Hindsight

[MikeD]

Depends on how you define "the role". If "the role" is merely to educate X number of kids, then yes. If "the role" is to make programs available to kids in general (not just the ones in certain school districts), then not so much. If "the role" is to produce a marching music activity best suited for the field and most entertaining for the audiences, then no.

Since when is it not "suited for the field"? MB is as suitable a field activity as drum corps.

We will never have the numbers....but I think you could safely assert that more kids "march" today thanks to HS marching band. Which, of course, provides another example of a youth activity that has grown despite rising costs and declining youth population.

Exactly. Competitive marching music is far more popular now than it ever was. Most of the numbers are scholastic, not independent, which is also a good thing for longevity.

[MikeD]

Talk about a disingenuous argument.

No one is contending that corps folding in the 1960s had anything to do with DCI. DCI did not exist until 1972.

From that point on, though, if you sit down and look in detail, you'll find that the majority of corps in the DCI era did participate in DCI-sanctioned shows at some point. Not to mention how many more corps had to adapt to DCI rules as their local circuits adopted the DCI rulebook at the urging of corps competing in both circuits.

Competing in a show or two does not make them DCI corps, nor does it put them under the wing of DCI as far as responsibility is concerned.

You are being doubly disingenuous now. No one is contending that Bb horns and amps killed corps in the '60s and '70s, especially since they didn't come along until the most recent decade. More importantly, you mischaracterize the majority of DCI-era corps. While there were some that competed exclusively in local circuits, many other local circuit corps made forays into regional and national-level contests such as World Open, U.S. Open or DCI Championships.

And the point is? Those forays were at the whim of the little corps admins, if they wished to go compete in prelims at one of those shows. Those shows were the exceptions...like the icing on the cake. If a little corps died because of the cost of going to a show like that, it's hardly DCI's fault.

That is a ludicrous exaggeration. Corps of 20 or less members were the exception, not the rule....and the Braintree Braves never competed at World Open. You're just making stuff up at this point.

While < 20 was not the 'rule'...there were lots of small corps that fit into a single school bus with room to spare....staff included.

Ah, the point of your rant...."mismanagement"...."nothing to do with DCI". We've heard these talking points before, but not with such blatantly rewritten history offered in support.

The failures of the hundreds of small corps DID have nothing to do with DCI, so it's more than a 'talking point'.

[audiodb]

Except that most of the corps that failed over time were not touring corps, they were local corps.

No, Mike....it's not so black-and-white. More of those corps were regional corps....not exclusively local, but not touring to DCI annually either.

[audiodb]

Since when is it not "suited for the field"? MB is as suitable a field activity as drum corps.

Marching band is, by definition, taking "band" and adapting it to the field....as opposed to drum corps, which (until just recently) was based on using instruments already battle-tested and selected by the military as most effective for field use.

[audiodb]

Competing in a show or two does not make them DCI corps, nor does it put them under the wing of DCI as far as responsibility is concerned.

So DCI had no responsibility for the sustainability of non-member-corps participation in their shows? Gads, Mike, do you listen to yourself? You're making my point for me....that DCI tried to create sustainable operating models for member corps, but not for non-members. And look....member corps are hanging in, while non-member corps have been dropping like flies from 1972 to date.

And the point is? Those forays were at the whim of the little corps admins, if they wished to go compete in prelims at one of those shows. Those shows were the exceptions...like the icing on the cake. If a little corps died because of the cost of going to a show like that, it's hardly DCI's fault.

It's not nearly that simple.

First of all, you are presuming a lot with your "icing on the cake" view. Some corps viewed their trip to a major show as the highlight of their season. To each their own.

Secondly, perhaps you could contend DCI was blameless if they did not actively encourage corps to travel outside of their comfort zones to do DCI shows....but they did. This was not an issue with VFW/AL....in fact, Tony Schlecta discouraged VFW Nationals participation with his blind adherence to rules and procedural technicalities. Sorry, the truth hurts....but like I said above, the whole member vs. non-member dynamic DCI created corresponds with the time when attrition began outpacing new corps startups.

Third, it usually wasn't just the cost of attending one such show, as you imply. The DCI operating model most actively promoted was the membership/touring model. Go to that one show and make top 12 25 21, and you'd become a member corps - suddenly you are being talked into touring all over the place next year. Meanwhile, non-member corps are also being talked into touring all over the place because DCI needs other corps to fill their shows....but tour as a non-member, and you don't get paid the same kind of appearance fees as the member corps. That was not a sustainable operating model....but DCI promoted it anyway.

Fourth, let's remember that there were a great number of corps that operated happily for years competing in a local circuit and making an annual trip to a major contest in a permanent location (i.e. U.S. Open, World Open). The cost of traveling to that one known location was predictable, and could be budgeted for. DCI Championships, however, moved all over the country, and their regionals changed frequently from year to year as well....neither of these features were as well-suited to a lower-budget operating model. Had DCI left the other major contests alone, perhaps this wouldn't have been so bad....but they treated these other major contests as adversaries, eventually eliminating them. And with that, a necessary cog in the local/regional operating model was removed.

The failures of the hundreds of small corps DID have nothing to do with DCI, so it's more than a 'talking point'.

You acknowledge that the majority of corps did participate in DCI-sanctioned contests. You must also know from your instructional experience that the DCI influence extended to local circuits that adopted the DCI rulebook as a standard for the sake of circuit corps that did DCI shows. Yet you still refuse to admit that DCI could have had even the tiniest bit of influence on the fate of these corps?

[INSIDETHEFORTY]

Wow! This has become some debate!

