2000Cadet Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 It's a stupid idea. That's why the DCI mission statement specifies 14 - 21 years old. It's just that the low end isn't enforced. You keep forgetting what the mission of drum corps is. How do you know this? In which corps is this not enforced? I know of a few top-tier World Class corps who have had kids who were actually 14. In fact, I know a few people personally who started at Cadets at 14 years old and aged out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Haring Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Parity cannot be legislated. Nor can parody, thank God. Fran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C4T Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 It's a stupid idea. That's why the DCI mission statement specifies 14 - 21 years old. It's just that the low end isn't enforced. You keep forgetting what the mission of drum corps is. So there is a specific rule that isn't being enforced that all corps must educate 14 year olds? In the upper echelons of the activity, age is not the leading factor in selecting auditionees, nor should it be. There are plenty of corps that provide a drum corps home for the younger students who do not yet have the talent, attitude, or commitment required to be accepted into the upper corps. What you're proposing is just twisting the mission statement to create an enforced rule to penalize programs that have over the years earned their current reputation, which attracts more developed and mature performers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed from Kansas Posted May 23, 2010 Author Share Posted May 23, 2010 So there is a specific rule that isn't being enforced that all corps must educate 14 year olds? In the upper echelons of the activity, age is not the leading factor in selecting auditionees, nor should it be. There are plenty of corps that provide a drum corps home for the younger students who do not yet have the talent, attitude, or commitment required to be accepted into the upper corps.What you're proposing is just twisting the mission statement to create an enforced rule to penalize programs that have over the years earned their current reputation, which attracts more developed and mature performers. Finish the statement. "Initially trained by lower tier corps that have stayed true to the activity". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 It's a stupid idea. That's why the DCI mission statement specifies 14 - 21 years old. It's just that the low end isn't enforced. You keep forgetting what the mission of drum corps is. No, I know what the mission of drum corps is, you are just under the mistaken idea that 21 year olds aren't youth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 (edited) a) There is no enforcement rule that 14 year olds “have” to be a certain percentage of the activity. It just means that they are eligible. To punish the G7 for success in recruiting many (legal age) 21 year olds is just as bad as the G7 punishing the Open Class by kicking them out of DCI. And quotas never solve anything except lowering standards of expectations. b) The DCI Mission Statement is there to remind these directors that in a non-profit charitable world, the haves agree to watch out for the best interest of the have-nots. I do "not" mean that the millions of dollars collected by the G7 have to be evenly distributed amongst all DCI corps'. I mean that since these G7 signed on with DCI, they have a duty to structure a system for the lower corps' to exist, grow, expand on their own with the "guidance" of the G7. That is what Dan Acheson was attempting to convey. Edited May 23, 2010 by Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2000Cadet Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 So there is a specific rule that isn't being enforced that all corps must educate 14 year olds? In the upper echelons of the activity, age is not the leading factor in selecting auditionees, nor should it be. There are plenty of corps that provide a drum corps home for the younger students who do not yet have the talent, attitude, or commitment required to be accepted into the upper corps.What you're proposing is just twisting the mission statement to create an enforced rule to penalize programs that have over the years earned their current reputation, which attracts more developed and mature performers. And, some people are not taking into account that people have to audition for these corps. And why do they audition people? To see if these potential members have what it takes to strive for greatness, because after all, this is a competitive activity. If these corps just took anyone just because they meet the age requirements, and that person wasn't really good enough to march in said corps, that would take away from the competitive fun of the activity and every corps would be sub-par. People like to watch competition. That's what makes it more exciting. If we had a show where every corps was of sub-par quality, I don't think that would help to sustain the activity because people probably wouldn't attend shows. People pay money to see greatness, not to see just anyone running around on the field not knowing what they're doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C4T Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Finish the statement. "Initially trained by lower tier corps that have stayed true to the activity". Now you're adding judgment to... never mind. Students (in this country) have the right to seek education from whatever organization/school they want, if they have the means and meet the requirements to do so. Including in drum corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 (edited) Finish the statement. "Initially trained by lower tier corps that have stayed true to the activity". Why do you have such a beef with corps that are good? This is the second time in as many days that you have implied that it is more noble to be a bad drum corps than a good drum corps Edit: I'm using good and bad as relative terms here, not trying to imply that the lower placing corps aren't still good at what they do, just not as good compared to the top corps. Figured I would try to head off the freak out that I know was coming before it happened Edited May 23, 2010 by dbc03 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2000Cadet Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Why do you have such a beef with corps that are good?This is the second time in as many days that you have implied that it is more noble to be a bad drum corps than a good drum corps You wanna know in my opinion what it REALLY sounds like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.