Dan Acheson - What grade would you give him?

[wvu80]

Note on the posts about corps not being fiscally sound back in the day. Many corps were fiscally sound and and a had well run organization. But their financial assets only allowed them to do limited touring or no touring at all and/or have a smaller corps. When they had to tour and/or grow to keep up with the top corps, the resources were just not there. Well run yes, having the ability to increase the resources to keep up with changing times, no.

I read what you said a few times. I think I know what you are saying and I'd like to agree, but you're trying to argue both ways.

What you are saying is "most" of the corps back in the day were fiscally sound as long as they didn't do anything or go anywhere. DCI is a competitive circuit, and yes, travel is a necessary cost for ANY DCI corps, even "back in the day."

You are correct that today's corps are a totally different financial animal than in days of old. Today's top corps get new horns EVERY year. Today's corps rent state-of-the-art touring buses EVERY year. Several of today's corps get all-new unis EVERY year, new flag equipment, and new drums.

I don't think "most" corps were fiscally sound, back in the day. That's why they spent money they didn't have (borrowed) and that is why they went out of business. And that does NOT meet my definition of "well run organizations."

To tie this together with the topic, THEY choose to join DCI. DCI did NOT choose to join, or run them.

[wvu80]

He is the head of the DCI office. It's his responsibility to make sure the stadium bathrooms will be available. Instead, my pregnant wife had to keep running all the way down to the bottom to use the bathroom.

Whose fault is that?

If you hadn't gotten her pregnant, this would not even be an issue.

Or are you blaming that on Dan Acheson too?

[audiodb]

If you agree that 400 was not the correct number of corps 40 years ago, but rather 200, then we're at about 25% now. I count 47 corps listed on DCI.org - plus Cap Regiment, who's class for 2009 has yet to be determined, makes 48.

I think you lost track of the context. There were over 400 competing junior corps at the activity's peak, and I am not disputing that.

I was referring to glory's post about "the right number of corps" for today being a few dozen....where "the right number of corps" means what he feels is the appropriate number that should be active. Within that context, it would seem that many (including glory) would feel that not all 400-plus corps of yesteryear were really fieldworthy/roadworthy, and that the appropriate number of corps that should have been competing back then would have been some subset of that 400-plus.

[DrumCorpsFan27]

Whose fault is that?

If you hadn't gotten her pregnant, this would not even be an issue.

Or are you blaming that on Dan Acheson too?

Well, if it was Dan's fault, he owes us a heck of a lot of money!!!

[DrumCorpsFan27]

I read what you said a few times. I think I know what you are saying and I'd like to agree, but you're trying to argue both ways.

What you are saying is "most" of the corps back in the day were fiscally sound as long as they didn't do anything or go anywhere. DCI is a competitive circuit, and yes, travel is a necessary cost for ANY DCI corps, even "back in the day."

You are correct that today's corps are a totally different financial animal than in days of old. Today's top corps get new horns EVERY year. Today's corps rent state-of-the-art touring buses EVERY year. Several of today's corps get all-new unis EVERY year, new flag equipment, and new drums.

I don't think "most" corps were fiscally sound, back in the day. That's why they spent money they didn't have (borrowed) and that is why they went out of business. And that does NOT meet my definition of "well run organizations."

To tie this together with the topic, THEY choose to join DCI. DCI did NOT choose to join, or run them.

In part, what you say is true, those corps did not have the money to go touring around. However, there were plenty of circuits for corps to compete in locally all summer. Some of them did venture to the prelims, filling out a two day competition for the top 12. DCI provided an environment where the top corps would make more money touring rather than competing in the local circuits. The local circuits could not survive without the draw of the better corps at the shows and all those corps dried up. I think that was a mistake of DCI. It seemed like DCI wanted to be the only show in town. Well, they got their wish, and a system that now depends on marching band programs to exist.

[JimF-LowBari]

I read what you said a few times. I think I know what you are saying and I'd like to agree, but you're trying to argue both ways.

What you are saying is "most" of the corps back in the day were fiscally sound as long as they didn't do anything or go anywhere. DCI is a competitive circuit, and yes, travel is a necessary cost for ANY DCI corps, even "back in the day."

You are correct that today's corps are a totally different financial animal than in days of old. Today's top corps get new horns EVERY year. Today's corps rent state-of-the-art touring buses EVERY year. Several of today's corps get all-new unis EVERY year, new flag equipment, and new drums.

I don't think "most" corps were fiscally sound, back in the day. That's why they spent money they didn't have (borrowed) and that is why they went out of business. And that does NOT meet my definition of "well run organizations."

To tie this together with the topic, THEY choose to join DCI. DCI did NOT choose to join, or run them.

Agree up to a point, some corps did join DCI and do the touring bit even though they knew it would/might be a budget breaker. And those corps IMO were financially irresponsible. And as there were other circuits it was possible to have a non-DCI Junior corps. That distinct keeps getting lost in some discussions.

