nemesiscorps Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 If for example BD feels that their lack of wide "Fan Appeal" is beneficial to DCI, their fan base, their sales, their over all success, then they will see that in the long-run it is NOT sustainable. Sure a corps can make a show that is strictly about Fan Appeal and Tradition, but without the Technical Superiority or Innovation, this continued sequence of shows is not sustainable. The point is that LONG TERM sustainable and enjoyable drum corps for everyone must have these 4 elements. Some shows are heavier in some areas than in others. Again, I stress communication and discussion with all DCI designers, that all 4 of these elements are EQUALLY important for different reasons. And in spite of what they think about the "reasons", it does not change their significance and importance. These ARE the elements (accept it or not) that NEED to be incorporate in shows every year for drum corps to be sustainable and grow in the future. That's that. Charlie, "I" agree with you completely. I'm not disagreeing with you at all here. "My" point is that if a corps is already "winning," (let's use your BD example) there is no short-term gain for them to change course, and no guaranteed long-term gain. Ideally, they would be changing direction for the long-term benefit of themselves and someone else (fans included), but why bother doing it while being on top? They could always jump on board the "fan friendly shows" bandwagon when they are no longer on top (and thus, less to lose in the short term), but why do it now if they're already achieving success? As an organization, what if my first priority is to keep winning, and the NEED or ability for "drum corps to be sustainable and grow in the future" isn't even on my list of priorities? Some people think that that's just what we're dealing with here, like it or not. We all know that this discussion has been going on for more than a decade, but generally speaking, the design trends have not shifted. That's why we're still talking about it today. There is no history that I'm aware of to show that a "winner" is willing to change direction simply for "the good of the activity." The new Artistic Director's words are still just words. What if the corps choose to not follow his advice? What do they have to lose? Nothing, especially if they're already "winning." I hope that I'm being clear. I hope even more that I (and others) are wrong about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) Charlie, "I" agree with you completely. I'm not disagreeing with you at all here. "My" point is that if a corps is already "winning," (let's use your BD example) there is no short-term gain for them to change course, and no guaranteed long-term gain. Ideally, they would be changing direction for the long-term benefit of themselves and someone else (fans included), but why bother doing it while being on top? They could always jump on board the "fan friendly shows" bandwagon when they are no longer on top (and thus, less to lose in the short term), but why do it now if they're already achieving success? That's 1 corps. BD shouldn't have to change if they don't want to. But I also know of 22 other corps that did not win first place... so for those other corps responding to that with a balance of those 4 elements WILL turn their entire situation around, let me explain... I'm not saying I know how to create a winning show like BD. But I do know that those 4 elements together can create an exciting show to rival any other show that only utilizes 3 or just 2 of those elements. No one can beat BD at their own game. You have to change the game to win first, and that's where these 4 elements come into play. The elements being (Tradition, Innovations, Technical Superiority, Fan Appeal) ****You cannot create a stronger show than a show that has those 4 elements well represented throughout. **** The idea is that if a show that uses all 4 of the Elements (traditon, innovation, technical, fan appeal) and not just the 2 that BD used (innovation, technical) and performed it as well as BD did, then that that show would have won first place. It's the idea that BD's level of show design is not optimal and there are better show designs that can win first place. You just have to incorporate ALL 4 of the elements equally. And who better to do this then other 22 corps that didn't win last year?? That's the push that gets people on the right track. As an organization, what if my first priority is to keep winning, and the NEED or ability for "drum corps to be sustainable and grow in the future" isn't even on my list of priorities? Some people think that that's just what we're dealing with here, like it or not. If a corps does not find the sustainability or future of their business to be a priority then that is the definition of a very poor businessman. There isn't a single great organization or company that simply "doesn't care" about the future health and sustainability of the activity. And if that's the case, they shouldn't be running or designing for a corps in the first place. All those people care about it, they just don't know WHAT to do about it or the best way of going about it. All four elements TOGETHER is the only way to sustain drum corps in the future. I'd like to think of it as a law of drum corps sustainability. You cannot have drum corps in the future if it is ONLY about 1 of the elements, say technical excellence, just can't happen. In order for people to understand about what it takes to actually have a better DCI tomorrow and do the "right" things, you have to understand the elements of what that entails (the laws of drum corps sustainability). These elements just try to dispel the myths of what is actually sustainable and what isn't. We all know that this discussion has been going on for more than a decade, but generally speaking, the design trends have not shifted. That's why we're still talking about it today. There is no history that I'm aware of to show that a "winner" is willing to change direction simply for "the good of the activity." The new Artistic Director's words are still just words. What if the corps choose to not follow his advice? What do they have to lose? Nothing, especially if they're already "winning." I hope that I'm being clear. I hope even more that I (and others) are wrong about this. Well, every business that does not follow the RULES of the market will fail. One cannot stubbornly choose the highest price to gain the most profit and expect that that strategy is viable. The uncontrollable market forces will force that stubborn businessman out of business. What's happening right now in DCI is lack of definition of what the uncontrollable rules/laws/market forces in drum corps are. People make up their own version of how the DCI shows/laws/rules SHOULD work and as a result we end up where we are today. We don't understand the laws just like the stubborn business man. The four elements are just the beginning of defining what makes up the Drum Corps "economics/science". It's like the basic rules of "supply and demand" in economics. Someone can be stubborn to think that if they charge a price of 25 dollars for gum that they can get all the profit they want! But of course this isn't true, it's clear this person just doesn't understand the way markets and capitalism work. Designers, like the un-knowledgeable business man, aren't willing to understand those kind of "DCI market force/ laws/ rules" that are inherent in society and the activity. (ie.those elements that can not be influenced or changed because that's "just the way things are"). So as a result we end up like the businessman who foolishly thinks he can sell a 25 dollar packs of gum in a capitalist market. Edited February 16, 2011 by charlie1223 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 If for example BD feels that their lack of wide "Fan Appeal" is beneficial to DCI, their fan base, their sales, their over all success, then they will see that in the long-run it is NOT sustainable. But that's the G7 problem....the corps who are at the top competitively now have this belief that if more butts are in seats later in the show when they perform, that proves they must be the most fan-appealing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 If a corps does not find the sustainability or future of their business to be a priority then that is the definition of a very poor businessman. There isn't a single great organization or company that simply "doesn't care" about the future health and sustainability of the activity. And if that's the case, they shouldn't be running or designing for a corps in the first place. Consider, though, that most of these designers typically design shows in the scholastic marching band activity, where there is not an equivalent need for fan $upport in the first place. Consider also that the judges typically judge (or design) in the same scholastic activity. Yes, they should apply a different mindset to drum corps....but while you and I realize this, there's no guarantee they all do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted February 16, 2011 Author Share Posted February 16, 2011 This would be great... in an ideal world, but here's the problem: Two separate DCI Hall of Fame members (one that was in attendance in Indy, the other is a former chair of the DCI BoD) recently told me that what you describe here is not likely to happen, simply because there is no real incentive for corps "x" to make any changes in direction from what they're currently doing. Note: I'm not referring to any specific corps here. If your organization is currently "successful" with the path that is already tried and true, the only reason to change course would be for the sake of others... which again, is not likely to happen. Certainly, we can all see the shortsightedness of such a decision, but hey, until it hits home (or the pocketbook) of everyone involved, what is there to lose by continuing to do what's working for them right now? There are very few examples (perhaps none) of how corps that are driving the activity have made conscious decisions to move in a different direction, solely for someone else's benefit, even the fans. Let's just be honest here, if that weren't true we wouldn't be having this discussion. Nemisis is right on here. There is no inertia for the sort of tradition/innovation change advocated here. Change might be desirable to us. It might even be desirable to many designers. But in a competitive activity, there is no incentive – no inertia – for deviation from reward. That’s where so much of this thread and similar discussions verge toward oblivion. What some respondents seem really to want is some sort of epiphany in which the entire activity confesses its sin and promises a new start, a retro start. That’s just not realistic. Desiring an outcome, even lobbying for its realization, isn’t necessarily productive against the inertia of competitive pressure and artistic sensibility. On the other hand, a legislative mandate might be liberating. The deviation from the reward path isn’t a lonely choice any longer. All must contend with the new reality, the new inertia. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted February 16, 2011 Author Share Posted February 16, 2011 Consider, though, that most of these designers typically design shows in the scholastic marching band activity, where there is not an equivalent need for fan $upport in the first place. Consider also that the judges typically judge (or design) in the same scholastic activity. Yes, they should apply a different mindset to drum corps....but while you and I realize this, there's no guarantee they all do. Yet another argument for changing the inertia by mandate. Who really thinks Cesario and the DCP chorus are going to move this activity in a new direction? HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemesiscorps Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) That's 1 corps. BD shouldn't have to change if they don't want to. But I also know of 22 other corps that did not win first place... so for those other corps responding to that with a balance of those 4 elements WILL turn their entire situation around... It's the idea that BD's level of show design is not optimal and there are better show designs that can win first place. You just have to incorporate ALL 4 of the elements equally. And who better to do this then other 22 corps that didn't win last year?? That's the push that gets people on the right track. Again, I completely agree with your position on this issue, but unfortunately, that position is nothing more than a theory that does not stand up to the test of time. The top corps have always "driven" the direction of the the activity, for reasons which I'll address shortly. If a corps does not find the sustainability or future of their business to be a priority then that is the definition of a very poor businessman. I never said they didn't care about their "business," I said what about the possibility of an organization not caring about the future of "the activity." There is a difference between those two distinctions, particularly if one is not satisfied with what "the activity" currently is, and therefore has a desire to change it. There isn't a single great organization or company that simply "doesn't care" about the future health and sustainability of the activity. Again, that is an unfortunate assumption on your part. You don't know that to be true, and I know someone quite credible who will testify to the contrary. And if that's the case, they shouldn't be running or designing for a corps in the first place. That's what Scott Stewart said. Well, every business that does not follow the RULES of the market will fail. One cannot stubbornly choose the highest price to gain the most profit and expect that that strategy is viable. The uncontrollable market forces will force that stubborn businessman out of business. This speaks to the point I wanted to address in my first response. What if that organization has the the attitude that THEY are the market? After all, they are the ones that decided what "the rules" would be in the first place. That's how the DCI BoD was constructed to operate, the winners make the rules, and in our little niche activity, they also drive the activity. Finally, by their own words (G7), they are the market for the activity. How do you think we got to this point in the first place? What's happening right now in DCI is lack of definition of what the uncontrollable rules/laws/market forces in drum corps are. People make up their own version of how the DCI shows/laws/rules SHOULD work and as a result we end up where we are today. We don't understand the laws just like the stubborn business man. See above response. The four elements are just the beginning of defining what makes up the Drum Corps "economics/science". It's like the basic rules of "supply and demand" in economics. Someone can be stubborn to think that if they charge a price of 25 dollars for gum that they can get all the profit they want! But of course this isn't true, it's clear this person just doesn't understand the way markets and capitalism work. Only time will tell. Did I just hear someone say "TOC?" Good discussion. Edited February 16, 2011 by nemesiscorps 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 This would be great... in an ideal world, but here's the problem: Two separate DCI Hall of Fame members (one that was in attendance in Indy, the other is a former chair of the DCI BoD) recently told me that what you describe here is not likely to happen, simply because there is no real incentive for corps "x" to make any changes in direction from what they're currently doing. Note: I'm not referring to any specific corps here. If your organization is currently "successful" with the path that is already tried and true, the only reason to change course would be for the sake of others... which again, is not likely to happen. Certainly, we can all see the shortsightedness of such a decision, but hey, until it hits home (or the pocketbook) of everyone involved, what is there to lose by continuing to do what's working for them right now? There are very few examples (perhaps none) of how corps that are driving the activity have made conscious decisions to move in a different direction, solely for someone else's benefit, even the fans. Let's just be honest here, if that weren't true we wouldn't be having this discussion. it is hitting home. Their biggest payday show of the year saw finals attendance go down 13% from 08 to 09 and 11% from 09 to 10. The message is there, hence the Cesario initiative. The key is if they care enough to listen, because otherwise, they'll just change for the sake of change thinking something new and American idol like will solve the problem...when many of the changes made in the last 10 years are the reasons it's not doing well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 This is not just ideal, its extremely possible. The discussion that "I" would have designers feeds on their own self interests (based on my previous post of what I would ask designers) "The Traditional" questions ask designers to incorporate some of their favorite "ideas" from past. Whether from their own corps, or from DC in general. A designer wouldn't be "against" this because its is own "traditional favorites"; whether it be a drill move, or classic tune, or whatever. They'd choose their favorite traditional concept and implement that in their show because of the strong resonance that it has with him. The self interest of reliving something from the past, something that made him fall in love with drum corps. That is powerful! "The Innovation" questions asks and encourages designers to dive into their own self interests of what is innovative and creative. What has never been done? What can be tweaked? Think outside the box, show how creative you can be on the field, show us something we've never seen before. This is the idea that drives a lot modern shows anyway, so no problem implementing this. "The Technical Superiority" questions asks designers to get in the mind of a judge. To satisfy their craving high demand and high execution. The self interest involved here is getting a higher score. Achieving at a higher level than your competition etc. "The Fan Appeal" questions ask designers to think like an audience member. Either a 14 year old marching band student, a 27 year old corp alum, the 65 year old dino, and Joe Blow from the across the street. What's the self interest? Your public reputation, your incoming auditionee class, your souvie sales, and your fan base, the continued strength and appeal of DCI drum corps. If things aren't ideal for you and you've tried implementing the former 3, then doing something different here will in fact resurrect you. If for example BD feels that their lack of wide "Fan Appeal" is beneficial to DCI, their fan base, their sales, their over all success, then they will see that in the long-run it is NOT sustainable. Sure a corps can make a show that is strictly about Fan Appeal and Tradition, but without the Technical Superiority or Innovation, this continued sequence of shows is not sustainable. The point is that LONG TERM sustainable and enjoyable drum corps for everyone must have these 4 elements. Some shows are heavier in some areas than in others. Again, I stress communication and discussion with all DCI designers, that all 4 of these elements are EQUALLY important for different reasons. And in spite of what they think about the "reasons", it does not change their significance and importance. These ARE the elements (accept it or not) that NEED to be incorporate in shows every year for drum corps to be sustainable and grow in the future. That's that. stop making me green you 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Yet another argument for changing the inertia by mandate. Who really thinks Cesario and the DCP chorus are going to move this activity in a new direction? HH I think Cesario's goal is to bridge some old and new. and I can't say that DCI wouldn't benefit from that approach in several areas 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.