G7 Elitism

[garfield]

What took me so long? I've been living under a rock in a cave . I just heard about it.

Just proof, IMO, that the proposal's impacts are just now starting to hit a wider audience.

Tell your drum corps friends.

Everybody, tell your drum corps friends (unless, of course, all of your friends are in DCP, in which case you have bigger fish to fry than just the Gee-Wiz-6. )

[jwillis35]

Here we are in 2010. The elitists have now proposed a system that will take money an opportunities away from other corps while they line their own pockets with more of what the others need. The other corps will drop like flies and the Hopkins/Gibbs vision of the Super 8, now the G7, attempts to become the only game in town. A vision that is over 20 years old.

Don't say you didn't see it coming because I was posting about this nearly 10 years ago. Now it's own paper with a passive threat of the G7 breaking away on their own if DCI does not cater to their demands, basically saying give us the money and the power or we are out of here.

Did you notice how the proposal refers to "winds" instead of "brass" on the new adjudication sheets? Did you notice that the term "band" was used more than "drum corps?" The vision is clear that instrumentation MUST be identical to bands. If not, screw the rest of you and we are out of here.

While I agree that there are some solid and interesting proposals within the presentation, it is clear that this G7 (what does G stand for anyway?) is about money and control of the activity. It is a clear statement, IMO, that the G7 are saying this is all about us, to hell with the rest of you. Then they have the gall to say this will help everyone?

HOW???????????? I have a few questions that I do not see answered in the proposal...

1. How does forcing the others to maintain the typical touring schedule, help them, while you (the G7) get to travel

less, have more rehearsal time, get better sleep and have less expenses while getting paid more?

2. How does diminishing the value of their vote on the direction of the activity help them or the overall activity?

3. How do the G7 statements of;

• Corps are NOT the same. Those who drive sales through excellence and entertainment ability deserve to be rewarded.
  
• The opinion of these same corps is most important and needs to be valued. It is not wise, or appropriate, that each of the current world class corps have a vote that holds equal influence. Those who sell tickets, those who generate sales, those who are most marketable -need also to control a larger portion of the vote on business and adjudication issues.
  

show any respect to the others or the activity as a whole? Apparently you feel their programs are not excellent or entertaining.

Apparently you believe they are unwise and inappropriate, therefore incompetent to make decisions about their own activity.

Talk about a slap in the face!

4. If DCI is in financial difficulty, how does cutting the funding to other corps help them to become stable, unless you mean that

defunct is stable? May I remind you of what Mr. Hopkins told us 5-6 years ago when people argued against his vision, "Let's see

what the market will bear." Apparently, the market has not born your vision very well, has it Mr. Hopkins, et. al.? So, now you

propose an even more elitist, unbalanced approach?

5. How will the rest of the corps build support when they have less opportunity to for exposure to larger audiences?

6. How will other corps succeed, "Under the guidance and care of the regional association!" when regional associations are exactly

what DCI killed off with their national touring model in the first place?

7. How does the statement, "Corps Are Independent. We need to care for ourselves." show you are interested in the activity as a

whole? It is clear that you care for yourselves, not anyone else. Wasn't DCI created so that the corps could govern

themselves? Seems to me that you want to govern, all the corps, not just yourselves.

8. The statement that, "The member corps are essential and critical to who we are and where we will be." seems to imply that ALL

the member corps are essential, yet statements like "all corps are not the same," "premier corp drive the activity," and that the

G7, "need to also control a larger portion," show that you see corps like Pioneer, Boston, Madison, etc. are to feel like members

of DCI at all? The G7 will have the controlling vote meaning all others really have no say whatsoever.

9. How are we supposed to have any confidence in this proposal when you say, "don't look for details?" The devil is in the details,

and I believe you are trying to hide the ulterior motives by telling us to dismiss the details. I have an opposite view...I believe

the details should be demanded and provided willingly from you.

10. "If not approved –G7 to decide next steps," Why is G7 deciding the next steps if you are working within DCI?

11. "The G7 are committed to change. We have agreed to pursue this shift within DCI … we are agreed that in 2011 these new

events need to occur; we will act as necessary to enable a change." Are you saying G7 would leave DCI in order to create

your vision? How is that thinking of the overall activity?

Unless you can provide data driven analysis on how your proposal will help the activity as a whole, I see this as nothing more than a power grab. Destroy all other corps and become the elite group of Super-bands.

Drum corps can be a separate/different activity without slapping bands in the face. Separate/different does not mean better. Respect and leadership will show attitude between the two activities. But it is clear to me that you do not respect your own activity.

You all should have listened to Scott Stewart back in 1997. Don't say you were not warned, because you were, more than 20 years ago. It is time to look at the people who have driven the decisions of the activity (many of the G7) and question their ability to provide the leadership to sustain the activity. I would say that the past has shown otherwise.

Rant over. Now I am willing to read comments, questions and scathing criticisms.

Love it! Some excellent points made here.

[ajwdad]

all,

thanks for the various updates. I cannot agree with a lot of the direction that the "G7" wants to go, and I completely disagree with the notion that using arms or "the strong military" heritage will damage drum corp or lessens the number of fans. In fact, most Americans are fairly ok with arms, at least in movies, and are pretty proud of our military, even when they disagree with the congress/senate/president in power. But, mainly, thanks for the comments and the education!

in appreciation.

[thirdcoast]

George Hopkins future influence on the direction of DCI has ended. There is a new DCI Board in place since the G-7 scheme was hatched behind closed doors, then sprung on the others.

The Security Guards showed him where the exit doors were located, and it was an orderly departure, and I wish him well as a DCI back bencher now, or leaving DCI and finding a home with his colleagues in the Bands should he decide to resign and pursue his band vision thingy he's had for about a decade or so now.

I wish George Hopkins well whatever he decides to do. I really do. He may be joined on the exit ramps by a couple of other now long in the tooth dinos too. And we wish them well too.

DCI is in much better hands now than it was last year at this time. There are some new young Corps Drectors that are smart and saavy and ready to pick up the torch and run with it should these dinos leave. So in that respect, it's all good.

Sometimes change can be very good indeed. The new Board is a fresh new start, imo.

Man, I love this post to. He or she said back bencher. Thats funny.

[Stu]

The Security Guards showed him [Hopkins] where the exit doors were located, and it was an orderly departure ...

Is this true, or just poetic sarcasm?

[93Bluecoat]

I just spent the better part of an hour digesting the G7 proposal and I must say that I'm just floored at the ego centric behavior exhibited in this document. Some thing I actually totally agreed with, but for the most part this is a destruction of the drum corps activity. I can't believe that the organizers of this document have essentially constructed what amasses to a business plan, with absolutely no supporting evidence to prove that the results will work. They predict economic outcomes based on "assertions" and "truths" which, in essense, are contradictory in nature. If I were an investor in this business plan, I'd laugh them out of the office.....

I will take a day or so to fully put my thoughts down, however, the greatest flaw to this plan is counting on bands, dance teams, and guards to completely support this activity. The G7 working document pretty much admits that it is not interested in individual corps doing what is necessary to provide their own organizations with fiscal health (cut YOUR staff budgets and travel expenses rather than slashing nearly all of what DCI has an TAKING their money!). This is tantamount to a coup and raid. It has all the earmarks of DCI basically coming to an end......and for what?

The most alarming facet of this document, is the lack of why audiences are dwindling (couldn't possibly be because the shows have become unentertaining and non fan friendly could it?). They have made the fatal assumption that its everybody else and that none of them could possibly need to improve anything.

This sounds eerily similar to what Major League Baseball has struggled with for several decades now.....salaries and expenses are so high they can no longer sustain it. Higher ticket prices and poorer products are keep fans away in droves....so what is their solution: revenue sharing by raping the DCI coffers and screwing the less competitve units. MLB has done this and it fixed nothing.

As a band director, the product G7 is pushing is also condescending, educationally questionable at best (it sounds more like autograph sessions at a rock concert), panders to the lowest common denominator.

I'll expand on all of this later, however, I will get my initial feelings out there.....this does not look good.

