Controversy in WGI and DCI

[Jeff Ream]

Oh, I though you were just trying to state you wanted to " RESEND me something from a few days ago on something you said about something or other. You can " rescind " whatever it was you have been given the authority to " rescind ", as I've forgotten now what I've been " rescinded " from you. I have no interest in discussing that, let alone get down to an " argument " level on it... So feel free to" rescind" whatever it is you've designated yourself to " rescind " on posters here and send to your sender or senders, as you wish.

sure. right. you don't want to argue. LOL

[Jeff Ream]

1979 Bridgemen on the 2nd 1/2 of tour had the civil war segment , fighting ect ect . even a Lee and Grant . DCI final's had the South win. Now keep in mind finals were in Birmingham Alabama! Crowd ate it up like a mint julep on a hot southern day

slavery lovers

[HornTeacher]

you're welcome son. is your homework done?

S###, no. And you danged well know it...Sir.

[Jeff Ream]

S###, no. And you danged well know it...Sir.

you're grounded. I want a 5000 word, double spaced essay on why DCP is good on my desk by Thursday. And don't think of going out this weekend!

[BRASSO]

Controversy usually sells an obscure idea and once they're there, they'll keep coming back for more.

There is no evidence that " controversial shows " adds to the fanbase. Its just guesswork and speculation, it seems to me. My sense is that a " controversial show " will keep the fans that are pretty much ok with whatever is done and produced. ( a sizable group, imo ). But " controversial shows " seems to have the capacity to drive away a few fans too. In a activity that is flat lined at best in a fanbase and in attendance figures, it needs to be sensitive that as it goes about generating controversy in some of its offerings, that it does not lose an opportunity to grow its national audience size in the coming years.

We can all agree it seems to me on the following uncontroversial observation :

Not growing a national audience base over the next decade: Bad

Growing the national audience base over the next decade : Good

When we look to the future, all of us here should be able to agree that the latter above is much more preferable than the former.

Edited April 22, 2014 by BRASSO

[GUARDLING]

There is no evidence that " controversial shows " adds to the fanbase. Its just guesswork and speculation, it seems to me. My sense is that a " controversial show " will keep the fans that are pretty much ok with whatever is done and produced. ( a sizable group, imo ). But " controversial shows " seems to have the capacity to drive away a few fans too. In a activity that is flat lined at best in a fanbase and in attendance figures, it needs to be sensitive that as it goes about generating controversy in some of its offerings, that it does not lose an opportunity to grow its national audience size in the coming years.

We can all agree it seems to me on the following uncontroversial observation :

Not growing a national audience base over the next decade: Bad

Growing the national audience base over the next decade : Good

When we look to the future, all of us here should be able to agree that the latter above is much more preferable than the former.

controversial shows in WGI have packed the arena in a thunderous arena shaking applause. This is a fact. I know many kids who have gone to ( lets say Fantasia for programming reasons...DCI I dont think theres that many controversial shows IMO .

Edited April 22, 2014 by GUARDLING

[HornTeacher]

Maybe controversy becomes a selling point to some observers (I hardly think that the number of people tuning in to the "Reality TV show of the week" or those devoted to picking up the latest "National Enquirer" from their neighborhood grocery news kiosks have dwindled much over time). And yes, maybe controversy does drive away the assorted few who find controversy to be something that they didn't pay their good ticket money for in the first place.

What bothers me is the thought that some might expect Corps and their Corps staff to shy away from a given subject matter merely because it might ruffle some feathers, and thus, drive away business. Maybe it will -- maybe it won't. But isn't there a point at which the responsibility falls upon a Corps design team to take something which may very well be controversial to many, yet -- through their expertise -- design or depict such a show in a way that the general public might shake their collective head and say "Hmmmm...didn't like the subject matter -- and I'm shocked that they would go there. But y'now -- for some danged reason -- the message made sense."

The only thing worse that being censored by an outside source is needlessly censoring from within, purely based on how others might perceive your message. If we are afraid of that, then why do any of us post our opinions in the first place?

Edited April 22, 2014 by HornTeacher

[Stu]

We can all agree it seems to me on the following uncontroversial observation :

Not growing a national audience base over the next decade: Bad

Growing the national audience base over the next decade : Good

When we look to the future, all of us here should be able to agree that the latter above is much more preferable than the former.

If you mean growing a national audience for WGI and DCI with fans of musical art which has a sense of virtue like U2 or the Lt. Dan Band then I agree; however, if you mean growing a national audience for WGI and DCI with fans of the lowest common denominator of human decadence like Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus then I respectfully disagree.

[Stu]

Yes, we in the United States live in freedom and the first amendment to the Constitution states that the government can make no laws abridging free speech. However, with that freedom comes much responsibility and even the framers realized that complete unfettered speech is nothing more than a utopian theoretical construct. There was never any intent at all, ever, by the framers to allow for 'complete unregulated speech'; for example liable, slander, compelling someone to do harm, and many other forms of speech certainly are, and should be, censored. DCP censors; WGI censors, DCI censors. They have to or anarchy arises. Want proof? Name one culture, just one, which has engaged in complete unfettered speech without some form of censorship and then show us that culture has not fallen into anarchy. So for all of you living in the la la land of the theoretical please realize there is no such thing as unfettered uncensored speech anywhere in this temporal world we live.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Stu

[BRASSO]

controversial shows in WGI have packed the arena in a thunderous arena shaking applause. This is a fact. I know many kids who have gone to ( lets say Fantasia for programming reasons...DCI I dont theres that much controversial shows IMO anyway.

Yes, but I am not talking about WGI. My guess, the overwhelming majority of audience goers in the summer that attend DCI Drum Corps shows have never been to a WGI show, and close to half the audience goers have no idea what the letters " WGI " even stand for. So my remarks are geared to DCI here, not to what some entity is doing somewhere.