When was the last time this was discussed?

[garfield]

Superficially things may seem the same. But there are very clear differences to the discerning eye.

It's not a matter of "refinement" of technique. It's a fundamentally different approach where standards and expectations are not just talked about -- they're completely internalized from the first camp to the last rehearsal.

Drive, routine, habits -- they may "appear" the same. But appearances can indeed be deceiving.

While resisting the urge that your afront to my perceptiveness might prompt I concede that, as a non music educator, I'm likely not qualified to spot the subtle differences you describe but, if "Drive, routine, and habits" are the definers we're discussing, I'll stand by my assertion based on my own perceptions.

But the verbal chess hides the true point of the discussion, I think. The base presumption of the discussion is that lower-placing corps can do things to elevate their organizations to achieve some higher-level. I simply ask:

A higher level of what?

[nemesiscorps]

First of all, 4 corps did not trade a trophy for 35 years consecutively. Don't forget, you removed data that blurred the results. Any statistician can tell you that's a no-no. "When you remove several cases in which MMR vaccine did not immediately precede an autism diagnosis, the remaining cases show a correlation!" Um, no.

More to the point, while it is true that only a few corps win the championship, you assert that it is a problem, without specifying why you think it is a problem. Pray tell, What's wrong with only a few corps winning the championship? Specifically, what bad thing happens if it continues? If no new corps wins the championship for the next twenty years, so what? Is this the point at which you predict the inevitable decline of the activity?

Imagine if the spelling be is won each year by a kid in room 306, and rarely by anyone from the other English classes. Is that a big problem? What if it turns out they put the hardest working kids in 306 because that's where the pace of the class will reward that level of effort. Are you going to rearrange the classes just to create excitement in the spelling bee?

Drum corps is about education, and to some extent entertainment (less important clearly. As it should be, IMO). Sports competition is pretty far down the list of priorities. The competition exists for the purpose of motivating excellence in education, not the other way around!

Why in the world would you insert the word consecutively? I never said that, though on a factual basis I completely agree with you. Nonetheless, your entire post from that point on is based upon something that I never asserted, but instead, you've inserted, and thus changed the entire context.

Regardless, I'll speak to your points.

First, it's clear that you've either not read all of my posts; or you've forgotten what I've stated; or you've chosen to ignore the statements; or you've already made up your mind about what you think I'm saying, or you're trolling. Giving you the benefit of doubt, I'll also give you that I believe that the canted ratios of repeating world champions over the last 42 years of DCI is not something that I'd consider a strength of a Major League competitive circuit. My central point being that in this activity, titles translate into $$$ in a variety of forms for organizations, in addition to other benefits beyond bragging rights. My central question spoke to how this may or may not contribute to the circuit's overall strength, stability, and sustainability. I thought that that was specific enough.

Next, you cite a spelling bee for comparison. I'm really trying not to sound rude, so please don't take it that way.

The apple: Clearly, a spelling bee champion is determined by an objective assessment of spelling the word correctly or not. My ignorance leads me to the assumption that if there's any dispute on the correct spelling, then a dictionary is probably referenced? It can't get more basic than that, and it leaves almost no room for doubt about the achievement or outcomes... that is, unless cheating can be confirmed.

The orange: A DCI champion is a subjective assessment of performance content, execution, and effect, made by trained, talented, experienced professionals. By the very nature of the process, because of the human factor, even the same judge may assess the same performance differently, based upon a variety of issues, but we can certainly agree that two judges can view the same performance and come to different conclusions. Let's agree that neither is right or wrong, it's simply a rather complex matter that has been revised and revisited for as long as DCI (and others) have been about the business of judging marching musical ensembles. Enough said.

Finally, I leave each person's assessment of "what drum corps is all about" to themselves. IMO, there's no right or wrong answer there (i.e. education, competition, performance, the experience, youth development, achievement of excellence, life skills, teamwork, etc.).

What's important here is to remind you (and others) that as the OP, this thread is about DCI as a competitive circuit, and how a reflective, objective analysis of world champion award winners over 42 years creates a discussion of how the reality of those factual ratios informs individuals to come to conclusion on determining if this is a strength of the circuit or not.

I appreciate your taking the time to discuss.

Edited February 8, 2015 by nemesiscorps

[nemesiscorps]

I have no issue that the same 3, 4 Corps can be reasonably predicted to win 80% of all the future DCI Titles the next 35 years. Its not a problem per se. But if we want the activity to grow in numbers of participants, and the numbers of fans, no sensible person can possibly believe then that having just 3.. at most 4... Corps win 80% or more of the future DCI Titles is going to help increase the likelihood of more participants, more fans in the activity.. That's just plain silly to delude oneself that growth can be achieved with pretty much a monopoly at the top spot. There are reasons why many competitive sports... amateur and Pro... have grown exponentially the last 35 years. One of them is the unpredictability, and volatility, and excitement of a host of different winners... sometimes into the many dozens in numbers of different winners... over the last 35 years. The notion that we can attain growth and fan attraction and fan retention in the activity the next few decades, having 3, 4 of the same Corps rotate among themselves a DCI Title... with an outlier aberration Corps maybe winning once every decade or so before falling back out of the pack, (or disappearing altogether),.... is frankly almost delusional thinking, imo.

THIS!

[corpsband]

While resisting the urge that your afront to my perceptiveness might prompt I concede that, as a non music educator, I'm likely not qualified to spot the subtle differences you describe but, if "Drive, routine, and habits" are the definers we're discussing, I'll stand by my assertion based on my own perceptions.

But the verbal chess hides the true point of the discussion, I think. The base presumption of the discussion is that lower-placing corps can do things to elevate their organizations to achieve some higher-level. I simply ask:

A higher level of what?

Lol if there were a simple answer to that question, everyone would be competing for the championship every season. And certainly there was no afront intended. And no verbal chess. Honestly don't know a better way to express it.

Edited February 8, 2015 by corpsband

[nemesiscorps]

We'd have fun over a beer.

You may, in fact, suspect that an outside organization would find a dysfunctional hot mess inside DCI, but you answered your own question. Who would pay for such a study? You? Me? The Fans?

And before we get to the real answer to that question, let's step back and ask "Why? For what purpose?". What would your stated presumption suggest is the appropriate resolution to your assumption?

Even if such an "imbalance" exists in DCI, so what? There are a board and an executive staff that get to call the shots in DCI. If they are happy with the "imbalance" - even if it provides fodder for us to debate - who is anyone, ANYONE, outside that organization to say that it's correct, or right, or appropriate for them to accept it? The entire notion is folly, and the potential risk of inviting investigation is dangerous - again, what for? Why? Even take it to the extreme and presume some outside organization "gets control" of the organization and tells it what to do - again, why?

This is band. It ain't GE or the pentagon. Leave the analysts to their tasks away from our hobby. Don't invite scrutiny because it'll find you anyway. One must not forget that this thing we do is owned by, controlled by, and organized by the directors of drum corps. Do you want them spending their hours writing reports and filing forms to meet the regulatory requirements of some outside organization, or do you want them writing great shows for us to go see to entertain ourselves.

So, now forget all that and presume you're right, it should be done. The only logical answer is that DCI pays. Where does that organization get it revenue (mostly)? From fans. A dollar a ticket for the entire season might pay the fee, I'd suspect but if it were so easy to increase ticket prices why hasn't it been done prior? It's not. There's a cost to increasing ticket prices.

Or, how about this: Reduce the DCI performance payout by the amount of the cost of doing this study? That sounds like a good approach because it's not our money.

Even from a practical standpoint it's not an easy solution because of the reality of the revenue source and the list of beneficiaries.

But the critical issue to address involves an old story about a camel and a tent. You hear that story a lot in "regulatory" circles, and in Washington, DC.

Sorry for the delayed response. Yesterday was pretty busy for me.

Anyway... Just to be clear, I never suggested having any "study" conducted, or even that an outside organization SHOULD come in and assess DCI as a corporate model. You're right, this isn't that serious, it's just performance on a football field. I was simply making an opinionated general statement that objective MBA types could use DCI as a case study for a variety of examples of corporate practices that do not promote stability or sustainability, let alone growth.

Having said that, I do believe that it's up to individuals to decide what's right or wrong for them, and if they choose to engage DCI events or not. I admit that I struggle to think of another substantial entity (even as small as this niche activity) that seems to have found such an effective way to progress themselves right out of existence for generations of former loyal followers that speak so passionately about what their corps experience did for them. In my mind, they are likely no longer what could be a valuable support base for supporting DCI, nor are their children or grandchildren. And, here on DCP we've given them a nice little label (as society likes to do) to ensure that we keep their opinions isolated and irrelevant to the discussion, which is also how diversity of ideas and "tolerance" is preached and applied these days.

Worse of all, the likeliness of today's youth experiencing drum corps' benefits (I'm talking about the corps activity now, not the DCI experience) remotely similar to their elders is also shot, because where today can one experience drum corps outside of DCI, DCA, or overseas? Today's kids will be shaped by something in life, but I suspect it won't be the uniqueness of a drum corps experience, unless they can afford it and have the talent to "make it" in the DCI world of drum corps.

FWIW, I want to be clear that I don't blame DCI for any of this. I never have. I have said repeatedly over the years that DCI's mission has always been clearly stated. DCI is all about their member corps. One can't blame them for adhering to their mission, whether you agree with the mission or not.

However, I am critical to the extent that (IMO) DCI has never truly acknowledged (or more importantly, taken effective action toward) taking a moral stand and role in strengthening the larger corps activity (parade corps, smaller independent competitive circuits, etc.), where its member corps' memberships are borne. Instead, (IMO) DCI's historical policies and practices in support of it's member corps have contributed greatly to the demise of the larger corps activity. There are countless historical examples of that, and there are others proposed that still loom on the horizon... IMO.

[31rabbit]

if there are two DCI events, equal in distance and accessibility, and one is a traditional scored competition and the other an unscored exhibition, wherein do you factor the competitive aspect into choosing which one you will go to?

-my first priority is going to be the show with my Home team (alumni)

-followed by the show with the most corps who i have traditionally enjoyed (legacy fan)

-followed by the show in which I know members/staff or have friends who will be there (social)

-followed by the show with more Big Name Groups (Casual Fanhood)

-followed by the show with more themes I am curious about (Curious Fanhood)

only if all of those things are equal would I then consider the scoring v non-scoring as a factor in deciding which show to go to.

won't begrudge anybody for thinking differently, but how many people would have the scoring element ranked higher than all of the other priorities I've listed?

DCI as a 'competitive circuit' is different than a sport, largely because a fan's ability to enjoy the product before them should not be diminished by numbers that they hear later.

of course a single show is different than a 'Season Championship.' But I believe that this exercise reflects where the 'competitive' element stands in re interacting with the activity. I find the scoring to be a different way of exploring what I've watched, and I do enjoy that aspect, but it is more of a talking point than a tentpole.

IF most people feel similar to how I do, then any kind of perceived championship circle of elitism will always just be a talking point and an arguing point. if significant number of people feel the other way in re significant of the scores, then it is something that needs to be addressed. But I go to a lot of shows and talk to a lot of folks, I'm confident that I'm not alone.

whatever small number of corps have won in whatever larger number of years, that is a talking point. which is great for a forum. but i'd hesitate before inflating a talking point into alleging a symptom of imminent anything.

[nemesiscorps]

Lol if there were a simple answer to that question, everyone would be competing for the championship every season. And certainly there was no afront intended. And no verbal chess. Honestly don't know a better way to express it.

Interesting. Is it not true that whereas most organizations obviously don't expect or suspect that they'll win DCI each year (yes, they set other goals), would it be fair to say that no organization likely exists that would purport to have no intention of ever competing for the championship? In other words, aren't most organizations "competing" in one way or another to achieve a higher rung on the ladder of competition?

As I think about this, I'll answer my own question... I guess not.

In fact, years ago, I was affiliated with a surging Division II-III corps in the early 90's that chose not to compete in DCI Quarterfinals (when "Open Class" was the "elite" competitive class) after the Div. II-III championship, even though they repeatedly qualified to be there. They literally gave their slot away to another corps... more than once. The reason? As an organization, they couldn't afford the fiscal demands of what was required of Open Class corps back then (i.e. Sponsoring a DCI Contest or pay a fee, etc.). Had that corps achieved ranking as a quarterfinalist, at the time it would have consumed their budget just to survive as an organization. Bottom line, it was a fork in the road decision, life or death. Life as a thriving local corps, or in all likelihood, death in the financially demanding world of DCI Open Class. Many of this corps' competitors reached fast and far, and achieved competitive successes in Open Class along the way. Today, may they RIP.

To the point, the corps I speak of simply decided to keep serving kids... which is what their mission was about, rather than go for competitive success. The corps that made that sacrificial decision to achieve sustainability while others around them were dying? They're still around today...

Pioneer (Thanks RB)

[nemesiscorps]

if there are two DCI events, equal in distance and accessibility, and one is a traditional scored competition and the other an unscored exhibition, wherein do you factor the competitive aspect into choosing which one you will go to?

-my first priority is going to be the show with my Home team (alumni)

-followed by the show with the most corps who i have traditionally enjoyed (legacy fan)

-followed by the show in which I know members/staff or have friends who will be there (social)

-followed by the show with more Big Name Groups (Casual Fanhood)

-followed by the show with more themes I am curious about (Curious Fanhood)

only if all of those things are equal would I then consider the scoring v non-scoring as a factor in deciding which show to go to.

won't begrudge anybody for thinking differently, but how many people would have the scoring element ranked higher than all of the other priorities I've listed?

DCI as a 'competitive circuit' is different than a sport, largely because a fan's ability to enjoy the product before them should not be diminished by numbers that they hear later.

of course a single show is different than a 'Season Championship.' But I believe that this exercise reflects where the 'competitive' element stands in re interacting with the activity. I find the scoring to be a different way of exploring what I've watched, and I do enjoy that aspect, but it is more of a talking point than a tentpole.

IF most people feel similar to how I do, then any kind of perceived championship circle of elitism will always just be a talking point and an arguing point. if significant number of people feel the other way in re significant of the scores, then it is something that needs to be addressed. But I go to a lot of shows and talk to a lot of folks, I'm confident that I'm not alone.

whatever small number of corps have won in whatever larger number of years, that is a talking point. which is great for a forum. but i'd hesitate before inflating a talking point into alleging a symptom of imminent anything.

Nice post... really.

My only response... People keep asserting that I'VE asserted some "imminent anything," which I have not. I also haven't "inflated" anything. You and others are taking the tired arguments of others over the years and applying it to my forwarding of objective, factual information. The facts are the facts, they don't need inflating. I've simply asked for commentary on the strength and stability of a competitive circuit with this kind of track record in champion/competitor ratios. People internalize that and then go nuts in responding... I'm not sure why.

In addition, BITD, even Legacy fans didn't decide to engage drum corps solely because of competition, it was just another part of the experience, with the difference being that they didn't have four-plus decades of data to conclude that the competitive aspect was useless, unless you were one of the 4 repeaters, or the once in a decade anomaly. Oh yeah, for what it's worth (which is not much to some), I think it's also clear that that's now a lost fan base.

[garfield]

I have no issue that the same 3, 4 Corps can be reasonably predicted to win 80% of all the future DCI Titles the next 35 years. Its not a problem per se. But if we want the activity to grow in numbers of participants, and the numbers of fans, no sensible person can possibly believe then that having just 3.. at most 4... Corps win 80% or more of the future DCI Titles is going to help increase the likelihood of more participants, more fans in the activity.. That's just plain silly to delude oneself that growth can be achieved with pretty much a monopoly at the top spot. There are reasons why many competitive sports... amateur and Pro... have grown exponentially the last 35 years. One of them is the unpredictability, and volatility, and excitement of a host of different winners... sometimes into the many dozens in numbers of different winners... over the last 35 years. The notion that we can attain growth and fan attraction and fan retention in the activity the next few decades, having 3, 4 of the same Corps rotate among themselves a DCI Title... with an outlier aberration Corps maybe winning once every decade or so before falling back out of the pack, (or disappearing altogether),.... is frankly almost delusional thinking, imo.

OK, I get your point, but there is another aspect of this activity that could allow it to survive and, in fact, grow as an activity while only having the same 3 or 4 corps winning all the time.

Yesterday, The _kid came to me excitedly and exclaimed "Hey Dad, I just found out that an Academy snare went to BlueCoats this year, two tenor players went to Blue Knights and, of course, Brandon... (Academy to BD in 2014)! Those guys at Academy have a great reputation for training kids who want to move on."

I think if you step back from that observation and consider its implications you'll see that it's entirely possible that repeat champions is not a problem and, in many cases, not the goal. Even if THIS Academy is successful in moving up the ranks if they wish, there will ALWAYS be others, Pio, PC, Surf feeding the ranks and serving the rookies. If these corps all move up, others will move down. Although many have said it about other now-gone corps, is it really reasonable to think that success in attracting new participants is dependent upon Pio moving up in the ranks, or Madison, or BK or any other to challenge BD, Crown, and 'Coats? To me, it's a ridiculous position. Those are each wonderful stories that deserve their kudos and placements and, while they may be a goal for some or even many marchers, it is the corps down-the-ranks that fill out the competitive field and grow participants who take their experience as stepping stones up to those winning, or contending, corps.

It may have been, BITD, that a kid hoped his talent took his team to finals night but, today, it seems kids look at DCI as a ladder of corps - the first rung - even open class - up through whatever level of competitive commitment each kid is willing or able to provide or produce. Why are the lower-placing ranks penalized and chastised for that role? Shouldn't they be applauded, recognized, and rewarded for providing the lower ladder rungs?

It's possible that the competition represented by history simply is not the competition of today. Personal success to today's kids may mean moving up the ranks not moving their corps up (and another down) in the ranks.

And does that corps staff get punished for that? Left to "fend for themselves"?

The Academy apparently has a reputation, at least among my son's age and friends, as a great feeder corps - they teach kids that make higher-placing corps. Is there any less merit in that reputation than in scoring in the top-5? The current payout system says so.

So long as kids admire the winning corps and strive to enter the activity - even on the first rung - to reach the big leagues, it doesn't matter who the leaders are year to year, does it?

[garfield]

Lol if there were a simple answer to that question, everyone would be competing for the championship every season. And certainly there was no afront intended. And no verbal chess. Honestly don't know a better way to express it.

Exactly.

So, if the subject of the discussion is undefinable and, therefore, most difficult to attain, let's change the discussion from "success = placement" to something more attainable: "Success = what, to Academy, to PC, to BD, to Phantom, to...".

If we recognize that placement does not mean success, then we can focus on performance instead, and on attracting more fans to the seats to see it.