normy diploome Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 The initial comments I've heard coming out of Chicago this weekend are all unanimous (so far) that the meetings were very cordial and congenial, that they covered lots of ground, it was productive and hopeful, and that they came away with a renewed emphasis on pushing their respective ED's to find a way to compromise and work together en-masse for the benefit of the entire activity. This is all good news. But it got me to thinking... As I understand them, the DCI by-laws are written such that the corps organizations, as entities, have seats on the DCI BOD, not necessarily the on-field corps director. As such, each corps' BOD chooses who their representative will be on the DCI BOD, despite the fact that all corps now provide the "on the field" director as that representative. If there is truly a renewed emphasis on finding ways to get along among the individual corps boards, and if their chosen reps to the DCI BOD are failing in that effort to find common ground with a willingness to compromise and cooperate, then it's feasable that each/any/all of the individual corps boards may choose to have a different individual, not specifically the corps director, represent their corps on the DCI BOD. I wonder if DCI executives have reinforced this point about how the by-laws are written to the individual corps and their boards? And I wonder if having a different representative of each corps on the DCI BOD would change the dynamic among the collective, and might, in fact, be a step in the direction of having professional board members on the DCI Board... Just wondering... Very fine points made here. Nice to hear some hope about. Who all attended?. As one who once was a temporary replacement representative for some DCI BOD meetings, I think you present some valid insights. HOWEVER... DCI seems to be plagued with a POWER struggle amongst personalities. Would those same personalities release their need for power to others even to merely send puppets? Your proposal is worth developing. Back in the beginnings, the directors were competitors but most of them were or became friends, much like former American presidents do. I am not sure that is the case now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 I think the reason more kids are involved in WGI is because there are far more competing groups, and that is because: a. they are much cheaper to operate b. the scholastic groups have obvious advantages in funding, recruiting, facilities and equipment over independent groups kind of on B. many school units don't get a dime from the school itself, they work their ##### off to pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 True; but WGI does not really promote itself to adults outside of those who are already associated with WGI either by having a kid involved or by being involved themselves when they were kids. WGI seems to be content on being a niche activity, and not trying to expand interest to the uninitiated 'general adult world of entertainment'. actually WGI markets to all segments of it's auidence, not just kids. You think a lot of kids are plunking down $90 for a subscription to their fan network? I've been to Dayton for percussion. The kids tickets are off on the sides, or way up where the view is, IMO eh at best. Especially for World class events, you have far more kids out in the lot...during the lower classes, they are in the marketplace. i'm told from guard world it's pretty uch the same. Now sure, a good chunk of the crowd, especially the lower classes, is parents. but the crowd for World is definitely a lot of adults. a lot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 (edited) . b. Because kids so often move from corps to corps, those groups who run (or in most cases, ran) feeder corps found they were no longer training kids for their own parent corps. Consequently, many stopped operating feeder corps. Yes... indeed. In time, most of these understood " feeder Corps" ( at one time over a 100 ) to the Parent Corps all died. Approx. only 2 of these " feeder Corps " now remain, and the numbers of the " prepsters " in these 2 organizations that make it to the Parent Corps have dwindled as A Corps increasingly now exclude their own in the Feeder Corps for those that come in to the A Corps from other Corps. That being said, all the top elite Corps DO have " Feeder Corps ". They just don't have to finance this talent pipeline internally with their own financed " Feeder Corps" anymore as they used too, thats all. Such a deal,.. really... if you are an Elite Corps. But of course this sort of systemic canibalization and destabilizing policies embraced for years has now brought the entire activity to a precarious situation at present, imo. Edited April 8, 2013 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 Very fine points made here. Nice to hear some hope about. Who all attended?. As one who once was a temporary replacement representative for some DCI BOD meetings, I think you present some valid insights. HOWEVER... DCI seems to be plagued with a POWER struggle amongst personalities. Would those same personalities release their need for power to others even to merely send puppets? Your proposal is worth developing. Back in the beginnings, the directors were competitors but most of them were or became friends, much like former American presidents do. I am not sure that is the case now. I think the bold above is the point of my observation. If a corps is governed by its board and not its ED (as it should be in any formal org) then the board has the power and right to send a rep who reflects the board's view, which may or may not reflect the ED's view. You point out that some corps board members may be only puppets to the ED and I can't disagree with (or verify) that opinion. But if a BOD is doing its job it recognizes that it has the power to fire/replace its ED even if the ED were singularly responsible for starting the corps in the beginning. Might make an interesting dynamic change in the DCI halls and at the Janual and other meetings if corps board members took their responsibility to this end. If ego is the problem for the corps' DCI BOD rep then, like any other cancer, cut it out surgically and replace it with a healthy replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normy diploome Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 I think the bold above is the point of my observation. If a corps is governed by its board and not its ED (as it should be in any formal org) then the board has the power and right to send a rep who reflects the board's view, which may or may not reflect the ED's view. You point out that some corps board members may be only puppets to the ED and I can't disagree with (or verify) that opinion. But if a BOD is doing its job it recognizes that it has the power to fire/replace its ED even if the ED were singularly responsible for starting the corps in the beginning. Might make an interesting dynamic change in the DCI halls and at the Janual and other meetings if corps board members took their responsibility to this end. If ego is the problem for the corps' DCI BOD rep then, like any other cancer, cut it out surgically and replace it with a healthy replacement. oh that is was so easy. The other side of the triangle is to investigate how the members of the corps' BoD actually are selected/nominated/appointed. There is at least one major G7 proponent where the ED formed the BoD to validate his perceptions. He make's the pope's infallibility look like nothing. There are some other similar situations now that corps have full time paid staff as ED and CEO's. Rockford seems to be an exception. What about the others??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted April 8, 2013 Author Share Posted April 8, 2013 That being said, all the top elite Corps DO have " Feeder Corps ". They just don't have to finance this talent pipeline internally with their own financed " Feeder Corps" anymore as they used too, thats all. I was not going to be that cynical, but yes. In the post-release-rule world, corps discovered that an alternate pipeline of talent could be obtained from other corps, and that was way cheaper (free) compared to running your own feeder unit. Maybe that is why some directors feel that the pipeline of talent they provide (willingly or not) to higher ranking corps deserves some sort of compensation. But I do not want to beat that dead horse right now. What I am curious about is to hear danielray explain something. See, he was just here a week or two ago trying to convince us that top corps no longer include "education" in their missions. He has posted in the past about how all the teaching is better done within the scholastic system, and drum corps should only be for the ensembles that are a clear level of excellence above that of the schools. Now he is suggesting that the Troopers start teaching kids aged 6 to 14. Why is he giving the Troopers what, by his own standards, is bad advice? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 Yes. But people like you poo-poo every historical idea as stuck in the 1970s. By the way, a couple of things have changed since the 1970s. a. Because corps are no longer made up of exclusively local members, they are no longer dependent on the quality of school music programs in their locale, as you said above. There are many corps that struggle to recruit top talent do to their geography, etc. Some of these have tried to remedy this by holding rehearsals and camps in other locations (Bluestars, Troopers, for example). The smarter thing would be to farm local talent from a much younger age. b. Because kids so often move from corps to corps, those groups who run (or in most cases, ran) feeder corps found they were no longer training kids for their own parent corps. Consequently, many stopped operating feeder corps. If corps were training kids in their feeder programs that ended up going to other corps... wouldn't the smarter thing be to not kill the feeder, but to examine why kids would want to leave and then fix those issues to result in increased retention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 Yes. But people like you poo-poo every historical idea as stuck in the 1970s. By the way, a couple of things have changed since the 1970s. a. Because corps are no longer made up of exclusively local members, they are no longer dependent on the quality of school music programs in their locale, as you said above. There are many corps that struggle to recruit top talent do to their geography, etc. Some of these have tried to remedy this by holding rehearsals and camps in other locations (Bluestars, Troopers, for example). The smarter thing would be to farm local talent from a much younger age. b. Because kids so often move from corps to corps, those groups who run (or in most cases, ran) feeder corps found they were no longer training kids for their own parent corps. Consequently, many stopped operating feeder corps. If corps were training kids in their feeder programs that ended up going to other corps... wouldn't the smarter thing be to not kill the feeder, but to examine why kids would want to leave and then fix those issues to result in increased retention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 There are many corps that struggle to recruit top talent do to their geography, etc. Some of these have tried to remedy this by holding rehearsals and camps in other locations (Bluestars, Troopers, for example). The smarter thing would be to farm local talent from a much younger age. If corps were training kids in their feeder programs that ended up going to other corps... wouldn't the smarter thing be to not kill the feeder, but to examine why kids would want to leave and then fix those issues to result in increased retention? But you're suggesting that directors put their focus on the 15 kids who leave each year instead of on the 125 who stay with the corps. How is a director to know why a kid left after the fact? Isn't it best to focus on why the 125 are staying? Aren't they the best influence on a kid who's thinking about moving up to get them to reconsider that desire? It's probable that some who leave each year never intended to stay at that corps anyway, and won't be phased. But those kids sleep together - putting the focus on THEIR reasons for staying, and communicating that among all of them, is the best way forward. Put the emphasis on the 125, and get THEM to spread the message among themselves is the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts