Where is DCI?

[Kamarag]

Actually, they have so many sponsors now that DCI.org has to provide a scroll for all their logos at the bottom of their webpage.

Sponsorship doesn't always mean "we give you everything for free". In the case of drum corps, it's almost never the case. Are there exceptions? Yes, but they aren't what you probably think they are.

[C.Holland]

So, aggregating the trombone concerns expressed here, we are concerned that:

A. They are so expensive that not all corps can afford to use them.

B. They are so lucrative that all corps can't afford not to use them.

Quite a range of positions on trombones.

Trombone is actually one of the cheaper horns to produce. Top models like the Yamaha 620 being used this season are around $2K. But seeing those on the field isn't going to make trombone players want to buy a new one. Anything vintage from King is about the same price, and way better. Or if you're going to spend that kind of money for a horn, Rath and Shires give you more bang for your buck.

[Eleran]

I didn't live through the 60s or 70s, but I've watched enough tape to at least understand and appreciate it. However, If you watch several corps in a row arc it up as part of their show (ballads), i think it loses its impact. Of course, as much as seeing everyone arc up, is as lame as seeing every corps squat and twist bend their legs at a hold. Its now predictable. We used to know there was a ballad coming up, look, here comes that arc. We now know a hold is coming up... oh look... there's the dog squat, there's that dancy fancy soft shoe. Yep, we've seen every corps use the same dozen or so body moves you can do with a horn in your hand at this point. Its no longer new, or creative.

I consider it similar to the progression over time from the more formulaic opera composers of sequential self-contained set pieces being superseded by the through-compositions of Wagner. However, that progression inevitably continued, and led to certain strains of modern composition which drove away listeners who felt they had pushed beyond the edge of the envelope into meaninglessness that was no longer either musical nor even enjoyable.

I think that last part is what some fear now, that things will get pushed too far beyond what is appealing. The ultimate danger of becoming outdoor WGI is not just the additional of some elements of WGI, but the potential adoption of the fundamental nature of WGI: that the music is merely accompaniment for the guard/dancing/visual. The danger of adding electronics, vocals, emphasis on dancing, etc., is that we reach a point where the designers (and/or the judges) feel that such recorded vocals, sound effects, or even recording music, are better than the live music because they can be more easily manipulated to attain the "artistic vision" of a visually oriented show. I think that is the ultimate fear, when people say it's becoming "too WGI".

[C.Holland]

I consider it similar to the progression over time from the more formulaic opera composers of sequential self-contained set pieces being superseded by the through-compositions of Wagner. However, that progression inevitably continued, and led to certain strains of modern composition which drove away listeners who felt they had pushed beyond the edge of the envelope into meaninglessness that was no longer either musical nor even enjoyable.

I think that last part is what some fear now, that things will get pushed too far beyond what is appealing. The ultimate danger of becoming outdoor WGI is not just the additional of some elements of WGI, but the potential adoption of the fundamental nature of WGI: that the music is merely accompaniment for the guard/dancing/visual. The danger of adding electronics, vocals, emphasis on dancing, etc., is that we reach a point where the designers (and/or the judges) feel that such recorded vocals, sound effects, or even recording music, are better than the live music because they can be more easily manipulated to attain the "artistic vision" of a visually oriented show. I think that is the ultimate fear, when people say it's becoming "too WGI".

Totally understandable. I think you'll get some groups who will go that way. We've had a few who tend to rely on sound bites for their content already. I don't think you'll get everyone that way, simply because musicians want to play music and composers want to write music. Maybe some composers will even decline rights after hearing their arrangements chopped into burger topping. There's many ways to go with this.

[garfield]

What you have heard before from other posters is not my concern, and you should not be conflating their posts with mine. That is a tactic people use when they cannot make their own point. Speaking of which... so where is your line in the sand?

Once the woodwinds are fully legalized, DCI will be marching band by definition, instrument for instrument. The only questions that will remain is whether the branding value of the "drum corps" moniker is worth more than the marketing alignment of calling it "marching band". (Frankly, I predict they will try to have their cake and eat it too, using both labels.)

I used to think I had a line in the sand. But then I came to realize that this activity is not about me and my line. It's about the kids and their enjoyment of and education by "summer marching band".

My "Line in the Sand" is the day my kids, or any kids, no longer find summer marching band in DCI a worthwhile endeavor and the shows stop happening. I've been doing drum corps since G horns and chimes and tymps were carried on the field, through all of the changes since, and now, especially, since my kids are "of age" and interested as much as I am. I used to say that, if WW were allowed in, I'd stay interested until my kids were no longer interested then stop going. But then I had the revelation that, most likely, I'll still love the shows even with WWs because it likely won't be squeaky HS football game bad.

I also give myself the freedom to choose to stop going after my kids are grown if I can't stand the productions anymore.

I don't place conditions on either my love of my family or my love of the drum corps. It's OK with me if others do.

[Eleran]

But they all got local neighborhood kids interested in the drum corps activity, & many of them went on to march in other corps. Many of these kids never touched an instrument in their life, but ended up being proficient at their instrument. I marched with a guy in 1981 who couldn't read a lick of music, but he had an ear, chops & could really play.

THAT is what was great about this activity back in the day.

Just a point I find somewhat interesting: I entered high school marching band in that year (1981), and in my four years with the band, there was only 1 player who ever marched drum corps (he was a senior my freshman year, and marched battery with Crossmen - perhaps if he had been brass, or younger, I would have actually spoken to the guy, and gotten myself into DCI). Flash forward to present day, and my son will be starting his fourth year with his high school band next month (as a Junior), and during his high school career there has also only been 1 player from his school who has marched drum corps (him). Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose?

Edited July 20, 2016 by Eleran

[cixelsyd]

The problem is people always talk about how there are less but never talk about how there are more now than years ago.

That is totally false. There have been discussions about recent upturns in open class (both number of corps and number of kids per corps), and the possible winning ideas behind them (SoundSport being one). Look, here is one example:

Not expecting this to make drum corps a household name, but it is good to see new corps starting up. I hope we can retain this growth.

The DCI birth rate was declining over the decades as things got more expensive, and the hundreds of pre-existing corps and closely related organizations dried up. Around the turn of the millenium, DCI evaluation policy and rules weeded out startups of less than 30 members, further lowering the birth rate. I think the SoundSport program shows that DCI is reaching out to startups, providing an intermediate stage for new programs who do not yet have the full show, full membership or full travel range of a field competitor. That seems to be encouraging people to take that leap.

Note the identity of the poster.

[BlueStainGlass]

That is totally false. There have been discussions about recent upturns in open class (both number of corps and number of kids per corps), and the possible winning ideas behind them (SoundSport being one). Look, here is one example:

Note the identity of the poster.

🤗👏👏👏

[garfield]

You know, garfield, I look forward to discussions with you because you normally provide some of the finest posts here. Usually, you provide your own facts, opinions and conclusions, rather than just tell the other person (s)he is wrong.

Usually...

Those are my words... a few here, a few there, taken out of context, spliced back together so that the connotation is lost.

No. That is my assessment of the creative direction of the activity. It determines what the activity chooses as equipment, and what design choices stick because they are rewarded competitively.

(These things do have financial implications, but you and I both know that there are many more items and dollars on the balance sheets.)

Actually, they have so many sponsors now that DCI.org has to provide a scroll for all their logos at the bottom of their webpage.

Exactly. Maybe if you look closely enough at your numbers, and compare them to the list prices of all those shiny new horns, you can calculate precisely how much these sponsorship deals are worth to specific corps.

You first. Why read what I write, when it is so much more fun to distort it first, then mock it?

I said "inserted at the urging of sponsors in a manner similar to that of cigarettes in movies and TV". Obviously, product placement of cigarettes is not done by urging - it is contractually specified and paid for. I have no knowledge of trombone makers contractually obligating corps for product placement. But the manner in which so many corps are going to such lengths to incorporate octets or full 24-trombone sections in their shows, now both musically and in drill, is so gratuitously convoluted that it reminds me of shows like Mad Men where seemingly every scene is staged to showcase another cigarette being lit and puffed between every phrase of dialogue.

You have an instinct for $$$, so you tell me. Are these corps getting 24 new trombones for free? Are they buying all these trombones with the windfall profits from 2015 video sales? Ouch - with that in mind, is this a likely time for so many top corps to splurge on an extravagance only used for a portion of a show? Follow the money.

Alright, mea culpa with a heartfelt apology to my dyslexic friend. I've been too harsh. Unnecessarily so because I don't consider you a doofus by any means.

I blame my knowledge of corps finances, sponsorship agreements and dollars, and a general dislike of false characterizations of the activity for my surliness. I know most of us here love the activity.

As much of a "money person" as I am, I dislike the characterization that money drives design, especially in the context that designers are somehow "on the take" to instrument sponsors in their design considerations. That description is just wrong, IMO, because I've never spoken to a designer who even remotely hinted that he was considering an equipment sponsor during his designs, even as many showcase particular instrumentation to highlight their design. The whole smarmy implication that instrument sales and the money that supposedly follows it drives the activity just grates on my skin. My line in the sand would be to find out that sponsorships drive design, whether it's stick endorsements of percussion writers or kick-back deals from trombone manufacturers. And I'm highly confident that that's not the case in today's drum corps.

Even if instrument sponsors gave their equipment totally free to drum corps (absolutely not the case), it would still add up to a small fraction of the typical corps' annual budgets between equipment replacement cycles. Year-in and year-out, I would contend that travel costs are much more of a cost concern than are equipment purchases. Equipment deals are usually consideration deals where cheap equipment is made up in free advertising. Yamaha (or King or Majestic) wouldn't stay in business long if they gave away equipment, and the egos of most design teams, IMO, would push back against any equipment deal that mandated influence on design.

The number of sponsors that DCI has is little reference to the amount of money coming in to DCI's coffers from those sponsorships. Again, just go look at the 990's thread again and see how much DCI attributes to sponsorships. You'll be shocked at how little it is as a percentage of the whole. DCI lists sponsors who donate in-kind products that are small tokens in order to emulate that they have large sponsorships in order to attract more sponsorship. This is a good, but not unique, tactic that's pretty common in sponsorship placement. Heck, we use the tactic at our little show!

So, I apologize for coming down so hard and snarky - we don't usually lock horns. But I'm feeling quite protective of the activity as a result of your comments about what drives it, and I want to try to make sure that the notion you're promoting doesn't find widespread acceptance among the loyal group here. It's not demonstrable in the financials of any corps or in DCI, I've not seen nor heard your implication borne out in any discussions I've had, and I think the connotation is nothing but harmful to the activity's reputation unless and until it can be proven correct. If I'm harsh in my criticism, it is only for these reasons. It's not personal.

Edited July 20, 2016 by garfield

[skevinp]

So are you proboner?

I'm going to let that slide.