Does anyone in drum corps think this way?

[HornTeacher]

Since I'm not of the "in the know" crowd," I have to ask:

Does DCI have a separate "Economic Board of Directors" or "Economic Board?" If not, would it work to assemble the individual(s) from each Corps who are responsible for the economic realities of their individual corps, and present to them the question "How do we make this more marketable?" Not from an individual corps standpoint, but from an activity-wide standpoint. And even if this was done, would those members willingly give up the "secrets" to their individual Corps success(ess) in the name of the overall success of the activity? Maybe it is time that that this was considered (if it does not already exist).

[HornTeacher]

That was my extrapolation from Horn Teacher's comment that "an exquisitely performed 2 1/2 octave sixteenth note run by 150 horns" simply will not have mass appeal. If he's right, then presumably the audience needs something simpler. With a few exceptions, blockbuster movies really are dumber than art films, partly because they need to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Or as Britney Spears once complained: "Sundance is weird. The movies are weird: you actually have to think about them when you watch them."

However, if Horn Teacher is wrong about serious musicality having a limited appeal, then my comment certainly falls apart.

Nothing falls apart...from anyone. Last I knew, this was nothing but an honest exchange of philosophies and ideas from a concerned collective. S###...I don't have the (true) answers...I just consider myself to be nothing other than a member of a group of people trying to find some answer to a tremendous quandry.

Edited April 17, 2015 by HornTeacher

[N.E. Brigand]

Would a six-minute maximum show time change the "fundamental nature" of the activity? Why begin the search for a vision with a proviso of what you DON'T want to happen? Is it reasonable to presume that the partner drum corps seeks is interested in changing drum corps into something it's not? Is it also reasonable to go into the meeting believing that's the motivation of the partner?

I said nothing about partner companies, nor about reducing the performance time of any given corps. You previously mentioned a Finals with just five performers, for a more promotable broadcast. I pointed out that DCI had in fact done this in 1999. You suggested DCI's leadership (board and/or executives) might be better if not composed of people from drum corps. I said you could be right.

I did add a preference that such outsiders not come aboard hoping to make drum corps into something else. And then I said that, to determine what that "something else" is, we'd first need to decide what drum corps was. That last phrase repeats a point I've made probably more than a hundred times on these forums. But the key is, you want to bring someone aboard who serves the mission, rather than exploits it for their own other purposes. If "money people", as you term them, get rich promoting drum corps, more power to them, so long as the activity as a whole benefits. (I have gathered from various posts you've made over the years--for instance, using scare quotes around the word charities when referring to arts organizations like orchestras, museums, and ballets--that you object to the existence of not-for-profit companies, excepting perhaps those with overwhelming social service missions: you apparently feel that the Cleveland Museum of Art or the Columbus Symphony or Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park ought to succeed entirely on non-donated revenue and pay taxes like any other company, or fail in the marketplace to be succeeded by others. Correct me if I've misunderstood you. If I have not, my reply is that society, for a long time, has collectively decided that it is worth supporting some culture that capitalism alone cannot sustain, and those organizations have been operating on a subsidized model for 102, 64, and 57 years, respectively--and we are all better for it. By all means let drum corps diversify their support and find new ways to grow! But I don't see the point of pushing drum corps alone out of the non-profit world. [Edited to note that garfield subsequently indicated I was wrong in this particular estimation.])

As for performance time, I think six minutes would be unsatisfying both for the audience and for the members: drum corps-lite. I'd prefer fewer Finalists to shorter shows. Others may disagree. Would drum corps-lite represent a "fundamental" change to the activity? While it would be disappointing to me, I'm not sure I'd go that far. But we should always be asking those questions.

Your last paragraph is the most poignant, IMO. If DCI is an event-promotion company, and the corps are about promoting the activity to more kids to be involved in, has it been successful, not as individual corps necessarily, but as an aggregate activity? By the number of corps and the number of participant kids?

Because they saw it on TV for the first time due to the fact that the "money people" got involved, I suspect a growing number of strong farm kids and skinny Oriental kids will aspire to be a professional bull-rider. Which is better serving the "spread and promote" function of their by-laws?

My last paragraph asked why the Blue Devils weren't a for-profit entity. There's nothing wrong with your response except that it doesn't answer that question. (I think I partly answered it myself in this post, though.) As to what you say, you're probably right about PRB's growing appeal. DCI's position may or may not be improving, which is to say, there has been a slight recent improvement in the number of corps. (At the moment, DCI serves more members than PRB, a circuit with 1,200 competitors. Beyond sheer numbers, there is also the question of which circuit's members get the better experience. It's harder to quantify, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.) I would like to see much more growth, and your suggestions may point to a way ahead.

Edited April 21, 2015 by N.E. Brigand

[garfield]

While I think Garfield has a great notion (maybe there's somebody who might invest in the potential our audience represents), I think that market is fundamentally limited, which would serve to limit the interest of that special somebody.

Suppose Bill Cook's son discovered DCI this year instead of a generation ago. While Cook might have chosen to start a corps in Indy, maybe he would also have explored how to take drum corps "big time" the way he took Star to the stage. The marketing world has evolved a lot in a generation. As Garfield is suggesting, a rich guy with passion today might see drum corps not just for its participation opportunity; he might just see its audience as a vehicle for marketing and maybe money. Today's Bill Cook could buy DCI for a song. WGI too. He could combine the two, convert them to actual businesses and run them in tandem as a way to aggregate young people and their parents into packages that appeal to sponsors. It's not a bankrupt idea.

But where this probably hits an Indy brickyard is something core to corps. Blurring the people behind the uniforms, corps shows no "face" for its drama and glory. There's no point guard from the projects leading the team to triumph. There's no handsome quarterback we can see whether or not he's dating the cheerleader. There's no rider who's been trampled and gored. Not even a sullen running back with not a word to say. Drum corps has teams without individuals. No stars. No stories except for the corps.

The Yankees wouldn't be the Yankees without Ruth, Mantle, Jeter and even A-Rod. The Cavies, the Devils, the Cadets ...? The names, like the headgear, are interchangeable. Drum corps is all of us, not each of us.

I remember in the 70s meeting a young man from Boston who'd been dragged (his term) to too many drum corps shows in the area. "They're all the same," he complained. To a world that can't see past the uniforms, he might not be wrong.

HH

Wait, HH, clarification: I'm not in any way suggesting that searching out a rich benefactor and repeating Bill Cook's passion is at all the answer. I'm suggesting that PBR is now being funded by a bunch of money guys who are seeming experts in producing live events. When one reads the bios of the BOD of PBR it's clear that they didn't rely on just one rich benefactor, nor participant/competitors on their BOD, for their business savvy and success. They figured out a way to make it a commercially viable activity that somebody saw enough value in to pay $100million for it.

I'll bet it's true that there are many, many more kids participating in marching music programs than are in active bull-riding performance. And yet, $100million freaking dollars. And they still ride bulls.

[garfield]

Yes, as I've noted before, every high school football program lists all the players' names, while most drum corps members are anonymous to the audience.

I noticed that PBR has a listing of its "Star" athletes. Would DCI change the focus and allow for individual "super stars" to be marketed to prospected HS kids as drum corps "trading cards"?

That seems to be another thing that PBR has done differently.

Would drum corps directors be willing to allow this focus on individuals?

Even for $100million?

[garfield]

I did add a preference that such outsiders not come aboard hoping to make drum corps into something else. And then I said that, to determine what that "something else" is, we'd first need to decide what drum corps was. That last phrase repeats a point I've made probably more than a hundred times on these forums. But the key is, you want to bring someone aboard who serves the mission, rather than exploits it for their own other purposes. If "money people", as you term them, get rich promoting drum corps, more power to them, so long as the activity as a whole benefits. (I have gathered from various posts you've made over the years--for instance, using scare quotes around the word charities when referring to arts organizations like orchestras, museums, and ballets--that you object to the existence of not-for-profit companies, excepting perhaps those with overwhelming social service missions: you apparently feel that the Cleveland Museum of Art or the Columbus Symphony or Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park ought to succeed entirely on non-donated revenue and pay taxes like any other company, or fail in the marketplace to be succeeded by others. Correct me if I've misunderstood you. If I have not, my reply is that society, for a long time, has collectively decided that it is worth supporting some culture that capitalism alone cannot sustain, and those organizations have been operating on a subsidized model for 102, 64, and 57 years, respectively--and we are all better for it. By all means let drum corps diversify their support and find new ways to grow! But I don't see the point of pushing drum corps alone out of the non-profit world.)

