Which will be the First "G-7" to Disown Hopkin's Letter?

[glory]

But he has said these very words to a couple of OC directors and at least 1 WC corps director.

So I believe this is his true feelings, NOT a rough draft.

And yet this recent letter - which some would have us believe came directly from the pen of Hopkins himself - doesn't track to the PPT. There are many elements of the PPT that can't be found or supported in the letter and vice versa. So which is definitive?

I'll answer that question. Neither. Both were meant to provoke discussion. Neither are carved in stone. Neither represent an ultimatum. Both are in fact unique points on an arc of discussion and ultimately compromise. It's gonna be okay (except for all the economics and demographics and natural catastrophe and Ann Hathaway getting married without giving me a shot and ...).

HH

[cixelsyd]

BUT I do think there's a lot that *hasn't* been said as well. Before I'd be willing to say the G7 are bunch of evil, immoral monsters bent on the destruction of DCI, I'd be willing to listen to what they have to say.

That is not the opinion I hold (maybe evil disruptive, immoral unethical monsters elitists bent on the destruction of DCI their own agenda, whatever it does to DCI). But in any case, what could they possibly say that would change the perception their actions and printed words have cast?

"Dan, you know we were just kidding about firing you!"

"That crack about some corps deserving no votes was really meant for Teal and Glassmen only."

"Open class" - (I cannot even make something up for that one)

In all due seriousness, the best I can imagine is what Hopkins has hinted at over the years with references to a smaller league of supercorps - that it is possible these people sincerely believe that the activity can only sustain 7 corps. They could let nature take its course, but nature might select a different 7, so better they act now.

But even if that were true, my description of the 7 as "disruptive, unethical elitists bent on their own agenda, whatever it does to DCI" still holds.

I think it's pretty clear the current DCI model is not sustainable.

Why not? (When answering, you may want to mention what the "DCI model" is.)

Most corps are just a few mishaps away from disaster. Even the apparently secure corps are vulnerable (reference the commercial bingo operation that tried to open in Concord).

If that is true, then those mishaps must be rare. We went for what, over five years without a DCI member corps failing? And most of those years were in a horrible economy.

Corps have operated this way since the beginning of organized competition. Every corps has to raise funds through dues, their share of show revenue, and a plethora of fundraising campaigns from merchandise operations to grants. And as we have seen from the 990s, their is a correlation between spending and placement. The best staffs, the best equipment and the best tours net the best competitive results, generally speaking. Corps push their limits as much financially as they do on the field. Intuition suggests that behavior is not sustainable - but we have had this behavior since the 1920s, and here we are 90 years later. We talk about running drum corps "like a business" - and 90% of businesses fail. Most of our world class drum corps, however, are balancing their ever larger budgets. Maybe sustainability is not the real problem.

Growing this activity does not require supernatural sustainability. All it requires is that the birth rate outpaces the death rate. And that is where the work needs to focus. We are down to nearly zero startups, and open class is evaporating right in front of us. If there is a model that needs fixing, it is in the non-member portion of the DCI activity.

You know it's funny but some of the ideas that get hammered here (ie "don't treat every corps the same") are often put forth by the very same posters but in different words ("maybe not every corps does a full length tour"). In fact many of the G7 tenets of evil have been put forth on DCP in other -- more palatable -- language. So words matter.

Those are not equivalent ideas. There is a HUGE difference between corps choosing how much to tour vs. a ruling class of 7 corps telling everyone else what shows they may or may not enter. Yes, words do matter - that is one example why.

[SFZFAN]

Exactly. All you have is a really bad slideshow (without any of the explanatory narrative) -- not a proposal at all and certainly lacking most of explanatory detail that a true proposal would entail. At it's best, a slideshow (by itself) is a poor communications vehicle.

Watch the first 2 minutes

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=bgWKJPtec4w

with the sound muted. Tell me what you learned.

Now turn on the sound.

Oh.

Now -- do I think that an explanation is going to ameliorate some of what's been written in the G7-PPT slides -- absolutely not. It was a double barrel shotgun blast through their own foot.

In fact I think I shot a pretty decent cannonball of death right through their latest email.

BUT I do think there's a lot that *hasn't* been said as well. Before I'd be willing to say the G7 are bunch of evil, immoral monsters bent on the destruction of DCI, I'd be willing to listen to what they have to say. Not through some half-baked PPT that looks like it was finished in the taxi 5 minutes before the meeting.

So I'm skeptical. Dubious even. But I'm willing to hear what they have to say. Because I'm pretty sure we haven't heard their complete POV.

I also think there were some good ideas in that PPT (for example the TOC experiment).

I think it's pretty clear the current DCI model is not sustainable. Most corps are just a few mishaps away from disaster. Even the apparently secure corps are vulnerable (reference the commercial bingo operation that tried to open in Concord).

I don't think inertia is going to take DCI anywhere but down. "We do things that way because that's what we've always done" just isn't going to work.

You know it's funny but some of the ideas that get hammered here (ie "don't treat every corps the same") are often put forth by the very same posters but in different words ("maybe not every corps does a full length tour"). In fact many of the G7 tenets of evil have been put forth on DCP in other -- more palatable -- language. So words matter. And full, compete ideas matter.

I just find the diatribe on DCP to be counter-productive. I think there's no point to the "greedy, selfish, evil" rant. It leads to lovely statements like "Hopkins is Hitler and the marchers in the G7 corps are Nazis". Hmm... THAT'S accurate, right? Many posters here just repeat what they've read on DCP and then mis-state it some more.

Thus far you are the only one who has implied the "Nazis" inference as far as the marching members are concerned. Pretty pathetic - even for you CB. Nobody has implied that - and they wouldn't. Sad.

Edited January 25, 2013 by SFZFAN

[corpsband]

Thus far you are the only one who has implied the "Nazis" inference as far as the marching members are concerned. Pretty pathetic - even for you CB. Nobody has implied that - and they wouldn't. Sad.

yeah i just made that up.

sad.

It's not that I don't object to the idea of the G7, because I certainly do. My main question is: what about the performers? By not supporting the corps at all, you're not supporting the performers, the members of the corps. Do they deserve any of the blame for what the administration is doing? Are their efforts to put out an excellent product any less valid? This is what is concerning me, not the objection to the G7 (I'm with an Open Class group, so I'm leery of what would happen if they had their way).

I'm sure all the men and women in Hitler's military machine during WWII weren't bad people. Does that mean anyone supports what they did? I'm totally indifferent toward those members. They should understand that their choice to march with one of those corps is going to be met with a certain amount of opposition by the REST of the drum corps activity.

So according to DCP it's ok to demonize: the directors, the corps, and the members.

Nice. <smh>

Who's next? The food truck staff?

Edited January 25, 2013 by corpsband

[charlie1223]

And it is more than clear who (hint it has a 7 in it) has created then driven the current DCI model which is not financially sustainable. Who wanted all national tour all summer thereby increasing costs? The 7; Who wanted to increase the corps size to 150 thereby increasing costs? The 7; Who wanted the electronics and amplification thereby driving up the costs? The 7; need I go on and on and on concerning which 7 have created the competitive expenditure problems within DCI?

Show me where I have ever called Hopkins or Gibbs either Evil or Hitler; you cannot!!! However, what I have posted, and commented on, concerning their selfishness has been directly quoted from their own presentations and philosophical bents. Do you really believe that they really care, I mean really care, about Spirit or Madison Scouts let alone Les Stentors or Racine Scouts?

The way your speaking about G7 it would make people believe that the 7 already had for the past 35 years total control of DCI. None of things would have happened if it wasn't for a large body of support! And DCI is better for having made all those changes! Your lying if you are implying that G7 corps are responsible for years of changes in DCI especially since as its often stated some of the G7 were either not in finals or didn't have as prominent a position when those changes were implemented. When did DCI do national touring?? Was that REALLY a bad idea?? Maybe that has prolonged DCI even with its costs?? Maybe that's why I know about it because they toured all over the country?? And I don't think corps were struggling with costs as much as revenue and poor management according to 990's... Just many things wrong with your generalization.

And I don't think any corps is directly responsible to care for another. DCI should be responsible for their member corps and if you have corps revolting, petitioning, going inactive, and folding... That's a DCI problem not a G7 problem. I do see DCI showing an effort to bring it together but DCI was created and sustained by its members corps and it has responsibility to address every concern of their members.

Edited January 25, 2013 by charlie1223

[BRASSO]

Do I believe they want to see any of those corps fold? No I don't.

The G7 powerpoint presentation called for the elimination of Open Class Corps. The rationale is ( their quoted words from the PP slide itself ) " these Corps provide no real service ". It is what( the architects anyway ) of the G7 proposed, so its not open to conjecture, nor speculation. If some small subset group of DCI corps that has secetly met behind closed doors tells you that they are proposing the elimination of a class of Drum Corps in therir organization, I think you should take them seriously . We know for a fact that the non G7 Corps took this proposal to eliminate Corps from DCI participation very seriously, ultimately leading to a mid term recall on the DCI BOD. I can't explain how someone can come to the conclusion that the G7 does not want " Corps to fold ", when it was right there in their powerpoint presentation as clear as could be.

Edited January 25, 2013 by BRASSO

[BRASSO]

That lousy ppt was a rough draft work-in-process, not a final presentation.

Oh for sure. They have already changed the most fundamental underpinnings of their proposal, ie the very rules for the qualification ( and elimination ) into the G7 itself. So what we can reasonably conclude from this is that its all a series of moveable parts that they can shift arbitrarily and willy nilly... even among themselves. If they can so quickly jettison their own proposal's most basic fundamentals that they cooked up in secret behind closed doors then the message just has to be....... " be dam careful around some in this group ". ( even if you are a G7 Corps that has signed on to previous agreements and understandings made within this 7 ).

Edited January 25, 2013 by BRASSO

[corpsband]

I can't explain how someone can come to the conclusion that the G7 does not want " Corps to fold ", when it was right there in their powerpoint presentation as clear as could be.

Actually it doesn't say anything about folding or dissolving any corps in that PPT.

It *does* say DCI would only administer the open class finals events.

And that's all it says. DCI provides no other services.

Do all corps just merge into a single class?

Do the open class corps manage their own regular season shows?

All unanswered questions which -- if you've read anything I've posted -- is why using the ppt as some sort of comprehensive, definitive guide is just not very useful. It's a mess.

Even so .. it still does not say "fold all open class corps". So your "facts" are (in fact) just assumptions and inferences, not facts at all.

[BRASSO]

And that's all it says. DCI provides no other services.

There can be no conclusion other than the G7 want(ed ) the Open Class Corps to go away. Without DCI providing " no other service " they cease to exist. When someone tells you that a Corps " provides no real service " ( G7 proposal ) then the only rational, reasonable conclusion is that they want these Open Class Corps to disappear... fold... die.... go away.

If you run a business, do you want to keep a worker around anymore that you believe provides " no real service " to your firm or to your customers or clients ? I doubt it. Someone that thinks that you " provide no real service " wants you to fold your tent and disappear. That seems pretty obvious to me anyway.

Edited January 25, 2013 by BRASSO

[corpsband]

There can be no conclusion other than...

. Thats pretty obvious to me anyway.

You're wrong, Brasso. Nothing is obvious or clear about that slide.

You seem to read that slide as "the Open Class corps provide no services to DCI".

When I read that slide I saw "DCI provides no other services to Open Class corps".

Those are two radically different reads.

The ENTIRE PPT is like that. Vague, incomplete, poorly worded.

It raises far more questions than provides answers.