DOWNsize it?

[actucker]

The sound might change slightly, but "suffers" is a qualitative judgment. With 9, you could still have 3 and 3 on marimba and vibes, a synth player, a tympanist, and a utility player, if you wanted to go that way. Smaller than the current model, but probably not that drastically different.

BTW, I'm not saying that I think the activity SHOULD embrace the idea - as a percussionist, I appreciate the number of opportunities drum corps offers to kids who have the skills to play concert instruments at that level. I'm simply putting out there the types of cuts/changes that could be made if the activity wanted to downsize and/or increase parity vis a vis budgets.

The sound would change drastically. Just look at the way that 5 marimbas are scored. The Cavaliers talked about this same concept at PASIC this year, talking about the things that having 5 players opens up. They used an example from their show, in which chordal rolls, 4 mallet permutations, and quick articulated 16th note runs all within the same passage. With little time for changing mallets, and a desire to cover the full range of the instrument, the parts were written in 3 octaves, with the highest octave using the most articulate mallets to generate the clarity they needed on the 16th notes. 2 middle octave players with medium mallets generate the warmth and tone needed to warm the runs up, and resonate on the permutations, and the two outside players on the lowest octave used soft mallets to open up the resonance in the chordal rolls. The only reason this worked was because they were able to pyramid the sound. 3 players can't do that, and neither can a mixer.

We'd lose a significant amount of flexibility, color choices and sound quality by downsizing in the front ensembles.

[MikeD]

BTW, I'm not saying that I think the activity SHOULD embrace the idea - as a percussionist, I appreciate the number of opportunities drum corps offers to kids who have the skills to play concert instruments at that level. I'm simply putting out there the types of cuts/changes that could be made if the activity wanted to downsize and/or increase parity vis a vis budgets.

When we go through brainstorming sessions, one thing that is stressed is that ANY idea is acceptable to mention, so I like that you presented some 'outside the box' suggestions, whether or not I personally agree with them. You never know where a suggestion may end up once people start to discuss the idea. Good job!

[actucker]

a) I agree with you in terms of actual music profession. So much so that if DCI actually is a form of that music 'profession', like Broadway, we should pay the DCI music performers not just the staff!

b) However, If we claim that DCI is more of an educational profession (like the NCAA) as opposed to a music profession (like Broadway), where the teachers are paid but the students are not, then DCI, as a governing body, should eliminate the idea of just providing services for the best of the best youth performers. DCI, as a governing body, should provide for a system of teaching services to those youth who are not educated in the musical arts at all as well as those who are more skilled and advanced. Is it ok then for the Cadets to be the expensive 'Stanford' and another corps to be the financially more accessible 'Henderson State College'? Sure! But DCI, as the governing body, should provide quality services to both institutions.

c) Nevertheless, what the elite corps directors in DCI want is apparently is this: They want DCI to be a musical profession in which only adults are paid, and paid well, for their services; and then pretend it is about education while creating a DCI system which only allows for the best of the best youth who are already highly skilled and highly trained to pay to be involved so as to market DCI as a Major League of the best of the best in the entire world. What that creates is a very expensive environment where the focus is on the adults receiving massive compensation, not only in money but in glory (for example how many youth performers are in the DCI Hall of Fame? None; DCI Hall of Fame is all about adult staff). DCI has thus become an institution more to promote and benefit adult staff egos, more of a playground for the rich kids who are already talented to again promote staff egos, and less and less about the musical edification of the youth; which as the governing body DCI is intended to serve.

But why does it have to be black and white? Why does an educational activity have to be for every single kid out there. There are already tons of those programs out there (with varying degrees of funding and success of course). By your logic, all university music programs should allow completely open enrollment. DCI isn't offering a degree, they're offering an experience to those who make the cut. This is no different from an auditioned music clinic, or All District/All state honors bands. Lots of organizations have lots of different goals. Its possible to be an educational organization, that is specifically geared towards the best and brightest.

As for offering an opportunity to all kids, that's what local band programs are for. Even if DCI wanted to provide that service there is no need for it.

That being said, I think you're a little delusional as to what drum corps staffs get paid. "Paid well?". Most of the guys I know who are on tour (and myself when I've gone) it is akin to volunteer work. Staying home would net far more money, and often expenses are barely covered. I'm not talking about just techs, but a couple of caption heads as well. Sure, some of the designers pull in large amounts of money, and maybe that's worth looking into, but those same designers get the same money elsewhere. That's not a DCI problem, its a free market problem. "Paid well" is simply not accurate.

I think you have some pretty wrong ideas on what this activity is about for the instructional staffs. I don't know many (of course there will be some) guys who do this for their own ego. Sure, we want to be good at what we do, but at the end of the day, its about the kids getting better. That's our job, and yes, we expect to be paid for that job. Loving what you do, and having the right priorities doesn't mean that money isn't important. Its possible to keep both of those things in mind. But I can't remember the last person I met who would put themselves through a summer of teaching drum corps because they want to feed their own ego. There are far easier ways to do that.

[Stu]

We'd lose a significant amount of flexibility, color choices and sound quality by downsizing in the front ensembles.

Awwwww shucks folks; a few corps would lose some musical ‘color’ and OMG that would be downright devastating. So what!!! Downsizing equipment requirements to be competitive would allow for less equipment and staff expenditure per corps, allow for more corps to become involved in DCI, which in turn would allow for more youth to be involved and served by DCI as a whole.

[actucker]

Awwwww shucks folks; a few corps would lose some musical ‘color’ and OMG that would be downright devastating. So what!!! Downsizing equipment requirements to be competitive would allow for less equipment and staff expenditure per corps, allow for more corps to become involved in DCI, which in turn would allow for more youth to be involved and served by DCI as a whole.

No need to be a jerk man. We're just having a conversation. Personally, I don't think downsizing is the answer at all. I'm not interested in you belittling my opinion, however. I have not responded that way to you.

[GUARDLING]

Awwwww shucks folks; a few corps would lose some musical ‘color’ and OMG that would be downright devastating. So what!!! Downsizing equipment requirements to be competitive would allow for less equipment and staff expenditure per corps, allow for more corps to become involved in DCI, which in turn would allow for more youth to be involved and served by DCI as a whole.

corps have ALWAYS had to go the extra mile to be competitive at the top.....27th lancers....big flashy guard with big WOW's ( sure cost more there) SCV , back in the day....visually jam packed..( hmmmmm seems to have cost more there)....you can say yeah but its not the expensive blah blah blah of today....well everything is more expensive today....Mom isn't sitting sewing all the flags like back in the day either...at least most arent............I get somethings maybe could down size..you dont seem to mind cutting things from the top as long as the bottom benefits...hmmmm is that reverse discrimination?

As I have said before even WGI puts in in their manual ( guard ) if one moves up the ranks from A class to open class to world class be financially prepared.It's something that goes with the move upward. Is it all necessary? well there could be differences of OPINION, all over the place on that. Funny how some of the lower corps staffs that I am friendly with were the 1st ones to run to get some of this stuff....more so because they wanted it. Maybe in OC ( kind of like WGI) it's more about the training and achievement and not about much else....BUT if one is able to go above and beyond then so be it...Isn't the top in most activities about going above and beyond?

[charlie1223]

That wasn't my point; it's that pit orchestrators would see a limitation in how many players they have as a justification for using more electronic sounds. ("What? I can't have 14 people? Then fine, we'll just put more samples in there, so my work is more on display!")

There's no logical reason for it; it's just the way people are in the activity these days.

You said:

3. Limit the pit to 9 members.

None of the major corps are paying full cost for the pit instruments, so they think nothing of traveling with 10-12 keyboard instruments plus tymps plus synths, plus whatever else they can fit. That much equipment requires essentially its own trailer and tractor - despite the fact that half the keyboard parts are being doubled, and with amplification, you don't need four vibes playing the same part. NOTE - if this was done, you could be guaranteed that a lot more synth use would ensue, so look twice, jump once.

The bolded statement speaks directly to my comment: Just so we're clear the use of amplification is not a replacement for orchestration in the front ensemble. Just ask yourself if a single tuba, baritone, trumpet and mello amplified sounds like a full acoustic hornline.

It still is the case that amplification is not a replacement for orchestration. And so it is that synth is not a always a replacement for acoustic amplification...

I didn't even mention the last line that said that more synth would be used if you limit the number in the pit and I really think you are not giving the respect that these designers deserve. They aren't just some hacks arranging for front ensemble that are "egotistical" and eager to "show off their skills". They are professional and established enough that there main goal is always to have the entire corps sound as good as possible. I'm assuming that you don't have experience arranging for front ensemble because that is what it sounds like.

Edited January 3, 2014 by charlie1223

[charlie1223]

Awwwww shucks folks; a few corps would lose some musical ‘color’ and OMG that would be downright devastating. So what!!! Downsizing equipment requirements to be competitive would allow for less equipment and staff expenditure per corps, allow for more corps to become involved in DCI, which in turn would allow for more youth to be involved and served by DCI as a whole.

The marching members are not this "guaranteed" factor through all these changes. If DCI isn't big, exciting, competitive, and THE BEST of the BEST those marching members are going to go on to do other things. News flash, if drum corps as it stands doesn't even garner enough interest to fill all the corps that we have in operation then making it less desirable to be a part of a corps only hurts that. Downsizing makes it less desirable to college and high-school students and you need to be aware of the consequences.

The problem isn't that we don't have enough corps to fill all the kids interested in drum corps. It's that kids want to be a part of the BEST drum corps and don't want to spend their money on less successful or smaller corps as a result. Making all the corps smaller and use less equipment would shrink the number of people actually interested because you will never escape the inequality of talent across corps.

Edited January 3, 2014 by charlie1223

[Stu]

But why does it have to be black and white? Why does an educational activity have to be for every single kid out there. There are already tons of those programs out there (with varying degrees of funding and success of course). By your logic, all university music programs should allow completely open enrollment. DCI isn't offering a degree, they're offering an experience to those who make the cut. This is no different from an auditioned music clinic, or All District/All state honors bands. Lots of organizations have lots of different goals. Its possible to be an educational organization, that is specifically geared towards the best and brightest.

As for offering an opportunity to all kids, that's what local band programs are for. Even if DCI wanted to provide that service there is no need for it.

That being said, I think you're a little delusional as to what drum corps staffs get paid. "Paid well?". Most of the guys I know who are on tour (and myself when I've gone) it is akin to volunteer work. Staying home would net far more money, and often expenses are barely covered. I'm not talking about just techs, but a couple of caption heads as well. Sure, some of the designers pull in large amounts of money, and maybe that's worth looking into, but those same designers get the same money elsewhere. That's not a DCI problem, its a free market problem. "Paid well" is simply not accurate.

I think you have some pretty wrong ideas on what this activity is about for the instructional staffs. I don't know many (of course there will be some) guys who do this for their own ego. Sure, we want to be good at what we do, but at the end of the day, its about the kids getting better. That's our job, and yes, we expect to be paid for that job. Loving what you do, and having the right priorities doesn't mean that money isn't important. Its possible to keep both of those things in mind. But I can't remember the last person I met who would put themselves through a summer of teaching drum corps because they want to feed their own ego. There are far easier ways to do that.

a) I never stated 'every kid out there'; however I did state that DCI should provide governing body services to the younger less skilled kids involved with the Blue Saints with as much vigor as the older more skilled youth of Blue Devils.

b) I never stated that all corps must be 'open enrollment'. As I stated I am ok with SCV being an 'Ivy League' institution and the Blue Saints being a 'JUCO' type institution; but DCI, as a governing body, should provide as much vigor of service to the JUCO as they do to the Ivy League.

c) The way the public school system is set up youth around the nation, unless they have rich parents, are forced into their particular high schools. They have no choice whatsoever in what musical program they receive their grammar through high school education. For example, a poor kid around the Indy area who desires a different musical education than what they are receiving cannot have their parents choose Avon or Carmel let alone any other school. If DCI is an educational governing body as many claim, DCI could, and should, support various corps in which that child would have more choice to receive the desired musical education.

d) I do not have any skewed views on the desires of the elite in DCI; nor their egos. They want DCI to contain only a select few elite corps, with all DCI revenue going to support just those corps, and for those corps to be able to pay their staff 'profession' type salaries. These directors want DCI to eliminate all governing body services to corps like Genesis, limit governing body services to corps like Madison Scouts, and direct most, if not all, DCI support to a select few elite. If that is not ego, then nothing is.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Stu

[Stu]

The marching members are not this "guaranteed" factor through all these changes. If DCI isn't big, exciting, competitive, and THE BEST of the BEST those marching members are going to go on to do other things. News flash, if drum corps as it stands doesn't even garner enough interest to fill all the corps that we have in operation then making it less desirable to be a part of a corps only hurts that. Downsizing makes it less desirable to college and high-school students and you need to be aware of the consequences.

The problem isn't that we don't have enough corps to fill all the kids interested in drum corps. It's that kids want to be a part of the BEST drum corps and don't want to spend their money on less successful or smaller corps as a result. Making all the corps smaller would and use less equipment would shrink the number of people actually interested because you will never escape the inequality of talent across corps.

So, DCI does not include the Blue Saints and Genesis and Racine Scouts which are corps who for various reasons support youth who are not the best of the best in the entire world yet want to be a part of DCI?