Official DCP G7 Proposal Discussion Thread

[audiodb]

I think that when he is talking about attracting today's kids he is talking more about attracting them to attend shows than to march.

Also Jethro Tull isn't relevant to the average person either.

Well, who is the average person? (No need to answer....that sort of question is why the "entertainment" debate does not interest me.)

[BigW]

Well, who is the average person? (No need to answer....that sort of question is why the "entertainment" debate does not interest me.)

Your point is welll-taken here.

Trying to create something for the "average target person" created the Edsel, for God's sake. One needs to do what they feel driven to do in art. The right people will like and appreciate it if it has true worth. Pandering gets one nowhere from an artistic point of view.

That being said, sometimes things do not go as well and end up heavily criticized. At that point, one either stands by their convictions and takes the repeated critical beatings or does some introspective soul searching and realizes the criticism may have some true basis in fact.

[BRASSO]

. The devil, as always, is in the details. Until we know those details, I don't see the justification for the levels of outrage experienced on these boards. Maybe others know more than I and the outrage is indeed justified.

It's pretty obvious at this moment anyway, most of the non G-7 Corps "see the justification for the levels of outrage ".. and expressed it as such when the blueprint for this proposal was presented to them. Now, maybe their collective anger and outrage is premature... who knows. We'll just have to wait and see I guess if these closed door meetings over the next several weeks produce a proposal that these 7 say will benefit all, or just themselves.

But as for giving the spokesmen of this G-7 Committee " the benefit of the doubt " re. this proposal, fans will have to determine for themselves if previous proposals he has ushered in have led to the " sustainability " of all the Corps, the growth of Corps, the growth of the fan base, and to the long term financial stability of the activity. From my perspective anyway, I 'd go into any proposal of his with both eyes wide open, and with a healthy dose of honest and genuine skepticism. But that's just me ( ...but I am by no means alone on this )

Edited May 24, 2010 by BRASSO

[dbc03]

that's a silly thing to do from the start.

Attracting more kids to drum corps is a silly thing to do?

Really? That is the argument you are going to go with?

[Matt_S]

It's a "rule" now?

You've never heard the phrases "exception to the rule" or "exception that proves the rule"? Fine, I'll play dumb. These are idioms, or figures of speech. In these phrases, the term "rule" is not meant to imply an irrefutable law of nature; it is only meant to reference a specified observation.

Please. Once drum corps evolved to the point where some corps staff began composing their own music for field shows, it was obviously never going to be an activity limited to the music of "dead people". I don't need to waste my time counting precisely how many corps go that route, or whether the members of Kansas are still living, or who wrote "My Immortal", or what percentage of Madison's 2009 music was original Vince Oliver vs. arrangements of pre-existing works. Clearly, drum corps makes use of the music of living composers.

....which is what?

Yes, drum corps makes use of the music of living composers. As was pointed out a few posts above, the Cadets have recently used the music of Jethro Tull, as well Jefferson Airplane, Lisa Gerrard, and even living members of the band world like Frank Ticheli. So surely when George said what he did, he was aware of instances that both support and contradict his statement. Now, you seem content to stop there. We're talking about one line from a lengthy blog post, taken out of it's context and then blasted for not being 100% accurate when interpreted literally. I guess I shouldn't be surprised; this is the same tactic you employ in just about every thread. But context is important.

Hopkins didn't write his post to argue whether drum corps use living composers or not. Clearly they use both. He used that line to make a larger point, regarding the appeal of drum corps. Look, our activity is caught between two purposes. Some argue that drum corps should be about education, some argue that it should be about entertainment. The conflict between these two competing motivations has yet to be satisfactorily resolved. One reading of the G7 proposal, from where I sit, seems to be that it is an effort to resolve this conflict. Corps like the Cadets and Crown still educate their members and still provide valuable life experiences. But they do so while able to entertain thousands of people with their product. Why not build on that, and shift our focus to entertainment as we try to grow the activity?

Every one of us will disagree to some extent as to what we find entertaining. Maybe your idea of the perfect drum corps show uses only pieces composed by dead white men. Maybe you feel that way and you're young, one of the youth that George Hopkins is specifically trying to target. Let's have that discussion. But we can't have that discussion when you miss the forest for the tree, and demonize the man for a line you may not agree with, but should at least be able to comprehend.

[adsigns]

Our talk out here about boycotts, spitting at buses, burning T-shirts (and whatever other snakes we have nesting in our DCP brains) is pure blather and I for one, am going to continue to reject it and give these guys some room to work the problem.

More Sound Reasoning . . .

[Richard]

Edited for correctness! And to determine if change is good, you have several choices: Discuss it in an open forum and attempt to predict the outcome using a model and imagined outcomes or try it!

Back to your economics class.

This doesn't even make sense! Try it first and see if it works later? That's not a justification to concentrate the voting power and administrative duties to 7 out of over 40 groups.

And they would still have to be passed by the corps. If the changes in the proposal really are so detrimental to 8-24 then I'm not too worried about them passing. I think there is a good chance that out of this we will end up with some pretty good changes passing and some bad changes not passing.

I doubt it will pass because it's so bad for drum corps and the majority of DCI corps. The passage of the proposal is not what's concerning to me: the division of the leaders of DCI is. You think the non-G7 groups are going to just forget that the G7 privately discussed and then presented a proposal where they would assume much of the voting power and monopolize the administrative responsibilities and premier performing opportunities?

Dan Acheson said it himself: "Because of recent governance related events, these passionate corps leaders have a long way to go to come back together as a "cooperative fraternity" in order to determine a direction for the future." This proposal caused that rift. Even as just a proposal, and the damage won't be undone easily, if ever.

If you want my official position, it's there: we need more information.

What do you expect that information to reveal? And do you really think it is going to contradict what was written in the DCW article about the concentration of votes, power, revenue and performance opportunities? You'd think we'd at least have heard something from SOMEONE saying that any of those controversial ideas were not included in the proposal if that was the case. You have a right to be skeptical, but for me, there's too much evidence pointing in the other direction.

I am not satisfied with an explanation that insists these seven corps are acting only in their self-interest or with certain knowledge that the rest of the activity would be screwed.

I don't believe these 7 concocted this because they wanted to screw over DCI, I believe they just see it as an opportunity to make things better for their 7 organizations. Glasgow, Smith, Fiedler, etc...they were presented with (or helped come up with) an opportunity that would be extremely beneficial to their organizations. While it's commendable that they are looking to advance their groups, they path they have chosen does so largely at the expense of the rest of the DCI corps. But this makes sense from their position - what does Pioneer do for the Bluecoats? Maybe cultivate a few future members? Those can be found in successful marching band programs. They see this as the future for their organizations. It makes sense...just not for the rest of DCI.

[Plan9]

This doesn't even make sense! Try it first and see if it works later? That's not a justification to concentrate the voting power and administrative duties to 7 out of over 40 groups.

Sometimes! But in all fairness, I did say to discuss it and model outcomes, than I said or try it! I probably shouldn't have underlined "try it".

In any case, it appears your mind is made up...and mine isn't. Good luck with that!

Edited May 24, 2010 by Plan9

[chaddyt]

I'm drifting in and out of the conversation at this point. I've said some initial reactions, but there are 60 pages to this proposal and all I have to go by are the three statements from the G7 corps, from DCW and from Dan Acheson. That's not much. Additionally, this conversation is getting to the point that all controversies eventually reach on DCP, where the arguments go around and around. For the most part the players are predictable - myself included. There's not much more to be said or done until we know more.

If you want my official position, it's there: we need more information. Right now everyone involved in the discussion seems to be presuming a great many things, on both sides of the argument. I think the proposal could end up being good or bad for the activity. The devil, as always, is in the details. Until we know those details, I don't see the justification for the levels of outrage experienced on these boards. Maybe others know more than I and the outrage is indeed justified. Considering the people we have who contribute to these forums, it's unfortunate that information isn't more forthcoming. If this proposal were truly and incontestably bad for the future of the activity, don't you think that those in the know would scream it from the mountaintops?

I think this is a far more complicated issue than some are trying to make it. I am not satisfied with an explanation that insists these seven corps are acting only in their self-interest or with certain knowledge that the rest of the activity would be screwed. That's a black-and-white approach which creates heroes and villains. Discussion cannot proceed like that. Hopkins wasn't a beloved figure on DCP prior to this proposal, and perhaps you can include Gibbs with him as well. But what of Jeff Fiedler? Kevin Smith? Rick Valenzuela? David Glasgow? Am I to believe that these men and their corps woke up one day and decided to screw the little guy? That's an easy answer, and the real world is never that easy.

So let's start with the premise that these men and their corps honestly believe that the path proposed is better than the status quo. Maybe they are wrong, and maybe we'll all end up agreeing on that point in the end. But if you aren't willing to even consider this premise, then you've already closed yourself off to new ideas and suggestions. You've closed off discussion, because you've closed yourself off the idea that there may actually be merits to the proposal which end up in fact being good for all. All you've accomplished is to dehumanize someone who thinks differently than you, and that gets us nowhere.

I choose to give the benefit of doubt. I choose to assume that the G7 proposal was made in good faith, that even if I disagree these corps want the activity to continue just as I do. I agree, some of the actions proposed do have the appearance of making it harder on the remaining corps. But instead of working myself into a frenzy of those proposed actions, I am willing to allow the G7 directors to make their case. I am going to hear what they have to say. What I want, above anything else with regard to this proposal, is an understanding. I want to understand why someone who loves and cares about this activity probably more than I ever will feels this proposal is the best way forward. I may end up dismissing it in the end, but if so then I want to dismiss the proposal for its own merits, not because of the talking points spread around on DCP.

There is so much "win" in this post.

Thank you for expressing my point of view to a T. Like most everyone on this forum, my emotions do get the best of me and more often than not, end up influencing the majority of my posts.

Thank you for rationally expressing how I feel on this subject.

[BigW]

Attracting more kids to drum corps is a silly thing to do?

Really? That is the argument you are going to go with?

Yes. I will, and I'll spell it out for you since you seem to be amused by the simplicity of the base assumption.

Setting targets lower and dumbing down to attract teeny-boppers is not what this activity needs to do at all. They have no money, and what money they do have is suually spent on having the hipest clothes and tech items- it wouldn't be spent on travelling to a corps show.

The activity already draws the "right kids" to it. Why lower everything to a Lowest Common Denominator and drop the intellectual IQ? We already have a lot of substandard HS Marching bands that don't compete already providing 'hip, trendy' programs to the public in droves that are largely ignored and disrespected by the football crowds as it is. Most kids view this activity as geeky, stupid, and outright silly. We're Band Nazis, Band Nerds, Band Geeks, and really, do we want to try and reach out to that kind of person and that kind of attitude? If you do, I suggest you go over and try and negotiate with Iran about their nukes. You might do better than the current administration has doing the same thing. It's an utter watse of energy and precious resources. No amount of pandering will change that- unless you turn Drum Corps into some kind of stage presentation/hip-hop rock concert, and it will still be likely viewed askance by that target audience and drive the core audience that has money and resources that WANT to come to a show when they can out in droves. We've got the band geeks in tow already. And do the hardcore Band Geeks really want to do Pink, Lady Gaga, and Kelly Clarkson on the field for Drum Corps? Say it ain't so. If it is, we're done for.