Karma

[soccerguy315]

a ruined food truck for the Cavaliers

loss of center snare (and another snare) for Crown

bingo issues for BD

tuba holes galore at Phantom

10th place for SCV

only Cadets are Bluecoats have avoided the karma bug so far...

[thirdcoast]

I am sorry to say cause I usually love all 7, but. They are all OVER RATED! PEACE.

[Matt_S]

Karma, does it exist?

You had better hope not.

[84skyrydr]

a ruined food truck for the Cavaliers

loss of center snare (and another snare) for Crown

bingo issues for BD

tuba holes galore at Phantom

10th place for SCV

only Cadets are Bluecoats have avoided the karma bug so far...

Stop right there. It can't be. There are HOLES in ANY corps. Didn't we get a 150 member rule voted in to retatin all those poor kids who were being cut and sent home. Where are they at? Tubas aren't needed anyway with the horn doubling synth. Just turn it to 11, 11 is more than ten.....

[BetoSuave]

You had better hope not.

Rex would like to nominate and I'll second the nomination for this post being named as "Pithy Post of the Year"

[truman]

a ruined food truck for the Cavaliers

loss of center snare (and another snare) for Crown

bingo issues for BD

tuba holes galore at Phantom

10th place for SCV

only Cadets are Bluecoats have avoided the karma bug so far...

All of these things are nothing new to ANY year and EVERY CORPS...

Try this on for Karma...

In 1971, the directors of several prominent Drum and Bugle corps collaborated to form an alliance that would allow them to break free of the VFW and American Legion controls and politics that were eating up significant revenues that were produced by the corps. Other restrictions such as show format, rules and such were also well out of the directors hands. They broke free, and formed DCI.

Fast forward 39 years. It might be said that DCI has, in some ways, forgotten about their founding principles. G7 suggests that the controlling organization has become too prominent in the decisions that effect ALL of the corps. It proposes that the current show payment structure does not fairly compensate the performing corps in relationship to the roles they play in providing the revenue. It proposes that lack of financial success is threatening to collapse the current organization.

Perhaps Karma is not the proper term. Many of the same reasons that forced the founders of DCI to form, have now forced some to consider drastic measures to effect the change that is needed. When the top contributors to any organization have to make threats to effect changes in their organization, it MUST speak of legitimate loss of confidence that the entity can have future success on it's current path.

G7 is based on the FACT that DCI is in danger of causing it's own demise because of it's lack of fiscal success. It speaks of a lack of understanding to where it's fan base can be found, and it's lack of sensitivity to the things that can cultivate these fans. It speaks of a lack of change in competition and show format that can address the current growing tour and operating costs.

As in past years with the board meetings, many things are proposed, and many are not approved. While I am skeptical of many of the ideas in the proposal, I am confident that it's not an all or nothing kind of threat by these 7 corps. To me it is a wake up call to DCI that serious change is needed, and it MUST HAPPEN . It only makes sense that the best performing organizations should have the most input as to what will benefit ALL corps in the activity. They have proven their ability to succeed in the activity. It also makes sense to me that that top drawing talent, in any form of entertainment, deserves some measurable amount more than the lesser drawing talent, when it comes to dispersing the revenues. I know that ALL CORPS can gain financially when more fiscal reponsibilty is excersised. Increase revenues and lower expenses...what a horrible plan?

I would love to know how many of these vocal G7 opposers also have been the most vocal complainers about DCI and it's path over the last few years.

Maybe that's the Karma you seek?

Here's hoping that enough of the needed change is put into sensible ACTION, and that DCI can return to the business principles it started 39 years ago.

[garfield]

All of these things are nothing new to ANY year and EVERY CORPS...

Try this on for Karma...

In 1971, the directors of several prominent Drum and Bugle corps collaborated to form an alliance that would allow them to break free of the VFW and American Legion controls and politics that were eating up significant revenues that were produced by the corps. Other restrictions such as show format, rules and such were also well out of the directors hands. They broke free, and formed DCI.

Fast forward 39 years. It might be said that DCI has, in some ways, forgotten about their founding principles. G7 suggests that the controlling organization has become too prominent in the decisions that effect ALL of the corps. It proposes that the current show payment structure does not fairly compensate the performing corps in relationship to the roles they play in providing the revenue. It proposes that lack of financial success is threatening to collapse the current organization.

Perhaps Karma is not the proper term. Many of the same reasons that forced the founders of DCI to form, have now forced some to consider drastic measures to effect the change that is needed. When the top contributors to any organization have to make threats to effect changes in their organization, it MUST speak of legitimate loss of confidence that the entity can have future success on it's current path.

G7 is based on the FACT that DCI is in danger of causing it's own demise because of it's lack of fiscal success. It speaks of a lack of understanding to where it's fan base can be found, and it's lack of sensitivity to the things that can cultivate these fans. It speaks of a lack of change in competition and show format that can address the current growing tour and operating costs.

As in past years with the board meetings, many things are proposed, and many are not approved. While I am skeptical of many of the ideas in the proposal, I am confident that it's not an all or nothing kind of threat by these 7 corps. To me it is a wake up call to DCI that serious change is needed, and it MUST HAPPEN . It only makes sense that the best performing organizations should have the most input as to what will benefit ALL corps in the activity. They have proven their ability to succeed in the activity. It also makes sense to me that that top drawing talent, in any form of entertainment, deserves some measurable amount more than the lesser drawing talent, when it comes to dispersing the revenues. I know that ALL CORPS can gain financially when more fiscal reponsibilty is excersised. Increase revenues and lower expenses...what a horrible plan?

I would love to know how many of these vocal G7 opposers also have been the most vocal complainers about DCI and it's path over the last few years.

Maybe that's the Karma you seek?

Here's hoping that enough of the needed change is put into sensible ACTION, and that DCI can return to the business principles it started 39 years ago.

I'm not going to add to the hijacking of the thread by bringing up more G-"shall not be named", but I wish you'd post these thoughts in the G7 thread. So much of what you contend misses major points and is flat our wrong.

Simply "The sky is not falling" (hat tip to audiodb).

[truman]

I'm not going to add to the hijacking of the thread by bringing up more G-"shall not be named", but I wish you'd post these thoughts in the G7 thread. So much of what you contend misses major points and is flat our wrong.

Simply "The sky is not falling" (hat tip to audiodb).

I would hope that you are differentiating between what I sight as contentions of the G7 and what I contend as fact. I am merely commenting that DCI was formed because the PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONS felt they were not getting a fair share of the pie, and because of their lack of control over their own destiny.

There are way too many threads for me to read them all or post this somewhere specific. I thought this was a G7 thread? It certainly seems to be based on the G7 Corps.

I actually only read the proposal and the other slanted, (both ways), releases posted in the info topic today.

Please grant me a brief edumication on my mis- conceptions?

Is the concesus that this is some type of power grab by a select few power hungry egomaniacs, in order to execute their evil plan to make drum corps marching band?

Edited July 10, 2010 by truman

[garfield]

I would hope that you are differentiating between what I sight as contentions of the G7 and what I contend as fact. I am merely commenting that DCI was formed because the PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONS felt they were not getting a fair share of the pie.

There are way too many threads for me to read them all or post this somewhere specific. I actually only read the proposal and the other slanted releases posted in the info topic today.

Please grant me a brief edumication on my mis- conceptions?

Is the concesus that this is some type of power grab by a select few power hungry egomaniacs, in order to execute their evil plan to make drum corps marching band?

Oh, I just noticed that this IS the G7 thread. So sorry, got here through "Active Forum Topics". My mistake.

OK, so here's where you're wrong (and while I realize there's a lot of stuff to read, if you'll focus on just the source data links (thanks Bawker!) you'll see these points:

Your history of DCI's formation is mostly correct. The fault in comparing it to the current situation is that the original combine members didn't threaten to take over the VFW, et al, and force THEM to change their organizations to match the vision of the combine members. They broke off and started their own "brotherhood" of corps (yes, that word is used in the original charter of DCI, a "brotherhood").

Fast forward 39 years. It might be said that DCI has, in some ways, forgotten about their founding principles. G7 suggests that the controlling organization has become too prominent in the decisions that effect ALL of the corps. It proposes that the current show payment structure does not fairly compensate the performing corps in relationship to the roles they play in providing the revenue. It proposes that lack of financial success is threatening to collapse the current organization.

The G7 aren't suggesting the "controlling" entity has become too prominent in their decisions that affect all corps, they are suggesting that they know better than any other of the member corps what is best for the activity as a whole. Don't forget "the controlling organization" is not some removed entity - it IS the member corps. I does propose the current payment schedule is unfair to them and also claims the current organization is about to collapse.

But read the financial summary that DCI released after the G7's contentions and you find that "the sky is not falling".

You acquiesce that the G7 are the top "contributors" of the activity, and that if they make threats it must be because of a lack of confidence in DCI's E.D. ability to carry out their wishes. Please read DCI's 5-year plan, done in September of last year, and "commissioned" by all of the voting members of DCI (the G7 among them). This plan was in it's nascent stages and the G7 bailed on the plan to introduce their own.

The G7 contend that the activity cannot survive on its existing path, but the financials and the DCI plan don't support that point of view. Further, how does throwing the majority of non-G7 corps off the bus help the activity survive? Simply, it can't, and the G7 don't want the current activity to survive. They want to kill it, then reincarnate it in the vision that they think will help it survive. (Is the difference between the original combine and the G7 getting any clearer to you?)

G7 is based on the FACT that DCI is in danger of causing it's own demise because of it's lack of fiscal success.

Again, the basis of the G7 contention (and your claim of "fact") are not supported in the financial results published by DCI in direct response to the claim. Please read the financial documents.

It speaks of a lack of understanding to where it's fan base can be found, and it's lack of sensitivity to the things that can cultivate these fans. It speaks of a lack of change in competition and show format that can address the current growing tour and operating costs.

No, it speaks of the G7's belief that to capture this fan base DCI must change itself to look more like the fan base. DCI's 5-year plan shows a lot MORE sensitivity to things that can cultivate the fan base than does the G7's plan, and the DCI plan includes ALL corps from the "brotherhood", not just 7 "elite" corps. The 5-year plan also lays out a tour schedule change to address the cost of touring, and it does it while protecting and nurturing "the brotherhood". It also publicly recognized the unique aspect of "the brotherhood" in this competitive activity. The G7 plan says "to hell" with the brotherhood.

You said " It only makes sense that the best performing organizations should have the most input as to what will benefit ALL corps in the activity." This may be your belief, but it is not the basis of the DCI organization envisioned by the combine in 1971 (Read "Building the Green Machine" for supporting history). The combine, and the current structure of DCI, is based on ALL member corps having an equal say in the direction of the activity. Your contention is the same as the G7, and it's a selfish organizational structure, IMO.

You said: "I know that ALL CORPS can gain financially when more fiscal reponsibilty is excersised. Increase revenues and lower expenses...what a horrible plan?" You may be right in your belief here, but what you said is NOT what the G7 proposes. They propose gutting the organization (Dan Acheson's office and staff) because of a lack of fiscal responsibility (an unsupported contention; see the DCI financials), then KEEPING THE PROFIT FOR THEMSELVES (a higher profit-potential is a G7 contention that is unsupported by anything other than "gut hunches"). "Increase revenues and lower expenses" is an admirable goal, and the DCI 5-year plan lays out a plan to accomplish that which is backed by actual studies done for DCI by Vaticinate (read the Persona study). What IS a horrible plan is to kick the other members of DCI out of the sandbox in order to keep those higher profits for just themselves. Again, as originally intended, it's a "brotherhood".

I would love to know how many of these vocal G7 opposers also have been the most vocal complainers about DCI and it's path over the last few years.

I suspect you'll find a great number of G7-opponents are the same fans who have been vocal complainers of the changes introduced to DCI over the last few years. And the fact is these complainers were more right than wrong. The changes introduced were intentionally done to increase attendance and make the activity more "accessible" and "relevant" to the high school student in order to get them as members and they family/friends as fans. Did those changes work?

Don't you find it contradictory that these changes have been introduced by the same corps directors who now say the entire organization must be destroyed and rebuilt to look like "scholastic" music programs? What basis of belief do you have that when what they've changed has not solved the problems of attendance and revenues, that THIS answer to the same problem is the correct one? Do you believe they must be correct simply because they are the "best performing organizations"? And do you identify "performing" as being their score on finals night? Do you not think Pio has a long history of "performing" their mission to introduce DC to newbies, train them, then see them off to the "best performing corps"?

We agree that "sensible action" is needed. I simply believe that DCI's 5-year plan is much more sensible than the G7 plan. And I'm no longer willing to simply follow the Pied Pipers of the "best performing organizations" down a road that has, so far, produced nothing like the solutions that were contended as they made all those changes. Especially when their "solution" throws so much of the activity overboard, rips apart the governing body, represents "secret meetings" by members who were charged to protect the best interest of ALL world class corps, and smacks so blatantly of egoism (the word used by Dan A. himself), narcissism, and disregard for the vision the combine founders had for the "brotherhood" of the activity. Those central themes are too important to the character of the activity to throw aside based on ANOTHER hair-brained plan in the long path of the G7 "vision".

Sorry so long, but I hope I've piqued enough curiosity in you for you to seriously study ALL of the supporting data links. I'm confident you'll change your thoughts when you look closely at what they actually want to do with this 37 year old activity. And remember...

"The sky is not falling"

[DcFr3aK]

I'm not going to add to the hijacking of the thread by bringing up more G-"shall not be named", but I wish you'd post these thoughts in the G7 thread. So much of what you contend misses major points and is flat our wrong.

Simply "The sky is not falling" (hat tip to audiodb).

Is this not a discussion in the G7 Discussion Forum? Because I believe it is...and he has every right to say what he wants (and what he said has much merit to the OP's original post).