New tour concept for 2011 proposed

[see me]

I read most of the comments in this thread. A few of my own:

1) I'm surprised it took this long. The reality is that the top groups already attract the most talent, draw the most fans, sell the most souvenirs, and are the most attractive to outside sponsors. In a rough economy, they are going to make sure (indeed, their management has the responsibility to make sure) that they are being correspondingly compensated. Drum corps isn't a completely zero-sum game, but nor is it a rapidly growing one, so this necessarily takes something from other corps.

2) If you think that's unfair, consider the converse: what would be the attendance at a show like San Antonio or Atlanta if ONLY the non-G7 corps participated? 25%? 35%? 50%? If you guessed anything under 68% (7/22), then why do you think it's "fair" to require the G7 to subsidize corps that cannot draw their own audience?

3) The G7 don't want to kill DCI. If they wanted to leave to form their own circuit, they could do so. They've chosen to try to do this within the DCI structure. The most likely reason is that they hope that other corps will someday succeed at a similar level. 5 years ago, Crown would not have drawn enough audience to earn a place in the G7. Today, they obviously do. It's pretty easy to imagine a resurgent Madison in a few years drawing enough fans to justify growing G7 into G8.

4) It's entirely possible that this hurts the G7 competitively while rewarding them financially. If, say, Blue Stars are working all day, every day on their field show while the Bluecoats have to devote time to other music, encores, "anything goes" performances, etc., then who's going to claim that 6th place spot at Finals?

5) If I were forced to choose between a Saturday regional with the Top 22, and a Sunday G7 show, I'd pick the Sunday show. It's not that there's nothing to like in the non-G7 shows - I sit through all of quarters and semis each year, and there always are a couple of gems - but I'd value encores, concert pieces, etc. from the top groups more.

why only from the top groups more? that's like saying, the other groups have no talent so they can't play these pieces either?

[see me]

I read most of the comments in this thread. A few of my own:

1) I'm surprised it took this long. The reality is that the top groups already attract the most talent, draw the most fans, sell the most souvenirs, and are the most attractive to outside sponsors. In a rough economy, they are going to make sure (indeed, their management has the responsibility to make sure) that they are being correspondingly compensated. Drum corps isn't a completely zero-sum game, but nor is it a rapidly growing one, so this necessarily takes something from other corps.

2) If you think that's unfair, consider the converse: what would be the attendance at a show like San Antonio or Atlanta if ONLY the non-G7 corps participated? 25%? 35%? 50%? If you guessed anything under 68% (7/22), then why do you think it's "fair" to require the G7 to subsidize corps that cannot draw their own audience?

3) The G7 don't want to kill DCI. If they wanted to leave to form their own circuit, they could do so. They've chosen to try to do this within the DCI structure. The most likely reason is that they hope that other corps will someday succeed at a similar level. 5 years ago, Crown would not have drawn enough audience to earn a place in the G7. Today, they obviously do. It's pretty easy to imagine a resurgent Madison in a few years drawing enough fans to justify growing G7 into G8.

4) It's entirely possible that this hurts the G7 competitively while rewarding them financially. If, say, Blue Stars are working all day, every day on their field show while the Bluecoats have to devote time to other music, encores, "anything goes" performances, etc., then who's going to claim that 6th place spot at Finals?

5) If I were forced to choose between a Saturday regional with the Top 22, and a Sunday G7 show, I'd pick the Sunday show. It's not that there's nothing to like in the non-G7 shows - I sit through all of quarters and semis each year, and there always are a couple of gems - but I'd value encores, concert pieces, etc. from the top groups more.

why only from the top groups more? that's like saying, the other groups have no talent so they can't play these pieces either?

[corpsband]

Yeah.... we should all wait until something has been done before we open our mouths.

Guess you never voiced your opinion to your Congressman while something was being discussed.

Yes Jim but there's not a bill in front of us to discuss.

[audiodb]

Meh. We fans have already elevated most of these corps to that position. If we treated all corps as the draw then these seven wouldn't have any distinction to which they could point in order to justify this proposal. But the truth is, we do care about these seven corps (with some differences on a year to year basis, of course) more than any others. That's already the case, whether this proposal passes or not. We pack the stands for finals and leave Quarters largely empty. We arrive late to the show or stay out in the lots to watch these seven corps warm up, not entering the stadium until it's time for these seven corps to perform.

And we only treat them that way as long as they keep beating the rest of the corps. How many people followed Madison Scouts in that manner the past few years?

It is human nature to want to see the winners, whoever they may be. If Pioneer and Cascades start winning this summer, people will be in the lot watching them while the G7 are on the field.

[BRASSO]

Any enterprise,.... Drum Corps or otherwise..... that gives more votes to some, and less to others, is an enterprise I'd want no part of if my vote doesn't count equally as all the others. What an inherently undemocratic, totalitarian enterprise. It would only serve to solidify the entrenchment of the powers that have more votes.

Simple math :

More votes : more power in policy implementation

less votes : less power in policy implementation.

Any enterprise that has unequal votes is a sucky organization.... and headed to oblivion at some point,imo.

Edited May 20, 2010 by BRASSO

[Matt_S]

What I see in the proposal is a way for the G7 groups to get even more money by having shows by themselves. And that gives the non-G7 corps absolutely no way to receive the money they need.

I don't see your final line to be true at all. If anything, it's more insulting to the non-G7 corps than the proposal itself. You're telling me that the only way for non-G7 corps to survive is by attending shows where the spectators are there to see someone else? That's subsidization if I ever heard of it.

[ShortAndFast]

why only from the top groups more? that's like saying, the other groups have no talent so they can't play these pieces either?

In reality, I might well buy a ticket to both shows. But if you put a gun to my head and forced me choose between paying for either the 3rd place corps or the 12th place corps to perform, I am going to pick the 3rd place corps. You may well have a different preference, and yours is equally legitimate.

[garfield]

Does anyone else think that this sounds a lot like how DCI was originally formed? A group of corps wanted something more, formed their own group, and split off from one that previously existed. I will admit that I do not know much about what happened, but this sounds a lot like what I do know about it.

Here's my opinion about it. It seems good for the fans, those 7 corps, and DCI. But as a member of a corps that isn't included in that 7, I feel very insulted by this. I'm reminded of the saying that goes, "You don't have to blow out someone else's candle to make yours shine stronger." That is what these 7 are doing to the rest of DCI, World Class and Open Class. They are saying, "We are the real deal, and all others are below us." Even if some of the lower ones place higher than them.

So, I understand their intentions, and what the results could be, but I think there are better ways this could be done.

The difference is that Warren and the other actually spun off of the VFW and started their own thing. This group wants this to happen under the auspices of DCI and it's existing structure (unlike the Combine who built their own).

This aspect smells like wanting the cake and eating more of it than anyone else.

Plus, the need to oust Dan and crew to reduce the roadblocks to open instrumentation. That's why the are attempting to marginalize the remaining corps members and set their own rules.

This IS the angle to get open instrumentation among the corps that draw the greatest crowds. Then, it's no longer a slippery slope, it's reality to align with the MB circuit.

Edited May 20, 2010 by garfield

[WWonka]

Sorry if this is a repeated take on all of this; I have not read this entire thread.

The DCW article seems more accurate/revealing of very recent events than the DCP/DCI published article.

http://www.drumcorpsworld.com/articles.cfm?id=811

After several months away from DCP, I was prompted to visit the site because I was informed by friends on staff at several corps (G7 and non-G7) of the current restructuring

issue. The story I was told follows the DCW article pretty accurately, though tempered, from what my staff friends have stated. This restructuring of tour was brought up at the January meeting, but the real scare happened just a week or so ago when the G7 tried to push the changes through now, creating a rift between corps at a time when move-ins are here and everyone is busy with the most important issue of this month, setting their members up for success with the weeks prior to tour. Not that I have a ton of sources, these four friends, representing both sides of the "argument" told me the same account of recent events. So I assume there to be a lot of truth to the story. Both sides admit to self preservation as the motivation for their opinions. The basic summary from my prospective based on what I have been told and read is that the G7 assume DCI is crashing and they want to save themselves by greatly boosting their money intake; save themselves and let the rest slowly fold as money and performance venues dry up. The non-G7 (isn't it awful even to type such labels?) see themselves as part of a larger youth driven activity designed to compete and provide an extra ordinary experience that cannot be had in any other way. This motivates their sense of self-preservation at this time and a concern for all corps to survive. Basically, the non-G7 feel that the "power corps" want them gone, period. I was told the communication between directors was far from professional or positive. To quote one friend, "it was like a dictator was all at once in power and took the 'less fortunate' by surprise, guns blazing and stomping on the dead as they move forward with the take over." This friend is not one for high drama or exaggeration. Coming from him, it was this statement that scared me most.

Some entries of this thread state that there could be some good things with the proposal. Though I am a huge advocate for organizations constantly evaluating their effectiveness and though I have always tried to stay optimistic with changes in DCI, this scares me greatly and represents the first time I have truly feared the end of the activity. Not the activity as we know it, but the activity all together. Staff friends on both sides of the issue were/are angry, frustrated, and worried. I listened and asked questions but did not yet give my opinion to them. I have wanted to have a week to think this all through as objectively as I can.

I see nothing good with what I was told is really being proposed and in what way it is being proposed. The published accounts seem to be very watered down and designed to delay or prevent disgruntled fans as we quickly approach the summer with stadiums that need to be filled with happy fans paying for tickets that do help insure the future existence of all corps.

Thanks for this post.

[audiodb]

if they were the best run then they would be closer in placement to the G7. it's not just about keeping your corps active, it's about trying to get better all the time.

Um, no. If your corps' mission is to serve younger kids, or provide a less schedule-intensive option to kids with summer jobs or classes, success is not measured on the same scoring scale.