Slingerland Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Cixsy, there are simply no successful business models that embrace your utopian ideal in which every product, when there is a huge range of disparate design, construction and componentry, is promoted by the company that sells it equally. But I can give you dozens of examples of leagues, corporations, etc, etc, who clearly demarcate their products into different leagues and brands. Honda, Toyota, GM, Ford and several others all have different brands for their products that allow them to identify them clearly to the public. Each brand gets its own marketing budgets and their own positioning statements in the marketplace, and has messaging designed to sell the key elements of the brand. DCI right now has no such clear delimiting factors that could be easily understood by potential audience members, and as a result, people who don't know any better are not being told that the activity itself understands that there are differing levels of expertise and expectation. Sorry if the real world offends you so much . Edited March 1, 2013 by Slingerland 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Good for him. And for Glenn Kotche, Al Chez, and any number of other people who did drum corps and are now making a living with their skills. None of that supports your overall position - that androgyny is somehow a big attraction for mainstream audiences. It's not (and if you look at Marilyn Manson's sales figures, the last release sold about 5% of what they did 15 years ago - not generally a sign of a growing constituency). If you're into androgyny as a concept, cool, whatever floats your boat, but it's kind of goofy to think that your personal tastes are mainstream when the information out there indicates otherwise. I am not into androgyny; but neither my artistic taste nor yours is the point. Even if Manson's sales have dropped, all you have to do is look at Manson's ticket sales 'today', along with Manson's fan base 'today', and they are still way, way, way grater than any drum corps show ever was or is. So your contention that eliminating androgyny from a corps programing will make it more viable in increasing a fan base is downright erroneous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 I am not into androgyny; but neither my artistic taste nor yours is the point. Even if Manson's sales have dropped, all you have to do is look at Manson's ticket sales 'today', along with Manson's fan base 'today', and they are still way, way, way grater than any drum corps show ever was or is. Only useful if you compare Manson's ticket sales to other similar acts (rock performers). From that standpoint, Springsteen still cleans everyone's clock, and his persona, while not being a macho posturer, is decidedly "guyish." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) How is it criticizing kids to point out, logically, that 15-16 year old kids probably shouldn't be competing with groups composed of primarily university, many of them music majors? First of all, because it isn't a sport. You don't have 15-16 year old football players being physically mauled by 21 year old football players. So your strawman is ridiculous. Just because you use the word "logically" doesn't make it so. Secondly, the fact that this activity has apparently become the playground of music majors, many of whom statistically have futures that likely involve asking me if I want fries with that, is in no way impressive. This activity has become too lock-step, too one-acceptable-way only, too up in it's own arse in snobbery, to see how disfunctional everything is. Do you think BD 2012 would have more appeal to a "general public" compared to Jersy Surf? BD 2012 had little appeal to those of us who follow drum corps. The silence after their shows last summer was very telling. But...bury your head in the sand and repeat your mantra and maybe this will all go away. Edited March 1, 2013 by HockeyDad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 How is it criticizing kids to point out, logically, that 15-16 year old kids probably shouldn't be competing with groups composed of primarily university, many of them music majors? Try telling that to the High School Bass Drummer who helped Regiment win the Sanford Trophy!!!! Or to the many High School kids who have been in the Cadets, BD A corps, etc... when they won their rings. Ohhhhh, you must be speaking of just the so-called low-life non-seven corps who have 15-16 year-olds and 'they' should not be allowed to compete with the glorious seven; sorry about that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Only useful if you compare Manson's ticket sales to other similar acts (rock performers). From that standpoint, Springsteen still cleans everyone's clock, and his persona, while not being a macho posturer, is decidedly "guyish." Nope; to avoid comparing Marylin Manson's, or Justin Bieber's for that matter, ticket sales to DCI ticket sales is flat avoiding and manipulating your contention that androgyny should be removed in a corps performance to increase drum corps ticket sales within a wider range of audience. And here is a question for ya: Since you brought up Springsteen being guyish, male corps performers following the lead of Springsteen by putting on torn shirts and tight pants to, um, 'emphasize something' in a guyish manner like he does is therefore ok with you? Edited March 1, 2013 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Cixsy, there are simply no successful business models that embrace your utopian ideal in which every product, when there is a huge range of disparate design, construction and componentry, is promoted by the company that sells it equally. Never said that, Slingy. But I can give you dozens of examples of leagues, corporations, etc, etc, who clearly demarcate their products into different leagues and brands.Honda, Toyota, GM, Ford and several others all have different brands for their products that allow them to identify them clearly to the public. Each brand gets its own marketing budgets and their own positioning statements in the marketplace, and has messaging designed to sell the key elements of the brand. You call that clear? I cannot tell anything from those car model names. Like everyone else, I have to look at the features/prices to find what I am looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Soundsport and Drumline were hardly announced to the world they day they came up with the idea not what I meant. And neither was TOC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Not necessarily. There are many existing groups that could do SoundSport. No, the fan voting was completely separate from the judging process. Unless it figures into the official contest results, it is not part of the judging process. By your definition, a thread here on DCP could be part of the judging process. Okay true, some already existing groups could be in SoundSport but they would still need to sign up and register. Again I honestly think it's a game of semantics. It's like a virtual reality ride about going into a time machine saying "Be a part of history!"... I mean it may have been poor word choice but I don't think that the SUMMARY of a PROPOSAL is any indication of what was ACTUALLY going to be done. The proposal clearly states that they were going for a text message voting procedure and it don't think it says anything about it influencing an "official" score. So, stop scrutinizing the writing of a journalist and splitting hairs with "being a part of the judging process"... I think you only want to see it one way. Edited March 1, 2013 by charlie1223 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) . No one has brought it up, but part of the re-alignment should include genuine changes to the judging standards that would de-emphasize design and re-emphasize performance and actual effect vis a vis audience response. I agree with you on this as a matter of fact. I am finding that increasingly it is the STAFFS ... not the marching performers on the field in competition.... that are being judged now in competition. For example,I don't believe for a second that the performing marchers of the Cavaliers of 2012 were any less able to play their instruments, toss their flags, etc or march their show with THAT much less ability than of the 2011 Cavaliers. Nor do I believe for a second that the 2009 Phantom Regiment performing marchers were any less able to play their instruments, toss their flags, etc than that of the Phantom Regiment that won DCI the year before. The difference in the talent level and execution level of the marchers was not THAT stark to allow such a one year placement slide. So what was the reason ? I believe it was " Show Design " primarily. The Corps are being judged not so much by execution and performance anymore as much as they are bering judged by what the Corps Show designer(s) has created for the field of competition. Is this a good " change " that we have seen developed now over the years ? Well thats really within the realm of personal opinion and judgement. I would much prefer to have a system in place that rewards the on field performer in their level of profiency, execution, etc than have the bulk of the scoring and placements for the 7 weeks of 30 shows be provided to those out of sight and not on the field before us in competition. Edited March 1, 2013 by BRASSO 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts