What really makes Drum Corps so different

[GUARDLING]

i think FINALLY the amp debate can maybe go away...gezzz even DCA is ada pting pit amps this year and we all know it takes DCA about 10 years to catch up...so I think it's here to stay...maybe time to move on.....lol.....................or not

Edited December 30, 2013 by GUARDLING

[CrownLeadSop]

I do not see how the absence of amps or any other particular item equates to an audience "barrier". In fact, people are sometimes more curious to watch something they have not participated in. How many NASCAR fans have actually driven in such a race?

More importantly, there is a distinction between focused marketing to a demographic vs. targeting them to the exclusion of everyone else. If the latter was the proper course of action, then DCI should have just become a marching band circuit from the day they decided to focus on the youth demographic back in 1996. What do you think?

OH LOOK MORE SPORTS ANALOGIES! If people without any form of musical experience were interested in watching drum corps, we wouldn't have this problem, would we?

You're talking in blacks and whites rather than accepting that DCI has, as a marching band circuit (because it is one), grown alongside its high school counterpart. I don't think they're excluding many people by introducing amplification or Bb horns - only the hardcore traditionalists. Kids that march these days don't care so long as it sounds good. Their parents don't care. High school band kids don't care. The notion that there's a super large portion of the fanbase that is, in 2013, still jimmy-rustled over amplification or Bb horns is downright wrong. I again cite the reception of Crown in 2013.

People care about what sounds good, not necessarily about what makes the sound.

Do I oppose having woodwinds in DCI? Sure. If it came down to the life and death of the activity, would I care if they added woodwinds? No.

[cixelsyd]

I understand the point you're trying to make. "Change X has made Y negative impact, so be careful when considering changes for the future!" As I'll restate - what if the changes made are actually keeping drum corps afloat?

I would say it this way - there is a debate over change X having Y impact, but regardless of the outcome of that debate, I think we need more compelling justification than "what if?" before making change Z.

[cixelsyd]

I know this might blow a few minds but think about this: Maybe all those corps actually think Bb, amps and electronic instrumentation are a good thing.

Folks here want to think corps went kicking and screaming into Bb and electronics. Allow me to suggest that wasn't the case. Different from the DCP mindset, they saw advantages and possibilities. No one was coerced or compelled. Truth.

So the people who voted "no" to amps for 14 years, and "no" to electronic instruments for 18 years, were all really in favor of them all along?

[glory]

Do you think that is somehow analogous to this discussion? The idea being discussed (adding woodwinds to drum corps) does not widen the product line - it does the exact opposite. DCI would become marching band, a product that already exists, while the drum corps product would be taken away...

I was debunking the attempt to use New Coke as an example to suggest a static "classic" market. The potential drum corps audience is no more static than the beverage audience was for Coke 20 years ago. The failure of New Coke to catch on doesn't change the truth that consumers want more than just the "classic" formula.

HH

[glory]

So the people who voted "no" to amps for 14 years, and "no" to electronic instruments for 18 years, were all really in favor of them all along?

Why is the "no" vote legitimate and the "yes" vote not?

I said once that I'd never have a mobile phone. Today I carry two (as well as a tablet that's mobile-connected). I wasn't coerced into carrying all that communications hardware. And I'm certainly not a hypocrite. I recognized that times, tastes and life changes - in communications and in drum corps. The directors who once voted no weren't some God sending commandments to Moses and the Israelites. They were men making choices reflecting time and circumstance, both of which changed along with their votes.

Yes means yes just as no means no. What's more remarkable is the fact that since they voted yes there have been few voicing any desire to retreat even amid significant criticism from the DCP reactionaries and their brethren. Yes it is.

HH

[cixelsyd]

I said once that I'd never have a mobile phone. Today I carry two (as well as a tablet that's mobile-connected). I wasn't coerced into carrying all that communications hardware. And I'm certainly not a hypocrite. I recognized that times, tastes and life changes - in communications and in drum corps.

Hard to imagine you saying "never" to a future change.

There was a day when I said I would not get a cell phone without either a more compelling need for it, or lower costs. Then came a time when greater travel presented a more compelling need, and new service providers presented lower cost options. It became a justifiable acquisition at that point.

The directors who once voted no weren't some God sending commandments to Moses and the Israelites. They were men making choices reflecting time and circumstance, both of which changed along with their votes.

Oh, I agree that the choices these corps have made, both in the boardroom and on the field, reflect "circumstances". That makes much more sense than your previous post.

[garfield]

Do I oppose having woodwinds in DCI? Sure. If it came down to the life and death of the activity, would I care if they added woodwinds? No.

As has been argued here for years by the Old Geezer's Club (I'm a member), the death of DCI has been heralded since the dawn of the first change. Yet, it's still here (and I highly doubt your thesis that, possibly, the multitude of changes in the last decade has postponed its demise).

In the statement above you took a big leap from opposing woodwinds to the life or death of the activity and you're, in essence, promoting the same mentality that was prevalent at each of those changes. Sure, if it could be shown that drum corps was going to die without WWs, I'd probably go along with them, too. But there's a big gap between preventing death by allowing WW's and finding a solution to grow the activity.

I get your point, but the imminent death of the activity (or, at least, the salvation providing the hoped-for growth) has been a part of each of the proposals to "save" the activity and, so far, each of them separately and all of them together haven't provided the solution for which they were trumpeted.

It seems to me that allowing WW's is another of the same, with neither proof nor substantive data to substantiate it beyond the opinions of a few corps directors (primarily just one director) and a few vocal DCP posters.

At some point one has to make the conscious decision to stop being seduced by the Pied Piper (or, poignantly, a Music Man in River City where we got "Trouble. Trouble. Trouble.")

Edited December 30, 2013 by garfield

[BRASSO]

We here should be able to agree on some fundamental things, whereas how we move forward from here, might be open to discussion.

Can we all agree on the following listed things ? ( or not ?)

1) Corps today are much larger than earlier decades.

2) Corps budgets are much larger.

3) Corps have much more varied access to varied instumentation than ever before.

4) Corps staffs are as talented, if not more talented, than earlier decades.

5) Corps staffs are much larger than earlier decades in terms of numbers.

6) Corps, on the whole, have access to much higher caliber of marching talent than in earlier decades.

7) Corps, on the whole, have a higher percentage of marchers that are as equally talented or perhap even more talented than ever before.

8) Corps marchers pay more for the privilege to march DCI Drum Corps World Class Division than ever before.

9) Corps have access to better facilities, better nutrition, better care on tour than ever before

10) There are much less people watching DCI Finals Championship live at Championships than in earlier decades.

Every discussion it seems to me should have a beginning point that we all agree upon as fundamental constructs before moving on to disccusions about what needs to be done in the future to try and make the activity grow in terms of the numbers of marching participants, number of Corps. needed exposure avenues, financial stability, and activity future growth. So.. do we all agree then on the 10 things listed here above ? or not ?

Edited December 30, 2013 by BRASSO

[cixelsyd]

If people without any form of musical experience were interested in watching drum corps, we wouldn't have this problem, would we?

Who can say with absolute certainty? We turned some of our marketing attention away from those people when we chose HS marching band kids as our target audience.

I don't think they're excluding many people by introducing amplification or Bb horns - only the hardcore traditionalists. Kids that march these days don't care so long as it sounds good. Their parents don't care. High school band kids don't care. The notion that there's a super large portion of the fanbase that is, in 2013, still jimmy-rustled over amplification or Bb horns is downright wrong.

Woodwinds would be a different story, though. I would think that if you saw the absence of amps as a "barrier" to some HS kids even attending a show, then you should certainly be able to acknowledge the probability of woodwinds being a barrier to the attendance of certain legacy fans, especially when they say so themselves.