The Challenge

[audiodb]

I ask for proof because you're asking me to take your assumptions as fact.

I wouldn't state it that way.

You've drawn conclusions from corps buying Bb instruments to that causing them to go inactive.

I wouldn't state it that way.

You're backing it up with "it's plausible". Sure it's plausible, but you talk as if it's fact.

I wouldn't state it that w....wait, I see a pattern here.

You don't think that if these corps hadn't spent the money on Bbs, they'd have spent it on something else that caused them to go inactive? You say I'm running out of arguments because I'm asking for proof, but I'm only asking you to back up your arguments. I can make arguments without proof too: none of those corps went inactive as a result of buying Bb horns. Of course I have no way to know, I'm just guessing, just like you.

None of this is quite as black-and-white as how you are reading it.

- Few things we discuss in life are purely "fact" vs. purely "opinion". There are all shades of gray in between - guesses, beliefs, correlations, theories, assertions. And we don't all agree on where each other's POVs rank on that scale. At times, one person's fact is another person's opinion.

- A drum corps is a difficult thing to keep alive. Many factors are causal in corps failures. Really, anything that challenges a corps' ability to retain the three Ms (money, members and management) can be blamed in a post-mortem....and often, several such factors truly share causality. (And since management is responsible for running a corps, they can always be blamed for not fundraising more, recruiting more, or staying longer, so some say that all failed corps were due to bad management. )

So let's color this discussion gray. I contend that making the drum corps operating model more expensive has caused us to lose more corps. I have presented a fair amount of context to support that analysis. Because of the presence of multiple factors, though, anyone can dispute my assertion by offering one of their own, addressing the details of my analysis, and/or offering their own context....or they can dismiss it with tactics like demanding "proof" and speaking of "fact" vs. "opinion" as if there is nothing in between. I would prefer we avoid the latter, as it doesn't lead to constructive, civil discussion.

Fortunately, you have offered assertions of your own, such as societal and economic changes affecting the number of corps. I agree with that....but IMO, those issues do not explain a dropoff as severe as we have experienced. We've gone from 400+ corps to 40+ on DCI's watch. That would be a loss of 90% of all junior corps....except that over that period, we had about another 400 corps come and go. So we've actually lost 95%.

Do you think society and economy explain why 95% of junior drum corps have failed in the DCI era?

[Jeff Ream]

I had hoped that the little smile/rolleyes face would clue you into the fact that my remark was made with tongue in cheek. Maybe this is too serious a topic to allow for any levity.

peace,

Fred O.

i missed those sorry. my bad!

[84skyrydr]

I wouldn't state it that way.

I wouldn't state it that way.

I wouldn't state it that w....wait, I see a pattern here.

None of this is quite as black-and-white as how you are reading it.

- Few things we discuss in life are purely "fact" vs. purely "opinion". There are all shades of gray in between - guesses, beliefs, correlations, theories, assertions. And we don't all agree on where each other's POVs rank on that scale. At times, one person's fact is another person's opinion.

-

So let's color this discussion gray. I contend that making the drum corps operating model more expensive has caused us to lose more corps. I have presented a fair amount of context to support that analysis. Because of the presence of multiple factors, though, anyone can dispute my assertion by offering one of their own, addressing the details of my analysis, and/or offering their own context....or they can dismiss it with tactics like demanding "proof" and speaking of "fact" vs. "opinion" as if there is nothing in between. I would prefer we avoid the latter, as it doesn't lead to constructive, civil discussion.

This is very well stated. Money is and always has been a factor in drum corps life spans. Make it more expensive by adding more gadgets and toys and more and more instructors to teach the gadgetry and corps go belly up. I don't think that many of the rules about amps and keyboards and any other monetary change would have happened if all corps had to buy all their equipment and not get it free in endorsement deals that the lower placing corps don't get. More money burden is placed on those lower corps and they seem to vanish.

[bawker]

True. But we get that all the time. There was something else that made Boxer shine. Could it be as simple as key?

HH

Nope.

People like to have their faces blown off, no matter what key it's in; the reason why people cite that as a moment in the past few years is that those kinds of "stop and level the stadium with your hornline" bits aren't staged quite as much as they used to be.

Cadets 2002, Madison 1997, Crown of recent years, etc . . .people like loud.

[Mello Dude]

amateurs talk strategy while professionals talk logistics...

..and here we are, quite a few more years at Lucas.

[Mello Dude]

Nope.

People like to have their faces blown off, no matter what key it's in; the reason why people cite that as a moment in the past few years is that those kinds of "stop and level the stadium with your hornline" bits aren't staged quite as much as they used to be.

Cadets 2002, Madison 1997, Crown of recent years, etc . . .people like loud.

I am awaiting the crowd to say that you don't speak for them to show up.

[Bob J]

Like I said, "If you ain't loud..."

[Jeff Ream]

I am awaiting the crowd to say that you don't speak for them to show up.

well, i think they know that crowd posts here...that's why 'DCP isn't important"

[Richard]

I guess it continues to be me against the thread, despite the fact that I’ve made reasonable arguments and admitted when I was wrong (which I’m seeing from very few others engaged in this discussion). Anyway, here’s my latest rebuttal:

amateurs talk strategy while professionals talk logistics...

Can you clarify this for me? I refuted your statement and you followed it up with something that is difficult to interpret. How do you respond to my statement that you can start an open class corps and make finals without all these “toys” everyone complains about? How about the statistics below…

I wouldn't state it that way.

I wouldn't state it that way.

I wouldn't state it that w....wait, I see a pattern here.

None of this is quite as black-and-white as how you are reading it.

- Few things we discuss in life are purely "fact" vs. purely "opinion". There are all shades of gray in between - guesses, beliefs, correlations, theories, assertions. And we don't all agree on where each other's POVs rank on that scale. At times, one person's fact is another person's opinion.

- A drum corps is a difficult thing to keep alive. Many factors are causal in corps failures. Really, anything that challenges a corps' ability to retain the three Ms (money, members and management) can be blamed in a post-mortem....and often, several such factors truly share causality. (And since management is responsible for running a corps, they can always be blamed for not fundraising more, recruiting more, or staying longer, so some say that all failed corps were due to bad management. )

So let's color this discussion gray. I contend that making the drum corps operating model more expensive has caused us to lose more corps. I have presented a fair amount of context to support that analysis. Because of the presence of multiple factors, though, anyone can dispute my assertion by offering one of their own, addressing the details of my analysis, and/or offering their own context....or they can dismiss it with tactics like demanding "proof" and speaking of "fact" vs. "opinion" as if there is nothing in between. I would prefer we avoid the latter, as it doesn't lead to constructive, civil discussion.

Fortunately, you have offered assertions of your own, such as societal and economic changes affecting the number of corps. I agree with that....but IMO, those issues do not explain a dropoff as severe as we have experienced. We've gone from 400+ corps to 40+ on DCI's watch. That would be a loss of 90% of all junior corps....except that over that period, we had about another 400 corps come and go. So we've actually lost 95%.

Do you think society and economy explain why 95% of junior drum corps have failed in the DCI era?

Ok let’s break this down. When you say that “making the drum corps operating model more expensive has caused us to lose more corps” I’m going to assume (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that you’re primarily talking about Bb instruments, electronics and the national touring model. I’m going to leave the national touring model alone for two reasons: it’s more difficult to quantify, and the regional touring model is an option (of which Academy, Pacific Crest, Jersey Surf have recently all taken advantage – more about these corps later).

