Jump to content

Has anyone here ever thought about a "levelling the field" c


Recommended Posts

Actually, they kinda did wake up being the Blue Devils. Their first year fielding a corps was 1971. Five years later they won DCI.

Not saying I disagree with your point. Just saying it's not the best example. :)

I was thinking about BAC. Didn't make Finals until '99, despite being part of DCI since the beginning, then immediately jumped to 5th the following year. Also, the organization has one of the most dedicated alumni organizations I've seen, not to mention parents (the break from MPB parish, their European tour in '82, the Boston Drum & Bugle Corps).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Fans of the activity getting together to support it is welfare??

Sure, I'm all for supporting the activity, by all means. But I don't think that trying to "level the field" by providing a handout to corps based on the assumption that because they haven't finished as well competitively, they must need money more than some other group that has been more successful on the field, is a good idea. How do we know, for example, that Corps A in 15th place is any more or less solvent than Corps B in 4th place, or whatever? It just seems kinda pie-in-the-sky to me: give that little guy a hand, and watch him swell with pride as he... well, you get the idea. Maybe it's got to be thought through a little more carefully.

peace, (no personal disrespect intended),

Fred O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just what we need - the Great Society comes to drum corps; DCI as welfare state. Sorry, thumbs down on this one.

How would voluntary donations from individuals equate to "DCI as welfare state"? :grouphug:

(sorry, didn't see that this question had already been asked and answered....)

Sure, I'm all for supporting the activity, by all means. But I don't think that trying to "level the field" by providing a handout to corps based on the assumption that because they haven't finished as well competitively, they must need money more than some other group that has been more successful on the field, is a good idea. How do we know, for example, that Corps A in 15th place is any more or less solvent than Corps B in 4th place, or whatever? It just seems kinda pie-in-the-sky to me: give that little guy a hand, and watch him swell with pride as he... well, you get the idea. Maybe it's got to be thought through a little more carefully.

True, placement is not a barometer for financial health, but I don't think that completely invalidates the concept of supporting the corps of your choice.

Meanwhile, I wonder if you are equally analytical towards the idea of donating to top corps....

Edited by audiodb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you would be surprised at the financial stability of some of the lower-placing corps. I know of a corps that's more financially sound than many of the Top 12 and wasn't able to break Finals in 2009.

exactly. financially stable and competitive success aren't always hand in hand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Money may not be the solution.

The top corps will always get the better people, (staff and members) the best kids will always migrate to the top 6 7 corps.

Until you get "better" qualified kids into all the coprs, it will be difficult for a corps to go from 15 to 8 in the standings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would voluntary donations from individuals equate to "DCI as welfare state"? :grouphug:

...True, placement is not a barometer for financial health, but I don't think that completely invalidates the concept of supporting the corps of your choice.

Meanwhile, I wonder if you are equally analytical towards the idea of donating to top corps....

I didn't say that folks shouldn't be encouraged/permitted to support the corps of their choice, be it top 5, bottom 5, or anywhere in between.

It was the o.p. who placed the condition that donations be limited to corps placing 9th or lower, which seems to imply (at least as I'm reading it) that those groups are needier, or somehow worthier of support. That's the "welfare state" frame of mind to which my first reply alluded: the implication that the drum corps "public" has some kind of responsibility/obligation to provide a handout to lower tier groups because they are at some inherent disadvantage. I still don't think it's a good suggestion to pass the hat, but only for groups perceived as "needy" based on the fact that they haven't been able to crack the top 8.

thanks for the discussion,

Fred O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were incredibly rich, I would travel the country founding Corps, and trying to make tuition affordable for members. But that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...