G7 Elitism

[garfield]

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...

You are correct, Don Warren and Adolph have posted that they don't want to do anything to hurt DCI or the mission of the original combine. I think it's accurate at this time to refer to them as the G6 as a result. However, Cavaliers have not come out as staunchly opposed to the G6's proposal; they've left room to hear what the details are in a more complete presentation so they may form a firm opinion later.

That said, IMO the primary drivers of the G6 are Gibbs and Hopkins, not just GH. GH is used to being the lightening rod (re: the changes foisted on the activity in the last 10 years) and Gibbs (again, IMO) is using that fact to shield himself from becoming the lightening rod.

I'm not as convinced that some of the G6 won't leave DCI, and a lot of me wishes they would so the activity can focus on effective changes to programming and judging with the goal to increase fan satisfaction and reverse the attendance decline.

I'm most concerned about a "kiss and make up" facade that leaves the egos intact and allows for continued "nudging" of the activity in the direction they desire.

I think it was Brasso who stated his opinion that Hopkins, Gibbs, et al, are now back-benchers who's influence has been slashed as a result of their hubris and goals for their corps.

I can only hope he's correct, but it will take the non-G6 directors and the new BOD drawing that line in the sand. Hopefully that will include killing the idea of "bandification" entirely and, instead, give the targeted HS potential members a higher goal to attain to participate, and not the lowering of the activity's standards to appeal to them.

The BOD should start with a public declaration that drum corps IS different from marching band, and that difference will be held up as the standard for all interested HS band students to attain to participate.

[ohHAIitsNovak]

Don't know if this has yet been mentioned - I heard that the Cavies have left the G7 group. Anyone else hear anything on this? I really hope it's true, but again, it's just a rumor.

[BRASSO]

Don't know if this has yet been mentioned - I heard that the Cavies have left the G7 group. Anyone else hear anything on this? I really hope it's true, but again, it's just a rumor.

Not officially. But I'm hearing that Warren is nowhere near to being on board with this. And unless he signs off on it, The Cavaliers are not on board.

And I'm hearing that there's more than just The Cavaliers that need more convincing from Gibbs- Hopkins too... who essentially are the chief drivers behind this scheme in the first place.

Edited July 18, 2010 by BRASSO

[Scoutnout]

The Cavaliers have ALWAYS played both sides of the fence. Sorry , it's true, they like to stay friends with everyone but behind the scenes they take a stand. I am a big fan of Cavaliers and have had close contacts to the corps but you can't assume ANYONE really knows anyone in business. People, yes even in Drum Corps let people see the side of them they want you to see.

I am not a G7 supporter but to blame 1 or 2 people is rediculous. I can actually respect a snake for showing themselves as they truly are rather than a snake pretending to be a sheep.

[Scoutnout]

The Cavaliers have ALWAYS played both sides of the fence. Sorry , it's true, they like to stay friends with everyone but behind the scenes they take a stand. I am a big fan of Cavaliers and have had close contacts to the corps but you can't assume ANYONE really knows anyone in business. People, yes even in Drum Corps let people see the side of them they want you to see.

I am not a G7 supporter but to blame 1 or 2 people is rediculous. I can actually respect a snake for showing themselves as they truly are rather than a snake pretending to be a sheep.

oops....lol..sorry for the misspelled word....dam spell check...

[fleurghost]

I say let them leave. I have hoped FOR YEARS, that BD and Cadets would fall to the lower ranks. Getting the BoD in place might actually make this happen. This is due to the fact that GH can no longer push to make rules that only benefit the upper corps that have money!

But lets not forget old Coats. He laid in bed with Hopkins for a while with being part of YEA. So don't think that Crown isn't partly to blame for whats going on. After all I am sure they are wanting to raise more money to buy another million dollar rock star staff bus.

They should bring in Scott Stewart to run DCI. That would be a kick in the good ole BUTT. And I'm sure he'd cut the spending in HALF!

[DrumCorpsFan27]

DCI was formed so that drum corps could control their own destiny. The G7 plan specifically says that this is "unwise." Instead, a small handful of directors now want to officially control the destiny of all the other corps. The exact type of thing that DCI was created to get away from.

I'll bet Gail Royer and George Bonfiglio are rolling over in their graves as we speak.

[soccerguy315]

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...

the Cavaliers should not have put their name on this document (or allowed it to be placed there) if they don't support it. The document clearly says

We have the backings of our boards, we have discussed matters in depth, and we a

re united in our goals. 

Edited July 20, 2010 by soccerguy315

[soccerguy315]

Not officially. But I'm hearing that Warren is nowhere near to being on board with this. And unless he signs off on it, The Cavaliers are not on board.

And I'm hearing that there's more than just The Cavaliers that need more convincing from Gibbs- Hopkins too... who essentially are the chief drivers behind this scheme in the first place.

The Cavaliers' name is on the proposal, which is presented as a unified front.

They haven't said it (edit: "it" = their name) doesn't belong there.

Edited July 20, 2010 by soccerguy315

[skevinp]

This should be placed on all the windshields in the parking lot of every DCI show:

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.