DCI BOD Drama....more to come?

[cixelsyd]

The proof of the other directors' support for the changes lies in the voting tallies for the proposals. Few of them passed by their chinny chins chins; almost all of them passed with overwhelming majorities. If there wasn't wide support, the proposals would have failed or they would have squeaked by. If you have verifiable stories of the leaders of Colts, Blue Knights, Glassmen, etc, manning the barricades at the Januals, and vowing to fight electronics, amps, B flat, and all the other proposals with their dying breaths, let's have 'em.

First of all, you are forgetting quite a lot. I do not wish to wade into those weeds, but just to make a point, consider this example from January 2002:

To: DCI Board of Directors

From: Bill Hamilton, Ted Swaldo, Larry Hershman

You alone hold the key to Pandora's Box

and we pray for you to keep it locked!

During the registration process at this year's January instructors' meeting, we received a lengthy proposal that, if adopted, would open the door for electronics. The proposal was written and presented by George Hopkins. As usual, the instructors were dazzled by the prospects of unlimited electronic amplification and voted yes. Because the rule changes were not distributed in advance, dialogue that included rebuttal was limited. We ask for your attention now.

The lightly written, almost whimsical proposals use words and phrases such as "Geniuses devoting their skills to the world of marching music reaching for the sky in developing shows where the words of great Americans are magnificently amplified beyond belief..."

While there can be some healthy debate about the inclusion of amplification and electronic enhancement in our activity (which frankly we are opposed to), that discussion is not the purpose of this letter.

Buried deep in Mr. Hopkins' five-page proposal is perhaps the most telling acknowledgement of what this is really all about. George says: "One should plan $5,000-$10,000 to get into the game." And after you have paid your five to ten thousand-dollar entry fee, then what?

We have contacted several companies, including Crystal Clear Sound and Clair Brothers (the most notable outdoor sound company on the east coast.) All agree that $10,000 buys almost nothing in professional audio. They further agree that being "on the road" with professional audio equipment requires trained personnel as well as substantial budgets for maintenance, specialized transportation, and back-up equipment.

While no one could put a specific price tag on what would be a reasonably budgeted cost, a rough estimate of tens of thousands, not thousands, of dollars was the consensus to support amplification alone. More importantly they were unanimous in stating "the more money you spend, the better the sound." In addition, "in outdoor, free-air venues the costs to produce a high-quality sound are limitless."

You may ask, "So what?" Well, bear in mind the person making this proposal (and probably some of his friends) already know, or have a good idea, where his electronics are coming from and who will pay for them. He knows who will pay for the audio engineer, he knows who will pay for the upgrades, he knows who will pay for the special transportation, the mixing boards, the microphones and the maintenance! Do you?

Ask yourself...the last time you obtained new horns, what did you pay? What did Mr. Hopkins pay? Now take those facts and step onto the field of competition. The horns purchased by you or the horns provided to George are only as good as the people playing them. The playing field is level because the cost of horns is finite.

Move now into electronics, where the cost is infinite, and the sound quality is determined by the sophistication and cost of the equipment and the proficiency of the audio engineers. Do you really want to compete in that forum?

George makes another statement in his proposal, pointing out that he and a few others occupy a competitive results strata superior to your drum corps. Adopting his proposals will ensure that this never changes.

If you're still considering the proposals of Mr. Hopkins, remember: HIS GAME IS PLAYED WITH A CHECKBOOK—NOT HIS OWN—BUT YOURS.

For more than a decade the DCI Board of Directors has had the wisdom to defeat proposals dealing with electronics. We ask you to continue to protect the activity from unfair competition and not be fooled into opening the door to electronics.

Pandora's Box is locked...let's keep it that way.

Please Vote NO!

Try to remember that the amplification change was the result of a 15-proposal campaign that did have some verifiable opposition.

Anyway, you failed to respond to my question. If after all your previous assertions, you really cannot point to anyone else as a proponent of these changes comparable to Mr. Hopkins, then I guess he has had a unique role in all of this. (And by the way, why is there even an argument about that?)

[MikeD]

I would challenge that presumption.

You either missed the word 'modern' or ignored it on purpose. It is pretty clear to me that he is referring to the rise in corps-style bands and competitions that began here in my area in the 70's, and grew into what there is today.

Being as there are, and always have been, so many HS bands, there have been...and still are...all sorts of competitions around the country.

[cixelsyd]

You either missed the word 'modern' or ignored it on purpose. It is pretty clear to me that he is referring to the rise in corps-style bands and competitions that began here in my area in the 70's, and grew into what there is today.

In the context of the conversation ("natural progression"), I think it is important to point out that the true "roots" of competitive marching band were planted a long time ago. The corps-style band phase that transpired at least 50 years later was definitely significant in shaping, organizing, and growing participation in competitive marching band. I do not dispute that.

[HockeyDad]

There has been a target ensemble that drum corps has been aiming at for over 50 years, changing ever-so-slowly. So IMO 'natural progression' is a perfectly valid term.

Really? Who is "drum corps"? Who laid out this target ensemble in 1960? Can you provide more information? Does the target ensemble include flutes? Clarinets? Saxophones? String instruments? Voices? One or SATB choir? Other things I didn't mention?

Or did I misinterpret - really no one has been targeting specific things, it just is evolving? Is that what you mean?

[HockeyDad]

First of all, you are forgetting quite a lot. I do not wish to wade into those weeds, but just to make a point, consider this example from January 2002:

Try to remember that the amplification change was the result of a 15-proposal campaign that did have some verifiable opposition.

Anyway, you failed to respond to my question. If after all your previous assertions, you really cannot point to anyone else as a proponent of these changes comparable to Mr. Hopkins, then I guess he has had a unique role in all of this. (And by the way, why is there even an argument about that?)

After reading endless pages of this thread, I think I know the answer: NO ONE caused the changes because EVERYONE (Catherine RAMD flashback....sorry) agreed to them, therefore EVERYONE caused the changes. The letter you cite notwithstanding.

And not only did EVERYONE agree to the changes, AND think they were a good idea....the changes were inevitable. It was, and continues to be, a natural progression.

It also appears, although I'm somewhat hesitant to say it, that we are in agreement that the present touring and financial model is not sustainable.

And here's the part that doesn't pass the giggle test with me - the people to lead drum corps out of this mess is / are......these very same people who created the problem. As robot would say in Lost In Space. ... this does not compute.

Edited December 23, 2013 by HockeyDad

[JimF-LowBari]

letter from Hamilton/Swaldo/Hershman.... <snip>

Thanks, wasn't following corps in 2002 and missed the back and forth going on.

Interesting as was with Hershan during his Sr corps days and wording does sound famliar.....

Edited December 23, 2013 by JimF-LowBari

[JimF-LowBari]

And here's the part that doesn't pass the giggle test with me - the people to lead drum corps out of this mess is / are......these very same people who created the problem. As robot would say in Lost In Space. ... this does not compute.

What doesn't work for me is having people on BoD who may hit the conflict of having what' best for their corps go against what's best for the entire activity, including corps they may care very little about.

[GUARDLING]

After reading endless pages of this thread, I think I know the answer: NO ONE caused the changes because EVERYONE (Catherine RAMD flashback....sorry) agreed to them, therefore EVERYONE caused the changes. The letter you cite notwithstanding.

And not only did EVERYONE agree to the changes, AND think they were a good idea....the changes were inevitable. It was, and continues to be, a natural progression.

It also appears, although I'm somewhat hesitant to say it, that we are in agreement that the present touring and financial model is not sustainable.

And here's the part that doesn't pass the giggle test with me - the people to lead drum corps out of this mess is / are......these very same people who created the problem. As robot would say in Lost In Space. ... this does not compute.

you have a point about the same ole same ole making decisions...kinda like that WGI office....................................as far as change and or amps....seems like DCA now is implementing the amps also......so looks like it may be here to stay...I believe its for pit only....for now......funny i remember dca tapes in the 90s saying the pit was way to loud.........now we make them louder.......lol

[N.E. Brigand]

There has been a target ensemble that drum corps has been aiming at for over 50 years, changing ever-so-slowly. So IMO 'natural progression' is a perfectly valid term.

Could you clarify what you mean by this post? Does it describe the intentions of drum corps directors circa 1963? Are you saying that people in drum corps at that time decided to slowly move the activity toward a stationary front ensemble, use of any key instruments, amplification, and electronics? Or is it just an ex post facto description of what has happened? Has drum corps reached the target yet? Or will people 50 years from now look back at today's drum corps and see it as an early step towards a target then in place? Are woodwinds part of the target you describe?

[cixelsyd]

The latest additions (i.e. synthesizers, electronic violins, etc.) did not exist 50 years ago, so DCI is definitely not giving us the "target ensemble" of 1963.