Has DCI been a success or failure?

[MikeD]

fair enough,,, i did

i was yankin your chain,, lol

Yeah, I know...hence the

[glory]

well.. logically no,, because

+ We wouldn't know what a DCI was,, so why discuss it? that would just be silly

+ Just like the question,, because there is a DCI, we can't discuss what it would be like without,,, it's impossible to know,, therefore, no one can be right or wrong... again,, if the sky was pink and the trees grew upside down,, again,, discussing something that is completely unprovable,, is just plain,,,, silly..

And to say DCI is a success because it exists,, AND we're discussing it.. just doesn't make any sense at all..

We could very well discuss the Ford Edsel... it existed,, and people talked about it,,, was it a success??

Well ....

If we're talking logic, DCI exists. Unlike the Edsel, which is no longer being created, DCI continue to field a product. And unlike pink skies and upside down trees, DCI's product is real and regular. DCI survives as a promoter of drum corps where the previous drum corps sponsors do not. The only reason why you and others can't see the logic in discussing the existence of DCI with its styles and formats versus the extinction of the previous sponsors with their lapsed styles and formats is because you don't like the conclusion, which is obvious.

DCI is a success.

HH

[BRASSO]

Wonderful fantasies, I suppose. But you're not answering the question. What would have happened to drum corps had there been no DCI?

As it turns out, DCI threw the only lifeline. There was a Vietnam War. There was recalcitrant leadership in the veterans groups. There wasn't equitable revenue sharing.

There was DCI. There were leaders of vision who founded an alternative to what we know in retrospect was a failing support system for the activity. Absent DCI, would we even be having this conversation? That's why DCI is a success.

HH

It seems to me that once the handful of Corps Directors decided to form a what was called at the time The Combine , and then initiate for themselves the formatiion of DCI which put them initially at the head of DCI, they immediately put themselves on better financial footing than they were competing under with VFW and AL control that were dealing with their own fallng revenues at the time.

You ask " would we be even having this conversation " ( loss of Corps ) had there not been the formation of DCI ?. I think it's entirely possible that we would have lost a few hundred Corps as we have. But I think it is just as likely, if not more so, that another entity would have emerged in the absence of leadership from VFW and AL, that might have avoided the dismal record of the loss of hundreds of Drum Corps under DCI 's watch...... that did not occur at anywhere near the ferocity and quickness as it did, once DCI took over the reigns. We'll never know. But it is presumptuous to assume that Drum Corps would have suffered such numbers losses like the activity has. DCI COULD have made the growth of the numbers of Corps and the growth of it's fan base a priority. But one look at it's early charter, and mission statements, there was not a thing in there about growth. It did not see that as it's mission. It still does not..... although it has recently expressed a concerted effort to set aside revenues for marketing of it's expansion into selective markets in Europe and the Far East.

Additionally, one look at the American Federation of Soccer, or the NCAA, or The Democratic, Republican Party, or the Little League, or the NFL, etc and look at their early charters and mission statements, one inevitably finds that " growth " of it's membership is a top priority. It's written right into it's mission statement. It's elected officials are judged by their ability to grow the membership and expand it's base.

DCI can be looked on as a success to the extent that it has fulfilled it's mission in most cases. But only when one acknowldges that DCI never had a mandate to grow membership and expand it's base. Thus, in the absence of making growth of the activity of much interest to DCI, it is not surprising then that there was an acceleration in the numbers of Corps that folded and the rapidity by which it occured. On a final note, generating more fan interest was also not a priority with DCI. Otherwise, the " General Effect " judging caption would not have been systematically alted over the years to diminish the audience response as a factor in the tally and elevate instead (for instance ) show integration in it's place as a by product of more valued " General Effect ".

Edited February 5, 2009 by BRASSO

[Martybucs]

Well ....

If we're talking logic, DCI exists. Unlike the Edsel, which is no longer being created, DCI continue to field a product. And unlike pink skies and upside down trees, DCI's product is real and regular. DCI survives as a promoter of drum corps where the previous drum corps sponsors do not. The only reason why you and others can't see the logic in discussing the existence of DCI with its styles and formats versus the extinction of the previous sponsors with their lapsed styles and formats is because you don't like the conclusion, which is obvious.

DCI is a success.

HH

annnnnnd...it ruined the activity for everyone else in the process.

[glory]

… I think it is just as likely, if not more so, that another entity would have emerged in the absence of leadership from VFW and AL, that might have avoided the dismal record of the loss of hundreds of Drum Corps under DCI 's watch...... that did not occur at anywhere near the ferocity and quickness as it did, once DCI took over the reigns. We'll never know. But it is presumptuous to assume that Drum Corps would have suffered such numbers losses like the activity has. DCI COULD have made the growth of the numbers of Corps and the growth of it's fan base a priority. But one look at it's early charter, and mission statements, there was not a thing in there about growth. It did not see that as it's mission. It still does not..... although it has recently expressed a concerted effort to set aside revenues for marketing of it's expansion into selective markets in Europe and the Far East….

