Eric M. Buckman Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Maybe I missed something...but, as I understand it and correct me if I am wrong, but, Jim is staunchly against the G7 which is awesome, and I am not knocking anything about the G7 here(there are plenty other topics for that). Anyway, someone else please tell me if I'm wrong...if we indeed link Star of Indiana as pushing the envelope thru Star 93, as, not the only significant changes in DCI, but a very LARGE catalyst for changes in DCI direction that brought it to the state of where it is today...does no one else see the irony of it all????especially in light of what Madison Scouts are doing this year...one of the few semi Old School shows. Please don't start in on the G Bugles, Zingali, Hopkins, pit, Colorguard or any other aspect or this or that, that influenced Dci through the years...I just find it odd of what the goal of Star was 1. to make it 2. to win it 3. to change it forever. I am an avid Star of Indiana, Jim Mason fan and Cook group fan...and I love my home team Cadets along with anyone who has ever been a member of the drum corps community...at any level...but, it really just seems quite ironic to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shostahoosier Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 I dont know if changing the game is the same as monopolizing it for personal gain... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdlykdad Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Isn't it ironic that his group "left" DCI to do it's own thing, and now he's taking "sides" with DCI? Has he explained that anywhere? I would love to read it if he has!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFZFAN Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Isn't it ironic that his group "left" DCI to do it's own thing, and now he's taking "sides" with DCI? Has he explained that anywhere? I would love to read it if he has!! He doesn't need to explain anything. Not to you or anyone else. The guy has had phenomenal success and brought his team back to drum corps to help out his former corps. It's just that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdlykdad Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 He doesn't need to explain anything. Not to you or anyone else. The guy has had phenomenal success and brought his team back to drum corps to help out his former corps. It's just that simple. Didn't say he "needed" to explain. I'm just curious as to what he has to say about the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peel Paint Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 (edited) Well there is a big difference between what Star chose to do and what G7 wants to do. Star didn't ask for more votes or more money from DCI. Star didn't try to get other corps dropped from DCI. Star didn't try to organize a group of other corps to take over DCI or unilaterally remove the executive director of DCI. Star didn't try to pick and choose who it would tour with while still a DCI member. Star simply said, "This isn't working for us any more. We want to go in a different direction. We're leaving DCI." One, two, or all seven G7 corps may eventually say, "This isn't working for us any more. We want to go in a different direction. We're leaving DCI." But in the meantime, if it isn't too much bother, they'd like to have the best of both worlds, test the water with their big toe, build their own audience, stadiums, business model, and contacts, and do the stuff Star didn't do that would hurt the other DCI corps. Again, it should be All In, or All Out. They shouldn't get an opportunity to get stronger while making others weaker. Star didn't do that. Edited August 13, 2010 by Peel Paint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Well there is a big difference between what Star chose to do and what G7 wants to do. Star didn't ask for more votes or more money from DCI. Star didn't try to get other corps dropped from DCI. Star didn't try to organize a group of other corps to take over DCI or unilaterally remove the executive director of DCI. Star didn't try to pick and choose who it would tour with while still a DCI member.Star simply said, "This isn't working for us any more. We want to go in a different direction. We're leaving DCI." One, two, or all seven G7 corps may eventually say, "This isn't working for us any more. We want to go in a different direction. We're leaving DCI." But in the meantime, if it isn't too much bother, they'd like to have the best of both worlds, test the water with their big toe, build their own audience, stadiums, business model, and contacts, and do the stuff Star didn't do that would hurt the other DCI corps. Again, it should be All In, or All Out. They shouldn't get an opportunity to get stronger while making others weaker. Star didn't do that. Amen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
84skyrydr Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 He doesn't need to explain anything. Not to you or anyone else. The guy has had phenomenal success and brought his team back to drum corps to help out his former corps. It's just that simple. " Phenomenal success". I marched for the guy in the Colts and can safely say that 28th wasn't very awesome. He didn't succeed until the money started flowing from the multimillionaire he worked for. It takes cash to be good in this game. If he has it backing him, he can do wonders, but Orwoll had the same community Jim did and took the Colts to the promised land without the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crfrey71 Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Well there is a big difference between what Star chose to do and what G7 wants to do. Star didn't ask for more votes or more money from DCI. Star didn't try to get other corps dropped from DCI. Star didn't try to organize a group of other corps to take over DCI or unilaterally remove the executive director of DCI. Star didn't try to pick and choose who it would tour with while still a DCI member.Star simply said, "This isn't working for us any more. We want to go in a different direction. We're leaving DCI." One, two, or all seven G7 corps may eventually say, "This isn't working for us any more. We want to go in a different direction. We're leaving DCI." But in the meantime, if it isn't too much bother, they'd like to have the best of both worlds, test the water with their big toe, build their own audience, stadiums, business model, and contacts, and do the stuff Star didn't do that would hurt the other DCI corps. Again, it should be All In, or All Out. They shouldn't get an opportunity to get stronger while making others weaker. Star didn't do that. I totally agree with this post. "You're either on the boat or off the boat." - Hillestrand brothers from Deadliest Catch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purenjoyment Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 " Phenomenal success". I marched for the guy in the Colts and can safely say that 28th wasn't very awesome. He didn't succeed until the money started flowing from the multimillionaire he worked for. It takes cash to be good in this game. If he has it backing him, he can do wonders, but Orwoll had the same community Jim did and took the Colts to the promised land without the money. Very,very interesting. 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.