Jeff Ream Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Hi. I don't want to get too entrenched in the quagmire this whole "haves vs. have-nots" thing has created, just something I'd like to say. While it's definitely up to you where you spend your money (attending certain shows, buying souvies from a certain corps), I'd like to point out that those of us in "G7 corps" are participants, not administrators nor executives. Regardless of how any of us feel in regards to the proposed plan (for or against), we're also bystanders on this crazy ride, just like you, the fans (and many former marching members).That being said... it'd be cool if you didn't boo us. We're going to be out there every night performing like every other steward of the activity (+1 to the guy on one of the first few pages who said that), and I just think it'd be a lot better for everyone if we kept the toxic feelings directed at people making the decisions away from those of us on the field. That's all. Thanks. 100% agreed. this mess is not the kids fault. it's the adults ####### it up for everyone else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurf Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 In regards to the first, I was marching there way before this was made public. It's as much news to me as it is to everyone else.In regards to the second... drastic, but potentially effective. Very true. Don't blame the members. At least not this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 (edited) In regards to the first, I was marching there way before this was made public. It's as much news to me as it is to everyone else.In regards to the second... drastic, but potentially effective. I cant see staffs not being in the mood to deal with sit downs during spring training. maybe letters to their directors would be better Edited May 21, 2010 by Jeff Ream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybersnyder Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 (edited) . [deleted - nothing bad, I was just 100% wrong in what I was saying.] Edited May 21, 2010 by cybersnyder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azul Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 I'm with hash brown on the don't boo us and I an also currently at one of the 7 and the same one as him. I was also at one of the lower placing corps for a while too. That is why I don't agree with it. Today was the first I heard about it and that was 3 hours ago. Hope the other corps along with 1 or more of the 7 go against it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 (edited) " A house divided against itself,.. can not stand ".....(.President Abraham Lincoln) There is very little fan support for this proposal, and the majority of Corps in DCI are opposed to it. Drop the proposal, or move on, and don't let the door hit you on your way out the door. I'd call the G-7's bluff. I really don't think the 7 Corps (as good as they are ) can make it on their own by touring around the country with their own organization they'd have to create. I really don't. People want variety, and seeing just 7 Corps.. over and over again... will get stale pretty fast. And if the G-7 think that the majority of current DCI fans will follow them to their new organization..... well.... good luck with that assumption. What DCI judges will follow them ? Good luck with that too G-7. Do they really think the G-7 can split the 13,000 fans at last years DCI Championships, bring them with them, and make MORE money to start up a new organization, elect officers, market and promote their new gig, etc ?.... ya, right.... My guess, they will have ran full tilt over the cliff into complete oblivion within a year,if not sooner. So I'd call their bluff to drop this narcissistic proposal. The non G-7 may not survive without the G-7 Corps, but I suspect they'd be in a better position to reform in a leaner and meaner way. They might actually survive longer than a G-7 that goes out into the world with more challenges than they might think they have to make it profitable and successful for them collectively from coast to coast . Some of these G-7 Corps are 3,000 miles apart from one another. If the G -7 think going it alone without DCI can be successful for themselves, I say go for it. Otherwise, drop this divisive issue and return to your senses. Edited May 21, 2010 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayM Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 (edited) This is a difficult issue, but I think the fact that something like this has even come up means that there is some significant amount of external pressure of which we may not be aware. Obviously it's about money, but my impression is that it's really about the survival of the activity. To quote a very smart guy I know, "this corps doesn't run on love". I think the top corps are really struggling to make ends meet, and I don't think it has anything to do with electronics or uniforms or anything like that. My personal opinion is that it is just a sign of the times. That there is even going to be a 2010 season is something for which we should all be thankful. One does not have to watch the news for very long to understand the dire straits our world is in financially. Not that I have any knowledge of the finances of any one corps, but my guess is no one is getting rich off of this activity, if they are even in the black at all. I've always thought that one of the issues of groups of people acting as one (be they corporations or nonprofit entities or whatever else) is that it gives them a license to do almost whatever it takes to continue to serve the mission of the group. For many corporations in America these days, that means laying off thousands of people. For others, it means denying health insurance to potential clients deemed too risky to insure. I don't fault them for that. For some drum corps, it means experimenting with proposals like this one, even if it is to the potential detriment of their peers. I don't fault them for that. Edited May 21, 2010 by Jayzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