DW

PS See also my manifesto in the DCI world class discussions, you'll find that most agree with me.

Edited July 17, 2010 by 93Bluecoat

[93Bluecoat]

One extraordinarily laughable portion of the G7 document (which hammers home that this is an unbelievably egocentric and poorly thought out proposal) is that drum corps is "an AMERICAN CELEBRATION! We can celebrate our country, we can celebrate music, we can do all we can to support music education programs..."

If that isn't the ultimate SCREW YOU to Canadian, UK, German, Japanese and all other international corps, I don't know what is. Drum Corps "International" folks.

Now, I fully realize that the money making events of the primary summer tour is in the USA, however.......just thought I'd point out the abject contradiction in this statement. Drum Corps hiding behind music education (to me) is disturbing. Drum Corps has never depended on their organizations being educational. Why? Because they aren't....still aren't. More later.....

DW

Edited July 17, 2010 by 93Bluecoat

[garfield]

One extraordinarily laughable portion of the G7 document (which hammers home that this is an unbelievably egocentric and poorly thought out proposal) is that drum corps is "an AMERICAN CELEBRATION! We can celebrate our country, we can celebrate music, we can do all we can to support music education programs..."

If that isn't the ultimate F**K YOU to Canadian, UK, German, Japanese and all other international corps, I don't know what is. Drum Corps "International" folks.

Now, I fully realize that the money making events of the primary summer tour is in the USA, however.......just thought I'd point out the abject contradiction in this statement. Drum Corps hiding behind music education (to me) is disturbing. Drum Corps has never depended on their organizations being educational. Why? Because they aren't....still aren't. More later.....

DW

I'll certainly be waiting, but you should get your thoughts out there soon, Darren. The meeting is this weekend.

Kudos on what you've said so far.

[93Bluecoat]

David, You and I have butted heads over the years on here but we are in total agreement on this issue. Speaking as a former board member for one of the said G7 corps, this is a bad idea of epic proportions.

Remember when Star of Indiana took it's ball and left in '94 over a similar concerns? Although the by product of this separation was something cool (Blast) its incarnation of success has quickly faded and the fans and alumni of Star of Indiana (and DCI) were left with a void. The G7 runs the risk of this very same thing happening to them.

Some of the wording in the G7 document is disturbing in that they propose that possibly they can produce a better circuit and almost insist that DCI can't operate it's own activity. I can understand frustrations with DCI (this activity is not perfect and I think more needs to be done to help ALL corps), but to insinuate that a G7 circuit would be advisable at this point (especially with such a poor business plan) is crazy.

I'm at work right now, a little riled up....will write a full response tonight....another manifesto I suppose!

DW

Here we are in 2010. The elitists have now proposed a system that will take money an opportunities away from other corps while they line their own pockets with more of what the others need. The other corps will drop like flies and the Hopkins/Gibbs vision of the Super 8, now the G7, attempts to become the only game in town. A vision that is over 20 years old.

Don't say you didn't see it coming because I was posting about this nearly 10 years ago. Now it's own paper with a passive threat of the G7 breaking away on their own if DCI does not cater to their demands, basically saying give us the money and the power or we are out of here.

Did you notice how the proposal refers to "winds" instead of "brass" on the new adjudication sheets? Did you notice that the term "band" was used more than "drum corps?" The vision is clear that instrumentation MUST be identical to bands. If not, screw the rest of you and we are out of here.

While I agree that there are some solid and interesting proposals within the presentation, it is clear that this G7 (what does G stand for anyway?) is about money and control of the activity. It is a clear statement, IMO, that the G7 are saying this is all about us, to hell with the rest of you. Then they have the gall to say this will help everyone?

HOW???????????? I have a few questions that I do not see answered in the proposal...

1. How does forcing the others to maintain the typical touring schedule, help them, while you (the G7) get to travel

less, have more rehearsal time, get better sleep and have less expenses while getting paid more?

2. How does diminishing the value of their vote on the direction of the activity help them or the overall activity?

3. How do the G7 statements of;

• Corps are NOT the same. Those who drive sales through excellence and entertainment ability deserve to be rewarded.
  
• The opinion of these same corps is most important and needs to be valued. It is not wise, or appropriate, that each of the current world class corps have a vote that holds equal influence. Those who sell tickets, those who generate sales, those who are most marketable -need also to control a larger portion of the vote on business and adjudication issues.
  

show any respect to the others or the activity as a whole? Apparently you feel their programs are not excellent or entertaining.

Apparently you believe they are unwise and inappropriate, therefore incompetent to make decisions about their own activity.

Talk about a slap in the face!

4. If DCI is in financial difficulty, how does cutting the funding to other corps help them to become stable, unless you mean that

defunct is stable? May I remind you of what Mr. Hopkins told us 5-6 years ago when people argued against his vision, "Let's see

what the market will bear." Apparently, the market has not born your vision very well, has it Mr. Hopkins, et. al.? So, now you

propose an even more elitist, unbalanced approach?

5. How will the rest of the corps build support when they have less opportunity to for exposure to larger audiences?

6. How will other corps succeed, "Under the guidance and care of the regional association!" when regional associations are exactly

what DCI killed off with their national touring model in the first place?

7. How does the statement, "Corps Are Independent. We need to care for ourselves." show you are interested in the activity as a

whole? It is clear that you care for yourselves, not anyone else. Wasn't DCI created so that the corps could govern

themselves? Seems to me that you want to govern, all the corps, not just yourselves.

8. The statement that, "The member corps are essential and critical to who we are and where we will be." seems to imply that ALL

the member corps are essential, yet statements like "all corps are not the same," "premier corp drive the activity," and that the

G7, "need to also control a larger portion," show that you see corps like Pioneer, Boston, Madison, etc. are to feel like members

of DCI at all? The G7 will have the controlling vote meaning all others really have no say whatsoever.

9. How are we supposed to have any confidence in this proposal when you say, "don't look for details?" The devil is in the details,

and I believe you are trying to hide the ulterior motives by telling us to dismiss the details. I have an opposite view...I believe

the details should be demanded and provided willingly from you.

10. "If not approved –G7 to decide next steps," Why is G7 deciding the next steps if you are working within DCI?

11. "The G7 are committed to change. We have agreed to pursue this shift within DCI … we are agreed that in 2011 these new

events need to occur; we will act as necessary to enable a change." Are you saying G7 would leave DCI in order to create

your vision? How is that thinking of the overall activity?

Unless you can provide data driven analysis on how your proposal will help the activity as a whole, I see this as nothing more than a power grab. Destroy all other corps and become the elite group of Super-bands.

Drum corps can be a separate/different activity without slapping bands in the face. Separate/different does not mean better. Respect and leadership will show attitude between the two activities. But it is clear to me that you do not respect your own activity.

You all should have listened to Scott Stewart back in 1997. Don't say you were not warned, because you were, more than 20 years ago. It is time to look at the people who have driven the decisions of the activity (many of the G7) and question their ability to provide the leadership to sustain the activity. I would say that the past has shown otherwise.

Rant over. Now I am willing to read comments, questions and scathing criticisms.

[Hook'emCavies]

Here we are in 2010. The elitists have now proposed a system that will take money an opportunities away from other corps while they line their own pockets with more of what the others need. The other corps will drop like flies and the Hopkins/Gibbs vision of the Super 8, now the G7, attempts to become the only game in town. A vision that is over 20 years old.

Don't say you didn't see it coming because I was posting about this nearly 10 years ago. Now it's own paper with a passive threat of the G7 breaking away on their own if DCI does not cater to their demands, basically saying give us the money and the power or we are out of here.

Did you notice how the proposal refers to "winds" instead of "brass" on the new adjudication sheets? Did you notice that the term "band" was used more than "drum corps?" The vision is clear that instrumentation MUST be identical to bands. If not, screw the rest of you and we are out of here.

While I agree that there are some solid and interesting proposals within the presentation, it is clear that this G7 (what does G stand for anyway?) is about money and control of the activity. It is a clear statement, IMO, that the G7 are saying this is all about us, to hell with the rest of you. Then they have the gall to say this will help everyone?

HOW???????????? I have a few questions that I do not see answered in the proposal...

1. How does forcing the others to maintain the typical touring schedule, help them, while you (the G7) get to travel

less, have more rehearsal time, get better sleep and have less expenses while getting paid more?

2. How does diminishing the value of their vote on the direction of the activity help them or the overall activity?

3. How do the G7 statements of;

• Corps are NOT the same. Those who drive sales through excellence and entertainment ability deserve to be rewarded.
  
• The opinion of these same corps is most important and needs to be valued. It is not wise, or appropriate, that each of the current world class corps have a vote that holds equal influence. Those who sell tickets, those who generate sales, those who are most marketable -need also to control a larger portion of the vote on business and adjudication issues.
  

show any respect to the others or the activity as a whole? Apparently you feel their programs are not excellent or entertaining.

Apparently you believe they are unwise and inappropriate, therefore incompetent to make decisions about their own activity.

Talk about a slap in the face!

4. If DCI is in financial difficulty, how does cutting the funding to other corps help them to become stable, unless you mean that

defunct is stable? May I remind you of what Mr. Hopkins told us 5-6 years ago when people argued against his vision, "Let's see

what the market will bear." Apparently, the market has not born your vision very well, has it Mr. Hopkins, et. al.? So, now you

propose an even more elitist, unbalanced approach?

5. How will the rest of the corps build support when they have less opportunity to for exposure to larger audiences?

6. How will other corps succeed, "Under the guidance and care of the regional association!" when regional associations are exactly

what DCI killed off with their national touring model in the first place?

7. How does the statement, "Corps Are Independent. We need to care for ourselves." show you are interested in the activity as a

whole? It is clear that you care for yourselves, not anyone else. Wasn't DCI created so that the corps could govern

themselves? Seems to me that you want to govern, all the corps, not just yourselves.

8. The statement that, "The member corps are essential and critical to who we are and where we will be." seems to imply that ALL

the member corps are essential, yet statements like "all corps are not the same," "premier corp drive the activity," and that the

G7, "need to also control a larger portion," show that you see corps like Pioneer, Boston, Madison, etc. are to feel like members

of DCI at all? The G7 will have the controlling vote meaning all others really have no say whatsoever.

9. How are we supposed to have any confidence in this proposal when you say, "don't look for details?" The devil is in the details,

and I believe you are trying to hide the ulterior motives by telling us to dismiss the details. I have an opposite view...I believe

the details should be demanded and provided willingly from you.

10. "If not approved –G7 to decide next steps," Why is G7 deciding the next steps if you are working within DCI?

11. "The G7 are committed to change. We have agreed to pursue this shift within DCI … we are agreed that in 2011 these new

events need to occur; we will act as necessary to enable a change." Are you saying G7 would leave DCI in order to create

your vision? How is that thinking of the overall activity?

Unless you can provide data driven analysis on how your proposal will help the activity as a whole, I see this as nothing more than a power grab. Destroy all other corps and become the elite group of Super-bands.

Drum corps can be a separate/different activity without slapping bands in the face. Separate/different does not mean better. Respect and leadership will show attitude between the two activities. But it is clear to me that you do not respect your own activity.

You all should have listened to Scott Stewart back in 1997. Don't say you were not warned, because you were, more than 20 years ago. It is time to look at the people who have driven the decisions of the activity (many of the G7) and question their ability to provide the leadership to sustain the activity. I would say that the past has shown otherwise.

Rant over. Now I am willing to read comments, questions and scathing criticisms.

You know I believe this is my first post in the G7 part of this forum... that being said I would like to clarify that I AM NOT for the G7. You make some great points however, I think their are some corps part of the G7 that doesn't want to ruin DCI at least thats what I got from The Cavaliers. As they wrote in that one letter that the founder of the cavies is also one of the founding members of DCI and they don't want to do anything that could destroy DCI. I don't think they will break away from DCI. Honestly if there is anyone to blame let it be Hopkins. This is mainly his doing yet again. I guess thats my .02 cents about it...