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

It’s a good point that growth specifically might not have been DCI’s priority. I suppose that might reflect an early 70s sense that DCI would have its pick from the abundant drum corps world beyond. The early leadership didn’t recognize the seachange until it was too late.

On the other hand, DCI is different from predecessors such as VFW and AL in its singular focus. Part of the genius of DCI was that corps would keep all the money. One failure in the DCI formula was that all the money would come only from drum corps. When corps were plentiful, the formula was fine. As the corps density changed, finance took on a different flavor.

That singular focus of DCI is the limiting factor, if you ask me. VFW and AL may have had their problems where drum corps was concerned. The offset was community – people beyond the die-hards who would buy tickets or encourage recruits. Today’s drum corps has only itself to sell and support the activity. It can’t even count on some band directors who should be naturals for the network. Instead, some are competitors for attention or just time. In the days of the veterans, the drum corps family tree had more branches, which meant more money, more shows, more corps.

HH

[BRASSO]

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

It’s a good point that growth specifically might not have been DCI’s priority. I suppose that might reflect an early 70s sense that DCI would have its pick from the abundant drum corps world beyond. The early leadership didn’t recognize the seachange until it was too late.

On the other hand, DCI is different from predecessors such as VFW and AL in its singular focus. Part of the genius of DCI was that corps would keep all the money. One failure in the DCI formula was that all the money would come only from drum corps. When corps were plentiful, the formula was fine. As the corps density changed, finance took on a different flavor.

That singular focus of DCI is the limiting factor, if you ask me. VFW and AL may have had their problems where drum corps was concerned. The offset was community – people beyond the die-hards who would buy tickets or encourage recruits. Today’s drum corps has only itself to sell and support the activity. It can’t even count on some band directors who should be naturals for the network. Instead, some are competitors for attention or just time. In the days of the veterans, the drum corps family tree had more branches, which meant more money, more shows, more corps.

HH

Yes, I'd say your observations are spot on.

[Jeff Ream]

I disagree on a few levels. IMO shows since 2000 are among the best and most entertaining ever, including all the new stuff. DCI was far lower in audience, to the point of alarm, in the 90's, before any of the latest changes that you are talking about.

At the shows I attend, there are busloads of new fans, as well as lots of existing ones, so I don't see how that holds true.

Mike you must remember, you live in an area that has a longer historical tie to drum corps than any other area of the US. shows that have ties going back to the 50's in some cases. I too have attended some of these same shows, and I also see faces that were regulars less and less every time I go.

yes crowds are up compared to 14 years ago.

there's also fewer shows than 14 years ago. In either this thread or another one, I named several towns within 3 hours of me that had shows as recently as the late 90's that dont now.

with the growth dci has shown, if there were more shows available to go with regional touring, imagine what numbers would be?

[Jeff Ream]

Typical DCP crybaby move. "I'm unable to respond to your actual argument, so I'll just say something cute."

typical DCP flamebait reply to someone who actually did, but because you dont like the reply, you go this route.

[JimF-LowBari]

It’s a good point that growth specifically might not have been DCI’s priority. I suppose that might reflect an early 70s sense that DCI would have its pick from the abundant drum corps world beyond. The early leadership didn’t recognize the seachange until it was too late.

Have to agree with the first part with the edit that as corps felt ready (competative and money wise) they picked to try to go the DCI route more than DCI picked them. Much like the smaller Senior corps at the time would try to make DCA membership as they felt ready. As far as dealing with less than ample numbers of corps, I'd say DCI is still in the past as they are concentrating on the big corps and more or less ignoring OC corps. Yes the WC corps bring in the big bucks but less Junior corps of any type makes the Junior corps activity less viable.

On the other hand, DCI is different from predecessors such as VFW and AL in its singular focus. Part of the genius of DCI was that corps would keep all the money. One failure in the DCI formula was that all the money would come only from drum corps. When corps were plentiful, the formula was fine. As the corps density changed, finance took on a different flavor.

Think you have it on the AL/VFW and DC connection. And with more corps, more shows were possible with the result of more money and more fans to help keep the activity going. <re-read my WC comment above as also applies here>

[audiodb]

If we're talking logic, DCI exists. Unlike the Edsel, which is no longer being created, DCI continue to field a product. And unlike pink skies and upside down trees, DCI's product is real and regular. DCI survives as a promoter of drum corps where the previous drum corps sponsors do not. The only reason why you and others can't see the logic in discussing the existence of DCI with its styles and formats versus the extinction of the previous sponsors with their lapsed styles and formats is because you don't like the conclusion, which is obvious.

DCI is a success.

I'm sorry, but if we are to speak of "logic", then I fail to see how the mere existence of something is sufficient to declare "success". By that standard, bankrupt companies (or drum corps) are successes - after all, they still exist.

Shouldn't we set the bar just a wee bit higher?