When was the last time this was discussed?

[nemesiscorps]

"Setup for success" is far from "train members for top corps". Again you're substituting your words for mine. Why do you keep doing that?

My claim is two-fold:

1) upper tier corps are perfectly capable of training members without assistance from lower-tier corps; moreover their pedagogy is more effective as demonstrated by their excellence.

2)i if lower-tier corps were capable of training members as well as upper-tier corps, they'd advance into the upper tier.

I find it interesting that you've run away from responding to (2) and you're substituting your words for mine when trying to defend (1).

In response to your question, I've already explained the value of "experience".

Are there HS kids whose experience in HSMB did not prepare them for drum corps? Absolutely. And lower-tier corps are appropriate for those members. But I'll stand by my assertion that kids who've had four years of training in highly competitive marching band are missing only one thing to qualify for upper-tier corps: experience. And that experience is simply insurance that said member won't fold under the rigors of a summer marching band.

You can try to spin it all you want. The fact is if training at lower-tier corps were on par with the teaching at upper-tier corps, those corps would advance to the upper-tier. And that's just not happening, is it?

What? This is becoming convoluted. I'll try again.

I said, "set up for success," and I also said, "train members to the benefit of top tier corps." I'm lost on where you're going at this point.

I agree that the top tier corps are capable of training members. I never implied otherwise. I stated that lower tier corps "train" members that top tier corps sometimes reap the benefits of. You implied that lower tier corps were teaching in a manner that developed bad habits, and that the reason the lower tier corps were lower tier was because of their pedagogy. I disagreed.

My entire point throughout the thread addresses your #2. I stated that I believe lower tier corps don't advance to sustainability, in part, because of THE MODEL, not because of inferior training. You disagreed.

Is this all correct, or am I missing something?

I hope you don't really think I'm in "spin mode." I have my opinion, and I try to articulate it. Why spin? To what gain?

[corpsband]

What? This is becoming convoluted. I'll try again.

I said, "set up for success," and I also said, "train members to the benefit of top tier corps." I'm lost on where you're going at this point.

I agree that the top tier corps are capable of training members. I never implied otherwise. I stated that lower tier corps "train" members that top tier corps sometimes reap the benefits of. You implied that lower tier corps were teaching in a manner that developed bad habits, and that the reason the lower tier corps were lower tier was because of their pedagogy. I disagreed.

My entire point throughout the thread addresses your #2. I stated that I believe lower tier corps don't advance to sustainability, in part, because of THE MODEL, not because of inferior training. You disagreed.

Is this all correct, or am I missing something?

I hope you don't really think I'm in "spin mode." I have my opinion, and I try to articulate it. Why spin? To what gain?

lol. i wrote the two points i was making in plain clear english.

instead you're still making implications and inferences.

ive never seen someone run faster from simple sentences.

let's nix your inferences.

1. i didn't make any claims about sustainability or why lower-tier corps fail to obtain it. BUT I will now : it's simple.

Income - expense = proft/loss. If a corps spends beyond it's means, it fails. No where in that simple equation is "the model", the training, the design, or the instruction.

2. I didn't make any statement about inferior anything. I simply observed that teaching + design are both necessary for competitive success. Fail in one or the other and you will not advance in the competitive arena. Clearly there are corps who don't get clean. That's a failure of instruction. There are corps who write beyond their members abilities. That's a failure in design. We see both of these every single year. These failures lead to corps who can't advance up the competitive ladder. Corps who do advance are successfully designing for their members and instructing them well enough to achieve the design.

So let's drop the whole INFER and IMPLY nonsense. Plain english plainly written please.

[Kamarag]

I recall Kamarag arguing that Surf '12 wasn't getting sufficient credit for G.E. from the judges.

According to the sheets at the time, Surf got boned in music effect night in and night out. Thier tapes were horrifically bad at times, even by judges that should have known better. I'm not saying they were Top 12 by any stretch, but 20th? Not a chance.

[nemesiscorps]

Again with the training.

Look -- a lot of kids leave HS MB's with enough "training" to march anywhere. What they LACK is experience -- ie learning how to do marching band in the summer on the road.

If the training they received at lower tier corps were so wonderful, the lower tier corps would be NOT BE LOWER TIER CORPS :-) They'd be moving up the ranks.