Ron Gunn

Edited January 13, 2010 by INSIDETHEFORTY

[MikeD]

Marching band is, by definition, taking "band" and adapting it to the field....as opposed to drum corps, which (until just recently) was based on using instruments already battle-tested and selected by the military as most effective for field use.

Battle-tested? Until recently? I doubt very many military groups rode into battle playing the Olds Ultratone valve/rotor baritone I played in 1972.

[MikeD]

So DCI had no responsibility for the sustainability of non-member-corps participation in their shows? Gads, Mike, do you listen to yourself? You're making my point for me....that DCI tried to create sustainable operating models for member corps, but not for non-members. And look....member corps are hanging in, while non-member corps have been dropping like flies from 1972 to date.

How in the world would corps that marched in a couple of DCI-sanctioned shows out of the entire season be DCI's responsibility? You seem to be thinking that some little GSC corps that chose to perform at DCI prelims, or the US Open...or...etc...was the responsibility of DCI?

First of all, you are presuming a lot with your "icing on the cake" view. Some corps viewed their trip to a major show as the highlight of their season. To each their own.

Secondly, perhaps you could contend DCI was blameless if they did not actively encourage corps to travel outside of their comfort zones to do DCI shows....but they did. This was not an issue with VFW/AL....in fact, Tony Schlecta discouraged VFW Nationals participation with his blind adherence to rules and procedural technicalities. Sorry, the truth hurts....but like I said above, the whole member vs. non-member dynamic DCI created corresponds with the time when attrition began outpacing new corps startups.

How did DCI do such a thing to non-member corps? Did they force them to pack up and travel, even if the corps did not have the resources to do so?

Third, it usually wasn't just the cost of attending one such show, as you imply. The DCI operating model most actively promoted was the membership/touring model. Go to that one show and make top 12 25 21, and you'd become a member corps - suddenly you are being talked into touring all over the place next year. Meanwhile, non-member corps are also being talked into touring all over the place because DCI needs other corps to fill their shows....but tour as a non-member, and you don't get paid the same kind of appearance fees as the member corps. That was not a sustainable operating model....but DCI promoted it anyway.

'Talked into touring'? If a corps agreed to do something not in it's best interest financially, shame on them.

Fourth, let's remember that there were a great number of corps that operated happily for years competing in a local circuit and making an annual trip to a major contest in a permanent location (i.e. U.S. Open, World Open). The cost of traveling to that one known location was predictable, and could be budgeted for. DCI Championships, however, moved all over the country, and their regionals changed frequently from year to year as well....neither of these features were as well-suited to a lower-budget operating model. Had DCI left the other major contests alone, perhaps this wouldn't have been so bad....but they treated these other major contests as adversaries, eventually eliminating them. And with that, a necessary cog in the local/regional operating model was removed.

DCI did not 'eliminate' non-DCI shows. It was not their job to keep the shows alive. If those shows were not able to attract corps, it's hardly DCI's fault.

As for moving champs around...that gave more local corps the ability to compete at a DCI prelims at least once in a while.

You acknowledge that the majority of corps did participate in DCI-sanctioned contests. You must also know from your instructional experience that the DCI influence extended to local circuits that adopted the DCI rulebook as a standard for the sake of circuit corps that did DCI shows. Yet you still refuse to admit that DCI could have had even the tiniest bit of influence on the fate of these corps?

Those circuits adopted many of the rules and concepts of DCI, and modified them as they wanted. In the GSC, for example, we were told to judge using a 'National Linear' scale one year, by the DIRECTORS of the GSC corps, at the annual clinic. Guess what...after a couple of weeks of shows where the scores were incredibly low, they behind the scenes told us to abandon that post-haste. It just made no sense to judge this little 10-horn corps made up of 13-year olds in a comparison with the Blue Devils.

But it wasn't DCI's job to police the local circuits.

[audiodb]

How in the world would corps that marched in a couple of DCI-sanctioned shows out of the entire season be DCI's responsibility? You seem to be thinking that some little GSC corps that chose to perform at DCI prelims, or the US Open...or...etc...was the responsibility of DCI?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Ironically, though, that is how DCI operates now. Look at today's activity, with DCI evaluating corps so that their participation review committee can gauge what operating model (i.e. open-class, world-class, full tour vs. limited tour) is sustainable for a given corps. I take it that you disagree with current DCI practice, then?

All involved parties should be responsible. That means both the individual corps and DCI. Clearly, DCI wasn't being as responsible as they should have been (IMO) in the early years, when they actively encouraged corps to travel outside of their comfort zones and promoted unsustainable operating models. Today's DCI takes their responsibility much more seriously. We can still debate the sustainability of today's models (especially open-class), but there's no question that DCI is making an effort to make things work at all levels....in stark contrast to 35 years ago.

DCI did not 'eliminate' non-DCI shows. It was not their job to keep the shows alive. If those shows were not able to attract corps, it's hardly DCI's fault.

Oh? Who's fault is it, then, when DCI tells all their member corps to boycott a show?

[BRASSO]

But it wasn't DCI's job to police the local circuits.

If tomorrow, 7 baseball clubs,.... the NY Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Atlanta Braves, LA Dogers, St. Louis Cardinals, Chicago Cubs, New York Mets collectively got together and left MLB to form their own new professional baseball league, how long before a) MLB would soon collapse and b) the remaining baseball franchises of MLB would have nowhere else to go, but to follow " The Combine " to their new league ?

If you answered to both questions above: " very soon " you would be correct.

And this is likewise what happened to all the local circuits once the marquee Corps left for DCI. The local circuits quickly collapsed and died. And the remaining Corps had nowhere else to go..... but to DCI.

Edited January 14, 2010 by BRASSO