A spending cap, not a "salary" cap

[MikeD]

Actually, Fiedler was arguably not speaking of himself or the Cavaliers, who were in a better position to add new expense (they are the "Joneses", not the others trying to keep up with the Joneses), but of drum corps as a whole, or the poorer corps in particular. ...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So in opposing amplification and other changes, he arguably was "wrong" for himself, but "right" for drum corps overall.

Not at all...he was not speaking for the other corps, unless they elected him to speak for them...he was speaking and voting his own opinion for himself and his corps.

[garfield]

No, it would not be fair, as you are looking to put artifical constraints on some corps while permitting others to operate as they wish.

Hey! Did you just G7 me?

I feel dirty.

:tongue:/>

[MikeD]

Hey! Did you just G7 me?

I feel dirty.

:tongue:/>/>

[corpsband]

Well actually the post you are referring to about BD was mine. And I didn't say rookies. I said if their average age was 18 they would not be champions. I'm saying there is a difference between age levels and rookies with high talent. BD probably has a high percentage of their corps as rook-outs

Duly noted. It would be interesting to graduate Carmel, Avon or Broken Arrow kids right in to BD and see what they could do. I think the results might shock some people. Age does not guarantee maturity. You're probably right but it would be fun to see.

Still stand by the contention that the top-tier corps are just phenomenal at teaching and a very large percentage of their success comes from what's taught in-house, not what's inherited from some prior corps.

Edited February 6, 2013 by corpsband

[MikeN]

Well actually the post you are referring to about BD was mine. And I didn't say rookies. I said if their average age was 18 they would not be champions. I'm saying there is a difference between age levels and rookies with high talent. BD probably has a high percentage of their corps as rook-outs

A few years back I got to talk to the guy who did the Project Persona survey, and helped set up CorpsData. This is a few years ago, but he said every year they'd been tracking it, the corps with the highest average age won the title. Every time.

Mike

[N.E. Brigand]

At this point, corps find it in their best interest of the performers to have those things. The pit kids will not join a corps in DCI that doesn't have microphones and conpetes with other corps who do, and the pit kids now have a preference of what kind if ensemble they want to be in... Guarantee vast majority of marimba players want to miced in their ensembles. Once again not about fans or corps.... But the kids.

I'll concede that this has become a fact of life, with the stipulation that it didn't have to be this way, and that the kids might be doing just fine without amplification if the rules hadn't been changed to permit it, and a reminder that the then-director of the reigning world champions when the rule passed voted against it, and argued as follows:

[...]

Was he wrong?

There is no absolute "right" or "wrong" ... he was right for himself. Just like Hoppy, Gibbs, and those who voted amps, etc. up were right for themselves.

Actually, Fiedler was arguably not speaking of himself or the Cavaliers, who were in a better position to add new expense (they are the "Joneses", not the others trying to keep up with the Joneses), but of drum corps as a whole, or the poorer corps in particular. Here's that quote again:

[...]

So in opposing amplification and other changes, he arguably was "wrong" for himself, but "right" for drum corps overall.

Not at all... he was not speaking for the other corps, unless they elected him to speak for them... he was speaking and voting his own opinion for himself and his corps.

Is there no altruism in drum corps, Mike? Is nobody ever thinking beyond their own corps? Don't the following words...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I spoke in the past (at DCI board meetings, etc....) asking when the activity might put some moratorium or slow-down on constant state of change in the activity that never allows organizations with the potential of challenging the top groups to ever reach that potential, as they are always chasing the ball. Perhaps that was why the founders of the organization originally had the rules process convene every other year, to allow some constancy or "settle" or "catch-up" time....

Consider the financial implications of keeping up with the "Joneses"... Bb instruments, amplification, saxes, 180 members... when does it end, and when do organizations spend more time strengthening their infrastructure, improving their instruction, food, experience for their members?... do we hire the better staff or buy the instruments, do we take more shows and parades and concerts and fundraisers so we can buy these things, or spend more time with quality practice, staff, food, sleep, fun?... what's more important... the generator for the amp or the truck tires?... that's not how the top DCI corps make their decisions, but some hungry, competitively-based organizations are driven to think that way by the nature of how we look and value different yet parallel items in our activity.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

...express concern for corps struggling to "keep up with the Joneses", and weren't the Cavaliers, who at that time were the reigning champions for three years straight, one of the "Joneses" other corps would be struggling to keep up with?

Just because no one "elected" Fiedler to speak for the "non-Joneses" corps doesn't mean that he wasn't thinking of them. And even if he wasn't (I gather he later explained Cavaliers' adoption of amplification with the remark that they weren't going to compete "with one hand tied behind their back", but that doesn't prove anything: if your world is changed by a bad decision you tried to prevent, you then have to live, and try to thrive, in that world), that doesn't mean his words don't apply even better to drum corps as a whole, and the weaker corps in particular, than they did to the Cavaliers!

And thus we're back to my question (which was addressed to everyone): was Fiedler right or wrong, if we apply his comments to drum corps as a whole? Have rule changes required corps to spend ever more money to stay competitive? And is that a bad thing?

I suggest that it may be. Can't a corps be both financially and competitively sound under a given set of rules: doing reasonably well in the standings, while consistently earning a little more money than they spend and slowly growing a rainy-day fund, but simply have shallower pockets than some other corps (who have perhaps a longer but similar history that has left them with a bigger reserve, or who maybe operate in a state where gaming laws make it easier for them to raise funds), and then have a rule passed that requires them to raise more money, which maybe they're not in a position to do, or at least not in the space of a year or two? Suddenly that successful corps is unsuccessful because the rules have changed to increase their expenses. Sure, maybe they could opt not to use the new equipment, or not recruit the additional members, but very probably the judges will reward corps who are using the fancy thingamajigs, or who have the larger corps. One way or the other, they struggle.

At the least, changes perhaps should be made more gradually. How about a five-year lag time allowing corps to make longer-term financial plans for the additional expense: five years from now we need to add $50,000 to our budget for new equipment (or new whatever), so our fundraiser needs to make more calls and take more meetings with potential donors, so we have to hire a temp to handle that person's more mundane tasks, and that will cost us $20,000 per year, and we can't add even that cost to our budget until we... and so on.

This also makes me wonder how thoroughly the corps consider the financial return on these expenses when they are proposed. The increase in membership, some say, was offset by the savings in buses. But others disagree. (Three medium-sized buses are cheaper than three large buses, was the counter-argument, I believe.) Regarding amplification, in another thread, I think someone threw out a figure of about $25,000 to properly amplify the pit. Did each corps thereby see a $25,000 increase in income? If that number is wrong, there is nonetheless some correct figure that had to be balanced. Were the corps not filling up their pits because potential members wouldn't play in unamplified situations--or was that scenario at least looming? Meaning that corps were taking, or would have taken, a $25,000 hit in membership dues? (Fiedler is quoted elsewhere as saying in early 2003 that amplification wasn't necessary--that their members were doing just fine--which may be a counter-factual. One further twist, based on what I've read here, is that it was suggested at the time that amplification would make it cheaper to run corps because fewer instruments would be needed in the pit. That savings doesn't seem to have happened!) Or was it expected that the switch to amplified pits would drive an increase in attendance revenues? Or was it that marimbas and vibraphones were being replaced regularly because they were being struck too hard--and now corps don't have to replace their pit equipment as often?

(Edited to fix a few typos.)

Edited February 6, 2013 by N.E. Brigand

[MikeD]

Is there no altruism in drum corps, Mike? Is nobody ever thinking beyond their own corps? Don't the following words...

I am sure his own view was as stated...but he was speaking his mind with his own POV...and voting for his corps.

Just because no one "elected" Fiedler to speak for the "non-Joneses" corps doesn't mean that he wasn't thinking of them. And even if he wasn't (I gather he later explained Cavaliers' adoption of amplification with a remark that they weren't going to compete "with one hand tied behind their back", but that doesn't prove anything: if your world is changed by a bad decision you tried to prevent, you then have to live, and try to thrive, in that world), that doesn't mean his words don't apply even better to drum corps as a whole and the weaker corps in particular than they did to the Cavaliers!

I never said he was not thinking of them. His statement made it clear that he was considering them as part of explaining his POV. I never said otherwise. I said he was not speaking for them in any official way, and his vote was only a vote for the Cavies.

And thus we're back to my question (which was addressed to everyone): was Fiedler right or wrong, if we apply his comments to drum corps as a whole? Have rule changes required corps to spend ever more money to stay competitive? And is that a bad thing?

IMO he was wrong in his thought and vote, but that is because my view is different from his stated position. But as I also said, for himself he was 'right' in that he voted as he believed. The ones who voted the other way were also 'right', unless they voted in a different way than they believed.

At the least, changes perhaps should be made more gradually. How about a five-year lag time allowing corps to make longer-term financial plans for the additional expense: five years from now we need to add $50,000 to our budget for new equipment (or new whatever), so our fundraiser needs to make more calls and take more meetings with potential donors, so we have to hire a temp to handle that person's more mundane tasks, and that will cost us $20,000 per year, and we can't add even that cost to our budget until we... and so on.

There is nothing to stop the board from doing that if they so choose when they vote on a proposal. In fact, the Div II/III committee delayed multi-key for a year after it was legalized for the 2000 season.

This also makes me wonder how thoroughly the corps consider the financial return on these expenses when they are proposed. The increase in membership, some say, was offset by the savings in buses. But others disagree. (Three medium-sized buses are cheaper than three large buses, was the counter-argument, I believe.)

I think that more than just the above was put in the mix of making the decision on the size increase. Does the increase in dues cover such as discrepancy in bus cost (assuming there is one), plus food costs, uniform costs and instrument costs, if any.

In addition, I would guess that the intangibles come into play after the beans have been counted, for example the desirability of giving more potential members the chance to march in the corps that they want to march with.

Regarding amplification, in another thread, I think someone through out a figure of about $25,000 to properly amplify the pit. Did each corps thereby seen a $25,000 increase in income? If that number is wrong, there is nonetheless some correct figure that had to be balanced. Were the corps not filling up their pits because potential wouldn't play in unamplified situations--or was that scenario at least looming? Meaning that corps were taking or would have taken a $25,000 hit in membership dues? (Fiedler is quoted elsewhere as saying in early 2003 that amplification wasn't necessary, that their members were doing just fine, which may be a counter-factual. One further twist, based on what I've read here, is that it was suggested at the time that amplification would make it cheaper to run corps because fewer instruments would be needed in the pit. That savings doesn't seem to have happened!) Or was it expected that the switch to amplified pits would drive an increase in attendance revenues? Or was it that marimbas and vibraphones were being replaced regularly because they were being struck too hard? And now corps don't have to replace their pit equipment as often?

The fewer instruments is not something I've ever seen as part of the proposals that I read at the time, at least in my rapidly fading recollection. Maybe some people stated such a thing in speaking, but I don't recall it being put forth as one of the justifications in the written proposals.

I recall reading some information from Jeff Lee, BD pit arranger at the time, about the better use of mallets and technique that reduce the wear and tear on the keys with amplification. I see that even with the small band I teach; we can use better mallets and play with less force having micced the marimba and vibes than before. The overall sonority of those instruments is better when playing with instrument-appropriate mallets and using improved technique now that they are micced (just MHO, of course).

[charlie1223]

A few years back I got to talk to the guy who did the Project Persona survey, and helped set up CorpsData. This is a few years ago, but he said every year they'd been tracking it, the corps with the highest average age won the title. Every time.

Mike

Yes I mentioned this stat before it does speak volumes I feel.

[Stu]

It would be interesting to graduate Carmel, Avon or Broken Arrow kids right in to BD and see what they could do. I think the results might shock some people. Age does not guarantee maturity...

I have to disagree with your premise. The difference between older performers in corps like The Cavaliers/Blue Devils and younger high school performers in bands like Carmel/Avon/Broken Arrow is not a 'mental' maturity issue as much as a shear 'physical' maturity issue. While some high school age youth can hack the demands, no way could very many high school youth, of any high school band, pull off the physical demands of everyday rehearsals of The Cavaliers (Gains) drill or the BD (Downey) horn book air movement requirements.

[corpsband]

I have to disagree with your premise. The difference between older performers in corps like The Cavaliers/Blue Devils and younger high school performers in bands like Carmel/Avon/Broken Arrow is not a 'mental' maturity issue as much as a shear 'physical' maturity issue. While some high school age youth can hack the demands, no way could very many high school youth, of any high school band, pull off the physical demands of everyday rehearsals of The Cavaliers (Gains) drill or the BD (Downey) horn book air movement requirements.

I did specify "graduates" of those schools (since Charlie's original premise was 18 yr olds). So I wasn't talking about taking a 15yr HS Freshman. It's an interesting thought experiment. I think the mental aspects would be more challenging. Most HS kids probably aren't prepared for the expectations a top-tier program would have for a performer. I get what you're saying about the physical demands. But performers in top-tier corps have rigorous off-season programs to help prepare performers for the physical demands. Hypothetically they could get them in shape for spring training.

Not making any claims -- I just think it would be very interesting to see what they could do.