nemesiscorps

The question: "Where is DCI?" The answer: Off and away... consciously pursuing a path that expands the distance between itself and generations of performers, designers, instructors, corps administrators, fans and supporters that gave it birth. Today's DCI is now pursuing a new following of supporters who understand and appear more inclined to the abstract of performance art. Like it or not, there's nothing "wrong" with that. Today's DCI insiders and followers have made a clear commitment to creating, performing, promoting, and supporting amazingly accomplished works that nonetheless appeal mostly to themselves, as opposed to enticing and developing a broader array of participants and spectators more likely to be moved by genuine, raw, straightforward emotional connection to sights, sounds and ideas easily accessible to someone seeking a diversely stylistic, reasonably comprehensible artistic entertainment experience. (All IMO) To the OP, the DCI you once knew has not changed... more accurately, it's gone... to the dismay of some, and to the delight of others. Today there seems to be (anecdotally) very few people that are in the middle or indifferent about DCI. I think it's fair to say that there are at least tens of thousands of once loyal "drum corps nuts" who passionately defended DCI (and the drum corps activity in general) against a (then) somewhat snobby music education culture that once scorned drum corps' very existence, generally deeming it illegitimate and even detrimental to "serious" youth musicians. That has all changed now, which in the end is good, but what was lost seems manifested in perhaps a sense of abandonment of former loyalists of the corps activity. Anyway... Having personally gone through various emotional stages in response to the transformation of the activity over the last 16+ years, I'm finally at peace with it all. My hope now is that all involved gain as much and more from their experience as I did in my 35+ years of involvement. It's been nearly a full year since my last post here on DCP, and all my kids have aged out as of the 2015 finals. I accept that my addiction to drum corps is now cured. My wife of 30 years says I began slowly "sobering up" around 2001. I thank you all that have engaged in corps-related discussions/debates with me over the years, and I wish you all well. This world we live in today is too upside-down to be so absorbed and concerned about what is or isn't right with the drum corps activity. Take care my friends, (No longer the) "Nemesiscorps" P.S. How do you close a DCP account?

The same way you put a number on every other aspect of the sheet... subjective assessment of objective criteria. Having said that, I completely agree with your point.

Yes. Admittedly, I'm a total homer for the Vanguard organization. Nonetheless, this corps continually puts out an awesome product year after year, which (IMO) is often somewhat overlooked due to a big blue shadow that's cast all over the bay area. Regardless, SCVC is a fearless competitor that quietly commands respect by consistently delivering high levels of programing and achievement each and every season. SCVC compels everyone else to get better by continually raising the bar of performance excellence, and they're unquestionably saturated with the same distinctive level of class that the Vanguard legacy demands. Excellent work as usual from all of the MMs, staff, administration and volunteers. Congratulations on A WELL DESERVED WORLD TITLE! VANGUARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmmm... quite the "BAC-like" look going on here. Cool. Regardless of what it does or does not do for GE purposes, I appreciate the gutsy, fresh offering. I wish them well.

Not trying to be confrontational here, but how can anyone know for sure what they're doing or not doing? All we can do is trust that what you state is actually happening. I agree with you on the idea of recent "movement" among the top tier, but I'm not sure we can conclude much from such a small data set (2 weeks?) when compared to more than a decade of historical data from all tiers within open class and world class. Bottom line, at the end of the day, there really is no way to ensure your assertion... while on the other hand, it is possible to make a strong historical case for slotting. On whole, the system doesn't provide adequate checks and balances to verify what we hope is occurring with use of an opinion-based assessment system and tool (objective, impartial adjudication). The operative word here is "adequate." Having said that, like you, I'll sit back and enjoy the fact that we're not experiencing predictable dominance from one corps as 2015 wraps up.

Final: Brewers 8 (sweep) Phillies 7

VANGUARD!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks. Seriously, my going on is preventing anything substantive from occurring. My apologies to all.

I don't think I'm equating "no" with pessimistic. I do believe that people are entitled to their opinion, as I certainly have mine. There's nothing wrong with saying, "No, I don't enjoy retreats, especially retreats that are formatted from decades ago. I'd prefer things as they are now, or some discussion around new ideas." One could also say, "No, I don't like traveling at all. If the show was nearby, sure, but no, I wouldn't travel solely because of an old fashioned theme to the show." Neither of those responses are necessarily pessimistic, but they are on point to the OP's question. And again, it would be fine to go on with, "As it relates to retreats in general...." but that didn't happen. First, I'm classifying/equating/interpreting some of the responses as pessimistic because of some of the language used in critiquing the concept of retreats (i.e. "dwelling in the past"). Second, I'm classifying/equating/interpreting some of the responses as pessimistic because they didn't even acknowledge the specificity of the question, as I've previously stated. In the context of DCP dead horse topics, those responses certainly don't sound optimistic to me.

You're missing the point Mike. Yes, they gave reasons why the idea wouldn't work... but he didn't ask if anyone thought the idea would work. He asked: "Would you travel to see a "ONCE A YEAR" Old Fashioned Drum Corps Show? That's it. As I said, engaging in discussion is presumably the whole point behind DCP, so what they offered is relevant and even appropriate to the discussion. However, IMO those responses took things immediately away from his inquiry, skipping right over the question and into pessimistic commentary on retreats. We never even got to the discussion of if people would travel to a single, annual event like that. One would hope that the intent of the OP would be addressed, at least at the onset of the discussion, but we seem to be so culturally dysfunctional that we either don't see, or refuse to acknowledge what's objectively stated, even with his use quotations and caps; "ONCE A YEAR"... At least on Shark Tank they listen and then respond to the information presented before they start chomping away.

Good point, and what's up with that? In drum corps, we think we can do anything at least as good as, if not better than most other performing groups (amateur or professional). Why can't we seem to tell a good story? I know... time allowed for development, etc., etc. I think that's just an excuse. We're better than that. When was the last time a good story was told on the field? Sky Ryders 86-88? Why is it that if someone suggests "telling a story" on the field, people cringe? Instead, we constantly hear the, "We're not doing a literal interpretation or trying to tell a story..." Why not? I think some corps could probably do a wonderful job of it, but it's likely to never be attempted because it simply wouldn't be competitively rewarded (IMO). "Themes" are a lot easier to pull off because there's less exposure in failures to connect with an audience or adjudicator (IMO).

I get your point, that the answer to the question was implied within the various responses. As I think about it, what touched a nerve with me is my perception that seemingly whenever any thought or suggestion related to "tradition," past practice, or "legacy" aspects of the activity emerge, "it's on!" I guess my "naysaying" reference was in regard to that aspect of discussions surrounding issues that some perceive as being "non-progressive." (RANT ALERT) We all seem to acknowledge that this is a niche activity, but we don't seem to ask ourselves why is it that what we know to be such a great activity does not gain more mainstream traction or notoriety, even within most mainstream music, dance, and theatrical circles? You say "drum corps" and people still go, "What's that?" It clearly doesn't matter if drum corps emerges and has a wide, lasting impact on Broadway (Blast!), movies (Monsters Inc. and others), contemporary stage performance (STOMP!, Blue Man Group, Canadian Brass Theater, etc.), the Olympics (1980, 1996), the entire marching band activity (from "corps style" shows to current BOA innovations), WGI Percussion/WGI Winds; appearances with major orchestras, numerous mainstream celebrity connections, etc. No one but us knows what drum corps is, and we continually argue internally over everything, and continue to struggle among ourselves in trying to describe or define who we are. We can't seem to come together on anything. Internally, we've spent so much of the last two decades arguing and trying to progress ourselves that we've all but brought ourselves to the point of obscurity. Meanwhile, "Honey Boo Boo" and too many other useless niche activities continue to gain momentum, despite all of the reasons we like to cite for drum corps' lack of relevance (the economy, the internet, kids have a lot of choices today, blah, blah, blah). All of the other activities seem to be moving right along, youth sports; youth theater; youth orchestras/jazz programs; dance troupes; music education ensembles (middle school, high school, college); etc. Most people at least know what those activities are. Drum corps is one of the greatest things ever, but we are severely fractured internally to the point where fans from the past don't recognize it (let alone value it), and fans of today still can't explain it or how it differs from much else that's out there, and we know what happens to a house divided. Some would say it's already fallen. Even marching bands have the well known distinction of being called "band geeks." We aren't relevant enough to even get labeled. Is there any sense of fraternity left in this activity? "Can't we all just get along?" Back on topic... Where's that old school retreat show? I'm there.

Okay, I'll try to be more clear. I began my initial post in the following manner: "In answer to the question, "yes"... and then I went on to express my thoughts surrounding retreats, etc. I could likewise have stated "no", and gone on to express my thoughts. If someone answers "no", that is not what my concern is regarding "naysaying." The question is presented to elicit a "yes", "no", or "maybe" response. After re-reading the OP's question, I note that he/she took the extra effort of using quotations and caps do clarify the question: ..."ONCE A YEAR"... I'm not suggesting that people can't answer how they choose, I'm pointing out that (IMO) the shark tank culture of DCP is to just start biting in, seemingly blind to what was actually stated. My reference to naysaying is for those responses that don't bother answering the question, but instead, dive right in on a discussion of the value, practicality, or problems associated with retreats. Whereas a discussion of retreats shouldn't be considered off topic, a failure to actually address/discuss/answer the OP's question within the discussion is problematic IMO. To me it means we'll never find anything that we can agree upon (which would be nice on occasion), because no one is actually listening to each other. Surely, we can all come up with ample reasons why we would or would not travel to one show per year that was formatted to conclude in an "old school retreat." Where is the discussion on why people would or would not travel to one show per year that was formatted to conclude in an "old school retreat?" We haven't gotten to that discussion because the "topic" has been shifted toward answering a different question, "Should we bring back old school retreats, and if not, why not?" Many (most) of the responses answer that question with reasonable responses... but that question wasn't asked. Clearly, my poor choice of words, "naysaying," has led to this current off topic discussion. I should have stated: DCP pessimism has once again steered us away from the actual question asked, and launched us into a different (though related) discussion.

I don't think so. I'm simply suggesting that actually addressing the question... along with all the rest... would at least create a discussion focused on the question. Admittedly, there is a fine line between the question asked (i.e. Attending a drum corps throwback event once a year), and the topic for which the question falls under (i.e. Retreats). There's a DCP cultural tendency for folks to drift right into the topic and skip over the question itself. My observation of the question does not include all the facts or reasons people are saying no. In fact, I would also argue that their "no" is implied rather than actually stated. IOW, can we at least answer the question before coming up with all of the "facts or reasons?" I interpret all of the "facts and reasons" offered to be in response to a different question than what was asked. (e.g. Should we bring back retreats? vs. "Whether one would travel to see this style of show once a year?")

There's nothing wrong with saying "no" if you're asking a question. But as you stated, "The question was whether one would travel to see this style of show once a year." Here is a summary of some of the Page 1 responses, which actually don't answer the question, but instead, clearly lean pessimistic toward something not even proposed: "... dwelling in the past" "Can’t do it due to timing" "look how many people leave, including older fans before the encore performance" "... shows aren't just on the weekend like many years ago" "In today's world one doesn't even have to wait for scores..." "... the show structure is not very flexible, certainly not to the "extremes" of requiring corps to alter their post-show customs." "Some corps leave early(ish), some corps give their members' free time post-show, some corps might send their equipment truck(s) ahead of the corps early after the performance, etc." I consider the above responses as typical DCP naysaying or pessimism toward anything even suggesting tradition, and thus, moving the discussion beyond the question to the point of critical analysis of past vs. present practice. As a result, the actual question doesn't even get off the ground. In truth, I'd have no problem if the question were actually answered and supported or discussed with additional related comments, as each of the above comments appropriately fit within the context of a discussion, but again, as you've noted, none of those responses answer the question, but instead... as usual... the comments offer critical commentary (imo, darts) to the simple question suggesting traveling to one show per year, formatted to include a "grand finale style" conclusion to the event (e.g. "Shark Tank"). Ironically, even on the t.v. show itself, the lure is to see people get ripped apart, and/or to see them triumph or survive in the tank. As it relates to DCP dialog, there's lots of ripping here, not much triumph... IMO. If the OP's question would have been, "What do you think about bringing back traditional retreats for shows?", then naturally, we're off and away on pluses and minuses related to that question. But instead, as usual, we're in shark tank mode without even addressing the essence of the question.

In answer to your question, yes, I would enjoy an experience like that, primarily because the whole point of all the "pageantry" around the contest would be to offer an additional aspect of entertainment for the audience (i.e. Conceptually, a scaled down version of an Olympic retreat or closing ceremony). Having said that, I would only enjoy it if all involved were actually committed to doing it in a manner that is consistent with the values that we profess (excellence, professionalism, entertainment-oriented, etc.). What's sad is all of the DCP nay saying surrounding the idea... as usual. The suggestion was one show per year, and it goes without saying that all involved would have to be in agreement to provide that kind of spectacle activity to cap the night off. It's not about the scores (yes, you can get them online), it's simply a throwback "traditional" celebration of who we are as a "unique" performing arts entity. (Yes, "unique" is debatable) Does it take extra time, effort, making of sacrifices, etc.? Of course, but I was under the impression that by nature, the entire activity was about putting in extra time, effort, making sacrifices, etc. People seem to get a kick out of going to (or observing) an NFL game when the teams put on the throwback uniforms, jerseys, etc. It's called creative marketing. Why not create a throwback drum corps experience? One show. Why not?

Okay... I'm still laughing! Nice.

These are good examples. However, I think we can all agree that just because an ensemble plays "jazz," that, in and of itself, does no constitute a "theme," but more so, it simply identifies a a style, idiom, genre, etc. There's also the real possibility that "a theme is in the eye of the beholder." In other words, in casual conversation, someone's interpretation of what they observed on the field may likely be communicated in the following manner, "That corps had a 'classical theme' to their show." IMO, the OP's question speaks along the lines of, "What's expected in drum corps these days?" Most would agree that there's an assumption that a show should "make sense" by having some fundamental elements capable of connecting to a spectator... be they judge or audience member. We've sort of morphed into recognizing those elements as a theme for the production, whether intended or not. In fact, it seems that we've gotten so intrenched in this line of thinking that even if a corps were to actively declare not having a theme, by default, that declaration would become their theme. Interestingly, in a general "non-drum corps" sense, musical ensembles across the board (bands, orchestras, etc.) can still get away with just presenting a variety of pieces, and people oftentimes walk away appreciative of that variety. Clearly, that likely wouldn't fly in competitive drum corps today because the sheets themselves speak to design elements that are strengthened by having... wait for it... a theme.

I don't interpret that statement as a suggestion that "warmups be eliminated." Within the context of the discussion surrounding the contest environment, I take it to simply mean finding a mutually beneficial way of dealing with how, where, and when warmups occur "in the vicinity of the show site." Whether "dealing with it" leads to financial gain (... or more bodies in the stadium than in the lot, etc.) is open for debate, but again, for me, the take away from the suggestion is not in itself advocacy to "eliminate" warmups. However, I will echo what others have suggested. It is clear that "the lot" aspect of the contest environment benefits some to the detriment of others, and I believe that there is a way to address the entire issue in a way that can (and should) benefit everyone... that is, if the DCI model is interested in mutual benefits to all of the corps that did the hard work necessary to be a part of the tour and contest itself.

