there is already a natural "age bridge" at which a younger player can move into the Major Leagues? Wouldn't the level of demand of the WC corps determine if the MM can make it? Two: How would this affect DCA? Wouldn't this effectively reinforce that DCA is nothing but a bunch of old guys/gals who love to play their horns? I suppose the natural "age bridge" would come in to play, but I doubt that, if a 17 year old can't handle the drill stress of WC, a 30 year old, in general, would not. And, all right, all you A-a-a-n-n-o-l-l-d wannabes, there are exceptions, of course. And I'd be tickled as hell to see a 35 year old out there kickin' with the young bucks. (But on the reverse, and I digress, would the drill designers be inclined to write a drill that most 35 year old bodies can handle safely?) Please go on...

Stu, considering that fresh ideas such as yours have a tendency to get lost as "off topic" in a thread like this, why don't you start a new thread based on your stratification idea, and let this one get back on topic? Back on topic: Disclaimer: The following are subjective opinion because events referred to are expected to occur in the future and, therefor, have no way to reflect what may actually happen. That said... I find it difficult to believe that Hop, Gibbs, and Coates will be willing to release any information that might fill in the gaps of their loosly-constructed presentation. If their intent is to solidify their position at the July BOD meeting it would be quite surprising if they revealed such information prior to that meeting. I see three different types of potential questioners who might approach the three at A-town regarding the G7 proposal: 1. Those who say they agree with the G7 contentions and plans (who will be greeted with a polite thank you) 2. Those who challenge some of the contentions made in the proposal (who will receive a, probably pleasant, reiteration of G7 beliefs, probably without factual backup), and 3. Those who contentiously (or pleasantly!) challenge the notions of the G7 (who will be received with, probably pleasant, ignorance by the 3 and marginalized while the three acknowldege others around the table who appear to be less contentious). It is unlikely that numbers 2 and (especially) 3 above will receive any clarification, and little satisfaction, for challenging the G7 at the A-town venue. Further, a 2 or 3 above runs the risk of preventing some other fan from commenting on a show feature, like pink plumes, and causing that fan to form a negative opinion of the "G7 hater" stealing all the face time with the directors. A possibility that might hurt the cause of spreading the G7 facts to unknowing spectators by overshadowing it with contentious behavior. Separately, and my opinion, it should be clear and anathema to the "G7-Hater" crowd that taking out disagreements on MMs, souvie volunteers, or other volunteer staff is contrary to the inclusive nature that most "G7-Haters" espouse. Enjoy what should prove to be a great show, don't buy souvies if you can't stomach it, support those who you can, and leave this business discussion to the BOD meeting. I'll say again that the most effective form of disagreement with the G7 at the show would be to set up a table of factual information that is separate and away from the "3-Amigos'" table. Instead, put such energies into writing non-G7 corps members and Dan A. offering your support and hope that they hold fast against the G7 in the July meeting.

Stu, I'm intrigued by your idea (but still not sure how well it would work). In your vision would you suggest a hard Chinese wall between leagues based on age? What if a 17 or 18 year old exceptional player and marcher was accepted by the "Major League" as qualified to march. Would your system simply prevent him from accepting such a prestigous position? And could younger players be "drafted" by the Majors, giving him the chance to skip the rest of his minor-league time and go directly to the big leagues, ala college players to the NFL?

Clarification: The numbers you posted above are from my post and they are in error. I didn't have my show book with me when I posted the above and took a shot based on memory; obviously was wrong to do so. Top 12: $2,600 13 - 17: $2,150 Open finals: $1,100 Others: $700 In addition to these corps costs local TEP must pay DCI a $7,500 fee for admin, judges, and other costs. These numbers are for this performance year. I originally suspected some cut of the corps costs was kept by DCI, but several others here have confirmed that these amounts are what the corps receive so, apparently, DCI does NOT keep a cut of these show fee amounts. And Jim I think you were referring to my original post of these numbers a few weeks ago.