Sure all drum corps teach marching and playing and spinning. But some do it lot better than others. And THOSE corps contend. Teaching someone to march poorly doesn't help them along in their marching career. Nor does "teaching" them how not to get clean at the end of the summer.

Sorry -- lower tier corps do provide EXPERIENCE and upper tier corps want kids with experience. No denying that. And there are lot of other valuable roles those lower tier corps play. In fact I agree that the upper corps probably couldn't exist without the entire DCI ecosystem in place.

But it has little to do with "training".

Okay... I'm really trying here.

I have been trying to respond to the above comments that you previously made. It's also quite possible (even probable) that I've taken the comments of others and intertwined them with yours, which was unintentional, and I apologize.

What is clear is that we disagree on the "training" issue, in that "it has little to do with training." I do not deny that there are kids (not sure about "many") coming out of high school marching bands with enough training to march anywhere, so we agree on that point.

Also, (generally speaking) I'm stating that I'm not of the opinion that lower tier corps are "teaching someone to march poorly," or "teaching how not to get clean." Instead, I think that lower tier corps are (generally) working with members that have less experience and lesser developed skills than top tier corps members. I call the continued development of those skills in lower tier corps "training." I think you disagree with that, based upon your above statement.

It seems that we also agree that top tier corps (generally) benefit from the "experience" that some members have gained in lower tier corps. On a side note, someone mentioned how lower tier corps benefit from being taught by some instructors from top tier corps, which I agree with. That's but one of the reasons why I don't think lower tier corps (generally) are being taught "to march poorly," or are being taught "how not to get clean," etc.

Having said all of that, I will repeat an earlier point that I made (perhaps to another poster), that I believe that the DCI model contributes to the top tier corps obtaining the top skilled performers (i.e. most experienced), and thus, the results of that reality are clear when observing the 42-year champion-to-competitor ratio.

Edited February 12, 2015 by nemesiscorps

[GUARDLING]

Okay... I'm really trying here.

I have been trying to respond to the above comments that you previously made. It's also quite possible (even probable) that I've taken the comments of others and intertwined them with yours, which was unintentional, and I apologize.

What is clear is that we disagree on the "training" issue, in that "it has little to do with training." I do not deny that there are kids (not sure about "many") coming out of high school marching bands with enough training to march anywhere, so we agree on that point.

Also, (generally speaking) I'm stating that I'm not of the opinion that lower tier corps are "teaching someone to march poorly," or "teaching how not to get clean." Instead, I think that lower tier corps are (generally) working with members that have less experience and lesser developed skills than top tier corps members. I call the continued development of those skills in lower tier corps "training." I think you disagree with that, based upon your above statement.

It seems that we also agree that top tier corps (generally) benefit from the "experience" that some members have gained in lower tier corps. On a side note, someone mentioned how lower tier corps benefit from being taught by some instructors from top tier corps, which I agree with. That's but one of the reasons why I don't think lower tier corps (generally) are being taught "to march poorly," or are being taught "how not to get clean," etc.

Having said all of that, I will repeat an earlier point that I made (perhaps to another poster), that I believe that the DCI model contributes to the top tier corps obtaining the top skilled performers (i.e. most experienced), and thus, the results of that reality are clear when observing the 42-year champion-to-competitor ratio.

lol..ok here i am again.....your last paragraph, You keep mentioning the " MODEL " which part of the model , specifically? Also,I think it's more that if a corps doesn't produce what a member is looking for then they move on. This is not anyones fault including any model , it's just human nature for many.

You also mentioned your twin boys being in SCV, well, haven't you experienced just what I am saying? Top corps do benefit from members from other corps BUT only because they may not be getting what they ultimately want in their drum corps experience before aging out.

We all strive for excellence or an ultimate experience ( we all decide what that means to ourselves ) even in the job world we move on if we don't get what we are looking for OR if we can reach new heights in our careers.

I , early on or in a few winter programs lost kids to someone BUT I have to ask myself , did someone steel them for whatever reason or did I not provide something to keep them. Then again in a few cases I was very glad to lose a few.lol

Edited February 12, 2015 by GUARDLING

[Jeff Ream]

I recall Kamarag arguing that Surf '12 wasn't getting sufficient credit for G.E. from the judges.

and the GE sheets were changed a year later.

