G7 Update

[ShortAndFast]

The email feels like an ultimatum.

But, could it have been...

an olive branch?

If the 7 want to extend an olive branch, I think they are self-aware enough to know that Hop's the wrong guy to do so. If anyone other than G1 & G2 started talking, I'd take that as a positive sign that compromise is possible and desired.

[corpsband]

BTW, your epiphany that the judges would be choosing the BOD was, without doubt, the most profound idea that has emerged from this thread.

The email makes sense coming from guys who've spent their lives competing in what is -- at heart - a creative art form. No business would ever put their 'creatives' in a spot where they can actually control the purse strings. But (for historical reasons) it's where DCI finds itself. It's a bunch of artistic folks having a big argument over the organization that governs their art ! Why that's shocking to anyone I can't imagine. The fundamental question is how should DCI envision itself. IMO the G7 is right about one thing: DCI need to stop doing things because of organizational inertial. They want things to change. That's not a bad thing. Unfortunately the personalities involved have made getting there pretty difficult. Getting people to act rationally in a situation where they're heavily invested emotionally is not going to be easy.

It's certainly not easy here on DCP. Take the formation of the Music in Motion corporation. Everyone ($1 to she who must not be named) here sees it as a smoking gun -- proof that the G7 plan to secede. Well... there's a pretty good reason for creating that organization. If the MiM shows are going to execute facility contracts, sell tickets, collect revenue, disperse funds, etc... it's probably NOT a good idea to just run it out of a shoebox and an excel spreadsheet. So -- there's a *rational* reason for creating the corp.

As I said in my recent post, why has DCI allowed the TOC and MiM shows to go forward? Could the answer be to see if the claims the G7 were making can be validated?

[kickhaltsforlife]

Here's a thought.

The 990's clearly show that some corps seem perfectly comfortable doing the same things, with the same money, no growth, no advancement in placement for years on end.

Could the email, and this whole G7 "thing", simply be an outward expression of exasperation on the part of the 7. A display of true, honest exasperation that some corps seem never to advance? Their shows, their balance sheets, their drain on resources?

Put yourself in Dave Gibbs or Hop's or Valenzuela's shoes for just a second. Wouldn't you be befuddled by the desire of so many directors that the activity advances but so little evidence that their corps "advance" (financially, performance, placement, etc)?

Wouldn't you become frustrated, too, especially when you've done things that actually advance your own organization?

Maybe the beginnings of being positive starts with standing in their shoes.

What are they so exasperated about? I don't really know what you are trying to say? Or I'm just having a hard time standing in their shoes and feeling exasperated?

Some of the G7 are not in the most comfortable position financially. I don't think any but a small handful might actually be comfortable.

I just think there needs to be more business dialogue going on at the Januals. Maybe the whole eentertainment thing was the wrong thing to focus on in recent years. Yeah it can only help things. But being financially sound, making smart business decisions will make more of a difference for this activity than anything that happens on the field. Maybe we all... fans, corps directors, everyone need to grow up and truly come to this realization and do something about it.

You can do Angels and Demons or Cabaret Voltaire or Spartacus and wow the crowd, and win it all. But if you aren't making sound business decisions, you aren't doing much to further the activity.

[garfield]

I think we have a right to be upset.

It is what looks like a greedy power grab by what is a lot of fans favorite corps.

They think they deserve more money and more say than the other corps.

I don't agree with that at all.

I don't agree with the way DCI is being ran right now either.

Change needs to happen.

The G7 solution is not the change I want to see happen. Especially since they dont even know what to do!

Instead of deciding whether or not to go do your own thing.. stay together and work together to figure this thing out.

OR EVEN BETTER

Find willing real business people to figure this thing out! There are some great ones in the activity, and I'm sure there are ones from outside the activity who might have some really good ideas.

Just do something!

But the whole G7 thing is just the wrong way to go about it. And it does say some about the character of some of the leaders of these corps. My tubas are bigger than yours....

OK, here's a good example. I don't disagree with your sentiments, but what positive outcome is the result of your post?

If you were in the negotiating room and spouted your disdain for the other side's proposal, isn't it incumbent on you to propose a compromise?

Neither side will get all that they want. There has to be wiggle room.

We know what we don't want and like.

Where's the ulterior proposition?

[garfield]

[/size]

The email makes sense coming from guys who've spent their lives competing in what is -- at heart - a creative art form. No business would ever put their 'creatives' in a spot where they can actually control the purse strings. But (for historical reasons) it's where DCI finds itself. It's a bunch of artistic folks having a big argument over the organization that governs their art ! Why that's shocking to anyone I can't imagine. The fundamental question is how should DCI envision itself. IMO the G7 is right about one thing: DCI need to stop doing things because of organizational inertial. They want things to change. That's not a bad thing. Unfortunately the personalities involved have made getting there pretty difficult. Getting people to act rationally in a situation where they're heavily invested emotionally is not going to be easy.

It's certainly not easy here on DCP. Take the formation of the Music in Motion corporation. Everyone ($1 to she who must not be named) here sees it as a smoking gun -- proof that the G7 plan to secede. Well... there's a pretty good reason for creating that organization. If the MiM shows are going to execute facility contracts, sell tickets, collect revenue, disperse funds, etc... it's probably NOT a good idea to just run it out of a shoebox and an excel spreadsheet. So -- there's a *rational* reason for creating the corp.

As I said in my recent post, why has DCI allowed the TOC and MiM shows to go forward? Could the answer be to see if the claims the G7 were making can be validated?

It is surely not easy here on DCP because we have such little information. I blame both sides for that although I understand it's proper business protocol.

DCI allowing the TOC shows is, in fact, an olive branch, as was the 7's allowing an 8th to be included in the compromise 3 years ago.

I think there is a desire to reach a compromise on the part of all parties because their past actions have demonstrated so.

[garfield]

What are they so exasperated about? I don't really know what you are trying to say? Or I'm just having a hard time standing in their shoes and feeling exasperated?

Some of the G7 are not in the most comfortable position financially. I don't think any but a small handful might actually be comfortable.

I just think there needs to be more business dialogue going on at the Januals. Maybe the whole eentertainment thing was the wrong thing to focus on in recent years. Yeah it can only help things. But being financially sound, making smart business decisions will make more of a difference for this activity than anything that happens on the field. Maybe we all... fans, corps directors, everyone need to grow up and truly come to this realization and do something about it.

You can do Angels and Demons or Cabaret Voltaire or Spartacus and wow the crowd, and win it all. But if you aren't making sound business decisions, you aren't doing much to further the activity.

Hey, let's face facts: MANY of the O13 are not in the most comfortable financial position either! Isn't that a commonality among all corps? Even the ones that appear flush - BD, SCV, Cadets - are worried that their 30 years of hard work is threatened by corps directors that seem comfortable being in a tenable financial position. Waiting. Waiting. Doing the same shows year after year. Finishing in the same place. Not building a balance sheet. Surely, the 990's exposed this for all to see!

I can surely understand that 3 of the 7 feel threatened.

Shouldn't we recognize their fears, get past our presumptions of a power-grab, and find a way to address ALL of their fears instead of blaming them for protecting their turf?

[garfield]

What are they so exasperated about? I don't really know what you are trying to say? Or I'm just having a hard time standing in their shoes and feeling exasperated?

Some of the G7 are not in the most comfortable position financially. I don't think any but a small handful might actually be comfortable.

I just think there needs to be more business dialogue going on at the Januals. Maybe the whole eentertainment thing was the wrong thing to focus on in recent years. Yeah it can only help things. But being financially sound, making smart business decisions will make more of a difference for this activity than anything that happens on the field. Maybe we all... fans, corps directors, everyone need to grow up and truly come to this realization and do something about it.

You can do Angels and Demons or Cabaret Voltaire or Spartacus and wow the crowd, and win it all. But if you aren't making sound business decisions, you aren't doing much to further the activity.

I'm stunned by the bolded above. When you stand in the shoes of BD, SCV, and Cadets (clearly, the most financially "sound" of all corps) isn't this EXACTLY what they've been saying?

See, there's room for compromise if we can get past our anger at their methods.

So maybe a more refined businessman would not let their frustration drive their comments, but that doesn't negate their feelings.

Corpsband touched on it: Emotion. Wouldn't you be emotional if the subject of your entire life's work was threatened by others that you can't control, but claim control over you?

[garfield]

Don't misunderstand my apparent change of heart of this issue. There is none. I disdain Hop being the spokesman of the 7. HE'S NOT QUALIFIED to be a spokesman simply because he enjoys being the center of attention as the lightening rod way too much. But I have equal disdain for Gibbs and Fiedler for standing in the shadows and letting HOP be the target, too.

I respect Surf, and Pacific Crest, and Mandarins. I think they each have demonstrated qualities of improvement - financially, show production-wise, fan-friendly, quietly growing their asset strength if even in the shadows. I respect Cascades for their determination to save an old, respected brand. I respect Oregon Crusaders for their willingness, in the face of a marginal balance sheet, to leap into WC.

But let's stand in the G7's shoes. Pio has done a good job of surviving, but what have they done to advance the activity? What about Blue Knights? Colts? All the others? Are they advancing the activity or are they better characterized as "marking time"?

There was a post here (that I remember attacking) that lauded the brutal honesty of the G7's contentions. So let's be brutally honest and stand in G7 shoes. Who is advancing the activity and who is marking time? Is the director of Blue Knights any more appropriate a leader/spokesman than Hop is?

(This line of blathering feels very uncomfortable to me, personally. But maybe it's time we all stepped out of our comfort zones and addressed the issues of all of the directors, not just our favorites.)

[barigirl78]

Who is advancing the activity and who is marking time? Is the director of Blue Knights any more appropriate a leader/spokesman than Hop is?

Define "advancing the activity".

Do you mean "increasing attendance"?

Do you mean making it more popular so that finals can be on national TV like it was in the past?

Do you mean more participation so that more young people can benefit from DCI experience?

Do you mean better financials?

I suspect that if you ask different people--fans, directors--you are going to get a different answer. Thus, it makes it hard to answer your question.

I take a more populist approach to this. Thirty-five corps marched in prelims last year. Even if you assume that the top 7 had 150 members and the remaining 28 averaged 100 members, that means 73% of the people who COMPETED IN THE ACTIVITY and paid dues to do so, were not in a G7 corps.

So, why should the G7 know what's good for the majority of paying members? I would say a corps near the middle like the Blue Knights can more easily see the perspectives of every drum corps.

[garfield]

Define "advancing the activity".

Do you mean "increasing attendance"?

Do you mean making it more popular so that finals can be on national TV like it was in the past?

Do you mean more participation so that more young people can benefit from DCI experience?

Do you mean better financials?

I suspect that if you ask different people--fans, directors--you are going to get a different answer. Thus, it makes it hard to answer your question.

I take a more populist approach to this. Thirty-five corps marched in prelims last year. Even if you assume that the top 7 had 150 members and the remaining 28 averaged 100 members, that means 73% of the people who COMPETED IN THE ACTIVITY and paid dues to do so, were not in a G7 corps.

So, why should the G7 know what's good for the majority of paying members? I would say a corps near the middle like the Blue Knights can more easily see the perspectives of every drum corps.

Yes, you make good points, and I like your perspective on Mark Arnold.

I don't think how I define "advance" is what's pertinent. How the 7 define it is. And I suspect their definition centers more on placement than anything else, followed by financial stability, followed by creating, developing, and presenting new ways to spread access to the activity.

But I don't know for sure because, ######, THEY DON'T TELL US!

So, if each corps was asked in the meeting to stand up and verbally demonstrate what they each has done to "advance" the activity, in their own descriptions, what would they say?