My last paragraph asked why the Blue Devils weren't a for-profit entity. There's nothing wrong with your response except that it doesn't answer that question. (I think I partly answered it myself in this post, though.) As to what you say, you're probably right about PRB's growing appeal. DCI's position may or may not be improving, which is to say, there has been a slight recent improvement in the number of corps. (At the moment, DCI serves more members than PRB, a circuit with 1,200 competitors. Beyond sheer numbers, there is also the question of which circuit's members get the better experience. It's harder to quantify, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.) I would like to see much more growth, and your suggestions may point to a way ahead.

If you Googled my name, and no I'm not going to reveal it, you'd find that your entire paragraph above is an incorrect assumption on your part. I'll leave you to amend your thought accordingly.

As to whether BDE is for-profit, I would have no idea. What I do see is BD making some great business decisions that walk the walk and talk the talk of what most drum corps fans want and expect from its participant corps. And they do some pretty amazing drum corps each year, too. I'm not sure there's anything else we could ask from an ambassador of the drum corps activity.

[Eleran]

I noticed that PBR has a listing of its "Star" athletes. Would DCI change the focus and allow for individual "super stars" to be marketed to prospected HS kids as drum corps "trading cards"?

That seems to be another thing that PBR has done differently.

I wouldn't say that PBR has "done" that differently. Rather, it's an inherent difference between the two activities. Bull-riding (and rodeo events in general) has always been done by one person at a time, and has always included the elements of star-magnitude of the individuals.

And to me, those inherent differences are some of the reasons the comparison doesn't work. Promoting bull-riding, like promoting boxing, wrestling, circuses, or similar events, comes down to making the product as appealing as possible, and keeping the costs as low as possible. Paying the majority of your performers little (i.e. the guys who do NOT win the events) has always been typical of rodeos, and as long as the purses for the winners (ie - the stars) is less than the profits, then they are profitable.

Drum corps is a group activity that doesn't lend itself easily to the same star quality. The 20+ shows done by a drum corps each season are very similar, as opposed to a sporting event where each new event is inherently different and has various possible results. Drum corps performers are actually already paying for the privilege of working, as opposed to being paid very little - what more can we do to them, make them indentured servants?

I think I understand the points you have been trying to make, but I don't think PBR was an apt case comparison.

Edited April 17, 2015 by Eleran

[HornTeacher]

While I think Garfield has a great notion (maybe there's somebody who might invest in the potential our audience represents), I think that market is fundamentally limited, which would serve to limit the interest of that special somebody.

Suppose Bill Cook's son discovered DCI this year instead of a generation ago. While Cook might have chosen to start a corps in Indy, maybe he would also have explored how to take drum corps "big time" the way he took Star to the stage. The marketing world has evolved a lot in a generation. As Garfield is suggesting, a rich guy with passion today might see drum corps not just for its participation opportunity; he might just see its audience as a vehicle for marketing and maybe money. Today's Bill Cook could buy DCI for a song. WGI too. He could combine the two, convert them to actual businesses and run them in tandem as a way to aggregate young people and their parents into packages that appeal to sponsors. It's not a bankrupt idea.

But where this probably hits an Indy brickyard is something core to corps. Blurring the people behind the uniforms, corps shows no "face" for its drama and glory. There's no point guard from the projects leading the team to triumph. There's no handsome quarterback we can see whether or not he's dating the cheerleader. There's no rider who's been trampled and gored. Not even a sullen running back with not a word to say. Drum corps has teams without individuals. No stars. No stories except for the corps.

The Yankees wouldn't be the Yankees without Ruth, Mantle, Jeter and even A-Rod. The Cavies, the Devils, the Cadets ...? The names, like the headgear, are interchangeable. Drum corps is all of us, not each of us.

I remember in the 70s meeting a young man from Boston who'd been dragged (his term) to too many drum corps shows in the area. "They're all the same," he complained. To a world that can't see past the uniforms, he might not be wrong.

HH

While I get the gist of what you are saying (and, in 95% of the time, agree with), I must also say that the boldened statement is not true of modern Athlectic/Economic practice. While Ruth, Mantle, and Jeter all led to the the entity which we think of as being "The Yankees," the modern reality dictates that what we see as being the modern Yankees is determined rather forcefully by only one person...George Steinbrenner. Without his money, business acumen, and flat-out ba##s. there would have been no "Mr. October" leading to a pennant in 1977...say nothing of the parade of high-priced talent which followed over the next 20-30 years...and the resulting pennants in the 90's. And I don't say this as an avowed Yankee fan...my MLB allegiances have always fallen with the Minnesota Twins. Heck, they gave me, and all the other Twins fans, a heck of a ride in '87 and '91.

It all, at least at the professional activities level, comes down to cash. Doesn't always ring true...but it's a heck of a head start.

[N.E. Brigand]

If you Googled my name, and no I'm not going to reveal it, you'd find that your entire paragraph above is an incorrect assumption on your part. I'll leave you to amend your thought accordingly.

Well, not the entire paragraph, surely, because the first four sentences aren't about you at all.

But as regards my parenthetical suppositions, I asked for you to correct me if I was wrong, and you did. Thanks. Sorry to have misunderstood your previous posts on the subject of non-profits. As for googling your name, obviously that's unnecessary, since we each know the other's real name.

I hope we're not expected to be doing "research" on the identities and "real-life" opinions of our fellow posters! Generally for these discussions, I adopt Wittgenstein's proposition, Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist ("The world is all that is the case") or, if you prefer, the traditional proverb, Quod non est in actis, non est in mundo ("What is not in the files, never happened"), with DCP being "the world" or "the files", respectively. Accordingly, I'll take you at your word.

[BRASSO]

While I think Garfield has a great notion (maybe there's somebody who might invest in the potential our audience represents), I think that market is fundamentally limited, which would serve to limit the interest of that special somebody.

But where this probably hits an Indy brickyard is something core to corps. Blurring the people behind the uniforms, corps shows no "face" for its drama and glory. There's no point guard from the projects leading the team to triumph. There's no handsome quarterback we can see whether or not he's dating the cheerleader. There's no rider who's been trampled and gored. Not even a sullen running back with not a word to say. Drum corps has teams without individuals. No stars. No stories except for the corps.

.

HH

DCI has names, that became its name " stars " if you will. But its the adults, not the individual performers that predominently get the names, lets be honest here. Anyone that has followed DCI just a little bit has heard of the names.... " George Hopkins ".... " Steve" Reliable Rondo " Rondinaro"..... " Michael Cesario "..... Dennis Delucia ".... " David Gibbs "... " Marie Czapinski ".... " Debbie Torchia ".... George Oliviero".... Michael Klesch ".... " Scott Johnson "..... " Michael Gaines ".... " Dan Acheson ".... " Peggy Twiggs ".... " Wayne Downey "...." Jeff Fielder ".... and I could go on and on with the DCI "stars ", with their names and faces.

DCI is unique in many respects. In one area, to my knowledge, it is the only " sport " that has every single member of its Hall of Fame selected by virtue of what they did as an adult.. NOT principally what they accomplished as a youth performer on the field of competition. As such, the numbers of performers that have been inducted into the DCI Hall of Fame, chosen principally by what they accomplished as competing performers is ...................zero.. So you are accurate in your asessment in my view that each staring performer in DCI over the years is basically a faceless individual, someone that when they leave are replaced with another talented, faceless performer, just like the previous ones the last 4 decades. On some occasions, their names come to the fore, but nowhere near the notoriety that the adults have secured for themselves. Its one of the unique features of DCI compared with the 18-22 amateur college sports athletes where so many people know the names of the top performers in these sports.. The College Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey Hall of Fames, for example, all have performers inducted ( and thus remembered ) into these sports Hall of Fame based upon what they did as amateur performers in their respective sports.. not what they did later in life, nor if they even played professionally that sport once they left their college team, school. It is what it is in DCI, and we have slowly accepted this as the norm.. but clearly it is not the norm, insofar as it is in the amateur college sports world realm, for just one example, anyway. And lets keep in mind that the college sport amateur athletes that become known as its sports" stars" each and every season, are pretty much the same ages ( 18-22 ) as the star performers in DCI, of which there are at least a dozen or more individual ones each and every summer in DCI giving us their all on the field of competition, and really shining.... but except for insiders, are essentially nameless, faceless, for the most part.

Edited April 18, 2015 by BRASSO