Tim K Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 It's interesting when a thread reappears, and with the recent discussion of the G7, it's not that much of a surprise. Since it has been two years since the thread first appeared, and the "G7" are still in DCI, we might be able to conclude that while the G7 members are serious about their concerns, they may have made the presentation to state the dire situation they believe they see themselves in, and since some of the G7 corps have come close to folding due to finances, and competition is about survival of the fittest, some concerns are valid. If the G7 was not a static group, more voting rights and a better portion of revenues would be valid, but as we saw this past year, one of the G7 corps failed to make the top 7, and while I personally believe this was a fluke year for that corps, quite a few people who post on this site, some who claim to be insiders, have said otherwise. Only 2013 will tell. Also another G7 corps who had a great season last year has come close to placing out of the top 7. As far as the G7 being the primary movers and shakers for audience attendance, I'm not so sure. I do not attend shows outside of the Northeast, last year's DCI trip being a rarity for me. The shows I attend are always filled but they are more reunions for past marching members and high school kids who march in their school's band. When Blue Devils or SCV participate, there is excitement, but the same people attend even if the top corps do not appear. In my neck of the woods, G7 corps make a show better, but I'm not sure it has an effect on attendance. In parts of the country where show's attendance is not driven by alums, perhaps this is not the case. Also while G7 corps can attract an audience, corps such as Boston Crusaders and Madison Scouts are perennial favorites and are more beloved by fans than many of the G7 corps. If we're looking at survival and attendance at shows, excellence is important but it can be lost on many people. Colt's may not have had the year they wanted competitively, but "All By Myself" was one of last year's show stoppers that people remember and Jersey Surf taught ius the value of entertainment. One recent poster mentioned that the proposal was meant to curb mediocrity. I do believe that some of what the proposal said sounded rather puffed up. The G7 corps are not the only reason why people attend shows, with the exception of TOC shows. Also, there is value to top corps not facing each other every week. Going way back, in 1980 Blue Devils and 27th Lancers both has similar seasons and similar scores in separate competitions. They didn't face each other until August about a week before finals and the drum corps world was buzzing, this at a time when there was no internet. Since placement does not vary all that much, too many shows with the G7 alone would be the same old, same old, fast. Perhaps going back to the days of prize money ather than performance fees would curb mediocrity or a winner's bonus on top of a performance fee would reward winners. Some of the G7's proposals are valid, and their marketing ideas have merit, and while not taking away any of their significant contributions to DCI for many years, there's more to the drum corps than the G7. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAW Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 But apparently not tired enough that you couldn't muster the strength to post about it. I guess those of us low lifes who just can't move on will continue to discuss, while you look down your nose at us. :thumbdown:/> I'm not sure how I'm looking down my nose at anyone. I haven't posted because I don't have anything meaningful to add. I'm just tired of the discussion. Sorry if that offends you. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNCGQ Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 this is an old thread i dont mind seeing come back to life It's def a better use of time than the 'usual off-season' threads. Which corps with green as a primary color will have the loudest impact moment in 2013?, etc. I would suggest that the G7 is happy to keep going down the same path as long as they continue to get whatever they want since it appears they are currently allowed to mug Dan and DCI. (Why take the risk of killing off your neighbor if you can instead continue to rifle through his wallet and house and take whatever you want?) The open discussion of things we know to be true is the only way 'something' gets resolved. Anybody not looking for a true, open discussion has something to hide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thirdcoast Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 It's def a better use of time than the 'usual off-season' threads. Which corps with green as a primary color will have the loudest impact moment in 2013?, etc. I would suggest that the G7 is happy to keep going down the same path as long as they continue to get whatever they want since it appears they are currently allowed to mug Dan and DCI. (Why take the risk of killing off your neighbor if you can instead continue to rifle through his wallet and house and take whatever you want?) The open discussion of things we know to be true is the only way 'something' gets resolved. Anybody not looking for a true, open discussion has something to hide. Sure is! I was thinking another thread about who had the best closer in 2011 would be fun... not! Can't understand why people don't think that this is important and it is in the news for 2013. This thread is just as important today as it was in 2010. The g7 can run, but they have nowhere to hide... IMO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcorpsfever Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) It's too bad that more care wasn't made to protect this document from being made public. How many times have any of us in our own business world have worked with a planning document? Especially a planning document that ended up looking a lot different in its final form - if it even made it to final form! Better care should have been given to ensure its confidentiality. I felt a bit "ooky" about reading it. It would be like reading something private that my kid wrote that wasn't intended for my reading. Remember, this document was to be used a basis for additional discussion - "a working document". I do believe that DCI and the G7 has the best interests of the activity at heart. You can't have management by committee! They recognize what most everyone else does: the activity must adapt, evolve, and promote itself as best as it can. Drum corps cannot operate in a vacuum. It does need to forge a better bond with music education, band kids, schools, teachers, and the countless communities throughout the USA. I do think that the TOC's have merit. I've attended a number of them over the past 2 seasons and really enjoyed them. One reason that they may have shaved the number down to 7 for the "Special Series" is because of the time it took to do the instant encores, and grand finale. As such, the instant encores were eliminated in 2012 - a disappointment in my opinion. Regarding the note about maximizing revenue as a non-profit: that's perfectly acceptable. Just because drum corps is non-profit doesn't mean that you can't make money. In fact, drum corps has every right to make as much money as they can. Money is not a dirty word! It's just that the "profit" stays within the organization for its sustainability and survival - which is exactly what the G7 wants the activity to accomplish. I'm not for burying my head in the sand, but I'm afraid that continued speculation and finger pointing for DCI, G7, etc., from the likes of blogs such as this is counter-productive to the activity itself. DCI must do a better job of managing the message to the public. Until they do, these types of forum topics will continue - and that may not be a good thing at all. Lastly, I will continue to put my money on the kids and the professionals of the activity. Drum corps has evolved and adapted many times throughout the years. It's no different today than it was in 1971 at the dawn of DCI. In the words of Michael Boo (and someone else who said it before him:> UNITED WE STAND! PS - This is old news! It's so two-thousand and ten! PSS - Is there anyone out there that's getting as sick and tired, as I am, of the negative banter on DCP? Edited November 25, 2012 by drumcorpsfever 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 i'm all for this documents and others getting out. full disclosure is always best Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 It's too bad that more care wasn't made to protect this document from being made public. How many times have any of us in our own business world have worked with a planning document? Especially a planning document that ended up looking a lot different in its final form -- if it even made it to final form! Better care should have been given to ensure its confidentiality. I felt a bit "ooky" about reading it. It would be like reading something private that my kid wrote that wasn't intended for my reading. Remember, this document was to be used a basis for additional discussion: "a working document". Do you mean "made public" to the general public, or to the other DCI corps? The corps that promptly voted G-7 directors out of DCI's board when this plan was brought to their attention? I do believe that DCI and the G7 has the best interests of the activity at heart. You can't have management by committee! Do the "best interests" of the activity involve Boston Crusaders getting half the voting power of the Cavaliers, whom they beat last year? They recognize what most everyone else does: the activity must adapt, evolve, and promote itself as best as it can. Drum corps cannot operate in a vacuum. It does need to forge a better bond with music education, band kids, schools, teachers, and the countless communities throughout the USA. Can you elaborate on this argument beyond a regurgitation of the talking points from the presentation? Because I haven't seen any statement from the non G-7 corps to indicate that they thing "operating in a vacuum" would be a good idea. I do think that the TOC's have merit. I've attended a number of them over the past 2 seasons and really enjoyed them. I don't believe anyone on these forums would dispute that a show featuring the top 6 or 7 or 8 corps is good value and entertainment! The problem many people have with the G-7 is that they tried to capitalize on their current success by making it harder for everyone else to succeed. One reason that they may have shaved the number down to 7 for the "Special Series" is because of the time it took to do the instant encores, and grand finale. As such, the instant encores were eliminated in 2012 -- a disappointment in my opinion. That sounds entirely reasonable, but can you understand why many people here are suspicious that Boston wasn't offered the seventh slot? The G-7 justified their plan in part based on their competitive success. If Cavaliers want back into the smaller Tour of Champions, they should earn it by making it to at least seventh place this season. Regarding the note about maximizing revenue as a non-profit: that's perfectly acceptable. Just because drum corps is non-profit doesn't mean that you can't make money. In fact, drum corps has every right to make as much money as they can. Money is not a dirty word! It's just that the "profit" stays within the organization for its sustainability and survival -- which is exactly what the G7 wants the activity to accomplish. No one seriously questions the need for corps to financially survive! What is questioned is an attempt to stack the deck in favor of certain corps at the expense of others. PS -- This is old news! It's so two-thousand and ten! Yes, well this topic might not have been revived had there not been indications that the G-7 were still maneuvering behind the scenes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcorpsfever Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) I understand the questions - I have many myself. But, the challenge is when considering the planning document in total. There are a number of things that has not come to fruition as outlined in the document. I do think the opportunity is for DCI to layout the vision and mission of the activity to the public. But, most importantly, action speaks louder than words. And it's the "action" that must come from a united activity. Edited November 25, 2012 by drumcorpsfever 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) It's too bad that more care wasn't made to protect this document from being made public. Better care should have been given to ensure its confidentiality. The irony is that as we read this selfish document its says that " agreement on all issues is critical to success "... and then.... " this document is not for distribution ". And yet.... thankfully.... somebody in that "secret " meeting, apparently not on board at all with this attempted power grab, went right out to the public and to the rest of DCI membership with it. So even within their little cabal they had a mole or two apparently. Edited November 25, 2012 by BRASSO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 ... In the words of Michael Boo (and someone else who said it before him:> UNITED WE STAND! ... Some day I hope to meet this Michael Boo. He sounds much more balanced than I am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.