Restructuring the DCI BOD

[DrillmanSop06]

And I have taken people to the theater events, and to live shows, who became new fans. In fact, I was at a grocery store in late Aug striking up a conversation with a person in line, and found out the person in front of us had gotten dragged to the theater showing of prelims and was amazed that DCI was so great!! Our experiences are therefore vastly different. Also, you are stating that a corps will play just bubble-gum music at the arts fests then turn around and play just esoteric unaccessible material in the contest. Really? Moreover, if a person is not moved by a 2011 Scouts show, or a 2011 Crown show, or a 2008 Regiment show, or a 2009 SCV show they will not enjoy the drum corps genera no matter how things are changed up. And I really encourage you to do this research: Watch the DVD's of all of the shows in the past ten years; divide them into two categories 1) Esoteric/Cerebral and 2) Accessible/Entertaining; and you will find out that most, a large majority, actually lean toward category 2. We are actually just jaded because of the few esoteric, way out there shows by a few corps who received high scores for those programs.

The problem is the number of shows that are designed to be entertaining/accessible and end up coming out esoteric/cerebral.

It's not accessible if you allude to something closely resembling the harmony of an accessible piece for 2 bars at a time.

[Stu]

The problem is the number of shows that are designed to be entertaining/accessible and end up coming out esoteric/cerebral.

It's not accessible if you allude to something closely resembling the harmony of an accessible piece for 2 bars at a time.

Musically speaking I agree with you; because we are now instructed by the corps to focus on the drill then attach the music intellectually to the on-field movement. This focus has flipped over the years in the sense that music used to drive the drill and we had many charts with melody and phrasing which made sense in a stand alone situation (as in an arch); now the visual drives the music which creates moments of odd phrasing, odd transitions, and odd arranging practices. A drill writer explained it to me this way:

Historically the music arrangement for a corps was written in a traditional manner then turned over it its final form to the drill writer to construct the visual movement; today it is more akin to movies where the the musical motifs are generalized, then the visual staff has quite a lot of input into the flow, construction, and pacing of the show during the inception phase, then the music is integrated into that process of following the visual motion. This type of construction for movies was confirmed to me by a movie composer; the music which appears on the soundtrack CD/Mp3 is *not* the way it appeared in the film itself. If you listen to the music in the movie isolated from the cinematography and dialog many charts are disjunct, with odd phrasing, odd transitions, and odd compositional practices; therefore it is required to be restructured and rerecorded in a more traditional compositional process for the CD/Mp3 for it to make any musical sense.

This new type of marching show construction has not really bothered me personally because I have never viewed marching arrangements in a strict musical sense (like a concert band arrangement). Neither have I sought entertainment through separating the music from the visual (I own the DVD's not the CD,s). Also, while I do own a few movie soundtracks on CD, I never really caught the different arranging style between the music in the movie and the music on the CD until it was pointed out to me by a composer.

[garfield]

Earlier in the thread there were a couple of pages of discussion about the merits of OC (or "lower placing") corps being paid from the DCI kitty. The broad discussion was whether or not DCI should support these corps at all. Two opinions emerged.

One was that corps below 15th place in both classes should not be supported financially.

The other was the DCI should be a corps "incubator" and that some funds should be spent developing corps from inception to competitive status.

I began thinking about the financial impact on the corps of the two ideas, and began to build a regression analysis that might show the impact of various "grants" by DCI to the two classes. In particular, I was interested in knowing the impact on the corps in relation to what they spent putting on their show each year. If WC were granted 100% of the pool, what impact would it have in dollars as a percentage of what they spend each year on their programs. The impact on OC is obvious in this example, but what would be the impact on all corps if WC split the pool 50/50 with open class?

Although the answers may seem obvious, because I'm a financial numbers guy, I wanted to see it in dollars and percentages.

The analysis is completely assumptive; I have no basis to know exactly how the DCI grant pool is split every year. But I also reversed the regression to attempt to mimic a rational payout structure across all corps in both classes.

Because the analysis is not based in fact, I'll not publish it here. I will, however, make it available to anyone who wants it if you'll PM me your email address. It's in Excel form and, once you understand it's setup you can change the assumption percentages to anything you like. If you want the spreadsheet you must agree not to share it, but instead direct inquiries to me.

Remember: this is completely bogus analysis that has no basis in any verified fact. It is not done to prove any notion of a correct payout structure.

That said, there are some interesting trends visible and, maybe, a few hints in broad general terms that might shed some light on the impact of changing the payout ratio to the two classes.

The analysis uses 2009 data of DCI's payout ($2.3mm) and, from each corps' 2009 990, the "Total Revenue" for that year.

I'll post a clearer understanding of the assumptions, and some general observations, for those not interested in seeing the data...

Merry Christmas everyone!

Edited December 24, 2011 by garfield

[garfield]

My MAKE BELIEVE analysis is best thought of in groups. The groups are:

WC/OC

Top 8 in each, broken down into the top 4, 5 and 6, and 7 and 8.

9 to 15, broken down into 9 to 11, 12 and 13, and 14 and 15

16 to 22 (24 in OC)

Each group gets a percentage payout of its parent group's cut.

The initial assumption is that, in 2009, WC got 95% of the payout pool of $2.3mm, and OC got 5%

In WC, the top 8 split 80% of their cut, 9 to 15 split 20%, and 16 to 23 split 10%

Further, the top 8 split up their 80% such that the top 4 split 55% (of 80%), 5 and 6 split 25% (of 80%), and 7 and 8 slit 20% (of (80%)

In the 9 to 15 group, spots 9 to 11 share 55% (of 20% this time), 12 and 13 share 25% (of 20%), and 14 and 15 split 20% (of 20%).

In places 16 to 22 of WC, the regression is linear such that 16th earns 18% (of 10%) down to 22 which earns 11% (of 10%).

In this example, the top four corps each earned $210,306 from DCI, 5 and 6 each earned $191,188, and 7 and 8 earned $152,950, and on down until position 22 earned $19,288.

Note again that this is all fictitious and has no basis in fact, but the decline in payout per placement looks logical if not necessarily accurate. I fully suspect that someone will be able to prove that these payout numbers and percentages are not even close to the real thing, and I'll stop this silly exercise (or modify it) if that happens. It's all for fun anyway.

The same breakdown is used for OC corps, and the initial assumption is that the class shares 5% of the DCI pool. The income regression seems to make sense (without implying reflecting reality), in that Teal (No. 4) earned $11,069 from the pool and Blue Saints (No. 24) earned $805.

This analysis lets any of these percentage payout numbers be changed, from the top all the way down to individual corps. Again, without claiming accuracy of the breakdown in each class, I wanted to see the change in impact on each corps from the base assumption if the payout sharing between WC and OC were changed.

Finally, I added the 2009 "Total Income" amount from each corps' Form 990 in order to compare these assumptions on a percentage basis.

I'll start some general observations later.

It's off to Grandma's house for Christmas dinner!

Edited December 24, 2011 by garfield

[SFZFAN]

It is funny when a person who cares enough to read through a blog, then cares enough to login, then also cares enough to type in Nobody Cares.

You've got it all wrong - again.... I never read any of the 80000 character posts you "experts" type. I don't think DCI is broken. Besides electronics, I think Drum Corps is doing fine.

[Stu]

You've got it all wrong - again.... I never read any of the 80000 character posts you "experts" type. I don't think DCI is broken. Besides electronics, I think Drum Corps is doing fine.

By the way, Nobody Cares would, by definition, also include your opinion

[danielray]

Besides electronics, I think Drum Corps is doing fine.

I guess it simply comes down to sort of personal philosophy. From a performance and management perspective, it is light years ahead of where it was when I was a kid... it really is incredible the progress that has been made.

But... why stop at incredible?

The continual pursuit of something better, greater, faster, louder, smarter, leaner is at the very core of human nature.

We exist to find the limits in everything we experience.... otherwise, what's the point?

To put in context, I remember as a kid being absolutely obsessed with this...

I could play it for hours and hours at time, starting at simple blinking lines until I could no longer keep my eyes open. It was brilliant in its time... but other than a brief moment of nostalgia, and only for those who experienced it when it was the leading edge, it simply doesn't have that same sense of WOW in the context of the present day.

Drum corps, in reality, has evolved very slowly... because it is older people driving the innovation. If youth were more engaged in the actual programming concepts... providing more input and ideas... the activity would be much further along than it is.

In contrast with other forms of arts and entertainment... those currently driving the creative evolution of the activity are actually pretty old.

It could be interesting to chart the average age of the creative staff of top 12 drum corps from 72 until now.

[danielray]

My MAKE BELIEVE analysis is best thought of in groups. The groups are:

WC/OC

Top 8 in each, broken down into the top 4, 5 and 6, and 7 and 8.

9 to 15, broken down into 9 to 11, 12 and 13, and 14 and 15

16 to 22 (24 in OC)

Each group gets a percentage payout of its parent group's cut.

The initial assumption is that, in 2009, WC got 95% of the payout pool of $2.3mm, and OC got 5%

In WC, the top 8 split 80% of their cut, 9 to 15 split 20%, and 16 to 23 split 10%

Further, the top 8 split up their 80% such that the top 4 split 55% (of 80%), 5 and 6 split 25% (of 80%), and 7 and 8 slit 20% (of (80%)

In the 9 to 15 group, spots 9 to 11 share 55% (of 20% this time), 12 and 13 share 25% (of 20%), and 14 and 15 split 20% (of 20%).

In places 16 to 22 of WC, the regression is linear such that 16th earns 18% (of 10%) down to 22 which earns 11% (of 10%).

In this example, the top four corps each earned $210,306 from DCI, 5 and 6 each earned $191,188, and 7 and 8 earned $152,950, and on down until position 22 earned $19,288.

Note again that this is all fictitious and has no basis in fact, but the decline in payout per placement looks logical if not necessarily accurate. I fully suspect that someone will be able to prove that these payout numbers and percentages are not even close to the real thing, and I'll stop this silly exercise (or modify it) if that happens. It's all for fun anyway.

The same breakdown is used for OC corps, and the initial assumption is that the class shares 5% of the DCI pool. The income regression seems to make sense (without implying reflecting reality), in that Teal (No. 4) earned $11,069 from the pool and Blue Saints (No. 24) earned $805.

This analysis lets any of these percentage payout numbers be changed, from the top all the way down to individual corps. Again, without claiming accuracy of the breakdown in each class, I wanted to see the change in impact on each corps from the base assumption if the payout sharing between WC and OC were changed.

Finally, I added the 2009 "Total Income" amount from each corps' Form 990 in order to compare these assumptions on a percentage basis.

I'll start some general observations later.

It's off to Grandma's house for Christmas dinner!

Charts? :)

[GUARDLING]

if youth were driving it, it would have been out of business long ago. Many youth in the activity can barely keep a commitment financially. Winter programs find alot of youth instructors. They tend to over write, complicate, more trick driven and pretty much clueless. Many think because they have maybe marched lets say PR..BD..cavies..cadets crown or whoever that makes them an instructor.ahhhh no, not close. On the other hand its good to have some youth that show promise on staff but guided by experience. They could have some good ideas to nuture.

Edited December 24, 2011 by GUARDLING

[Stu]

if youth were driving it, it would have been out of business long ago. Many youth in the activity can barely keep a commitment financially. Winter programs find alot of youth instructors. They tend to over write, complicate, more trick driven and pretty much clueless. Many think because they have maybe marched lets say PR..BD..cavies..cadets crown or whoever that makes them an instructor.ahhhh no, not close. On the other hand its good to have some youth that show promise on staff but guided by experience. The could have some good ideas to nuture.

See, this is where the youthful arrogance comes into the picture. Danielray has already discarded words like honor, integrity, morals, ethics (see his earlier postings to confirm that fact). So, it is no surprise that he also discards the *wisdom* gained through age and experience. I will be dead and gone, but it would give me great pleasure to see into the future and observe him getting this thrown back at him by a youngster when he is 50 or 60.