Dan Acheson contract renewed as DCI Executive Director

[bawker]

I would not be surprised by a big announcement of STELLAR (all puns intended) proportions coming from Concord.

That wouldn't surprise me in the least . . and quite frankly, more power to them. I'll be glad to go see it if it comes nearby.

[Jeff Ream]

I'll take Jeff's comments one step further, and I agree with his assessment of Dan A's responsibilities.

If you read Building The Green Machine you'll find that "The Old Man" was a successful insurance man and was masterful at wresting support for other executives, not the least of which was the mayor. It is reasonable to give the founders a pass because they were businessmen. It may be a legitimate point that they didn't look far enough ahead that the activity could end up being run by "creative" types.

I strongly disagree that the activity should be led by leaders with no DC experience. I've witnessed this fallacy with our local symphony being run by businessmen with no love for classical music. They have no understanding of what draws people to the shows and, with the zeal of a corporate CEO, insist that the performers are worth less than they are and demand pay cuts from the contract members. Years of building a top-quality performance team were torn apart due to the cyclical economy, and many world-class performers left town because they couldn't stand the pay cuts that the BOD demanded. It will take years to rebuild the performance quality because of the strict business-mind of the BOD.

Drum Corps, and most "performance arts" organizations are much more than their balance sheets. I'm a pure capitalist so I understand how this belief will rub many the wrong way. But I firmly believe that the best Board members are those who have some understanding and love for the activity AND a sharp business mind. I like to think that I am one of those and there are many out there like me.

There are many who love the art and, at the same time, don't shy away from making tough business decisions, but they should be made based on more than just the balance sheet. The destruction that can take place in the name of a balanced budget can do unrecoverable damage to the performers and the activity.

As much as a pure "creative" personality is not the answer, neither is a pure "business" personality, either.

Dan A has been running DCI for over a decade, and has fought the business battles to meet the demands of the member corps. In my book he has the perfect mix of business experience, corps experience, and love of the activity to lead us out of this mess. The member corps simply have to give him the budget to do so.

I'm still waiting for proof that Dan and his DCI staff have failed in their mission...

well said

[garfield]

True!

Here is an excellent piece written by none other than the founder of Star of Indiana Drum & Bugle Corps, Bill Cook, titled, "So you want to start a drum corps?"

{snip}

A new drum corps, founded and operated by a group or commitee, will not be successful over the long term."

I've read this piece many times and have had several long discussion with Bill about the subject. I have great respect for the man, his successes, and his viewpoints.

But let's not forget a couple of important points:

This article was written in the early 1990's, and

Star, BLAST!, and all of its iterations have a history that is a fraction of time that DCI has lasted.

[cowtown]

yeah, I still don't know

I'm not happy with the dome deal or DCI in general the past few years but I'm willing to allow that he did what he was told and blame the g-7

really depends on who put together the deal and how they presented it

I never broke out my credit card for DCI this year although I did use ticketmaster and will be looking for for a gas card and that has to be a first in many years, still have a bad taste from that guy in my sig line and his actions here on DCP

so I still don't know

[AmFlag61]

WOW! Another Post calling Don Warren "The Old Man" (a title which I long have thought was our secret & affectionate name for him).

If you are interested in how a Corps is created, operated, and sustained for over 60 years, I strongly recommend that you read "Building The Green Machine". It's wonderfully written, and funny as well. Come read about us and laugh at us or with us, but read between the lines as well. You just might be surprised at the treasures buried in this book.

From the bottom of my heart, I salute ALL Corps from the 'World" to the "Open" to the "B" to the SDCA, to the "Alumni" Corps, (sorry if I missed anyone) but most especially to the young Dreamers who have yet to join, but desperately want to share the experience many of us were blessed (YES, BLESSED!) to have.

We are destined to grow old & die. But let us pray that Drum Corps will survive.

SPLOOIE!!! to you all!

[crfrey71]

I've read this piece many times and have had several long discussion with Bill about the subject. I have great respect for the man, his successes, and his viewpoints.

But let's not forget a couple of important points:

This article was written in the early 1990's, and

Star, BLAST!, and all of its iterations have a history that is a fraction of time that DCI has lasted.

I understand it was written in the 90's, but I think there are many points which are very valid and really come to light, especially with Dan A., G-7, etc... in the spotlight, if you will.

Anyways, I have a lot more thoughts on this which are probably better suited for the G-7 forum boards.

But as far as someone saying this is the board showing solidarity? Where was this solidarity in the past decade, when all these rule proposals were being passed, which was gradually leading towards this WSODC? Where???

I kind of find it not coincidential that the G-7 named their's "World Series of Drum Corps," while DCI's is "Marching Music's Major League." Obviously, this plan has been in the works for many years and many of us "armchair" exec. directors easily saw this happening, when these rule changes were made. On top of that, George Hopkins is quoted as saying woodwinds will come into the fray, in order for the activity to survive. Are we suppose to believe that the board, and all those on the inside didn't see this coming?

I find it more believable that everyone in DCI was onboard with this G-7 idea (in a similar fashion) and the G-7 became frustrated at the lack of speed DCI was taking to make this transition or the lack of success they were seeing and decided to take matters into their own hands now. I believe this whole "Marching Music's Major League," ESPN, a state of the art stadium (Lucas Oil Field), the rule changes, was basically along the same mindset as what the G-7 currently has.

Anyways, I think it's very important for Dan Acheson to specifically detail what "his" vision for the future of drum corps is. Vague, predictable, mission and vision statements are not good enough. He needs to lay it all out there, IMO.

Anyways, we have verification of what all these rule changes were really for now. The explanations or reasonings behind them, at the time of the rule change, were just flat out lies.

Edited August 18, 2010 by crfrey71

[garfield]

I understand it was written in the 90's, but I think there are many points which are very valid and really come to light, especially with Dan A., G-7, etc... in the spotlight, if you will.

Anyways, I have a lot more thoughts on this which are probably better suited for the G-7 forum boards.

But as far as someone saying this is the board showing solidarity? Where was this solidarity in the past decade, when all these rule proposals were being passed, which was gradually leading towards this WSODC? Where???

I kind of find it not coincidential that the G-7 named their's "World Series of Drum Corps," while DCI's is "Marching Music's Major League." Obviously, this plan has been in the works for many years and many of us "armchair" exec. directors easily saw this happening, when these rule changes were made. On top of that, George Hopkins is quoted as saying woodwinds will come into the fray, in order for the activity to survive. Are we suppose to believe that the board, and all those on the inside didn't see this coming?

I find it more believable that everyone in DCI was onboard with this G-7 idea (in a similar fashion) and the G-7 became frustrated at the lack of speed DCI was taking to make this transition or the lack of success they were seeing and decided to take matters into their own hands now. I believe this whole "Marching Music's Major League," ESPN, a state of the art stadium (Lucas Oil Field), the rule changes, was basically along the same mindset as what the G-7 currently has.

Anyways, I think it's very important for Dan Acheson to specifically detail what "his" vision for the future of drum corps is. Vague, predictable, mission and vision statements are not good enough. He needs to lay it all out there, IMO.

Anyways, we have verification of what all these rule changes were really for now. The explanations or reasonings behind them, at the time of the rule change, were just flat out lies.

Wait, Dan has no "vision" and it's not his place to have a "vision". It's his BOD that has the "vision" and he's expected to follow the mandates of the BOD. It's unfair to emit the member corps vision (as complicit as many of them could be) on to Dan.

As I've said from the first post of this thread, I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to show me with FACTS how Dan A and the DCI org. has not fulfilled their mission according to the member corps' "vision".

So far, no one has presented the case, so until someone does, Dan's entitled to a pass.

[oldskl3rings]

I'll take Jeff's comments one step further, and I agree with his assessment of Dan A's responsibilities.

I strongly disagree that the activity should be led by leaders with no DC experience. I've witnessed this fallacy with our local symphony being run by businessmen with no love for classical music. They have no understanding of what draws people to the shows and, with the zeal of a corporate CEO, insist that the performers are worth less than they are and demand pay cuts from the contract members. Years of building a top-quality performance team were torn apart due to the cyclical economy, and many world-class performers left town because they couldn't stand the pay cuts that the BOD demanded. It will take years to rebuild the performance quality because of the strict business-mind of the BOD.

I'm still waiting for proof that Dan and his DCI staff have failed in their mission...

I still believe that it would be in the best interest of DC to have an Executive Director without DC experience. DC is a small activity. everyone knows everyone. It would be best to hire an ED with a strong business background and a performing arts background, not a DC background. I also believe the ED needs to be a benevolent dictator. As far as Dan’s situation goes, he has lost the necessary confidence of the directors of the top seven corps. It is time for him to go.

Edited August 19, 2010 by oldskl3rings

[DCIHasBeen]

I still believe that it would be in the best interest of DC to have an Executive Director without DC experience. DC is a small activity. everyone knows everyone. It would be best to hire an ED with a strong business background and a performing arts background, not a DC background. I also believe the ED needs to be a benevolent dictator. As far as Dan’s situation goes, he has lost the necessary confidence of the directors of the top seven corps. It is time for him to go.

Do you remember Sam Mitchell? No?

He was the outside guy without DCI experience ... Lasted one year and was terminated.

There is no one from the outside who would survive in that job ... It's not a job for the uninitiated.

[crfrey71]

Wait, Dan has no "vision" and it's not his place to have a "vision". It's his BOD that has the "vision" and he's expected to follow the mandates of the BOD. It's unfair to emit the member corps vision (as complicit as many of them could be) on to Dan.

Which is exactly one of the reasons I referenced the Bill Cook article. There in lies one of the problems...what you just said above.