However, GE alone was not enough to move them up to being a contender.

[Jeff Ream]

Well, we finally agree on something. However, I would make that same statement about any two corps.

Interestingly, you selected two great examples that illustrate my point perfectly, Pioneer and BD.

I give you Cathy Clark... 1987/1988 Pioneer Drum Major, 1991 Blue Devils Drum Major

According to you, her achieving the position/status as first BD female drum major had nothing to do with Pioneer. Really?

I'll continue...

Clay Waccholz - 1983/1984 Pioneer Baritone soloist, 1988 Madison Scouts Baritone soloist

Ben Baertschy - 1993 Pioneer percussionist, 1995 Phantom Regiment tenor, 199_ Cadets tenor age out

Jeremy Figlewicz - 2002-2004 Pioneer baritone, 2005-2007 Phantom Regiment baritone soloist/section leader

Kenny Casados - 2005 Pioneer percussionist, 2010 Cadets snare

Brandn Lindsey - 2004-2005 Pioneer trumpet, 2010 SCV visual award winner, 2011 SCV drum major

I could go on and on.

The top tier corps are stacked with these people, and these examples represent only a sprinkling of what Pioneer alone has nurtured and developed, ultimately benefiting numerous top tier corps.

ok so here's a question...why wasn't Pioneer able to keep these kids and others and build a powerhouse of their own?

[Kamarag]

and the GE sheets were changed a year later.

However, GE alone was not enough to move them up to being a contender.

Absolutely not, because they were atrocious in the technical excellence/performance captions.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Kamarag

[corpsband]

Also, (generally speaking) I'm stating that I'm not of the opinion that lower tier corps are "teaching someone to march poorly," or "teaching how not to get clean." Instead, I think that lower tier corps are (generally) working with members that have less experience and lesser developed skills than top tier corps members. I call the continued development of those skills in lower tier corps "training." I think you disagree with that, based upon your above statement.

Actually I think you do agree. You just don't like seeing it put so bluntly. Let's find out!

Why do lower tier corps place where they do competitively?

Putting aisde design short version is: they don't march as well, play as well, spin as well.

Do you agree?

Edited February 12, 2015 by corpsband

[jwillis35]

It seems that we also agree that top tier corps (generally) benefit from the "experience" that some members have gained in lower tier corps. On a side note, someone mentioned how lower tier corps benefit from being taught by some instructors from top tier corps, which I agree with. That's but one of the reasons why I don't think lower tier corps (generally) are being taught "to march poorly," or are being taught "how not to get clean," etc.

Having said all of that, I will repeat an earlier point that I made (perhaps to another poster), that I believe that the DCI model contributes to the top tier corps obtaining the top skilled performers (i.e. most experienced), and thus, the results of that reality are clear when observing the 42-year champion-to-competitor ratio.

From paragraph 1 (quoted):

• Yes, top 12-level corps benefit from kids who learned and gained experience from smaller, less-experienced drum corps. But top 12 drum corps also benefit from the experience they get from band and orchestra programs. School music programs do the heavy lifting. They start many of these kids when they are in 4th or 5th grade, they apply local instruction for basic music concepts and reading skills, they often supply instruments and/or lessons (even group lessons), and all the way through high school these kids are exposed to music in a variety of ways, including excellent performance opportunities.

• I think it really starts with public K-12 music education (college level too). I believe drum corps at all levels benefits more from this than whether or not kids begin their marching with a smaller, less experienced corps, or a larger, more experienced corps.

Instructors from larger corps also teaching with lower-tier corps (as you put it):

• As for lower-tier corps benefiting from instructors from larger corps...I agree. They do benefit; BUT...if I were a lower-tier corps I would not take part in these practices. There are lots of good instructors out there. There is a ton of talent coming out of the college ranks.

• Young, less-experienced drum corps need to stop thinking that you have to go with the "name" brands to win, or grow, or to develop and excellent show. If kids are being taught by members of larger corps, eventually they will leave for greener pastures, which will naturally happen anyway (at least for some). But I believe you have a better chance of keeping kids around with a young, talented, up-and-coming team of teachers who may be unproven, and who may make mistakes, but who also develop a sense of pride for the corps giving them the opportunity to teach.

• If you're small and inexperienced, it's always best to find local-regional instructors who want to be around, who want to help you build (because you may not have a national brand), and who make your employment their priority. If they go to work for another corps, do not let them stay. Wish them well and bring in the next person. The relationships your kids develop with local-regional instructors and designers is what will help keep kids around, keep them loyal, and help you build a quality drum corps.

• The one exception to this (for me anyway) is what I see the Blue Devils doing with camp auditions for Pacific Crest (I think that's the right corps?). I am most impressed by their joint effort. Again, I'm not saying that hiring instructors from other corps can't produce good results. I'm simply saying that I wouldn't do it.

Cannibalism and Stagnant Thinking

• I feel too many drum corps have played the "we all want Michael Gaines" game or the "let's hire instructors from our competitors" game, and I believe it's backfired many times. There is simply too much cannibalism in DCI. Too much "you have to get so and so to write drill or you will never be top 5." "You need to have so and so write your brass book or you'll never be top 5," and on and on.

• Most drum corps should forget about being top 5 and just focus on growth, stability, revenue, loyal and competent instructors, developing relationships with local and regional students, and providing ways for tour to be productive, exciting, fun, rewarding, and feasible.

DCI's Current Model and the Advantage for Top 12 Corps: My Response to Paragraph 2

• I do not believe DCI has purposely set a model to harm lower-tier corps. In fact, they continue to discuss and try things that will help newer or less-advanced groups.

• But the national tour does harm those with less financial stability who are under pressure to hire national-brand instructors and who are struggling to keep kids on board, make all the shows, travel at a high cost, and somehow remain visible and competitive. Often these groups are forced to offer discounts and other perks--or at least they feel the pressure to do so--in order to keep kids around. This sort of action typically ensures that the corps will not be around very long, or that they will struggle from year to year.

• Each corps must do what is necessary to remain solvent and stable while offering a great education and performance experiences to its members. I believe this can be done within the DCI model, but it requires smart corps directors with far more important goals than winning or shooting for top 5.

• This is why the desire that some have for more parity, more winners, is a nice dream but it doesn't fit into the plans of a lot of DCI's member corps. Unlike the NFL, DCI is a bit more like College Football. Some schools are bigger, with more money, more media, more marketing, a national brand, and the ability to pay huge coaching salaries. Most colleges cannot do this or don't have these advantages. The same is true in drum corps.

• San Diego St. isn't trying to become Ohio State. They're not trying to win a national title. Hey, if it happened...wow, fantastic! But they are running their program according to their budget, the needs of the program, university, and local fans--and the needs for local and regional recruiting. Youngstown State (an FCS D1 school of roughly 14,000 students) is not going to become the next Alabama or Georgia. They enjoy the playoff system in place for FCS schools (formerly Div 1AA). This is drum corps at present.

• Occasionally we see a corps rise fast. Oregon Crusaders comes to mind lately, Spirit of Atlanta did in the late 70s, and Star of Indiana did in the 80s. But in most cases this doesn't happen. We've also seen corps "sell-out" for competition and their desire to win and we've seen them crumble.

Summing it Up

1. DCI can't control where kids go to audition, what their musical and visual passions are, and what their budget needs are or how far they can travel in order to participate. So in that sense the market for where talented kids go to audition is 100% up to the kid.
2. DCI cannot control how each drum corps funds its operation. While there is some revenue sharing in DCI, it's mostly small potatoes. Each drum corps must find ways to raise cash and capital for most of its budget needs. Not every corps can acquire sponsorship from Yamaha or Zildjan, etc. Not every corps can raise enough money to hire expensive instructors and show designers.
3. Unless DCI is flipping the bill for instructors, for tour dues, or maybe busing and food, they can't control how a drum corps is operated, how they make their money, and who auditions for the corps.
4. If we created appropriate divisions for current crop of corps, I believe we'd have 4 (Div I - Div IV). These divisions would be predicated by number of marchers in the corps. Maybe 10 - 50 (Div IV), 51 - 80 (Div III), 81 - 120 (Div II), and 121 - 150 (Div I). This could open some exciting possibilities while still allowing all divisions to compete in World Class Quarters, and Semis if they make it.

Just random thoughts on this crazy subject :)