year1buick Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 (edited) well, i'm sure you guys can't tell the difference between booing and blooing from the field, so you should be in good shape. I will probably not actively boo though, because I will probably enjoy your show a lot. But I might well take the intermission to be a dick to the souvie people.the fact is, by marching in a corps that supports pulling away from the other groups in DCI, you are supporting that cause. You march where you march because you are happy with the direction that your corps is taking. You are not bystanders, but in fact active participants. If you all* showed up to spring training and refused to rehearse until your corps pulls their name out of this disaster, maybe something could be accomplished. *not you specifically, but all members marching in the Greedy7 picture the headlines... "Greedy7 corps members stand with their brothers and sisters across the country against the tyranny of the few" The story will go on to say how the kids have reclaimed the activity that is about them, not some summer band directors who are trying to fill their own ego. It would be a day that would go down in the history of DCI. Countless staff and admin personnel have taken a step back to think about the bigger picture, and have realized that they were in the wrong. They are thankful that their students had the backbone and courage to stand up for what is right. One of the dumbest posts I've read on this yet. Don't want to spend money at their booths? Totally cool. "Being a dick" to corps volunteers? Beyond stupid and completely pointless. Do you seriously think people who've spent over a thousand dollars or more and many, many hours traveling to/from camps, rehearsing, etc. are going to quit right before move-in, because of a proposal that hasn't even passed, and has likely had zero input from them? (To which they, likely, also had no knowledge of any sooner than the rest of us.) Hell, for all we know, some of these corps boards didn't even know the full scoop. I swear, comments like yours are no better than the ###### proposal being made in the first place. [edited for a typo] Edited May 21, 2010 by year1buick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAFL Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 In regards to the first, I was marching there way before this was made public. It's as much news to me as it is to everyone else.In regards to the second... drastic, but potentially effective. Pioneer has spots open--Donny would be happy to have you. I imagine most of the other non-G7 corps have spots to fill, too. Just sayin'.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemesiscorps Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Yes, we are the willing, the ignorant and the naive. Now that you and "nemesiscorps" have set us on a path of certain truth and the "real story" we should all be grateful for saving us at the precipice. See how easy that is...you just say things on the internet and people believe you. It's really quite simple. Good night you Princes of Maine, you Kings of New England! I have no issue with you friend, and I apologize for anything I've posted that has struck a nerve. Clearly, I hold seemingly the exact opposite views on this issue than you do... which is okay. At this point, I think that there's little to gain by naming names, dates, times, etc. of how we got to where we are today. Truly, it really doesn't matter much anymore, as some would say (and I agree) that the battle was lost and the war is over. One thing that I assume we have in common is our mutual love of the activity, and our hopes that it will one day thrive again. How that ultimately happens I guess is not so important, as long as it does happen some day. Meanwhile, we're clearly not going to change each other's views by sparring wits in cyberspace. I make no claim to be "right" about all things, but I will speak truth that I have first hand knowledge of. I'm nothing more than a guy that had the privilege to personally see some of the passion that Dan A. spoke of that goes on in those DCI meetings. My previous posted point was that whereas we often speak of DCI as if it's a separate entity from the corps themselves, we all know that DCI is in fact those member corps directors who, by design, govern first themselves, and secondly (by influence), the junior cops activity as a whole in a more general sense. What DCI is today is the direct result of what those individuals have done (or not done, good or bad) to make it what it is, failing or flourishing. They are the ones responsible, and they should thus be held accountable for any failings cited within the organization. Therefore, let's give credit where it is due, and condemnation where applicable. It is for these reasons (coupled with their documented governing history) that I do not have optimism nor faith in what is being proposed. This is a classic case of "the usual suspects" playing the same reckless game with the livelihood of the junior corps activity, and we all know that there are well known documented facts that support that assertion. There may soon come a day where those responsible for the "State of the Activity" are called out on the carpet to answer for their role in what has transpired over the years, but today is not that day. Likewise, there's no point in us going at it with each other either, assuming that we both ultimately want the same outcome. Truce. Be well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts