Mello Dude Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Nobody to my knowledge is saying that there are not winners and losers, nor that to the " victors go the spoils "and all that. You go in, you lose. Thats it.. no excuses. Nobody" babysits you" ( whatever the heck this means) What the G7 was doing was to extort the others by in effect saying, "look we won, so we want to game the system in the future so that we advantage ourselves and position ourselves so that you will stay where you are. We'll even try to game the system so that even if you do " win " by qualifying, we'll just nullify that, and try and game it for ourselves nonetheless. To show how committed we are to this extortion scheme, we'll even pick our own hand picked judges for our shows in plum areas and send the other judges to the boondocks small towns to sleep there in a small hotel and then go out to judge ". We'll also take more dough out of the gate receipts returns. Why all this ? Because we say so and because we're "the top acts"the fans come to see and you arn't ". This was got the other Corps upset. Its not so much the losing, its the notion that they thought ( and still think apparently ) that their little self ordained cabal can game the system to their advantage in the future based upon whats happened on the competition field the last few years. Most people respond to fair play. You win, you get the prize, you lose, you don't get what the winners get. But most fair minded people don't accept the premise that by " winning " you now get to hand pick your future judges, recommend the non suppport of other corps, strip away voting rights of those that currently have it, and attempt to take over the operation of DCI in total AND to double their own voting rights from 1 vote to 2 votes, and other extortion demands cooked up in secret behind closed doors. THESE are the things... and its process... that the other DCI Corps objected too, and rightfully so, imo. I would imagine that you have the capacity to distinquish between winning and losing... and all that both entail... and winning and losing with an attempt to game the system for the future by the winners with their own set of future competition structure and judging demands. Thats not fair play. Its frankly indefensible, imo. Mr. Warren at the Cavaliers may be along in years, but even he must be squeamish about his Corps lining up behind such a hideous scheme that used extortion and secret back room dealings and negotiations as its modus operandi. The whole G7 smells to high heaven in even the manner upon which it approached the other Corps in such a hostile, rude and disrespectful manner. Corps it once had a good relationship with... or so it appeared to the others... for upwards of several decades. This is why the Troopers, Boston, Madison, Blue Knights, and ALL the other DCI corps were justifiably disappointed to see a handful of the fellow colleague Corps act in this fashion. They breeched the trust factor and the collegiality within DCI that for years was present despite the competitive nature of the on field competition. I only wish you could appreciate that this is FAR removed from the others being asked to be " babysat " by this small group. Wow, nominated for post of the year! :worthy: :worthy: :worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 They are far too busy running their respective organizations, as are all corps directors, to get involved in the management and operations of DCI. I am of the opinion that very radical change is what is needed to keep this thing together and moving forward. I'm not talking half-hearted compromise, I'm talking full-scale, top to bottom, change in the way things are done, with leadership coming from outside the activity. At this point, there really isn't anything to lose, as if it stays the course... it is dead within a few years. I agree. few if any directors should be on the BOD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Yes DCI really tried and yes they had the connections; but they were unable to convince many 'sports minded' business people to change their attitudes towards the marching activity. The problem is actually within the culture of a society geared, for many many years, to view the marching music activity as a halftime distraction to the real game of football and other so-called real sports. As the marketing director of a company I introduced to DCI said to me, "We want to be associated with the sweat of a football player but not the sweat of a flag twirlier." It worked for Best Buy!!!! IMO, the need to be like sports is an issue. There are tons of sponsors to reach out to that have nothing to do with sports. Look at all of the things needed for tour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 That's one interpretation of what happened. Here's another... Dan was fired, that part is true. If that is what's sticking in the craw of the G7 - that their edict was undone - then I suggest they grow a pair and get over themselves. They apparently didn't realize at that time that the new corporate structure had instilled them with a specific mandate of fiduciary responsibility for the whole activity. Either they didn't realize or remember it, or they just didn't think the other members of the BOD - the O-15 - would have the gumption to trump their edict and reverse their decision. Either way, the almighty decree was invalidated, two members were removed for not facilitating their fiduciary mandate, and two other members resigned in sympathy with the two who were removed. So be it. It's not surprising then to learn that both of the members who left in sympathy are now "on executive staff" at a G7 corps. So be it. If the then leadership had cronies on the BOD who were always going to vote in favor of the two who were removed, then they don't deserve to be on the BOD in the first place. The legal basis for the O-15's action is not some obscure line in the by-laws. Prior to the existing charter, there was no such mandate, but the new one clearly spelled it out. The validity of that mandate was established by legal counsel before the meeting and the O-15 recognized the failing on the part of the then leadership, met in session, and agreed, by a majority vote, that the leadership was not, in fact, living up to the fiduciary mandate. They acted based on the fact that the then-leadership fired the ED with no announced plan for his replacement, effectively leaving the activity leaderless with only the BOD left to guide the activity having announced their intentions in the G7 proposal. The truth came out later that their plan was to install an ex-director of one of their own cabal to lead DCI. The conflict of interest, even without knowing their plan for Dan's replacement, was enough to cause the O-15 to act firmly, on solid ground and with substantial basis and evidence to support their action. THOSE facts, and those alone, are what really pizzez off the 7. It is that fact, that they were trumped and beaten in their own hubris and actions, that causes them to continue in their quest. They just can't get over the fact that these, the best 7 corps in the activity (in their own minds) would be beaten, BEATEN!, by the lowly corps that perpetually languish at the bottom of the competitive scale. The 7 have said so in private many times, to many people. It is not a secret. And what the O-15 did was based totally in legal legitimacy, and with the true best interest of the activity AS A WHOLE. Their actions were based on that responsibility. And the 7 just can't seem to get over the fact that the others disagreed with them. That's another view, but it's just that simple. the best summation I have seen yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 So the real question is why are OC corps not splitting out and forming their own circuit tailored around their own unique needs? It would actually be a larger circuit in terms of numbers than DCI. It does seem more logical for Open Class and some World Class corps to belong to a regional circuit that could be affiliated with or aligned with DCI, but not under the DCI org. This makes more sense than splitting off 7 corps into another circuit and equally addresses all concerned. being aligned with is the way to go. you kow, like DCI Pacific was, DCI Atlantic was.....more than just DCM died off under this slow but sure consolidation/takeover plan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 IMO, the need to be like sports is an issue. There are tons of sponsors to reach out to that have nothing to do with sports. Look at all of the things needed for tour I agree with you that DCI should not focus on sports companies as potential sponsors. The thing is that many, if not most, CEO's and Marketing Directors of For-Profit companies were involved with sports when they were in school not arts; and not only that, their macho character which propelled them to their adult business stature was learned through sports; and more often than not these are the same people who made fun of the geeks in marching band. 'That' is a hard image for DCI to overcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 So, I'm seeing people complain that the TOC shows will get to have their own judges and shows? Isn't that how it was back when there were regional circuits? Didn't DCM, or DCW, or DCS have their own judges for their shows? I don't remember hearing people complain about that much at all. And when people are asked to rank their favorite shows from the history of DCI, which corps end up at the top? SCV, Cadets, BD, Phantom, Madison, etc. I think that kind of says something that they are the ones driving the activity forward. Which were the first corps to adopt Bb? The previous year's champion and 4th place corps. And what happened to corps using G bugles? No one uses them anymore. Maybe the top corps really are the ones who are innovating.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 I agree with you that DCI should not focus on sports companies as potential sponsors. The thing is that many, if not most, CEO's and Marketing Directors of For-Profit companies were involved with sports when they were in school not arts; and not only that, their macho character which propelled them to their adult business stature was learned through sports; and more often than not these are the same people who made fun of the geeks in marching band. 'That' is a hard image for DCI to overcome. Someone call Phil Knight. I know the Oregon band only gets uniforms because the football team is sponsored, but if there is a company out there that seems to go out of their way to help school teams in trouble, it's Nike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 ... more often than not these are the same people who made fun of the geeks in marching band. 'That' is a hard image for DCI to overcome. And yet, one of the things that will mark DCI's (or someone's) triumph as a marketing company will be when they ARE able to convince mainstream audiences how cool drum corps is. The question is whether the drum corps themselves are willing to be partners in the game, by ditching some of the elements that make drum corps geeky (or "Gleeky", if you prefer). Without stepping on too many toes, I hope, can we agree that the men in the guards need to be playing "men", not 'unisex" characters, that the uniform looks, while traditional, don't usually scream "badazz" to a general audience, and that any piece of music that isn't developed with a payoff in mind is probably not going to help in creating a memorable production. DCI's shows are still working through the early 80s impulse to be seen as serious pieces of art rather than just being outdoors entertainment. Not saying you can't be both, but some corps really seem to have a little overly-high view of their artistic abilities. Oh, and no one, under any situation, use the word "pageantry", unless you want to give the band-geek cliche another day of oxygen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Haring Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Among other things. The G7 just wing it primarily based upon what 2 people are pushing. 2 people are primarily flying the G7 plane and are in the cockpit. The others in their small plane are sitting in their seats with an intercom and their seat belts on, as there could be some turbulence up ahead with the small plane. But they trust fully in the pilot and his co pilot. If the small plane is overloaded the two have the authority to drop off one or more of the passengers at the nearest airport and let them fend for themselves there before the two take off in their small plane again. "A priest, a minister and a rabbi are on a small plane, when the plane develops engine trouble and plummets toward the ground. There are only two parachutes..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts