JimF-LowBari Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, cfirwin3 said: But what is the point of your point, given the discussion? Your general point is applicable to all areas of cost. What do you see as the discussion? If I went off in a different direction or looked at it in a different way what is the problem? Edited December 6, 2019 by JimF-LowBari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfirwin3 Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 Just now, JimF-LowBari said: What do you see as the discussion? If I went off in a different direction or looked at it in a different way what is the problem? The discussion is partly about electronics and their cost. That's the part that I went after. Your general argument about cost is applicable to the entire budget... not at all exclusive to electronics. And that gets to my original replies on the issue in stating that drumcorps make their own budget decisions year to year. If they choose to budget for electronics, then it can easily be done considering the size of the operating budget and the much more costly areas where upgrades aren't always necessary in a particular year. As I said, this has already happened. It's done and nobody with skin in the game seems to be complaining about it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 5 minutes ago, cfirwin3 said: The discussion is partly about electronics and their cost. That's the part that I went after. Your general argument about cost is applicable to the entire budget... not at all exclusive to electronics. And that gets to my original replies on the issue in stating that drumcorps make their own budget decisions year to year. If they choose to budget for electronics, then it can easily be done considering the size of the operating budget and the much more costly areas where upgrades aren't always necessary in a particular year. As I said, this has already happened. It's done and nobody with skin in the game seems to be complaining about it. Ok that’s your discussion and I followed down the cost track.... now we understand each other... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 56 minutes ago, cfirwin3 said: We'll say that it is always EVENTUALLY a viable option. All options are eventual if not immediate. We can all complain about the here and now, but next year has a different story as did last year. This argument commits a fallacy of cherry picking specific groups at specific moments in time and applying a specific demand that may not actually exist in the grand scheme apart from all of these restrictions. We could still be arguing that the expense to replace G horns with Bb is too great for corps to be competitive... that it is an unnecessary "additional cost" in order to be competitive (in spite of that handy dandy win from the Cavaliers in 2000, but that's another story). But here we are in a day and age when nobody plays G anymore (as we are now with amplification use). I still maintain that the creative (and point scoring) benefits concerning innovations with techno sound design boils down to the application of creativity and NOT the mere application of equipment. The winning shows aren't necessarily the biggest budgets and that has always been true but they almost always are. I changed your statement to reflect reality and I would challenge you to show that my correction is not accurate. 990's will do as a minimum, but I'll consider other financial data if you have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 1 hour ago, cfirwin3 said: Unless there are systemic organizational flaws, a corps budget will inflate with time, and it isn't necessarily because of rise in cost. Corps can EASILY plan to purchase But there are systemic organizational flaws. The very same competition that draws us to drum corps, also drives the competitors to live way beyond their means. They charge admission to the marchers, not just the audience... and still, they operate at deficits so large that massive donations (and/or gambling revenue) are required to make up the shortfall. That is the nature of the beast. Despite that, we used to have many hundreds of such beasts, but now we have less than 50 because the cost to operate a competitive corps is so staggeringly high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 1 hour ago, cfirwin3 said: But what is the point of your point, given the discussion? Your general point is applicable to all areas of cost. Yes, it is. And thank you for recognizing that. That is 70% of the point. (The other 30%: since this activity struggles to cope with costs, it should not add (should not have added) more costs without adequate justification.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Haring Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 2 hours ago, MikeD said: Yes, if the corps themselves decide that a particular item is ok to use. Or essential, in a "keeping up with the Joneses" way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfirwin3 Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 (edited) Just now, garfield said: I changed your statement to reflect reality and I would challenge you to show that my correction is not accurate. 990's will do as a minimum, but I'll consider other financial data if you have it. I wouldn't challenge that at all. And my original statement certainly leaves plenty of room for your edit. When we are talking about electronics, top placing corps can and do spend 2-3 times more than corps that eventually beat them. The gear isn't half as important as its usage. So I would argue the cause of your correlation, however, as not being related to material assets nearly as much as it is related to the design, and talent. If the huge budget is the egg and high scoring placement is the chicken... I think the chicken begets the egg in most cases (i.e. successful corps solicit more money and talent). This has the converse effect as well such that when scoring/placement dips... so does the money and talent. Edited December 6, 2019 by cfirwin3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfirwin3 Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 Just now, Fran Haring said: Or essential, in a "keeping up with the Joneses" way? Perhaps some corps look at it that way...? But in practice, I think that we can observe that contending shows are generally pioneering something rather than emulating. So it's not really all that plausible or even possible to beat the Joneses at THEIR own game. To compete with the Joneses you have to play the game differently... and I'm pretty sure that this isn't really an electronics issue at all in the end. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfirwin3 Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 Just now, cixelsyd said: Yes, it is. And thank you for recognizing that. That is 70% of the point. (The other 30%: since this activity struggles to cope with costs, it should not add (should not have added) more costs without adequate justification.) All activities struggle to cope with cost. That's just budgeting. I struggle to cope with cost every time that I look at my gas gauge and peer down the street at the various gas station signage. Unless I get to a place where I can't afford to drive a car... I'm going to continue buying gas and complaining about the cost while I pump it. None of these member corps are complaining about using electronics. It's a fan gripe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.