vferrera

Well, we're constantly told all our lives that we can be whatever we dream of. Live without limits etc, etc. I agree with the general principal that access should be based on merit, not chromosomes. But you have to balance that against the rights of others to associate with whomever they want (or don't want).

Ideally, no, but bias is very hard to eliminate. I don't consider myself racist, sexist, or elitist, but I look at my friends and they are all a lot like me :)

Not quite true. Every corps has a limited pool to select from. Of those who are offered spots, many end up not marching for various reasons. And auditions are not a perfect indicator of how someone will perform on the field. The biggest impact is in guard, which appeals mainly to women. But a male guard is a completely different thing than a female or co-ed guard. That can be an advantage. In brass and percussion, what is the typical gender ratio? Not 50/50 that's for sure. Maybe in the pit. Overall, I don't think Cavaliers or Scouts are taking that much of a hit in the talent department. I think perception is a bigger issue. Some judges might view an all-male corps a bit differently or set some of their expectations a little higher.

the argument is that some people simply prefer to belong to same-sex groups for certain activities. It's a valid preference and there is no reason not to allow it. Some people might not feel comfortable traveling in close quarters with members of the opposite sex for 8 weeks. Given the age of the participants, it seems perfectly reasonable.

This comes up every year. Legally, any corps can set up purely arbitrary membership requirements. They could require that all members have six fingers on their left hand if they wanted to. They can change these requirements at any time. If someone wanted to challenge this, there would be a number of legal hurdles. They would have to establish standing to bring suit, that they suffered a real injury as a result of the policy, and so forth. If successful, the best a plaintiff could do is win the right to audition. The corps could then exclude her based on merit and there would be very little recourse. The legal expenses would run into tens of thousands (unless some lawyer accepted the case pro bono.) The corps could bring a countersuit for frivolous litigation. It just wouldn't be worth it. Bottom line: there is no law that says you get to march drum corps. There is certainly no law that says you have a right to march a particular drum corps. There are laws that protect private groups right to exclusive membership. "Freedom of association." BTW, there have been many All-Girl corps in the past. Also, All-African-American drum corps. CMCC Warriors. I know for a fact that the Cavaliers did not have an African-American member until the mid to late 60s. Imagine an All-White corps. Or a corps that excluded homosexuals. That might get some lawyers juices going. Regarding the "guest performer" I'm a Madison alum and I think she was awesome and definitely earned the right to call herself a Madison Scout.

To the OP - for a member, the value of drum corps is the experience of working together with a group of your peers to achieve a common goal. If you get in with the right corps, it's an unbelievable experience. You'll have an incredible time and make friends for life. Everything that happens outside of that group is just noise. It shouldn't affect the member experience at all.

new t-shirt "84 horns: your argument is invalid"

My parents made me wait until I was 15. I never forgave them. You should have made up your mind before you let him audition. To take it away from him now is just plain nasty.

what if they did a giant gate during great gate of kiev? That would totally work for me.

4 of 10 titles in even years 84, 90, 98, 2000 so there's that then.

just to clarify, by consistency, I'm not talking about placements. I'm talking about consistency in how each judge interprets the criteria.

The clutter issue is legit. Nothing in my proposal would prevent any judge from exercise independent judgment.

I noticed that DCI uses non-overlapping judging panels for quarters, semis and finals. So, for 3 shows, they use a total of 30 judges. Each judge works one show. Given that larger judging panels will generally give more consistent scores, why not use all 30 judges for all 3 shows? Also, I would suggest that the judges have a conference on Fri and Sat morning to discuss the previous nights performances and scores relative to the judging criteria. I think that the result of these 2 changes is that there would be more consistency and accuracy in the scores for semis and finals. In other words, I think the scores would better reflect the consensus in the judging community relative to the criteria on the sheets. I think that you would see considerable change in placements from quarters to semis, but little change from semis to finals. The net result of this would be to take variability in the composition of the judging panel out of the equation.

My understanding is that Bonfiglio and the East Cost corps directors were not the prime movers in the formation of DCI. DCI was the brainchild of Don Warren and Jim Jones of the Troopers. In 1971, Troopers, SCV, Cavaliers, Madison and Blue Stars formed the "Combine West" which was the precursor to DCI. There is a great article on it here: http://www.dci.org/news/view.cfm?news_id=751b793a-089c-4619-b92b-6109c1e5f559

'71 Cavaliers and Madison were the harbingers of more theatrical shows. And the offseason aftermath led directly to the formation of DCI.

that's right - it was a Jupiter.

Are you Joe Bob Briggs? You sound like Joe Bob Briggs.

Another year, another "Leave BD Alone" thread. Hate or not, people have been questioning BD's visual scores for 20 or 30 years now. Clean? yes. Exciting? No. Difficult? Maybe. Nobody questions Cadets or Cavaliers visual scores. Their innovations are legendary. The Z-pull. The diamond cutter. The snake. The acknowledged leaders in visual design for 3 decades. IMO, BD's drill is fine. Certainly no worse than Crown, Phantom, Madison, Troopers....and it's clean to boot. Individually, they look fantastic. Clean wins. Not hatin' just sayin'

BAC: $17,980, Madison: $9,186. Come on, people. Madison needs the money to buy sleeves.

absolutely. Their first priority was to win back the fans and re-establish the brand (and get back into finals). Then build back the technique and talent level. They've accomplished all this and more. As this process unfolds, I think they'll start taking more creative risks and push into the top 6.

She was judging design, not proficiency. Have a look at the new captions.

Keep in mind that Houston was a TOC event with the new sheets. These are the new criteria: 1. Visual GE: How similar are the corps props to those used by the Blue Devils? 2. Music GE: How similar are the corps arrangements to those played by the Blue Devils? 3. Visual Performance: How similar is the corps marching style to the Blue Devils? 4. Music Performance: How much does the corps sound like the Blue Devils? 5. Guard: Do the guard costumes look like something the Blue Devils would wear?

then stop playing.

Compared to BAC, most of the spreads were in performance/achievement subcaptions, not content/rep/vocab Compared to Broken Arrow, madison was way down in music GE (-1.2) and ensemble music (-1.5). Missing a bunch of percussionists will do that. It's a bit disappointing. Early on, it seemed like Madison might challenge for top 5. Then it looked like they'd be in the hunt for 7th with SCV. Now it looks like they are battling with BAC and BK for the 8, 9, 10 spots. And they still have to watch out for Blue Stars.

This is one of the most awesome things I've read on this site. I hope someone from the Scout Organization prints it out and tapes a copy to the door of the equipment truck so the guys can read it when they're getting their stuff.