On to Bb instruments and electronics, which are no doubt notable expenses on your average drum corps financial statements. Any key brass was first made legal in 2000, amplification in 2004, electronic instruments in 2009 (if memory serves). You’ve already ceded that Open Class is a different game when it comes to ‘keeping up with the Joneses’, so let’s analyze the World Class/Division I corps during that time period:

2000 – 19 Division I corps

2001 – 18 (Losing Tarheel Sun)

2002 – 19 (Gaining Cascades)

2003 – 23 (Gaining Pacific Crest, Capital Regiment, Mandarins and Magic – I think this influx had to do with the quarterfinals rules change but I’m not sure)

2004 – 24 (Gaining Esperanza)

2005 – 24 (No changes)

2006 – 23 (Losing Kiwanis and Troopers. Gaining Blue Stars)

2007 – 22 (Losing Capital Regiment, Magic and Esperanza. Gaining Academy. Troopers return)

2008 – 20 (Losing Southwind and Cascades)

2009 – 22 (Gaining Jersey Surf. Cascades return)

2010 – 23 (Gaining Teal Sound)

So, over this time period corps that folded and never returned (6) include Kiwanis, Capital Regiment, Magic, Esperanza, Southwind and Tarheel Sun.

Corps that moved up (10) include Cascades, Pacific Crest, Capital Regiment, Mandarins, Magic, Esperanza, Blue Stars, Academy, Jersey Surf and Teal Sound. We’ll subtract the corps that aren’t still around for fairness (Cap Reg, Magic, Esperanza) leaving us with 7 successful (so far) corps new to World Class in the 2000-2010 time period.

Corps that took time off and came back (2) include Troopers and Cascades. I did not include Capital Regiment because they came back in Open Class for one year and then folded again.

Now it’s fine to say that under DCI’s regime we went from 400 corps to 40. I won’t dispute that. However, I’m going to call you out on blaming the recent rule changes for the current state of World Class. The numbers don’t back up your conclusion. I’m not as familiar with pre-2000 DCI history, so I’m not sure how we went from 400 corps to 40, but I know it’s not because of Bb horns and electronics. It’s possible that the expense of Bb horns was a contributing factor to the loss of Kiwanis, Capital Regiment, Magic and Southwind (excluding Tarheel Sun because I know Cadets and BD were the only Bb lines in 2000). But how do you explain that more corps have been able to survive and grow to World Class level under the current rules than those that have not been able to? The variables here are numerous, but that’s even more of a reason to not hold recent rule changes accountable for the current state of World Class.

If you want to talk about the touring model and whatever happened in the 80s and 90s to cause such a sharp decline in total drum corps, then let’s do it. I’m actually quite curious about what happened during those years. But in the past decade, I’m not seeing how rule changes have affected the viability of World Class corps to the extent you claim they have.

You say that “IMO, those issues do not explain a dropoff as severe as we have experienced. We've gone from 400+ corps to 40+ on DCI's watch.” The numbers above show that the recent rule changes haven’t contributed to the total number of World Class corps the way you claim they have. If these rule changes are not the explanatory issues (and neither are the economy or societal changes), then what do you contend is the explanation for this drop-off?

Lastly, in a hypothetical world where the costs of running a drum corps were significantly reduced across the board, how many corps do you honestly think could be supported by the current interest of the other two M’s you mention: members and management? 50? 75? 100? I’m curious as to what you think. Money excluded, I would guess there’s enough interest to support MAYBE 60-75 corps competing in the DCI circuit. Just look at how difficult a time many Open Class groups have filling out their ranks. The interest just isn’t there. This, more than any other factor, is why we no longer have the mythical ‘400’ drum corps that allegedly once existed.

To answer your last question, I would attribute ~90% of the claimed 360 corps drop-off to societal change (and to a lesser extent economic changes) and ~10% to the increased operating expenses of modern corps.

[JimF-LowBari]

Intersting data on the Div I corps. Can anyone provide data on Div II/III (aka OC) and Junior corps that do not operate under DCIs umbrella? Also can anyone provide info on new corps that have been able to survive more than a year or two?

Asking because when we (DCP) gets into discussions on DCI survival a lot of people concentrate on the top WC corps or WC only. Problem is (IMO) DCI survival also depends on new corps being created to take the place of corps that go away or to provide growth. With more and more expenses being added to operating costs of a corps I don't see any possiblity of a new corps getting the money up to be created. Especially if the touring corps are the only ones considered "worthy" of discussion. Way I see it, we're only discussing how to keep the current corps alive and not how to actually provide growth in the Junior corps world.