bartyount

I don't see how you can say that the the corps isn't lacking loyalty or appreciation of the members when they're willing to cut them just because an incoming rookie has more talent. I'm all for improving the corps, but not at the expense of using people when it suits the corps' purpose and giving them the boot when they don't. Sorry - I just don't think you should use people for any reason - and of all reasons - just for the chance of potentially making a music group sound and look better. Boy, that's a noble reason to use somone. [not]

Misshim-misshim-misshim.

I asked a Phantom FMM what SUTA meant and he just told me like it was no big secret. None of that stuff above happened. The sops playin the Finale from New World would have been awesome though! b**bs (The other stuff would not have been cool.)

Or..... do you? ^0^ BTW - that's only 4 words.

Well that's good if it's only SCV and Bluecoats. I've heard from different sources that Bluecoats are treating every spot as open. I'm very disappointed in that because it communicates to me (and others) that they value talent more than they value the people that got them to where they are. I'm not saying that they are defintely going to cut vets - or that they shouldn't cut vets who have attitude problems or are slacking. But the fact that they are open to cutting a vet (based purely on talent) to take a more talented rookie is very disappointing. By doing this, a corps is using people as long as it suits their needs and then discarding them when it doesn't suit their needs. This is treating people as tools and it's just wrong ethically in my opinion. I'm sure the situation is rare but I hope if the situation arose that they wouldn't really do it when it comes right down to it. I hope that they are just using that policy to cover themselves if they need to cut vets for other reasons and also to motivate the current vets to work hard for their spot. I guess the reason I'm so passionate about this subject is that I can picture myself having been in that situation. I was not a greatly talented player or marcher, but I was ok and I worked hard. My abilities were never really worthy of special praise, but I was rarely one that was singeled out for correction. Having average talent, I am one that could have easily been beaten in an audition with above average rookie auditionees. If I had been cut like this in my ageout year I would have been crushed - and REALLY ###### off. I would have felt used (that's exactly what it would have been). Especially since the year before, I had come in at the beginning of everydays to fill a hole where they seemed pleased to have someone there that had experience, could play and march decent, had a positive attitude and who wasn't just a plug. <edited for filter circumvention: ds>

I don't believe so. I think most consider all the spots open.

I'm working my way backwards in the collection. I've currently got everything from 2006 back to 87. When I saw earlier today that they were doing the 3 for 2 sale, I ordered 86, 85 and 84. Woohoo!

Not the same. Did the evaluation involve actively competeing for the position against other applicants? A yearly evaluation is not a new interview because you obviously already knew enough to get the job in the first place. And you are not being evaluated against other people who are actively competing for your position. If there is such a deficiency during a review that it results in that person losing their job, it is because that person has been consistantly underperforming (equivalent to cutting vets for bad attitude or slacking), not because someone else came along that the company liked better despite your acceptable performance. If your company holds open interviews for each position in it's company every year then that is the equivalent to what drum corps are doing.

And how does the real world operate? Are you fired from your job every year and made to re-apply and re-interview for your position? Most people have an interview and if they are considered to be acceptable for the position they remain in that position until they leave. Some people get fired for unacceptable behavior or substandard job performace, but this is equivalent to someone being cut for bad attitude or being a slacker, etc - which I have no problem with.

It's the perception, not the reality that counts. Even so, calling your tuba a contra does make you cooler. You must be a tuba player. :P Lighten up a little superfanboy. We're just joking around. :)

I care what the name sounds like. Sop and Contra are defintely way cooler than trumpet and tuba. Trumpets and tubas are for bands. ^0^

You're getting hung up on minutia. So change the scenario to a woodwind that marched all season and could play the horn just ok by the next November and the rest of the auditionees are still of far superior talent.

I care more about honor than quality of product. If the corps is willing to accept someone at a particular talent level to serve it's purpose, it should honor the effort and commitment that that person made. (Again - attitude and work ethic are a seperate issue). If the corps accepted that schmuck's talent, and that schmuck has a good attitude and work ethic, he should not be cut. The end doesn't justify the means.

Drum corps should operate based on what's right - not based on what everyone else does. Your assertion falls under one of the logical fallacies - I'm not sure exactly which one... appeal to numbers maybe?

There weren't quite that many people auditioning when I was in the corps. :)

Yeah - I meant to say is the discussion has become about whether it's right. Again - I'm not talking about vets who are being slackers or who have bad attitudes. I'm talking about the vets who were good enough to make the line one year, who have good attitudes and work hard - but are cut in favor of a rookie with more talent. My problem is with vets being cut based purely on raw talent. Let's say a corps has trouble filling out the line so they pick up a guy on tour to plug a hole. This guy happens to be woodwind player who's never picked up a brass instrument in his life. He marches with the corps for the last few weeks of tour and he basically was just able to learn drill and hold the horn. In the off-season he works hard and tries to learn to play, but of course with only 3 months, he's nowhere near the level of the rest of the auditionees and because of the success of the corps the past year, there are enough auditionees that the corps is confident it's going to fill the line with good talent. Our guy is a proven vet who has shown that he has a good attitude and is a hard worker and has a driven desire to return. But he's nowhere near as talented as all of the other auditionees. Should he be cut? I say no. The corps accepted his talent (or rather, lack of) when it suited the need of the corps. The corps should honor that vet's effort and commitment as long as he sustains that effort and commitment - regardless of his talent.

I don't think anyone is generalizing. We're just saying that in the places that it does happen, it's wrong. Where "it" being specifically - vets being cut based purely on talent in favor of a more talented rookie.

The discussion is not about the fact that it happens - it's about whether it's right.

You don't discard the people that helped the organization grow in the first place.

I agree. I'm trying to find out if there are corps out there that will sacrifice vets with heart and good attitudes to get a rookie with more talent. If there are corps that do that - it royally sucks of them to do that. If they do that, they are just using people. Someone above said that Bluecoats cut 7 vets in 2005 - I hope it was for some other reason than just some rookies having more talent. I would be very disappointed in my alma mater if I find out that they've adopted the "win at all costs" attitude.

I've seen something similar to that also. That's an attitude issue. My question was really about vets auditioning and obtaining a spot initially - not losing an already aquired spot due to attitude, etc.

It seems most corps have policies that all vets must audition with everyone else. However - I don't think I've ever heard of a returning vet not making the cut. 1. Are there corps that say returning vets automatically have a spot if they want it? 2. Has anyone ever heard of a returning vet not making the cut? My personal opinion is that loyalty and experience should be rewarded with an automatic spot, even if there are rookies with more raw talent. (Of course, there should be conditions - like making a certain numbers of camps, paying dues on time, etc).

It has nothing to do with caring. It has to do with time and money.

From the link: "Clinton, Mississippi is is where Keith Carlock was born and raised and where he started playing the drums at age 5. In High School, he joined the jazz band, show choir and drum corps." Well - we had a show choir (a really good one) but didn't have a jazz band. I'm sure that by "drum corps" the bio writer meant the HS marching band. He most definitely did not march drum corps during high school. BTW - I'm not trying to get down on him - he was (is) an amazing drummer. I feel lucky to have been in the same music ensembles with such a great musician.

Soooo.... there's been no music selected - just a show concept?