How do you feel now about the G7 proposal.

[BRASSO]

No doubt..Most are supportive. And I asked my Morman friend to go on a picnic last Sunday, but he couldn't bc it was Sunday..Dohh. But seriously, I did.

Reminds me of Vice President Biden a few months ago commemorating a Disabled Vet. Joe says some nice words about him to the audience then looks out to the audience and says....." Where are you Soldier, stand up and take a bow... oh jesssus, look at that.... well, there ya go, give 'em a hand anyway ". You HAD to feel bad for Joe. He meant well. It was an awkward moment, and we've all had a " been there,done that " moment where you want to disappear for the moment because you put your foot in your mouth.

Edited May 27, 2010 by BRASSO

[2000Cadet]

Reminds me of Vice President Biden a few months ago commemorating a Disabled Vet. Joe says some nice words about him to the audience then looks out to the audience and says....." Where are you Soldier, stand up and take a bow... oh jesssus, look at that.... well, there ya go, give 'em a hand anyway ". You HAD to feel bad for Joe. He meant well. It was an awkward moment, and we've all had a " been there,done that " moment where you want to disappear for the moment because you put your foot in your mouth.

I remember trying to hold myself from laughing at the gaff machine. He's a GAFF machine! Lol...Mr. Vice President is funny lol...

[jwillis35]

As the proposal stands right now, I am against the G7. I admit there are ideas in there that can be good, but likely need to be re-worked. Let's see how this pans out and what changes. But there is just too much to NOT like at this time. Nothing good will come from allowing 7 corps to have this kind of power over an activity that should be all-inclusive and one that should represent ALL corps.

If it were up to me, the board would consist of seats open to the directors of the Military corps, professionals in related industries (arts and entertainment), and every director of a corps, whether they are touring or not. I am all for a corps' right to run its operations as it needs to, to fund itself in a manner that helps it to survive and prosper, and I want an open market for show promotion and marketing. But the politics of drum corps, the governance of the activity depends on a large and diverse BOD for which the CEO of DCI serves. I never understood the merit of member corps being only top 12 or top 20 or what have you. I do not know why we must limit the number of seats on the board. I believe it should be much more like a large congress of members with a few seats available to outside business professionals. If you operate a drum corps of any type, this should be an activity you wish to join, and if you do, you have a seat on the BOD.

Allowing 7 corps to control the destiny of the activity and of all the other "member" corps is not a wise move. This will ultimately force those "other" corps into a mode of operation that may harm them. Let's see what happens with this proposal, but as of now it is not good.

[SOQ]

I just hope all fans that really care for this activity make wise choices this summer and act respectful. This is not a good time to turn our backs to any corps. I fear these are very vulnerable times for this activity. A season filled with booing, boycotting and dis-respectful behavour could be very damaging to the activity. \

Sounds to me like you remember Star getting booed several times in 91 for after beating the Cavaliers. Then dealing with the summer of 92, when it seemed that most everyone was rooting against them. Then 93 happened. By then they were sick of it and just picked up and moved elsewhere...pretty successfully too.

But, I want to be an optimist here. I don't know a lot about what is going on here, as I live on the other side of the planet now, and have just started reading about this. BUT, it seems to me that if the worst (or close to the worst) happens, which I think, to me, would be a separation of the G7 and DCI, let's all remember that some of the G7 corps wouldn't have been in the G7 as recently as a few years ago. A few of the others probably wouldn't have been in a few years before that. The reason that they are in, is because they stepped up. IF the G7 leave DCI, it will hopefully allow other corps to step up to being "elite level". Some of those corps probably would have been in a "G7 Year 2000". The idea of "elite DCI Corps" will change for a couple of years, but it is possible for great things to happen to other corps. If this gets worse, I do hope the above happens.

Incidentally, I have a hard time believing that this proposal has taken this long. Seems like it has been what Hopkins has wanted for probably around the last 15 years. It's not like he hasn't experimented with things like this in the past.

[Gary Matczak]

now it's 23 for it, 24 on the fence, and 134 against it,...............telling indeed!

and by my math, a widening margin

so now we have 27 for it, 27 on the fence, and 146 against it,................................game over!

[craiga]

Sounds to me like you remember Star getting booed several times in 91 for after beating the Cavaliers. Then dealing with the summer of 92, when it seemed that most everyone was rooting against them. Then 93 happened. By then they were sick of it and just picked up and moved elsewhere...pretty successfully too.

But, I want to be an optimist here. I don't know a lot about what is going on here, as I live on the other side of the planet now, and have just started reading about this. BUT, it seems to me that if the worst (or close to the worst) happens, which I think, to me, would be a separation of the G7 and DCI, let's all remember that some of the G7 corps wouldn't have been in the G7 as recently as a few years ago. A few of the others probably wouldn't have been in a few years before that. The reason that they are in, is because they stepped up. IF the G7 leave DCI, it will hopefully allow other corps to step up to being "elite level". Some of those corps probably would have been in a "G7 Year 2000". The idea of "elite DCI Corps" will change for a couple of years, but it is possible for great things to happen to other corps. If this gets worse, I do hope the above happens.

Incidentally, I have a hard time believing that this proposal has taken this long. Seems like it has been what Hopkins has wanted for probably around the last 15 years. It's not like he hasn't experimented with things like this in the past.

While I agree with most of what you said, I do have one question. You stated that Star left DCI with some success. How can this be? They no longer exist. I believe that central to an organization's sucess is its ability to survive. Further, what a shame it would be for GH to mortage the Cadets 75 year history with a similar move. Their alumni/BOD should not allow such a thing.

[Gary Matczak]

While I agree with most of what you said, I do have one question. You stated that Star left DCI with some success. How can this be? They no longer exist. I believe that central to an organization's sucess is its ability to survive. Further, what a shame it would be for GH to mortage the Cadets 75 year history with a similar move. Their alumni/BOD should not allow such a thing.

The measure of success is each mans guess,.................Blast, and such is probobly what the poster is refering to,...............

As for Cadets?,..............george does whatever he wants,..................no one there has the stones to call him out on anything,...............

[dcsnare93]

Guess you didn't see or hear about quarterfinals in 2007.

I still think that pales in comparison to the entire 91-93 seasons. However, though these things do happen, they're still rather rare given how long the activity has been around.

Edited May 29, 2010 by dcsnare93

[Stu]

...A season filled with booing, boycotting and dis-respectful behavour could be very damaging to the activity....

If the G7 directors, especially Hopkins, decide to present their philosophy to the audience by speaking "through" their youth performers, then there is really no other recourse for the audience than to speak back to those directors "through" their performers. Therefore, the directors are the ones putting the youth out there to get boycotted and booed, and those same directors should not cry foul when the kids are caught in the middle; they put them out there to deliver the philosophical message, not the audience.

[Michael Boo]

If the G7 directors, especially Hopkins, decide to present their philosophy to the audience by speaking "through" their youth performers, then there is really no other recourse for the audience than to speak back to those directors "through" their performers. Therefore, the directors are the ones putting the youth out there to get boycotted and booed, and those same directors should not cry foul when the kids are caught in the middle; they put them out there to deliver the philosophical message, not the audience.

Uh, no. It is not the only recourse to slap the kids in the face. That is the worst justification I've heard for expressing contempt for an idea. The kids are not fodder for anger from any side. That is absolutely pathetic and I would tell that to you to your face.

The kids on the field are the most precious entity we have in our activity. They are to be cherished and applauded. They are not conduits for irate messages to their staff or management.

I feel ashamed for you if that is truly how you feel and if that is what you are planning to do and encourage others to do as well.