tesmusic Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Giving a vet an in is kinda stupid/insensible. Yes, their experience should put them at an advantage, but not so much that they don't even have to bother attending audition camps. Worked for us when I marched Madison in the 90's. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjordansc Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 One thing you know about a vet is that they can make it through a full summer and, I assume, they can handle the cost of doing drum corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cappybara Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 One thing you know about a vet is that they can make it through a full summer and, I assume, they can handle the cost of doing drum corps. Not sure how this justifies not requiring any audition for a vet. A person from the Blue Devils may decide they don't enjoy the environment there and wants to join a corps like the Blue Knights instead. That person spent a summer with the most successful corps in the history of DCI (so they've proven they've got the cash and the talent), but would it make sense for the Blue Knights to not require an audition for that person? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincoln Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 A person from the Blue Devils may decide they don't enjoy the environment there and wants to join a corps like the Blue Knights instead. That person spent a summer with the most successful corps in the history of DCI (so they've proven they've got the cash and the talent), but would it make sense for the Blue Knights to not require an audition for that person? No. My understanding has been that we are talking about vets from the same corps being required to audition again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cappybara Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 My understanding has been that we are talking about vets from the same corps being required to audition again. You are correct. I am offering a counterpoint to the argument that vets should not be required to audition. Just because someone has experience and cash doesn't mean they don't have to audition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mello Dude Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 So you are saying that the organization has no loyalty to the vet but the vet is required to have loyalty to the corps? Help me on this. Also, just like any employer training an employee costs time and money. The vet is a bargain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted December 10, 2014 Author Share Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) Sometimes, not always .... particularly in some corps where changing staffs seem de rigeur. Your loyalty nuances, both ways, is a serious and certainly worthy point of discussion, not necessarily debate. I think your point has some validity. Edited December 10, 2014 by xandandl 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleran Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) As the director of a sports club, I believe there are also valid psychological reasons to requiring all players to come to auditions, even if going into auditions the team/organization knows full well that they will be bringing back 85+% of the veterans on the team. It fights against the urge of veterans to be complacent, knowing they already have it made. You ALWAYS want them pushing themselves, and this is just one more opportunity to help them keep up intensity and self-progress It fights against a veteran group-think attitude that "we are better than the new kids", which is a very destructive attitude that needs to be weeded out Making them audition is hardly that big of an inconvenience for the players, and sets the tone from day one that all 150 members are equal partners in the season. To me, that's worthwhile. EDIT: I don't know if this tangent really has any more legs to it, but if so, perhaps it should moved to is own thread to avoid further clutter to the Phantom 2015 thread. Edited December 11, 2014 by Eleran 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cappybara Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 So you are saying that the organization has no loyalty to the vet but the vet is required to have loyalty to the corps? Help me on this. Also, just like any employer training an employee costs time and money. The vet is a bargain. You are oversimplifying. This isn't a black and white thing. Requiring vets to audition does not mean the corps is disloyal to the members. The corps can still give an advantage to its vets, but completely excluding the audition process isn't nonsensical. What if there are players from other corps who both have experience and MORE talent? Eleran's excellent insight only further strengthens the argument for requiring auditions for everyone, regardless of who they are. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mello Dude Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 I don't see where they are excluded it. So, staff should as well according to what he is saying? 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.