Will The G7 Split From DCI?

[Piper]

Casper Troopers for President!

[craiga]

I think what's interesting, is let's play Stu (and other)'s hypothetical game combined with your above scenario (which is also, hypothetically, saying the G7 continue to compete at DCI Championships). Let's say Bluecoats have a series of bad seasons, and place an average of 9th over a four or five years span. Let's take it a bit further, and say their programming becomes not-as-crowdpleasing as well, and the G7 has an organization that has dropped out of the competitive elite AND is does not seem to draw the crowds. G7 moves to 'relegate'* Bluecoats, and extends the invitation to, say, Madison Scouts who in the same period of years has averaged 6th place. Madison refuses. Do the G7 drop Bluecoats, extend an invitation to the next highest placing corps not in MiM, or do they shrug their shoulders, keep Bluecoats in the group and hope Bluecoats rise up and get back on track?

No idea, and obviously this is just an discussion point, but kind of interesting. If the G7 corps assume that a corps consistently hits the placement standards (Top 7 or whatever over a specific numbers of years) will join their group, what happens when other corps don't want to? Boston has shown (supposedly) that there could be at least some faction of directors opposed to the G7 and will stick with DCI regardless of eligibility of performing in the G7.

* for lack of a better team, I'm using verbiage from the English soccer system. For those uninitiated, relegation in european soccer occurs each year when the lowest placing couple of corps in the top league get put into the next highest league, while the highest placing teams move up to the next highest league. That would mean that, say, in 2012 Pioneer would be relegated to Open Class and the winning OC corps is promoted to WC: if Pioneer wins OC the next season they will move back to WC and the last place place WC corps will be relegated to OC.

Since we don't know exactly what happened behind the scenes, I think it's impossible to really say for sure. You're hypothesis above could be accurate: maybe it was more BAC drawing a line in the stand, publicly showing their support of DCI and rejection of the G7 ideals. Maybe Boston is hesitant to get involved without a strong proof of concept. I.e. "we don't want to invest in the money of starting this organization, and the BAC director doesn't want to invest the time needed to to his share of starting this all up: if/when it is off the ground, proven to be profitable, and the hard work is ironed up we'll be more willing to participate." We might never know what the situation really is between Boston & the MiM.

Perc2100, I realize that you are obviously a supporter of the G7, as your many posts indicate. You have a right to your opinion and I respect that opinion as much as any other. Having said that, it is disingenuous to keep perpetuating the myth that these G7 directors magnaminously opened their doors to Boston (or Madison, for that matter).

I personally have posted here and on two other threads the fact that there was no such offer. The G7 are, in fact, incorporated as a group of seven....regardless of the DCI finals placement. You have had over the past week independent confirmation from the Madison director (in the unanswered questions thread by thirdcoast), confirmation by Colts' website, and public filings for Music in Motion in California.

I understand the need for some people to continue to throw dust in the air by suggesting that "maybe Boston said no", or "maybe Madison said no", but how long will this go on?

There are some people here on dcp who are either in complete denial, or are actually allied with the G7 and are blatantly playing for time.

When the G7 actually DO leave DCI in 2014, what will you folks say then? Finally, it should be clear by now that they do not aim to start their own "drum corps circuit"....rather, their aim is to to their own "music and visual performance activity".

The sooner folks realize this, the sooner we can all get back to the legitimate activity of drum corps, which continues to be supported at all levels by Drum Corps International.

[Fred Windish]

Several posters are touching upon where I think this will lead, and why.

It's ALWAYS been the highest placing, most powerful, well-financed, biggest staff, etc., groups that propose significant changes for the activity each year. Be that voice, amps, woodwinds, etc. The same, capable groups also utilize massive props,sets, and elaborate uniforms that change often. They advance forward (even away) because they CAN. This will lead to a product different than what is presented at this time. That will happen when the elite group gains enough confidence. The coming season provides a little more time.

I'm open to all this. It's a natural progression. Everyone will adapt.

Edited December 1, 2012 by Fred Windish

[soccerguy315]

I know this has been alluded to on here, but I don't know that anyone has linked to actual evidence. However, the minutes from the Colts Oct 7 minutes (available on their website) state: "DCI report – G7 is now a non-profit, incorporated entity; G7 shows with only their corps now being scheduled."

And so as Jeff has recommended many times, I decided to search out the incorporation information. Turned out to be way easier than I expected. The site is not set up to be linked to directly, but to see for yourself, go to the California Secretary of State business search page choose "Corporation Name", enter "Music in Motion", and click "Search". The third item I see is "Music in Motion Performing Arts, Inc", Entity ID# C3470349, incorporation papers filed on April 19, 2012, and the "Agent for Service of Process" is David Gibbs.

The address listed is 4065 Nelson Ave, Concord, CA, which is also the Blue Devils' organizational address.

The April 19 date is significant, as I believe that came right after the "DCI Next" proposal Garfield has detailed in this or other threads which proposed a number of changes designed to bring the G7 and the rest of DCI together. My evidence for this is that the DCI Next proposal was referenced (in particular as a proposal to merge Open and World classes) in the Colts' April 28, 2012 minutes--also posted online.

good info

[ranintothedoor]

I know this has been alluded to on here, but I don't know that anyone has linked to actual evidence. However, the minutes from the Colts Oct 7 minutes (available on their website) state: "DCI report – G7 is now a non-profit, incorporated entity; G7 shows with only their corps now being scheduled."

And so as Jeff has recommended many times, I decided to search out the incorporation information. Turned out to be way easier than I expected. The site is not set up to be linked to directly, but to see for yourself, go to the California Secretary of State business search page choose "Corporation Name", enter "Music in Motion", and click "Search". The third item I see is "Music in Motion Performing Arts, Inc", Entity ID# C3470349, incorporation papers filed on April 19, 2012, and the "Agent for Service of Process" is David Gibbs.

The address listed is 4065 Nelson Ave, Concord, CA, which is also the Blue Devils' organizational address.

The April 19 date is significant, as I believe that came right after the "DCI Next" proposal Garfield has detailed in this or other threads which proposed a number of changes designed to bring the G7 and the rest of DCI together. My evidence for this is that the DCI Next proposal was referenced (in particular as a proposal to merge Open and World classes) in the Colts' April 28, 2012 minutes--also posted online.

Thank you skywhopper... since this thread is 50 pages long, I think we should start a new thread and begin with this info (Maybe "Will The G7 Split From DCI: Part Dos"). I don't know how significant a find this really is, but for me it cemented the fact that, yes, this really is going to happen.

Personally, I am intrigued by the idea of the visual/musical art extravaganza thing, but not at the expense of DCI and its member corps... there's room for both and a working relationship. But I really think G7 dissed the rest of the corps with the way they went about it all... apparently trying to force their vision onto the little guys who either like the way things are or don't have the financial gumption to take the step that the G7 wants to take. :-/

[HockeyDad]

When the G7 actually DO leave DCI in 2014, what will you folks say then?

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, fellas !!

[HockeyDad]

Several posters are touching upon where I think this will lead, and why.

It's ALWAYS been the highest placing, most powerful, well-financed, biggest staff, etc., groups that propose significant changes for the activity each year. Be that voice, amps, woodwinds, etc. The same, capable groups also utilize massive props,sets, and elaborate uniforms that change often. They advance forward (even away) because they CAN. This will lead to a product different than what is presented at this time. That will happen when the elite group gains enough confidence. The coming season provides a little more time.

I'm open to all this. It's a natural progression. Everyone will adapt.

Wait. What? Hey, Fred, we already have a Mike D on this forum. We're good at one.

[loopin' froot loops]

Being honest, I don't have the time to go through and read all 50 of the previous pages, so my apologies if this has been brought up already.

If they do indeed completely break away from DCI (no regionals, joint shows, championships, nothing), What're the odds they make their own age limit & extend it to say, 25 or 30? Or even no age limit whatsoever? If this happened, would you come out of age-out "retirement" to march again in the G-7 circuit?

[HockeyDad]

I know I've said this before, but, what is it with this one foot in and one foot out game they're playing? MAN up and leave DCI, and go your own way if you're going to. This long protracted divorce is ridiculous. Dan has bent over backwards for you, even handing you your own shows, at the expense of the other corps. Enough. In 1971 your predecessors had the courage of their convictions to make a clean break and start their own circuit. What is your problem?

Edited December 1, 2012 by HockeyDad

[Grandpa]

When the G7 actually DO leave DCI in 2014, what will you folks say then?

As much as I have always loved SCV - and depending on what DCI does in response to the move, I will be a lot more interested in supporting DCI than I am at the moment.