Matt_S Posted May 28, 2010 Share Posted May 28, 2010 For my money, the reason is simply that they feel the G7 proposal its what's best for their organizations, instead of what's best for all of DCI. How is that different from greed, a motivation which you rejected? Not asking that to be accusing, but for you to expound on what you've just said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted May 28, 2010 Share Posted May 28, 2010 Well, one thing we should ALL be able to agree upon is that in the current G-7 proposal, the DCI " Death Panels " in the following 5 years would have effectively killed off most of the current Open Class Corps. That Division would be killed off. That's right in the plan. Only a small handful there would be considered worthy to keep on life support. They'd be served notice to resusitate themselves and move out of their bed and get jogging, or the plug would be pulled on these Corps too.. They'd be considered a drag on the revenue of DCI, and particularly the G-7 Beautiful People, in particular. I love this. Perfect. What did that EPA politician say about BP? "Gonna keep a boot on their neck...", yeah I think that was it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted May 28, 2010 Share Posted May 28, 2010 I thought it fascinating that in his proposal, " Percussion " would have no more points allocated than the " Woodwinds " captions. ( percussion gets 18-20 pts... same as woodwinds section 18-20 pts ) Is there anybody else troubled by this even a little bit ?Shouldn't " Percussion " receive every bit as much weight in the new judging format proposed here as would " Woodwinds " ? I would hope so. They're still going to keep the name " Drum Corps". That's the least they should do. Why not give percussion 25 pts... and woodwinds 10 points ? Wait, Brasso. Who's proposal? (Honestly) Did I miss a part about WW in the DCI proposal, or are you talking about the "Winds" reference in the G7's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted May 28, 2010 Share Posted May 28, 2010 You're still making assumptions about my position. In fact, the second line I quoted is a blatant straw man. DCI is clearly doing some things right, even a majority of things right. But something is amiss or we wouldn't have the G7 proposal, and I want to find out what that is. The G7 powerpoint was clearly spun to support that ideas presented. No question. But the DCI article was clearly spun to assure readerships that everything is fine and wonderful. I'm not ready to buy that either. It could be that the G7 was blowing smoke up our collective #####, but they had to had to get that smoke from a fire somewhere. Something is amiss enough so that seven corps got together to propose radical changes to the current touring model. Something is amiss enough that the board voted not to renew Dan's contract. Something is amiss enough that directors of the proposed AA corps shook up the board to give themselves more power. Something is amiss enough that Jeff Fiedler and Rick Valenzuela, after keeping their positions on the board, still felt the need to resign. Trust in DCI's leadership all you want. Until we have the missing piece to explain each of these events, then we're still missing a piece of the puzzle. Yes sir, true all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted May 28, 2010 Share Posted May 28, 2010 U How is that different from greed, a motivation which you rejected? Not asking that to be accusing, but for you to expound on what you've just said. Well they're acting in the interest of their organization, as the leader of any organization should. My beef is with their ethics in their approach, where they're proposing the advancement their organizations at the expense of others. I don't take exception with the motive, just the method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted May 28, 2010 Share Posted May 28, 2010 Who is responsible for implementing the initiatives set forth in the business plan? Dan and his staff. Perhaps it's no coincidence that the G7 proposal includes the G7 corps stepping in to take over DCI operations. ...While effectively stripping down DCI's resources through corps payouts while simultaneously demanding DCI come up with, and implement, a 5-year plan? Worse than an unfunded mandate, the G7 corps have been demanding higher payouts to the corps for some time, making funding of these programs all the more difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted May 28, 2010 Share Posted May 28, 2010 how do you propose to get bands and kids to shows? just saying you have them wont work.when it comes to schools, you can advertise all you want. If the band director wants nothing to do with it, you lose. There are far more schools out there that want nothing to do with competition and/or drum corps influence than there are those that do. So how do you propose breaking thru to them? Jeff, I was just going to start a thread question: "OK band and music teachers here, what do you think will get band directors to care about drum corps?" I'd like to hear your reply to the question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted May 28, 2010 Share Posted May 28, 2010 Band directors have to stop believing that DCI sees them as "resources" and instead views them as partners. What a GREAT sentence. (I don't know if it's true, but I can see how they might perceive it that way). More, please... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tez Posted May 28, 2010 Share Posted May 28, 2010 I keep hearing about "things must be amiss for the G7 to have made such a bold proposal." But as of now, it just seems like what is "amiss" is simply a major philisophical difference in what the activity should be. Much of the general plans of the 2 different proposals are the same: -Grow the fan base -Make more money for the corps -Reach out toward high school students through clinics etc... The differences are: G7: -Make high school band students your primary, (almost only) target audience -Change the instrumentation to match high school bands -Structure DCI where the "top corps" have nearly all the power -No support for smaller corps (open class) DCI: -Target audience is inclusive, trying to appeal to new fans as well as legacy -Keep structure of DCI same as now, with many more corps getting equal voting rights -More support for smaller and new corps If the G7 were simply reacting to something being "amiss" in DCI, why would their plan for the future be so specific (as far as goals)? It truly seems like this was something that has been thought about for a long time..... which really doesn't explain why the power point presentation was so poorly crafted. Frankly, I still don't believe that all of the G7 directors would support all of the points I made above (about the G7 proposal)..... however, each day that goes by without a response from them worries me a little more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMichael1230 Posted May 28, 2010 Share Posted May 28, 2010 I keep hearing about "things must be amiss for the G7 to have made such a bold proposal." But as of now, it just seems like what is "amiss" is simply a major philisophical difference in what the activity should be.Much of the general plans of the 2 different proposals are the same: -Grow the fan base -Make more money for the corps -Reach out toward high school students through clinics etc... The differences are: G7: -Make high school band students your primary, (almost only) target audience -Change the instrumentation to match high school bands -Structure DCI where the "top corps" have nearly all the power -No support for smaller corps (open class) DCI: -Target audience is inclusive, trying to appeal to new fans as well as legacy -Keep structure of DCI same as now, with many more corps getting equal voting rights -More support for smaller and new corps If the G7 were simply reacting to something being "amiss" in DCI, why would their plan for the future be so specific (as far as goals)? It truly seems like this was something that has been thought about for a long time..... which really doesn't explain why the power point presentation was so poorly crafted. Frankly, I still don't believe that all of the G7 directors would support all of the points I made above (about the G7 proposal)..... however, each day that goes by without a response from them worries me a little more. Not "nearly" all the power, they would have ALL the power, and twice the say in board voting. G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts