soccerguy315 Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 I just saw a video from a young lady who wanted to march her "dream corps" and was looking for funding to march her age-out year. Between travel costs and tuition she would need to come up with $6000. After viewing that I thought there really should be a movement to encourage kids to march (reasonably) local. Do corps directors realize this is going on. Kids spending $6000 to march. It just seems irresponsible to me that corps directors would condone that sort of monetary outlay. I can see wanting to march your dream corps but to ask for donations to reach your $6000 goal is pushing it. why would a corps director care how much a kid is paying to march? I agree that donations to travel across the country is pushing it, but people ask because other people donate. Obviously you are free to donate to someone who is at their local corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armyscout Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 The effects of the rising inflated tour costs can already be seen clearly across the board. Everbody knows at least a few people that have been bared to march due to ridiculous finance responsibilities. I know almost a dozen examples of talented musicians not being to march DCI due to the fact that tuition is costing upwards of $3,000 a year. The average college student can barely pay for there own educational tuition let alone an extra $450 a month for corps tuition fees. That line of DCI learning experience and competition well only stretch so far and its already stressing seemingly, if the inflated corps tuitions keep increasing year in and year out the future of corps numbers well deplete even quicker than it already is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piper Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Let's face it. Drum Corps isn't cheap and never really has been. Touring probably takes the biggest chunk out of the budget - particularly transportation and fuel. What's difficult to comprehend is why DCI's BoD seems to keep approving things that make it more expensive like bumping the max to 150 and adding electronics which most fans don't seem to care much about anyway. I won't debate the technical pros and cons of it, but it still adds up to dollars. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoValves Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Let's face it. Drum Corps isn't cheap and never really has been. Touring probably takes the biggest chunk out of the budget - particularly transportation and fuel. What's difficult to comprehend is why DCI's BoD seems to keep approving things that make it more expensive like bumping the max to 150 and adding electronics which most fans don't seem to care much about anyway. I won't debate the technical pros and cons of it, but it still adds up to dollars. Electronics added virtually NO cost to drum corps in the scheme of things. I don't understand why people keep repeating this idea that it did. How many corps have doubled the number of tubas on the field in the last few years? At at least $5000 per horn, THAT'S a big hit to the pocketbook. I'd be shocked if any corps had more than $8000-$10000 total invested in their electronic package. Upping the numbers to 150 was actually a financial improvement to the corps. Most were already using 4 busses for touring, but at 130 members they had empty seats. Considering that adding 15 members paying a few thousand dollars each at essentially NO addition travel-related cost, it was one of the more fiscally sound changes that DCI has made in a while. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 > why would a corps director care how much a kid is paying to march? The corps director is in charge of a legally classified "501c3 Public Non-Profit Charitable Organization" and not a Private For-Profit institution. That is why the director should care deeply about how much each youth is having to pay; the operative word here is Charitable! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) Electronics added virtually NO cost to drum corps in the scheme of things. I don't understand why people keep repeating this idea that it did. How many corps have doubled the number of tubas on the field in the last few years? At at least $5000 per horn, THAT'S a big hit to the pocketbook. I'd be shocked if any corps had more than $8000-$10000 total invested in their electronic package. Upping the numbers to 150 was actually a financial improvement to the corps. Most were already using 4 busses for touring, but at 130 members they had empty seats. Considering that adding 15 members paying a few thousand dollars each at essentially NO addition travel-related cost, it was one of the more fiscally sound changes that DCI has made in a while. A couple of anecdotal questions before I attack your cost analogy: With corps "doubling" the number of tubas, why is the bass-boost "goo" even necessary, and could it be that the cheap sound systems employed is the reason it sounds like screeching mice and thunderous goo at the same time? Now to your cost analysis. Your analogy of increasing members is flawed due to the issue of weight. Have you seen those new, single tires on 18-wheelers? Where the two skinny tires on the tractor are replaced with one, wide tire? Being a motorhome driver myself I asked a trucker why they were becoming so popular. His answer? WEIGHT. Two skinny tires/rims together weigh approximately 250 pounds, but a single, wide tire/rim weighs less than half that. The weight savings, in this trucker's estimate, saves him 4% in fuel costs per year. For a trucker who drives a couple-hundred-thousand miles a year that adds up to a significant fuel cost savings. So let's add it up: 30 extra members at approx 150 average weight (they are tuba players, after all! ) = 4500 lbs their equipment average weight is, what, 15 pounds? = 450 lbs their personal gear, maybe 20lbs each = 600 lbs the food to feed them, I suppose 10 pounds each (times 7 days between food stops)? = 2100 lbs Admitting that these are unverified numbers, the total additional weight of 30 members could be over 7000 pounds. If a trucker hauling 65,000 pounds is worried about a 250-pound tire, do you suppose that a drum corps bus of approximately the same size and weight should be concerned about 7000 pounds? Me thinks so. Even if it adds up to only 1 mpg less on that bus, the costs are impressive: A half empty bus getting 6 mpg on a 35,000 mile tour spends about $20,000 in fuel A full bus