But your post and others I've read make it sound like the BITD corps only went under due to being fiscally irresponsible. Some corps were supported fully by churchs, American Legion or VFW Posts. When money got tight for those sponsors (many due to lack of members), many of them pulled the plug on the corps and other activities and that was that. Some parishes even killed the corps when a new priest came in who didn't like Drum Corps or didn't like that non-church members were in the corps. Some corps could not keep membership over the years due to not being competative, not going to big shows (touring kinda) or just being in a area of town that had turned to crap (Blessed Sac?).

For the smaller Sr corps I competed against, the killer was the shows started disappearing as the show expenses grew. As the shows got further away, and gas trippled in prices (1970s) the bus bills kept climbing. Factor in a corps based in a smaller town with few chances for fund raising and your budget can only increase so far. And when the local area is hit hard by bad economic times the fundraising chances go down. Yes lot of these smaller Sr corps folded due to money problems but it was due to limited financial resources, not fiscal irresponsibilty. IIRC ARgonne Rebels Jr corps folded for the same reason as they couldn't increase fundraising in their home area anymore.

What gets me is when people who know better say that hundreds of BITD corps all went under because they couldn't manage money. To me it sounds like they are trying to justfiy how unholy expensive it is now to try to keep a corps alive. It's like saying "Well corps A can survive the cost and Corps B couldn't... well that proves some was wrong with Corps B".

Edited December 3, 2008 by JimF-3rdBari

[audiodb]

To tie this together with the topic, THEY choose to join DCI. DCI did NOT choose to join, or run them.

Yes, they did....certainly, when DCI took over operations for Drum Corps East, Drum Corps West, and Drum Corps Midwest.

[Matt_S]

I think you lost track of the context. There were over 400 competing junior corps at the activity's peak, and I am not disputing that.

I was referring to glory's post about "the right number of corps" for today being a few dozen....where "the right number of corps" means what he feels is the appropriate number that should be active. Within that context, it would seem that many (including glory) would feel that not all 400-plus corps of yesteryear were really fieldworthy/roadworthy, and that the appropriate number of corps that should have been competing back then would have been some subset of that 400-plus.

No, I kept the context of your original premise, and applied it throughout your post. You seemed to agree with glory that something like 200 was a more appropriate number of corps, and that the society at the time was probably not capable of supporting 400 separate corps. By that premise, you're "assigning" 200 corps to the society at the time. In our current society, we have about 50 corps listed under DCI. That's a decrease to 25%, not 10%. Since you've already explained why 50% of the corps around at the peak were likely to fold, there's no reason to chalk that up to "societal changes".

[audiodb]

No, I kept the context of your original premise, and applied it throughout your post. You seemed to agree with glory that something like 200 was a more appropriate number of corps, and that the society at the time was probably not capable of supporting 400 separate corps. By that premise, you're "assigning" 200 corps to the society at the time. In our current society, we have about 50 corps listed under DCI. That's a decrease to 25%, not 10%. Since you've already explained why 50% of the corps around at the peak were likely to fold, there's no reason to chalk that up to "societal changes".

Like I said, you lost track of the context.

No, I don't agree that 200 corps would have been the appropriate number of corps. I posited that within the context of glory's logic. Fact of the matter is that society did support 400-plus separate corps at the peak. We had 46 in 2008.

And by the way, I said that "you could make a case" for 25% due to societal changes. I never said I'd agree with that case.

[glory]

…Bottom line (well, two bottom lines):

- There is no explanation of "societal change" that will convince me that having 10% as many corps today is the natural and healthy order of things. 50%, sure. 25%, at least you could make a case. 10%, no way.

The persuasive explanation should be the market will bear what it will bear. We might wish it were different, but if there aren’t leaders and volunteers stepping up to manage the corps, if there aren’t communities willing and able to fund the corps, it doesn’t matter what the prospective members or fans desire. The next corps will start when – and only when – there are people to invest the time and resources to make it a success.

That’s the major societal change that I see. Where once veterans posts, churches and other community groups made it their priority to fund and staff a drum corps, today that responsibility falls primarily on drum corps people without regard to other community ties.

What church today would make a youth drum corps its next priority? No, the next corps will be born exclusively in the corps/marching band community, for better or for worse. That’s the market today, and it’s different from a generation ago when community groups found justification to devote their scarce resources to drum corps and not something else.

You make a very interesting point – one I hadn’t considered – about drum corps unbound by geography. Some folks moved a little while ago to my neighborhood from the Concorde, Calif., area. It wasn’t a complete disappointment. They’d heard of the Blue Devils and their success. But they’d never seen them and didn’t really know what drum corps is. Oh well. Even in a community with drum corps today, the community seems less relevant.

... Say you are correct, and "a few dozen corps" is the right number today. How low can "the right number" go in the future? I believe there is a critical mass below which DCI will not be sustainable. Without enough corps to establish practical tours, fill shows and replace corps that fold, the junior drum corps activity would enjoy only a handful of years circling the bowl before DCI would cease operations. I'd say anything less than three dozen corps puts DCI on the endangered species list.

As for the right number of corps, I too don’t know. But it’s possible the critical mass might be as few a dozen. I could imagine (just imaging,not advocating) a model where a dozen corps barnstormed the country in tandem with five or six meeting each night while the others moved on to the next city. This caravan could afford some savings if you coordinate and consolidate travel, housing, meals, etc., in an advantageous way. Just thinking out loud here.

HH