When was the last time this was discussed?

[N.E. Brigand]

DCM was the last producer of buggy whips in an auto age. The wonder isn't that it died. The wonder is that it survived as long as it did. It did what it did well. It just wasn't relevant any more. There's no conspiracy in that. DCM died as did all the regional circuits of the natural causes we know so well. DCI lived because it arrived in national scope just as national possibilities were becoming dominant.

As compelling as the regional case might be in the abstract today, it's no more sustainable today than it was through its death throes (all natural) of the 90s and since. That's because the fans back then wanted to see BD and Cadets. And so do we.

In Open Class, there were seven corps competing in 2014 who had not done so the previous year, and there are six more corps who were not competing last year that have indicated they plan to do so in 2015.* All of these corps will be competing only regionally for at least their first few years. If you are correct that this is unsustainable, do you think DCI should be doing more to discourage these sorts of start-ups?

*2014: Coastal Surge, Eruption, Golden Empire, Guardians, Incognito, Louisiana Stars, Watchmen

*2015: Freedom, Heat Wave, Jewel City, River City Rhythm, Southwind, Thunder

[N.E. Brigand]

For example, six new corps started up this year. Will one of them make it to Semis in the next ten years? Maybe one. And that's because the funding models have stabilized to the point that most drum corps are far better run than they used to be--now I don't mean the directors are so much better: I mean the instructors throughout the ranks have figured out the best practices in their areas (brass, percussion, CG or visual) that they are not making it up as they go anymore. In other words, one reason a corps could move up back then was that the other corps didn't know what they were doing either. It seems like today there's more standardization of pedagogy (for example, they might use the word pedagogy today ).

This reminds of "moneyball": a less-funded baseball team is able to compete with the better-heeled competition because they've discovered a flaw in the system. Once everybody else catches on, the financially poorer team loses the advantage.

[N.E. Brigand]

Who didn't love Surf in 2012? But they had issues, and thats why their placement was what it was. That's not the sheets fault or the judges fault.

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

[glory]

...So today no one who joins a non-Finalist corps can do so with any reasonable hope of medaling before they age out. If you want to play in a competitively successful corps, the only way to do so is to join a corps that is already competitively successful.

It's a fair point. What now? Surely the answer isn't to handicap the successful.

HH

[glory]

In Open Class, there were seven corps competing in 2014 who had not done so the previous year, and there are six more corps who were not competing last year that have indicated they plan to do so in 2015.* All of these corps will be competing only regionally for at least their first few years. If you are correct that this is unsustainable, do you think DCI should be doing more to discourage these sorts of start-ups?

*2014: Coastal Surge, Eruption, Golden Empire, Guardians, Incognito, Louisiana Stars, Watchmen

*2015: Freedom, Heat Wave, Jewel City, River City Rhythm, Southwind, Thunder

No. And didn't mean to leave any such impression. I was discussing DCM and other extinct regional circuits not more regionally oriented corps. That said, I admit the challenge that regional corps face today - a challenge that derives not from DCI but from the changing world around us.

Operating a corps is tougher than ever (as if that need be said). Forget the money and all the familiar guilt. The real problem running a drum corps is the competition with everything else. Kids today have more options; and they're taking them - along with their money and parents and all the things we need.

HH

Edited February 11, 2015 by glory

[N.E. Brigand]

It's a fair point. What now? Surely the answer isn't to handicap the successful.

It depends on what people take "handicap" and "successful" to mean. Sometimes those who are called "successful" are really just lucky. Sometimes what the "successful" refer to as "handicapping" is really just ensuring a level-playing field for all competitors. Sometimes the genuinely successful need to think about more than their own short-term benefits, which means acting for more than just themselves. This goes back to my earlier long-winded comment about the need for DCI to help all corps succeed--or at least all of those corps that are run responsibly, and with the help limited by DCI's own abilties.

For example, while the G7 controversy appears to have largely passed, remember that one of the proposals in the notorious Powerpoint presentation would have given those seven corps explicitly "permanent" elite status, status which included each of the seven having twice the voting power of the other corps. (They did allow that other corps who themselves did well competitively could move up to that elite group, but as far as the presentation indicated, none of the seven could ever fall out again, no matter how badly they might later do on the field.) Quite possibly those seven corps saw themselves as "successful" and as trying to avoid the "handicap" of being out-voted by other corps who hadn't enjoyed as much recent competitive success. But two of the seven had not very long before been less "successful", or maybe it was less "lucky", than some of the corps they were themselves now trying to "handicap", and fortunately DCI's other members were able to reject that move and act on behalf of a larger group of corps.

Now most cases aren't as obvious as that one. But if it's possible to be a reasonably successful World Class corps (let's say, qualifying for Finals more often than not) with earnings of, say, $750,000/year, but 12 of the 22 World Class corps have earnings of $1,000,000/year or more, would it be penalizing the successful to ask that this majority not change the rules in such a way that each corps needs earnings of at least $850,000/year to succeed? (All numbers are to be understood as adjusting for inflation, of course.) Because that way leads to the demise of ten corps--or more if the stakes are raised again a few years later, when the seven of the remaining twelve corps who have budgets of $1,500,000/year change the rules again so that corps now need $1,100,000 to succeed. As I recall, one corps director last year specifically referred to the corps "arms race" in the Prelims cinema-cast. Those "arms" are used in hopes of swaying the judges. If the judges decide that "successful" corps must have enormous props like the Cadets (or in the marching band world, Tarpon Springs) had in 2014, with the associated trucking costs, then that would lead to some corps either going bankrupt trying to keep up, or to accepting their second-class status as permanent. The alternative is for the corps as a whole to tell the judges not to reward enormous props too highly. Likewise the judges could be directed that other "optional" items, like trombones, or French horns, or synthesizers, should bring no credit to corps in themselves.

It's very possible that's happening, of course. The largest props didn't win last year. Nor did trombones. (Can I look forward to a day when a corps who chooses not to use a synthesizer wins? If it's a valid choice not to use a French horn, surely some other unofficially required elements are also optional, right?)

[JimF-LowBari]

nm....... just tired of insults w/o any backing facts

Edited February 12, 2015 by JimF-LowBari

[corpsband]

Wow. We've somehow transported ourselves into the land of absolutes.

I never said that ALL (or the only thing) that the tops corps do is refine skills. You're also correct in that you didn't use the word choices that I did, but you clearly implied inferiority.

I know for a fact that the "training" provided by lower tier corps sets many members up for later success in top tier corps. For you to be in denial of that is fallacy. I can't imagine the number of current and past MM that would give testimony supporting what I'm saying.

Further, why do top tier corps recommend that some membership candidates that don't get a spot during audition, seek out more "experience" in another corps, and then return to audition again in the future? Is it because they want to ensure that those bad habits continue to accumulate?

It's okay to revise your position, and I'll try to stay away from absolute language.

"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?

Edited February 12, 2015 by corpsband

[nemesiscorps]

While this is surely true, it's not the truth about the strata in drum corps. What separates Pioneer and BD isn't just refinement.

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.

[nemesiscorps]

It's a fair point. What now? Surely the answer isn't to handicap the successful.

HH

Finally.

And again, you're correct, the answer IS NOT to handicap or blame successful organizations. I also believe that the answer isn't to blame the "less successful," or to create "gimme points" to achieve balance. I just think that an objective look at how the model serves DCI moving forward is a reasonable discussion.

This entire thread was meant to address your simply put question. What now?

I admit that I don't have the answer, and I suspect that the answer won't come out of DCI (I could certainly be wrong about that), but I do think that a change is coming at some point.