audiodb Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 wait a minute here...your opinion is that if 5 corps...let's say for sake of argument... Blue Knights Boston Regiment Colts Glassmen all determined to go without all the "frills" of amps and mics (other than the pit) they wouldn't be competitive. You are telling me that the corps behind them would overtake them simply because they chose NOT to mic their brass ensemble or vocal group or whatever. Who are you kidding? Um, no - I didn't say that. But I believe we have covered the details adequately in other threads. The short version - these DCI instrumentation changes are required for competitive success. Without them, your success will be less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EndzoneEric Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 If everyone got a vote, and everyone voted for it, this might be a good point. But that's not the way it is, is it..... Unless I read it wrong, the DCI full directorship just recently voted to direct a smaller committee to do their business, but retains the rights to vote on major issues... such as membership and representation to that smaller committee. There's nothing "grassy knoll/book depository" about it, from the way I read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kusankusho Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 IF that is the case, then is not the problem with the adjudication system and not with the corps for pushing the creative limits? Should the adjudication system have that much to say about the business model? The adjudication sets the parameters for success, and there are a few problems in that area. But if to achieve the success, and push the creative limits, corps must pack a load more equipment on the truck and come up with an extra bus to take the increased membership, then you are deepening the divide between "have" and "have not" corps, and that impacts the business model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Brace Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Um, no - I didn't say that. But I believe we have covered the details adequately in other threads. The short version - these DCI instrumentation changes are required for competitive success. Without them, your success will be less. and I refuse to believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kusankusho Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Unless I read it wrong, the DCI full directorship just recently voted to direct a smaller committee to do their business, but retains the rights to vote on major issues... such as membership and representation to that smaller committee. There's nothing "grassy knoll/book depository" about it, from the way I read it. Well - let's correct me if I'm wrong - but my understanding is that the latest round of changes was voted on by the new "streamlined" BOD and was not unanimous. Can anyone verify my understanding please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 It's not like that at all. If a director ever actually had that discussion with the members, they need to be fired on the spot. That's what I get for changing my thinking in the middle of my typing. Was thinking of a director telling members that and then I realized it could be picked up by potential members via another way before any face to face meeting. That there internet thingie comes to mind. Pretty sure anyone serious enough about joining a certain corps will get all the facts before they spend $$$$ on a plane ticket or camp fee. And the facts would include what the corps is/is not using that season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Brace Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 The adjudication sets the parameters for success, and there are a few problems in that area. But if to achieve the success, and push the creative limits, corps must pack a load more equipment on the truck and come up with an extra bus to take the increased membership, then you are deepening the divide between "have" and "have not" corps, and that impacts the business model. wow...wrong twice in the same post! Congrats! 1. Judges don't come to the parking lot and count how much stuff you take off your trucks. Otherwise Boston would win every year. 2. The increased membership is designed NOT to add an extra bus, but to, in fact, make better use of the existing buses. Empty seats still travel down the road and filling them with members makes good sense. Next.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EndzoneEric Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 The adjudication sets the parameters for success, and there are a few problems in that area. But if to achieve the success, and push the creative limits, corps must pack a load more equipment on the truck and come up with an extra bus to take the increased membership, then you are deepening the divide between "have" and "have not" corps, and that impacts the business model. True. But as someone who reads all of this stuff, and the DCI and DCA websites as well, I seem to remember that the instructional staff caucuses have been approving very liberal ideas for quite a while... the electronic instrument thing passed in committees for at least a few years prior to the directors finally approving it this year. Although the instructors are generally "independent contractors," certainly the corps directors must have conversations with them about the fiscal realities involved? Do you think the corps directors paint themselves into a corner because they're trying to keep their instructors happy, possibly so they don't lose them to a competitor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EndzoneEric Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Well - let's correct me if I'm wrong - but my understanding is that the latest round of changes was voted on by the new "streamlined" BOD and was not unanimous. Can anyone verify my understanding please? The last set of changes was voted on by the former BOD, as will any future changes of this nature, according to the reports following the January meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Further, the "struggling" corps seeking this as a possible alternative/solution will have to assess the potential pitfall of allowing their alumni and/or others over the age of 22 to participate, thereby potentially changing the dynamics of the organization and possibly adversely affecting their ability to focus recruitment efforts on school-aged members, should they desire to one day return to competitive status within the DCI realm. Any age limits would be set by the individual corps and not DCA. So there is no reason why a under age 22 corps could not compete in DCA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts