Mello Dude Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Your talking about staff salaries as being the MAIN contributor to spending money on a show? Are you talking about props? Or instruments? Because there are a lot of aspects that go into "the show". I imagine you're talking about a Salary cap mostly. Creativity is a commodity and yes you need to pay up for creative thinkers. Those creative thinkers are providing a service and frankly may STOP providing that service if there is cap on how much a corps can pay them for their creativity. And while I'll hear the likely argument that "having constraint leads to more creativity"... well sure but what kind of quality are you looking for? Drum Corps is not about creativity as much as it is about QUALITY. And that costs money and what can drive corps to be financially solvent and strong than the rewards that having money can bring... more quality. The drum corps game is changing because the fans and members are expecting MORE and so is the rest of DCI's potential consumer base... Corps need to stay relevant in today's world and I think that when you restrict these things for the sake of some ideal goal that all corps should spend the same amount on a show it severely hampers their growth and flexibility to be competitive not just on the field but out in the high paced world. Actually more than all that, Drum Corps is a competitive activity. If corps are not perceived as "equal" under the rules how do we make that happen? There are already rules that "limit" flexibility (show time, limited instrumentation etc). Could you please elaborate on staying "relevant" and what that means. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Windish Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 No, I'm not talking about any category of spending at all. I don't propose limiting what any corps spends on any category, but I am talking about limiting TOTAL program service spending. So, is creativity expanded by spending or not? Creativity has NO relationship to spending. There are plenty of ignored street people who do great art, just because. To think giving someone a higher salary guarantees greater quality is foolish. When the provider controls the purchaser, the purchaser loses something. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I'm all for quality, charlie. I recognize it, and I buy it. Consider this. The creative types in marching music have their place. They provide a service (to varying degree) and should be paid. However, if the escalation of their compensation has become a problem, it needs to be changed. It needs to become less a problem. They can peddle their greatness to some OTHER marching music demand for service, if needed. Not sure I follow you... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 How so? Your last paragraph helps show why your comparison does not work. No one is even suggesting that larger symphonies be forced to cut back. The only reason I can even imagine that happening would be if professional symphonies had an organized league that sanctions a season of symphony contests culminating in a national symphony championship. (Of course, if that were the case, then your comparison might have relevance.) Well I guess if you can't comprehend what an analogy is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mello Dude Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Well I guess if you can't comprehend what an analogy is... :rolleyes:/> Analogy Actually I think that's his point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) Actually more than all that, Drum Corps is a competitive activity. If corps are not perceived as "equal" under the rules how do we make that happen? There are already rules that "limit" flexibility (show time, limited instrumentation etc). Could you please elaborate on staying "relevant" and what that means. How do we manage to disagree on EVERYTHING? Every wonder? That's pretty incredible! Corps are equal on the field and under rules. There is nothing on the sheets or the way that judges judge that show otherwise. There is usually every year a wide consensus that the judges "get it right" (at-least to the extent where no one thinks a 12th place corps should have won 1st). So maybe you want to explain how there is a perception that corps are not equal under the rules? There are rules that limit flexibility. And you hear almost every year changes/proposals to those rules to be more flexible. By staying "relevant" I mean being able to compete for the attention of the nations youth. Even if ALL the fans over 21 love drum corps for what it is in 2013... it won't matter if the incoming generation of young children don't find a spark of interest. And what interests them is always changing especially with all they are exposed to... And what about the college students? DCI's main group? They are being given even more opportunities than ever before and DCI can't afford to be on the tail end of making a Drum Corps experience worth it. What's it going to attract college student in 10 years? Better staff? Higher Prestige? I think DCI understands this and I don't mean to say DCI isn't relevant now... Did people know that a vast majority of DCI participants would be Music Majors? What will be the next demographic shift? I'm just saying that I think the big picture competition in terms of DCI's continued and sustained relevance to future youth is more pressing than the competitive limitations of today. I don't think Drum Corps can be as timeless as "Baseball". Edited February 6, 2013 by charlie1223 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Personally I think the whole idea about this extra fee for switching corps is really stupid anyway... to be blunt. I agree. And to be more blunt, it smacks more of "corps A is unable to balance their budget, manage their budget, attract highly talented members, put together a high-achieving staff, and/or clean a talented corps trying to perfect a high-achieving show design. So lets penalize a corps who CAN do all of that in order to try to foster competitive balance and to make-up for corps A's lack of competence." Yes, this is coming from someone who never marched a World Championship-winning corps, who didn't have desires (or money) to march one, had a blast and learned a lot marching in the corps I did march, is a Cleveland and San Diego pro-sports fan, and hates the Yankees to boot But I understand that some corps/staffs/teams have what it takes (both talent and financial-wise) and some don't. Such is the balance of a competitive world. Putting a luxury tax hasn't brought parity to baseball, and conversely giving a team $150 - $200 million payroll doesn't guarantee a competitive edge (right Philly and Angels fans?! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickhaltsforlife Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I agree. And to be more blunt, it smacks more of "corps A is unable to balance their budget, manage their budget, attract highly talented members, put together a high-achieving staff, and/or clean a talented corps trying to perfect a high-achieving show design. So lets penalize a corps who CAN do all of that in order to try to foster competitive balance and to make-up for corps A's lack of competence." Yes, this is coming from someone who never marched a World Championship-winning corps, who didn't have desires (or money) to march one, had a blast and learned a lot marching in the corps I did march, is a Cleveland and San Diego pro-sports fan, and hates the Yankees to boot But I understand that some corps/staffs/teams have what it takes (both talent and financial-wise) and some don't. Such is the balance of a competitive world. Putting a luxury tax hasn't brought parity to baseball, and conversely giving a team $150 - $200 million payroll doesn't guarantee a competitive edge (right Philly and Angels fans?! ) Don't rub it in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Windish Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Not sure I follow you... Charlie, Let's assume for this discussion, you are a provider of creative excellence (in your opinion) to any drum corps who does what you know best, and can provide. You, charlie, only have as much value as someone is willing to pay. You can be an absolute genius, but your value is only what the market will bear. If drum corps are only willing to pay less, and you are unhappy, your only response is to accept less, or sell your product to someone else. The vendor must never control the purchaser. If they do, we are slaves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Been lurking over this threa like a troll, watching the comments, and I wonder... Many of the rebuttal comments center on the perceived unfairness of limiting the creativity of the bigger corps just because the smaller corps are (terrible managers, incompetent, on a different path, idiots, whatever), but... By making this statement, isn't one confirming that creativity and, hence, the ability to win under sheets that reward creativity, is, in fact, linked to dollars spent? Is the activity reduced ONLY to creativity via spending? If each corps were limited to spending $750,000 per season on their show, therefore, they would not be as creative? Aren't you making the case that spending = creativity? While I haven't trudged through this whole thread, most of the rebuttals aren't necessarily of the "money = creativity" variety. It's more of a "this is a stupid idea BECAUSE money does NOT = creativity" variety. Besides the fact that the largest chunks of a corps' annual operating budget has more to do with transporting and feeding members day-day, limiting spending does nothing other than limiting spending: it won't magically make Pioneer competitive with Blue Devils if they try to spend as much as Blue Devils. There have been corps over the years who do indeed over-spend on designers and Caption Heads in the hopes that designer & instructor X will attract higher-achieving members with will = better placement and even higher-achieving members next year! Some corps have had moderately better success with this than others, but often the story ends the same: corps over-spends, has to either cut massively back in the near future or flat-out folds for ever. I think this has more to do with poor directors who mis-manage a budget and don't know how to properly run an organization. It has more to do with a corps who can't really manage a budget not being able to magically manage a budget when he has more money. Of course, the kind of ironic thing is in the case above, if every DCI corps decided "we're not paying anyone more than X amount of money for salary," then maybe things would be a little bit different for some corps. But corps don't fold because they over-pay a staff: that is more a symptom of a HUGE problem of a corps management team being unable to manage finances, and unfortunately that will likely happen regardless of a spending cap. 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.