TOC/G7 Related Discussion

[jeff_demello]

The voting membership of DCI is made up of the organizations, not individual corps directors. If the corps themselves decided to change the Board structure, it would require a majority of the organizations to agree to send representatives to the next meeting (or call a meeting) and vote on a change in the bylaws that instituted an all outside Board.

I beg to differ. I have observed over the last 13 years that a very high majority of Board Members of the corps that compose DCI have little to no idea what's going on within DCI. The individual corps directors ARE the corps, at DCI meetings.

[garfield]

I beg to differ. I have observed over the last 13 years that a very high majority of Board Members of the corps that compose DCI have little to no idea what's going on within DCI. The individual corps directors ARE the corps, at DCI meetings.

But I think you miss the point, Jeff. The representative of each corps is the rep on the DCI BOD, and the BOD has the right to make that choice of who their rep is. The responsibilities of that rep are different than his role when acting in the capacity of a corps board member so the rep may not, and should not, be the ED by default.

If you say "that's the way it's always been" (that the ED is the rep) I'd agree, and suggest that it's not required. A BOD can have any number of reasons to assign a particular person (or not) to the DCI BOD.

Of course in corps where the ED hand-picks his BOD based on how that board member will be a puppet to the ED's whims, it's more likely that a board will vote to send the ED. But a well-chosen corps board is one chosen based on what differing opinion the board member has regardless of whether or not it matches the ED's.

Again, rebuilding the DCI BOD with professional board members solves all of this potential conflict of interest.

And to highlight the scale of the issue, professional board members want to be compensated for their time. Although it's true that many donate back their payments if it's a non-profit, there's no requirement to do so. Professional corporation board members are commonly paid $10,000 to be on a company's board; I think most non-profit board members expect about half that. 7 board members at $5000 per year is $35,000 to have a professional board.

The number is easy for DCI. It's the fact that, otherwise, the corps would share that payment so, to them, they're paying someone to tell them something they might not like to hear. Plus several personalities in this activity think they and their opinions rank right up there with the best corporate professional board member. You can see that the change will not be an easy one unless the DCI ED mandates it with a majority opinion of his Board.

Corps boards changing their choice to the DCI Board is just a step - and an unnecessary though useful one - in that process.

Edited April 16, 2013 by garfield

[BRASSO]

I fully agree with the point of Brasso's post and, in fact, I'd suggest going the other way so that judges at local shows have no clue as to what they're about to see and judge it on its face-value merits.

.

We've probably all heard here before the utterance that " Music is the universal language " of communication. I believe that this is accurate. Dance is likewise a non verbal means of communication. Music and Dance has been understood thru the ages as a means of communication that momentarily replaces both the spoken word and the written word. It is understood that to be most effective, music and dance must convey in its presentation an understood communication from the performer to the audience. If music and dance leave one confused, it is by its very nature an unnsuccessful means of communication, as it did not effectively replace the spoken and / or the written word, no matter how efficiently the music and dance may have been performed and executed in performance.

[MikeD]

It's deeper than that even, Brasso. At every local show, the show director must provide a room where the corps staff can meet with that show's judges to explain what they're about to see. Instead of a "recap" where the judges argued one thing and the staff's responded with "You didn't understand what we're trying to do", this "pre-cap" meeting was supposed to eliminate that problem. I have personally sat in on these meetings and am astonished at the level of detail the staff's attempt to convey so that the judge is, almost, afraid to make any comments at all for fear of being branded, well, ignorant of what the staff was attempting.

If it were handled correctly, such a meeting can be a good idea. I don't know that it is or isn't being handled properly, but conceptually it is not a bad idea. If the staff is going through the show in enormous detail as described, the Effect judges should be evaluating whether or not the actuality matches the concept discussed, and the Effect scores should include such analysis.

It certainly should not make a judge 'afraid' to comment on a show. If it is doing that to a judge...or more than one judge...that is an issue to be addressed with the judge(s)...assuming the corps continue to think the "pre-cap" meeting is something desirable.

I fully agree with the point of Brasso's post and, in fact, I'd suggest going the other way so that judges at local shows have no clue as to what they're about to see and judge it on its face-value merits.

That is certainly a valid approach as well, though as the season progresses the judges will become more and more familiar with the shows, so outside of the initial read, they will not be seeing a show "blind".

In sports, a common phrase is "they just played better", whereas in DCI it seems the judges aren't allowed to have that opinion without knowing the finest details of every show they're about to see.

"Play better" is not based on the show concept, but how technically well the corps performs the show. For evaluating the performance "better-ness", those fine points are not really relevant.

I believe this plays directly into the system of "slotting" instead of judging that makes DCI finishes so boring year after year.

As long as corps place properly according to their performances, I never find it to be "slotting", which to me has a negative connotation. It is certainly not "boring" when corps place as they should.

[BRASSO]

It is certainly not "boring" when corps place as they should.

Again, what is" boring " ( or not ) is a thoroughly personal opinion statement. Some could state that having just 3 " teams " for 35 years win over 80% of the titles... whether deserving or not.... quite " boring "; ..and be just as " accurate " as your statement regarding such a personal obervation.

Edited April 16, 2013 by BRASSO

[MikeD]

Again, what is" boring " ( or not ) is a thoroughly personal opinion statement. Some could state that having just 3 " teams " for 35 years win over 80% of the titles... whether deserving or not.... quite " boring "; ..and be just as " accurate " as your statement regarding such a personal obervation.

Of course. I haven't claimed otherwise.

Edit...

Thinking about it, I guess it would be less boring if corps that do NOT deserve to win the title were scored the highest, but I'm not sure that is the type of excitement you are looking for.

Edited April 16, 2013 by MikeD

[Slingerland]

I beg to differ. I have observed over the last 13 years that a very high majority of Board Members of the corps that compose DCI have little to no idea what's going on within DCI. The individual corps directors ARE the corps, at DCI meetings.

Several of us here have heard from several sources is that there's been a sea change on that front in the last few weeks. I'd look for more corps Board members to be much more aware of what their directors are saying and doing in their organization's names, and that the votes that happen at the DCI level will be much more informed by active Board member discussion back home.

The day of the lone warrior corps director at the DCI meetings has pretty much passed. It's taken a few decades, but the activity finally has Boards of Directors at the corps level that are starting to provide leadership rather than rubber stamping. It's a very healthy development.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Slingerland

[BRASSO]

Thinking about it, I guess it would be less boring if corps that do NOT deserve to win the title were scored the highest, but I'm not sure that is the type of excitement you are looking for. :smile:/>/>

Of course not. Who here is advocating on behalf of undeserved " slotting " ?... noone is, as near as I can tell. So why you brought THIS up, totally escapes me.

Edited April 16, 2013 by BRASSO

[perc2100]

well....people have said why they have stopped paying money...lack of entertainment. DCI, which is the corps, don't listen. Instead they make change after change...instead of realizing...hey...maybe what used to work wasn't so bad after all.

and then things fans DO want, like finals on the Fan network, to date, DCI hasn't given them. It's no secret people can't attend due to life, or are sick of Indy. Either way, if DCI put it online they'd get more money than they do now.

this is why the people who have their hands in the product should not be on the board. Their vision is far too short sighted.

But to be honest, I've never 'enjoyed' an era of drum corps were there weren't loud complainers. I started going to drum corps shows in 1991, and ever since that first show I've heard PLENTY of complaining, every year, about how "things were better in the old days" as far as show design. Talking to friends who marched in the 80's, the share similar stories that they heard. Same with people I know who marched in the 70's. There will ALWAYS be a vocal minority of unhappy "fans:" of people who left the activity for one reason or the other, and love to justify their decision by telling you how much modern drum corps sucks compared to what they "remember."

My point is there will always be detractors, and more importantly the true reasons for attendance fluctuation & souvenir sales fluctuations are far more complicated than "shows are more boring than they were when I was younger." One of the few shows that people currently agree is a gold standard for show design & execution, Star of Indiana 1993, was infamously derided by MANY fans at the time: boo'ed frequently, even (at least at the 6-10 shows I attended I heard a plethora of boos and complaints). Heck, we're not even 24 months removed from a 'crowd favorite' winning DCI (Cadets 2011)!

In my years as a drum corps fan, I've found there are two ways to look at the activity: focus on what annoys me, or focus on what thrills me. I spent a while after aging out focusing on what annoyed me, and even stopped following the activity for awhile. After time away I came back with the thought of "what cool stuff is out there now?" and I tend to really enjoy a lot of the activity. There are plenty of things that annoy/bore/displease me when it comes to individual shows, but there are just as many or more things that excite me. I really do take the good with the bad, and enjoy the stuff every year that excites me (even if it means a show I dislike wins & a favorite gets panned by judges). Like I've said before, looking at any random Legacy DVD and comparing it to 2012 Finals DVD, there are just as many shows I live & dislike in any given year on average. IMO that shows that DCI hasn't radically changed over the years, and just like all entertainment/art forms some stuff I like, some stuff I don't.

[MikeD]

Of course not. Who here is advocating on behalf of undeserved " slotting " ?... noone is, as near as I can tell. So why you brought THIS up, totally escapes me.

Note the in the statement...