It appears that you are arguing for the sake of argument, as cixelsyd clearly provided context to his point (as you've quoted, and I've highlighted above). In addition to him clearly advocating corps self-promotion, he also provided an example of what would obviously be going too far in a self-promotion effort (Dave Gibbs reference). He made no reference to any reasonable promotion example that you've given... all of which no one disagrees with, and in fact most (if not all) generally support what corps do in their self promotion... "so long as it's not at the expense of other corps." No one (with the exception of you) suggested that in a self-promotion endeavor, any corps needs to promote or actively work to benefit some other corps. There is no confusion here on what we're talking about. We're discussing issues related to the contest environment, issues that one can reasonably articulate as being less than beneficial to all DCI corps (i.e. warmup distractions outside the stadium that can be observed from inside the stadium; how such activity can be tweaked to the benefit of the corps warming up AND the competing corps on the field; etc.). Several suggestions (good, bad, or otherwise) have been offered to address these issues. You opine that there is no problem, which is fine... for you. You appear to be hurling "nonsensical" things at the wall in hopes that something will stick, all in an effort to defend your position that appears to be without substance beyond your opinion. If that's your tactic in a discussion or debate, cixelsyd is correct, he nor anyone can help you, because you don't appear to be on a quest to at least understand the position of others. I hope this isn't too personal, it's not meant to be. I'd just like to hear a bit more substance in support of your opposition to these ideas, as you may actually have something to offer that hasn't been considered.

There you go Corpsband! No more wet blankets. :-) Seriously, it'd be great to incrementally increase the $$, the later one enters the stadium. If anything, it may minimize the shuffle, shuffle game in the stands to fit in "the lot" fans. It's already acknowledged how discombobulating things get when a mass of folks try to squeeze in between corps on the field.

Uhhh... That's a real distortion of what's been discussed. I'm not aware of anyone advocating "making" anyone do anything. My take on the discussion is: How can everyone (corps, fans, DCI, etc.) benefit from "the lot" aspect of the contest environment and overall experience? Not that everyone here should be agreeing with every idea that's offered, but does there always have to be a wet blanket thrown out? The point is, what can be done to enhance things across the board? Surely, you must have some ideas of your own? If you were the king of the world, is there anything that you would "tweak" for the better? On another note... Maybe tossing in some cheesy (or valuable) incentives (i.e. fan freebies or giveaways), exclusively for those in attendance during the first half of a contest could motivate some people to get to the stadium sooner?

Wow.

I do respect your perspective, and I acknowledge that there came a point somewhere in DCI's history that some corps figured out how to operate on a completely different level than simply being a neighborhood youth group. Their goals and objectives changed, and became more aligned with a forward-thinking corporate model, and they did what was necessary to achieve their goals at incredible levels of success. Hat's off to them for determining their own destiny and going for it. Welcome to America. Unfortunately, all of that was going on while other organizations were just happy with serving kids in a great marching activity. Clearly, not enough of those types could foresee what was to come, and then take action toward how groups that chose not to go the corporate route could still survive (i.e. Separate professional and amateur circuits?). Unfortunately, the philosophical and operational gap between those two types of organizations are where we live today. My point is, the DCI model today serves the successful corporate entity much more so than those that came to the game late and are still trying to figure it out. Further, we're so far along in this model that it's clear that there is, in essence, a monopoly in play, though arguably, perhaps an unintended monopoly. Admittedly, it's not DCI's responsibility to nurture the activity, and it's not their mission. However, it brings us back to the discussion of corporate citizenship, if not simply for the sake of DCI itself? (yes, I know... DCI IS the corps themselves, which may very well be the problem). Anyway, as stated earlier, when some would be more inclined to move ahead with 6-8 competitors, the point is moot. FWIW, I do recognize that people like me need to get over what we think DCI should be, or what we want it to be, and accept the reality of what it is and what it is not. Actually, most of those "legacy" people have gotten over it and have moved on with their lives. Nonetheless, I still find the discussion engaging.