getting 5 mpg on the same tour spends $24,500 on fuel. How much does a tuba weigh? How much do those massive speakers weigh? What about the synth itself, does it weigh more than a flag or trumpet? What about the generator needed to run the board during practice (and the fuel to run it)? You get the point. Maybe the big corps' contention that they can't afford to play a local show is tied to their costs more than it is tied to the revenue they receive, eh? But there's another cost as well. An additional 30 members per top-12 corp equals 360 additional members. That's THREE additional corps (at 120 each) that didn't get formed, or many more corps that couldn't fill their lines with top-quality players, because the "big boys" wanted to be bigger. "It let's more kids march"? Yea, those kids could have marched in a new corps that maybe could have provided a more competitive circuit (even if it took a few years to be competitive), and more Moms and Dads and fans in the seats to watch them. I'd contend that concentration of the available marching pool into a few corps is not as profitable for the activity as 3 new corps would be. Just my $.02. Edited January 30, 2011 by garfield 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C4T Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 An additional 30 members per top-12 corp equals 360 additional members. That's THREE additional corps (at 120 each) that didn't get formed, or many more corps that couldn't fill their lines with top-quality players, because the "big boys" wanted to be bigger. "It let's more kids march"? Yea, those kids could have marched in a new corps that maybe could have provided a more competitive circuit (even if it took a few years to be competitive), and more Moms and Dads and fans in the seats to watch them. I'd contend that concentration of the available marching pool into a few corps is not as profitable for the activity as 3 new corps would be. Just my $.02. The maximum member limit was only upped by 15, not 30. Just being nitpicky It could be argued that many of those 15 who can now march their "dream corps" wouldn't have marched anywhere else had they not made it in. Great points about the weight thing though, that's something I hadn't considered or seen mentioned before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) The maximum member limit was only upped by 15, not 30. Just being nitpicky It could be argued that many of those 15 who can now march their "dream corps" wouldn't have marched anywhere else had they not made it in. Great points about the weight thing though, that's something I hadn't considered or seen mentioned before. OK, I'm showing my age. I was thinking of the days when 120 was the max. You know, back when we used bones for drum sticks and ivory tusks for bugles. Edited January 30, 2011 by garfield 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 A couple of anecdotal questions before I attack your cost analogy: With corps "doubling" the number of tubas, why is the bass-boost "goo" even necessary, and could it be that the cheap sound systems employed is the reason it sounds like screeching mice and thunderous goo at the same time? There is no 'goo'...so that assertion is false. Now to your cost analysis. Your analogy of increasing members is flawed due to the issue of weight. Have you seen those new, single tires on 18-wheelers? Where the two skinny tires on the tractor are replaced with one, wide tire? Being a motorhome driver myself I asked a trucker why they were becoming so popular. His answer? WEIGHT. Two skinny tires/rims together weigh approximately 250 pounds, but a single, wide tire/rim weighs less than half that. The weight savings, in this trucker's estimate, saves him 4% in fuel costs per year. For a trucker who drives a couple-hundred-thousand miles a year that adds up to a significant fuel cost savings. So let's add it up: 30 extra members at approx 150 average weight (they are tuba players, after all! ) = 4500 lbs their equipment average weight is, what, 15 pounds? = 450 lbs their personal gear, maybe 20lbs each = 600 lbs the food to feed them, I suppose 10 pounds each (times 7 days between food stops)? = 2100 lbs Admitting that these are unverified numbers, the total additional weight of 30 members could be over 7000 pounds. If a trucker hauling 65,000 pounds is worried about a 250-pound tire, do you suppose that a drum corps bus of approximately the same size and weight should be concerned about 7000 pounds? Me thinks so. Even if it adds up to only 1 mpg less on that bus, the costs are impressive: A half empty bus getting 6 mpg on a 35,000 mile tour spends about $20,000 in fuel A full bus getting 5 mpg on the same tour spends $24,500 on fuel. Add 15 people brings in another 45K or so in revenue. spread over three busses, that comes to 15K per bus...and using your unproven numbers it is still three times the 'cost', which covers all the rest of the made-up numbers you are using. How much does a tuba weigh? How much do those massive speakers weigh? What about the synth itself, does it weigh more than a flag or trumpet? What about the generator needed to run the board during practice (and the fuel to run it)? You get the point. Maybe the big corps' contention that they can't afford to play a local show is tied to their costs more than it is tied to the revenue they receive, eh? Nope. But there's another cost as well. An additional 30 members per top-12 corp equals 360 additional members. That's THREE additional corps (at 120 each) that didn't get formed, or many more corps that couldn't fill their lines with top-quality players, because the "big boys" wanted to be bigger. "It let's more kids march"? Yea, those kids could have marched in a new corps that maybe could have provided a more competitive circuit (even if it took a few years to be competitive), and more Moms and Dads and fans in the seats to watch them. I'd contend that concentration of the available marching pool into a few corps is not as profitable for the activity as 3 new corps would be. Just my $.02. Those three new corps did not form prior to the increase in size. Assuming that those 120 would march elsewhere flies completely in the face of the reality that most of those cut choose not to march anywhere...and always have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skewerz Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 There is no 'goo'...so that assertion is false. /snip There IS thunderous goo...so YOUR assertion is false. 1 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.