cixelsyd Posted April 4, 2013 Author Share Posted April 4, 2013 Drum corps fans will never be the general public, which is why we need to be more welcoming to the marching band label. I think DCI actually did a great job with the "Marching Music's Major League" tagline. It connotes marching band without being specific. We need to embrace marching band as our brother (sister?) and seek our solutions in what we have in common. THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO MEAN COMMON INSTRUMENTATION. It should mean leveraging our not-insignificant community in the interest of all. In other words: Can't we all just get along? From what I have seen, DCI is already doing as you suggest. If I am incorrect about that, what should they do differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted April 4, 2013 Author Share Posted April 4, 2013 I've seen this point brought up a few times, but there was no expectation or demand that non-Finalists corps engage on a national tour. How would any other corps be expected to compete with the finalists (or even show up at championships) if they did not engage in the national tour? The national tour was only required for Finalist corps - corps who finished 30th in prelims back in the day were free to keep doing whatever they wanted to do, with no demand from DCI that they add any additional costs to their bottom line with touring. Touring was not required of finalists in the first couple of decades of DCI. Whatever expectation there might have been was dismissed in 1972 when the Cavaliers and Argonne Rebels balked at supporting the Western tour. Subsequent finalists like Muchachos and Garfield Cadets refrained from bonafide touring even when defending their top 12 rankings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted April 4, 2013 Author Share Posted April 4, 2013 yes, but the "national tour" then consisted of two tours of about two weeks each, for everyone but BD and SCV, who could afford to do more. The middle of the season was spent close to home, competing in DCM or DCE or whatever. If you were a good DCM corps, you could certainly take a run at Finals (as Geneseo did in the early 80s) even without spending weeks and weeks away from home. The Knights toured to California in 1981, did 34 shows in 1982, and 36 shows in 1983. Evidently, they spent a fair amount of time (and money) on the road. I don't think that some corps who never got closer to making finals than 24th at DCI Midwest prelims folded because they had to fund a national tour. It's more likely they folded because they became more or less irrelevant. Again, using your example of the Knights, who attended DCI Championships annually from 1976 through 1995 at locations all over the continent, there is obviously some degree of "national tour" involved in what they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 (edited) Again, using your example of the Knights, who attended DCI Championships annually from 1976 through 1995 at locations all over the continent, there is obviously some degree of "national tour" involved in what they did. I never said there wasn't SOME element. What I've said is that the idea of the current day "national tour", with a move-in in May, and hitting the road in mid-June for 8 weeks solid, didn't exist in the 70s, when the majority of corps folded. It doesn't mean no one ever got outside of their home town. But since it didn't exist for those corps, it couldn't have much of a factor in their decline. What happened to most of those little corps that we marched in is that they stopped functioning because the members who were really into drum corps decided to go march in better corps. They stopped functioning because they no longer provided an experience to the members that the members themselves wanted. The question was about the relationship between the rise in marching band activity and the decline in small town drum corps. My point was (and is) that the two events didn't necessarily share a common causality, but that the one (marching bands) ended up occupying space that had previously been occupied by the other, something that has continued to be true. All of which is one reason why I'm not sure there is a market for much more than 18 or 20 big drum corps. There aren't that many people who know how to manage and produce drum corps on a level that people want to buy. If you're going to do it at all, you're going to have to offer a type of program and experience that is not just different, but significantly different and better than what can be gotten simply by doing your high school band program. Edited April 4, 2013 by Slingerland 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted April 4, 2013 Author Share Posted April 4, 2013 I never said there wasn't SOME element. What I've said is that the idea of the current day "national tour", with a move-in in May, and hitting the road in mid-June for 8 weeks solid, didn't exist in that period of time. It doesn't mean no one ever got outside of their home town. Agreed. For a moment there, though, it sounded as if you were saying that non-finalists were not expected to tour. I would say that not only were they expected to - DCI relied on it. Having non-member corps involved in the DCI tour (at reduced appearance fee levels vs. member corps) is one of the strategies DCI has used over the years to maximize return to the member corps. This is one of the aspects of DCI operations I have in mind when I speak of "haves" and "have-nots". Now, those non-member corps are almost gone - and so is the additional audience and revenue of the 400+ corps activity vs. the 40+ corps activity. Should we be surprised by that? No. Look at the behavior of activity leaders. Some saw this coming; some even prepared business plans to do something about it. Others are in denial, and seek to assign the blame for this smaller audience and revenue by pointing their fingers anywhere away from themselves. Which of those "leaders" should we trust? And what should our path forward be? Is it finally time to rethink that model, or must we continue with "haves" and "have-nots"? And if so, should we grow new "have-nots", or turn some of our current "haves" into "have-nots" instead? These are the essential questions this debate boils down to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 (edited) The 1970's... so relevant to now. The 80's ... so relevant to now. The 90's.... so relevant to now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The economy has changed, youth activities have changed, life has changed... and is changing dramatically. The only thing relevant to now is now and the next few years into the future. Whatever happened even last year is irrelevant. This is the world we live in... and kids are moving along even faster, with less interest in the past. DCP seems to be mostly about the past. Edited April 4, 2013 by danielray 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 From what I have seen, DCI is already doing as you suggest. If I am incorrect about that, what should they do differently? As I said, I think DCI nailed it with "Marching Music's Major League," which bridges the corps/band divide. As for differently, my comments were directed more at us fans than at DCI. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 I never said there wasn't SOME element. What I've said is that the idea of the current day "national tour", with a move-in in May, and hitting the road in mid-June for 8 weeks solid, didn't exist in the 70s, when the majority of corps folded. It doesn't mean no one ever got outside of their home town. But since it didn't exist for those corps, it couldn't have much of a factor in their decline. What happened to most of those little corps that we marched in is that they stopped functioning because the members who were really into drum corps decided to go march in better corps. They stopped functioning because they no longer provided an experience to the members that the members themselves wanted. The question was about the relationship between the rise in marching band activity and the decline in small town drum corps. My point was (and is) that the two events didn't necessarily share a common causality, but that the one (marching bands) ended up occupying space that had previously been occupied by the other, something that has continued to be true. All of which is one reason why I'm not sure there is a market for much more than 18 or 20 big drum corps. There aren't that many people who know how to manage and produce drum corps on a level that people want to buy. If you're going to do it at all, you're going to have to offer a type of program and experience that is not just different, but significantly different and better than what can be gotten simply by doing your high school band program. I, for one, am not referring to the small local corps of the '70s, but the medium 'competitive' corps of the '80s and '90s like the Knights which you yourself used as a reference, or most recently the Glassmen. Those corps were greatly effected by the 'demise' of regional first tour / trip to finals second tour system. No way you can say, without being obtuse, that corps from that historical time period forward do not have to go on extended national tour, and attend 30+ shows, to have a shot at Saturday. And that, in turn, placed a huge financial burden on any corps wanting to compete for Finals (again see Glassmen). This is one reason why today, no matter how qualitative Jersey Surf gets with staff and performers, if they do not go to CA to TX, to GA, to PA, to IN 'every year' they will never have a shot at Finals. And this system began around the time the Knights were competitive and subsequently folded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 As I said, I think DCI nailed it with "Marching Music's Major League," which bridges the corps/band divide. As for differently, my comments were directed more at us fans than at DCI. HH The moniker came from Coltrin & Associates, PR/Communications firm. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 As I said, I think DCI nailed it with "Marching Music's Major League," which bridges the corps/band divide. As for differently, my comments were directed more at us fans than at DCI. HH So with Major League you confirm the performers are paid professional adults, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts