Official DCP G7 Proposal Discussion Thread

[MikeD]

At least of here in East:

1) has largely gone away. Kid in MB are there because they choose to be there (or there parents forced them :( )

I agree..a lot of marching bands in the NJ area have become volunteer extra-curricular activities. That's how the band I work with is.

2) i'd characterize difference as "In DC *everyone* is highly motivated". Lots of kids in MB have a strong desire to get better.

Again I agree...kids work hard in MB these days, esp given all of the other things they have to balance at the same time.

[Michael Boo]

This really needs to be spelled out?

It's not hard to draw parallels between the non-confrontational answers Dan gave and a typical DCI.org "rah rah, everything is fine" piece. No one faults Dan for trying to not rock the boat given the situation, but the answers in the piece are just a wee bit . . .vanilla.

Yeah, the same was said of Gandhi.

[MikeD]

I'm not sure I "the pattern of events" indicates anything unless your convinced that the only interpretation of the G7 cone of silence that they're planning to walk.

[Scoutnout]

We talk sometimes like DCI and the G7 are, or at least have been a seperate entity. HMMMMM They are and have been 1 in the same. Make no mistake WHO has been running the show all along ! WHO gets their proposals passed, WHO molds and shapes ( Or Has been ) this activity.

[audiodb]

We talk sometimes like DCI and the G7 are, or at least have been a seperate entity. HMMMMM They are and have been 1 in the same. Make no mistake WHO has been running the show all along ! WHO gets their proposals passed, WHO molds and shapes ( Or Has been ) this activity.

The G3?

[garfield]

The G3?

WHO's on first?

Right.

[audiodb]

In case I wasn't clear, my reaction was that only three of the G7 have really been running the show, passing proposals and molding/shaping the activity.

[BRASSO]

WHO's on first?

Right.

In keeping with the baseball metaphor, I make a motion we refer to the NON G-7 Corps as :

The " GALARRAGA- 16 ".

after all, arn't they about to be robbed too if this goes through ?

Then we could use the phrase... " that Corps was "galarraged " bigtime ". ( pronounced.. "gal-a- ragged " )

Edited June 5, 2010 by BRASSO

[Achilles]

Jumping late as usual. But I've now read the G7 Proposal and the DCI 'response'. This is all terribly interesting. At the risk of re-stating the obvious and perhaps oversimplifying, it seems we do have a fundamental conflict of visions:

DCI: “Our vision for the future of Drum Corps International is one of greater inclusion,” said Mark Arnold, Chairman of Board of Directors. “We strive to create more opportunities for young people to experience the unique attributes of the drum corps lifestyle and to gain important life skills that will serve them well for the rest of their lives.”

and, from the DCI long term plan and Financial Statement highlights:

'On this the occasion of Drum Corps International’s 38th year it is of paramount importance that we empower, mobilize, and focus every current member of the drum corps community on a singular organizational initiative:

To engage as many people as possible in our collective endeavor'

DCI Vision = maximize participation in the activity. Not necessarily more butts in seats, but more feet marching.

From the G7 Report:

'There must be a way to return more cash to the individual units.'

G7 Vision: more money in the pockets of the corps that have demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate, an ability to put butts in seats (or download media) and (presumably) generate interest in the activity indirectly.

The DCI model is one not unlike major league sports (with the exception that DCI participants aren't paid professionals). But the 'franchise' model is very similar. And there's always some bit of on-going squabble within the leagues over how to divy up the filthy lucre, particularly between large market teams and smaller ones. Like TV revenues. Probably always a lot of complaining about the size of the league head office, and what is the formula for determining how much each team kicks in to maintain that office. But I digress.

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Clearly the G7 think they offer more value than they are getting from DCI, hence the push to cut the DCI 'league office overhead'. And they want a new formula for revenue sharing, to the point that they're willing to virtually produce their own shows so as to sequester and redirect that revenue away from greater DCI. They have the audacity to expect DCI to sanction this - which simply seems to give the G7 the ability to make the claim that they aren't 'separating' from DCI.

Unless and until the 'vision' part gets worked out, though - and to be honest this has really been an on-going debate, to a greater or lesser extent, since Day One of DCI in the early 70's - the path forward for the activity will not be clear.

Edited June 6, 2010 by Achilles

[BRASSO]

Jumping late as usual. But I've now read the G7 Proposal and the DCI 'response'. This is all terribly interesting. At the risk of re-stating the obvious and perhaps oversimplifying, it seems we do have a fundamental conflict of visions:

DCI: “Our vision for the future of Drum Corps International is one of greater inclusion,” said Mark Arnold, Chairman of Board of Directors. “We strive to create more opportunities for young people to experience the unique attributes of the drum corps lifestyle and to gain important life skills that will serve them well for the rest of their lives.”

and, from the DCI long term plan and Financial Statement highlights:

'On this the occasion of Drum Corps International’s 38th year it is of paramount importance that we empower, mobilize, and focus every current member of the drum corps community on a singular organizational initiative:

To engage as many people as possible in our collective endeavor'

DCI Vision = maximize participation in the activity. Not necessarily more butts in seats, but more feet marching.

From the G7 Report:

'There must be a way to return more cash to the individual units.'

G7 Vision: more money in the pockets of the corps that have demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate, an ability to put butts in seats (or download media) and (presumably) generate interest in the activity indirectly.

The DCI model is one not unlike major league sports (with the exception that DCI participants aren't paid professionals). But the 'franchise' model is very similar. And there's always some bit of on-going squabble within the leagues over how to divy up the filthy lucre, particularly between large market teams and smaller ones. Like TV revenues. Probably always a lot of complaining about the size of the league head office, and what is the formula for determining how much each team kicks in to maintain that office. But I digress.

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Clearly the G7 think they offer more value than they are getting from DCI, hence the push to cut the DCI 'league office overhead'. And they want a new formula for revenue sharing, to the point that they're willing to virtually produce their own shows so as to sequester and redirect that revenue away from greater DCI. They have the audacity to expect DCI to sanction this - which simply seems to give the G7 the ability to make the claim that they aren't 'separating' from DCI.

Unless and until the 'vision' part gets worked out, though - and to be honest this has really been an on-going debate, to a greater or lesser extent, since Day One of DCI in the early 70's - the path forward for the activity will not be clear.

I believe that you summarized succinctly the major philosophical differences. The DCI guiding organizational philosophy is clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal. It was approved... and bought into.... by the G-7 Corps too. Now however, they demand to reshape that time honored philosophy that has guided the activity for years. Not going to happen, imo. So they'll come a time when this group, singularly, or collectively will have to make a choice to possibly leave an organization that has been good to them, but apparently they believe that they may have outgrown, or perhaps are no longer in sync with it's philosophy anymore. But lets be clear... it is not DCI that has changed. It is a few Corps that apparently have altered their original philosophies of what for many years was important to them and what they held dear.

Edited June 7, 2010 by BRASSO