BRASSO Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 (edited) I did march in a well-intentioned but poorly run group that went belly up after my second season. This qualification and experience graduates you with High Honors to discuss the future of DCI and the activity in general, imo. Edited January 24, 2011 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thirdcoast Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 While reading over all the tired, rehashed, delusional, or - in the case of one poster - deranged arguments, I thought it might be cool if someone, you know, tried to answer the OP's question. I don't think the OP was a troll that posted and ran, but s/he does seem to have been scared off. So this may not help the OP, but maybe someone will find it useful. I'm sure I've made some mistakes so corrections and additions are welcome. I've tried to make this unbiased - mainly by linking to the relevant material, rather than describing it myself - so let me know if it seems unfair in any way. Way back in May, at a meeting of the DCI Board of Directors (which consists of 6 corps directors and three outside members, all selected by the 22 member corps of DCI) Cadets director George Hopkins made a proposal concerning something he called the G7 (Group of Seven) consisting of DCI's top 7 corps: Cavies, Crown, Bluecoats, Blue Devils, Phantom, and Cadets. The proposal has been summarized in this thread, but you can read the actual powerpoint here. It seems long, but it's really not, and if you want to understand the G7 you should read it. By all accounts the reaction to the proposal was ferocious. Couple of days later all 22 member corps held a conference call wherein those opposed to the G7 tried to restructure the board of directors by removing two of the G7 directors who were on the board, but in a show of solidarity all four G7 directors on the board resigned. The whole thing was apparently pretty acrimonious, as these things tend to be. Even so, the member corps decided that they would like to here more regarding the proposal in July. At the same time, rumors started surfacing in the community at large about a major split within DCI. There had been rumblings for some months ahead of time, but the first confirmation that something real was happening came when Drum Corps World announced that it was going to release an article on the G7. At this point speculation on DCP and elsewhere reached feverpitch. A few days after the conference call was completed DCW released the article, which can be read here. At the same time the G7 corps came out with a press release, which you can read here. It's worth noting that the Cavaliers also came out with a press release which indicated they may not have been 100% behind the G7 proposal. So battle lines were drawn. The DCI administration and the non-G7 corps were furious about the proposal. The G7 corps seem to have been stunned by the ferocity of the reaction, and were upset at how much of the affair had been made public. But the season began, the whole thing faded into the background. The July meeting came and went, but nothing apparently came of it. Another proposal (of sorts) was unearthed during that time, called "The World Series of Drum Corps", but I don't think it's ever been established who wrote it, and when. The season ended, the off-season began, and a few months passed. Tempers presumably cooled during this time. After the meeting in November DCI announced that it was planning a separate series of events on top of the traditional tour that sort of resembled the new competitions envisioned in Hopkins proposal. You can read the article here (scroll down to the bottom for the relevant information). This is what is now being called the "Tour of Champions". The relationship between the Tour of Champions and the G7 proposal is not really clear at this point. Most people seem to think that that the G7 proposal was some sort of negotiating tactic these corps used to get what they really wanted, the TOC. I used to think that, but I'm not so sure anymore. Hope this helps. I'm sure someone could come up with a more detailed and accurate timeline. This is serious and (for me, at least) fascinating issue, so it would be great if everyone could discuss without losing their heads. Except for those posters who lost their heads long before coming to this board. I didn't link to the original DCP threads on this, but a quick search can find them. Lots of interesting and well-thought out perspectives on both sides of issue can be found on those threads. There's plenty of crap, too, but no matter how much people b#### about this forum these threads are still 10x milder and more useful than most IRL conversations about the G7. Edit: Guess I should say that I was strongly opposed to the G7 proposal, but that I support the TOC (so long George Hopkins cornball vision for these events isn't followed). In response to fsubone's fair (and important) question, I was never in one these corps, and never came close. I'm simply not good enough. I did spend a good deal of time and money to help my sister get into one of these corps, and this corps is my new home corps since my old corps went extinct. She hasn't (yet) gotten a ring, but she knows about being near the top. I let her read some of the posts on this thread and she says she's happy her experience in an elite corps hasn't left her graceless and delusional. Great post. Lots of info here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thirdcoast Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 pull out of the G8? why would any of them? it's too much money to turn down donations are down, way down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I find it interesting that FSUBONE asked where in Drum Corps you come from so he knows what your motivation and perspective are for your commentary... Really? Gosh, that would save some time. Unfortunately, you can't judge a book by its cover. I marched with one of the corps now known as the "G7". Yet I am not in favor of their proposed hostile takeover of DCI, because I am more interested in the success of the activity than just the success of the one corps I marched with. Is a top corps supposed to give up their status and hand over their staff, kids and ideas to another corps to "PROMOTE THE ACTIVITY" No. Of course, with either the G7 proposal or the TOC shows, we are pushing some willing-and-able corps aside to have a chosen few "promote the activity". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luvs me sum mello! Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 If you're looking for an extremely biased and fox news-esque scare tactic explanation...then you've come to the right place, Piog. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 (edited) ** On a side rant: This kind of eternal strife is bound to happen when DCI's governing body, the group of people tasked with insuring DCI as a collective is successful on all fronts, is run by the same people also charged with insuring that their own corps is successful at all costs. I know this is a double-edged sword, as it makes logical sense for corps directors to assume control of their own collective well-being. But the situation easily looks suspicious when directors choose to break away for reasons of (easily perceived) self-preservation vs the good of the collective. This..... And let's not forget if their own corps either goes under or is no longer in the top magic number to be on the BoD then those peole are totally out of DCI. control group. Not to mention these people are paid to do what is best for their own corps and spend more time, effort, sweat, blood, tears, etc, etc on keeping their corps going as opposed to DCI meetings. Edited January 24, 2011 by JimF-LowBari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 It is not in any of the G-8's interest to make it exclusionary given a position in the 8 is never guaranteed. I realize the stalwart top 4-5 corps probably wouldn't mind but I don't see any of the corps that have finished around 6-7-8 more than the top 5 being interested in making it harder to get back in were they to be pushed out. If you truly think it is the goal of last years top 8 to make every other corps go away then you really must have some solid information you're keeping to yourself otherwise I just think the overly negative hype on DCP is influencing your take. Have ANY of the TOC haters had specific conversations with any of the top 8 corps directors regarding this to back up their inflammatory nonsense? Well I have, and what is consistently being represented as the "goal" of the G-8 here on DCP by the haters is hilarious in its absurdity. Well, first of all, there is no "G8"....as I'm sure you are aware. And the TOC shows consist simply of the previous year's top 8. However, the post that prompted your reply was speaking to the context established by the G7 proposal to create a system where membership, revenue and access to the G7 tour was more exclusionary. That proposal had several provisions that would serve to entrench the founding G7 corps firmly in membership status, while still waving a carrot for the remaining corps to reach toward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Thank you. See, I'm in the same boat as you. FWIW, I'm a member of one of the Top 8, and I was jumping at the chance for more shows, more chances to perform. That's why I'm in this, being able to perform at a top level with my best friends all summer, so I still think this is a great thing. Nothing against the lower corps, I've been in that position to perform in front of empty stands, but even then, there's no way I would turn down the chance to perform more, or see more drum corps over the summer. Wasn't everyone complaining about the lowering number of shows per summer? Well, here it is. More shows, 8 more, enjoy them. That is not correct. 1. First of all, there are only seven TOC shows. The Omaha show is no longer a TOC show. 2. Of those seven TOC shows, five were existing shows converted to TOC shows. Even the two season-opening shows in Texas come at the cost of losing the two "three Cs" shows of last year. The TOC doesn't give us "more shows" at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I really have been thinking about this and have to ask, but how many people on here that are truly against the TOC, and have been doing all of this campaigning against it and writing on here, are actually from one of these Top 8 corps? Well, I can't say I'm "truly against the TOC", but I am concerned about the top-8 aspect of it. And yes, I marched with one of the eight corps in the TOC lineup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 And if you read the rest of it, it's exactly what the DCI fans have said that they want. The Top 8 corps. No offense to the other 15, but they don't make the same ticket sales, the same attendance numbers, and i think the member corps and DCI realized this, and are trying out this new show concept, to max out the profits and attendance. I'm sorry....where is this data reported concerning which corps sold which tickets? 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.