TV Can’t Save Drum Corps

[Stu]

What does it tell me? That people remember the tunes they have heard over and over, some since childhood. So what? I have not seen anywhere where 'memory' is a caption on a sheet in a drum corps competition.

And I do not see on the caption sheets where it states corps need to perform Dada on LSD in an Outhouse with Mirrors either; yet that seems to get more credit from the modern judges than recognizable show concepts for the audience to grasp.

[MikeD]

And I do not see on the caption sheets where it states corps need to perform Dada on LSD in an Outhouse with Mirrors either; yet that seems to get more credit from the modern judges than recognizable show concepts for the audience to grasp.

BD outscored Crown by 1.05 points.

BD won Visual Effect by 0.45; they won Visual Performance, inc Guard, by 0.5, and they scored highest in Percussion by 0.8 over Crown, which resulted in a 0.4 spread when divided (Crown was 6th in percussion). Crown won Music effect, Brass Performance and Music Analysis.

So...I am not seeing the problem with the results from last year you seem to see.

[corpsband]

BD outscored Crown by 1.05 points.

BD won Visual Effect by 0.45; they won Visual Performance, inc Guard, by 0.5, and they scored highest in Percussion by 0.8 over Crown, which resulted in a 0.4 spread when divided (Crown was 6th in percussion). Crown won Music effect, Brass Performance and Music Analysis.

So...I am not seeing the problem with the results from last year you seem to see.

Just want to point out that this is circular logic at it's very finest.

You can't start with the fact the BD scored higher to argue that BD won (scored higher)...

If someone asserts that the placements were inaccurate, you can probably assume that they also believe that the scores might be wrong :-)

<addendum>

I don't think the scores were wrong. They accurately reflect the opinions of the judges writing down the numbers. We're not counting how many times the orange ball goes through the circle with a net attached. We all forget that sometimes.

</addendum>

Edited May 1, 2013 by corpsband

[glory]

We need to update this discussion about billionaires and today's video opportunities.

If there were another son of another billionaire whose teacher today asked the young man to view drum corps, that teacher would be just as likely (if not more) to point his student at YouTube as at any conventional TV channel. That teacher would more likely show the DCI DVD than ask his students to tune in precisely at X o'clock to PBS or ESPN or Channel XYZ.

I doubt we're missing any billionaires (or even millionaires) for lack of a PBS broadcast. On the contrary, drum corps video is far more readily available today than it ever was in the Cook era. The problem isn't access to drum corps on video, which is why conventional broacasting isn't the answer.

HH

[bluesman]

The entire premise of this topic completely ignores the fact that so many of us became fans and members of Drum Corps that it asks us to forget the how and why we fell in love with Drum Corps in the first place. Had it not been for the live telecast me and my fellow bandmembers saw on PBS in 1977 we would have never went to shows or ever became members of a drum corps. We brought along with us friends and family that became drum corps fans that would have otherwise never attended nor even known the existence of DCI. It is unfortunate that TV networks are more concerned with whatever sleazy reality show that they can put on the air than what DCI has and it's fans have to offer. There are more stations on my cable than I can count. Surely there is a place for us and the activity that we love somewhere on the dial. I am well aware of the cost but the cost of reaching out to new fans and members is in my opinion is worth the price. TV is best recruiting tool there is! So surely the cost of such an outreach can be mitigated by the number of people that it brings to the activity. There is no argument in my opinion that we can deny the fact that not being on TV has had a negative effect on people coming to love our activity. There are those of you of can rationalize the lack of butts in the seats anyway you want but you cannot deny the fact that so many of us came to Drum Corps because of what we saw on TV,.

Edited May 10, 2013 by bluesman

[Stu]

BD outscored Crown by 1.05 points.

BD won Visual Effect by 0.45; they won Visual Performance, inc Guard, by 0.5, and they scored highest in Percussion by 0.8 over Crown, which resulted in a 0.4 spread when divided (Crown was 6th in percussion). Crown won Music effect, Brass Performance and Music Analysis.

So...I am not seeing the problem with the results from last year you seem to see.

I am not stating that there is a problem with the results or even with the sheets; I am just pointing out that there is always a bias within subjective judging and currently that subjective bias tends to lean toward benefiting the shows which push the esoteric envelope.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Stu

[charlie1223]

We need to update this discussion about billionaires and today's video opportunities.

If there were another son of another billionaire whose teacher today asked the young man to view drum corps, that teacher would be just as likely (if not more) to point his student at YouTube as at any conventional TV channel. That teacher would more likely show the DCI DVD than ask his students to tune in precisely at X o'clock to PBS or ESPN or Channel XYZ.

I doubt we're missing any billionaires (or even millionaires) for lack of a PBS broadcast. On the contrary, drum corps video is far more readily available today than it ever was in the Cook era. The problem isn't access to drum corps on video, which is why conventional broacasting isn't the answer.

HH

You've convinced me. I have read more and more from top execs at tech companies that tv as we know it is a dieing a slow death anyway. Maybe Hulu or Netflix could be something worth lookin into then?

Edited May 10, 2013 by charlie1223

[glory]

The entire premise of this topic completely ignores the fact that so many of us became fans and members of Drum Corps that it asks us to forget the how and why we fell in love with Drum Corps in the first place. ... There is no argument in my opinion that we can deny the fact that not being on TV has had a negative effect on people coming to love our activity...

It doesn't ignore that premise. It's true that many of us (me included) found drum corps on TV in the past. Today, there's no such requirement. You can find drum corps video on YouTube 24 hours a day, 365 days a years no matter what's on television. We just don't need TV anymore to make drum corps video available to potential marchers and watchers.

Moreover, nearly two decades of the live broadcast and even more of the taped show didn't result in growth in either members or audience. On the contrary, the activity lost more of each when the PBS broadcast was at its peak.

There is no correlation I can find that connects drum corps on broadcast television to the health of the activity.

HH

[cixelsyd]

There are those of you of can rationalize the lack of butts in the seats anyway you want but you cannot deny the fact that so many of us came to Drum Corps because of what we saw on TV,.[/size]

While that may have been a valid rationale back in the 1970s, we have the Internet now (and theater broadcasts). That same video-based introduction to the activity is available in a wider variety of formats, and at greater convenience.

But to be more precise, was it TV that introduced you and all those other people to drum corps? Were you all habitually watching PBS as teenagers? Did you see "Drum Corps International" in the TV listings and switch away from the football game? Or did a person you know insist that you check it out?

In most cases that I have heard of (including myself), people have learned of drum corps from either a friend or a teacher. In the late 1970s, that friend or teacher might have directed people to the DCI telecast to get their first taste of the activity free of cost. Ever since videotape became available, though, people have had other options with which to make that introduction. As long as those video sources are widely available, I see no need for DCI to spend an additional six or seven figures to get airtime on one of a thousand cable channels. It made more sense when there were only four channels to choose from.

[Slingerland]

While that may have been a valid rationale back in the 1970s, we have the Internet now (and theater broadcasts). That same video-based introduction to the activity is available in a wider variety of formats, and at greater convenience.

Whole shows are not available for free on the internet, and no one is going to accidentally walk in on a paid cinecast and say "hey, that's kind of interesting."

"Live," "free," and "broadcast" (or cablecast) are very different than show segments or lot tapes on YouTube.