N.E. Brigand Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Imagine there are Corps A and Corps B. Both are creating shows of comparable quality every year and both are retaining and recruiting with approximately equal success, in part because, for example, both replace their snares regularly enough that quality drummers want to perform with them and stick around. However, Corps A has a much stronger and dependable funding source than Corps B, and thus more money to burn. Corps A convinces twelve other corps to change the rules to allowing for the use of some new "optional" equipment. Corps B and the other nine corps vote against this change, which they can't afford, and because the equipment is not required, they don't purchase it. However, it quickly becomes obvious that judges are scoring corps who use the new equipment higher than those who don't. So Corps B and the rest decide to buy the new equipment after all. Because they don't have an income line to match Corps A and they don't want to go into the red, they decide to save the money they just spend by replacing their snares less frequently. Corps B percussionists grow dissatisfied and move to Corps A. Corps B's percussion scores, and thus their overall scores, go down. This further hurts recruiting, which further hurts the scores, and so forth. Corps B's options are either to spend beyond their means in an attempt to improve their recruiting, or to be consigned to perpetual mediocrity. Meanwhile, Corps C had a better source of income than Corps B, but not so good a line as Corps A, so they bought the new toys and their scores and membership are holding steady. But Corps A has another rules proposal in mind allowing for the use of more "optional" equipment... Edited January 8, 2014 by N.E. Brigand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Imagine there are Corps A and Corps B. Both are creating shows of comparable quality every year and both are retaining and recruiting with approximately equal success, in part because, for example, both replace their snares regularly enough that quality drummers want to perform with them and stick around. However, Corps A has a much stronger and dependable funding source than Corps B, and thus more money to burn. Corps A convinces twelve other corps to change the rules to allowing for the use of some new "optional" equipment. Corps B and the other nine corps vote against this change, which they can't afford, and because the equipment is not required, they don't purchase it. However, it quickly becomes obvious that judges are scoring corps who use the new equipment higher than those who don't. So Corps B and the rest decide to buy the new equipment after all. Because they don't have an income line to match Corps A and they don't want to go into the red, they decide to save the money they just spend by replacing their snares less frequently. Corps B percussionists grow dissatisfied and move to Corps A. Corps B's percussion scores, and thus their overall scores, go down. This further hurts recruiting, which further hurts the scores, and so forth. Corps B's options are either to spend beyond their means in an attempt to improve their recruiting, or to be consigned to perpetual mediocrity. Meanwhile, Corps C had a better source of income than Corps B, but not so good a line as Corps A, so they bought the new toys and their scores and membership are holding steady. But Corps A has another rules proposal in mind allowing for the use of more "optional" equipment... And your point is? The majority approve a new element, and it is then legal. Looking at the above and taking it to the same extreme you do in the other direction, drum corps would have remained stagnant and not kept up with the times, and IMO as corps died out, it would be gone. Shall we go back to single valve/rotor horns? I'm sure there are some who want that. Single tenors? Slings and leg rests? Yes, it isn't a zero cost to operate a corps. Nobody said it is. The voting body took a decade to legalize elements that the instructors had wanted. It wasn't 'corps A' that convinced the majority all alone...it was the staffs of the corps that supported these elements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 And your point is? The majority approve a new element, and it is then legal. I think HockeyDad gave the most concise version of our point. These things are not "optional", so let us just drop that pretense moving forward. The voting body took a decade to legalize elements that the instructors had wanted. And now, they say costs are a problem. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Imagine there are Corps A and Corps B. Both are creating shows of comparable quality every year and both are retaining and recruiting with approximately equal success, in part because, for example, both replace their snares regularly enough that quality drummers want to perform with them and stick around. However, Corps A has a much stronger and dependable funding source than Corps B, and thus more money to burn. Corps A convinces twelve other corps to change the rules to allowing for the use of some new "optional" equipment. Corps B and the other nine corps vote against this change, which they can't afford, and because the equipment is not required, they don't purchase it. However, it quickly becomes obvious that judges are scoring corps who use the new equipment higher than those who don't. So Corps B and the rest decide to buy the new equipment after all. Because they don't have an income line to match Corps A and they don't want to go into the red, they decide to save the money they just spend by replacing their snares less frequently. Corps B percussionists grow dissatisfied and move to Corps A. Corps B's percussion scores, and thus their overall scores, go down. This further hurts recruiting, which further hurts the scores, and so forth. Corps B's options are either to spend beyond their means in an attempt to improve their recruiting, or to be consigned to perpetual mediocrity. Meanwhile, Corps C had a better source of income than Corps B, but not so good a line as Corps A, so they bought the new toys and their scores and membership are holding steady. But Corps A has another rules proposal in mind allowing for the use of more "optional" equipment... And do not forget Corps D, who has no vote in this process because they are in open class. Speaking of which, I think your overriding point may be too conservative: The more important point is this: the majority of corps (by a vote of 12-8 in 2003), has at times exercised the power to require the minority of corps to spend more money or face a significant risk of earning lower scores. (And through this means a slender majority of wealthy corps could wipe out a substantial number, albeit minority, of less-wealthy corps.) I have yet to see a reasonable counter-argument to this point. I would venture that a minority of corps (with a majority of the votes) have the power to increase the cost of equipping a fully competitive corps. Even now, we still have 40 corps, and it only takes 12 to impose a rule change. Your idea for a supermajority to approve costly changes is a good one... but we do not even require a simple majority of the affected corps yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple Forte Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 And your point is? The majority approve a new element, and it is then legal. Looking at the above and taking it to the same extreme you do in the other direction, drum corps would have remained stagnant and not kept up with the times, and IMO as corps died out, it would be gone. Shall we go back to single valve/rotor horns? I'm sure there are some who want that. Single tenors? Slings and leg rests? Yes, it isn't a zero cost to operate a corps. Nobody said it is. The voting body took a decade to legalize elements that the instructors had wanted. It wasn't 'corps A' that convinced the majority all alone...it was the staffs of the corps that supported these elements. I have wanted a lamborghini for over twenty years now....but you know what....I know that it something that would be completely inappropriate (Financially) for me to obtain. Perhaps the 'Instructors' should be a bit mindful of what impact their 'Wants' will have on the activity they belong to. Pro's vs. Con's list for some of the new elements....would love to see it because I think these new 'Elements' keep chipping away at the amount of corps we have and the amount of people who follow DCI....... BTW...your mention of single rotor and slings is completely obsurd...IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I have wanted a lamborghini for over twenty years now....but you know what....I know that it something that would be completely inappropriate (Financially) for me to obtain. Perhaps the 'Instructors' should be a bit mindful of what impact their 'Wants' will have on the activity they belong to. Pro's vs. Con's list for some of the new elements....would love to see it because I think these new 'Elements' keep chipping away at the amount of corps we have and the amount of people who follow DCI....... BTW...your mention of single rotor and slings is completely obsurd...IMO It is no more absurd than the other side, IMO. And I said...it was an extreme example in the other direction to highlight how silly that side is to me. As for the car example...talk about absurd. The cost of A&E in no way approaches the financial impact of a corps overall budget as an expensibve car like that would impact your personal budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mello Dude Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 So at the point where money and perception is more important than what is actually performed on the field? Where do you draw the line or has DCI become so politicized that it's a lost cause and a new drum corps circuit stated? I mean it's becoming very apparent that some corps are using their money/positions to influence the activity out of existence or even out of marketable product because it is SOOO much (indeed is to the outside person) like a marching band anymore. What can or should be done? The trending is pretty damning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 And now, they say costs are a problem. You're correct, but if you think adding a sound system is the financial problem, you know nothing about the costs of running a corps. The HS I teach at purchased a new digital soundboard this year and subwoofers, as well as new speakers last year. A few years before that we bought a new top-of-the-line sound module and midi controller. The grand total for essentially a brand new sound system = roughly $6000: or one or two members' annual corps fee (IDK how much corps fees are now). And that is without any major discount or endorser price (which I assure you is significantly less than the awesome deal we got). So the cost of electronics is WAY less than, say, gas for a drum corps convoy from the west coast to the mid-west, or feeding 200 people three meals a day. Those major costs have not changed in decades. If you want to talk about G-any key brass, corps got any key brass when they phased out their G brass. Brass is a necessity in the activity, so changing keys didn't really affect cost too much (and I know of OC corps who started BECAUSE it was cheaper to use regular band brass as opposed to having to buy a fleet of G bugles right off the bat). The expenses are largely the day-to-day expenses required of a traveling corps, and not expenses due to any new equipment 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Usually, I ignore these sort of empty arguments. But traffic is light on this forum today, so here goes. Looking at the above and taking it to the same extreme you do in the other direction, drum corps would have remained stagnant and not kept up with the times, and IMO as corps died out, it would be gone. Shall we go back to single valve/rotor horns? I'm sure there are some who want that. Single tenors? Slings and leg rests? Drum corps has never "kept up with the times". What does that mean, anyway? There are two ways to interpret that reference. The one that seems germane to the discussion is instrument selection. In that sense, the premise of "keeping up with the times" is fallacious. We live in a time of advanced technology, where electronic synthesis and editing have rendered the live instrumental music performance unnecessary (or as some on this forum are fond of calling it, "irrelevant"). There was a day when the prevailing popular music was instrumental, decades in our past. Today, it is out of the spotlight. It persists largely due to tradition, and partly due to ego and a sporting interest among pockets of the population. Instrumental music is centuries old, and is not predicated on "keeping up with the times". As drum corps - and marching band, for that matter - both focus on instrumental music, they choose not to keep up with the times. They are activities predicated on the fundamental use of dated instruments. Of course, there are other ways to "keep up with the times". Playing the latest music, performing the latest visuals, developing our own trends within the activity... those are a few categories of examples. Drum corps has never remained stagnant in that regard, even when relegated to slings, leg rests and single-valve horns. So there is no reason to believe that it would ever remain stagnant on account of not making frequent equipment-related rule changes. Marching band makes no such rule changes - has it remained stagnant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Corps make choices all the time on what they buy or don't buy, be it horns, snares, tenors, amps, unis, flags, props, etc., based on their own finances. I guess you consider a corps to be penalized if they do not buy new snares when their old ones are no longer top notch? well again it comes down to if the judges say they don't sound good....what do you do? Mike you teach a band...if the judges say the equipment you have doesn't sound good and it's hurting your score...what do you do? take the hit or get what's needed? not that I am saying the cost of equipment is killing the activity. it's minor compared to fuel, food etc. But every bit helps, and far too often the rationalizations trotted out to support the changes are riddled with holes.....and then to back it up, those pushing for more and more are the most vocal begging for funds. it does have a way to turning people off Edited January 8, 2014 by Jeff Ream Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.