55 member minimum?

[Fran Haring]

2 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Guess the record will remain 7 playing members  with one guard and DM. At least that’s the number I remember from prelims at Scranton one year

and probably a good thing much as I liked the folks in the corps

That guard person.... if I were her, I would have done a different routine every show. Keep the judges on their toes.

[Terri Schehr]

4 hours ago, Fran Haring said:

That guard person.... if I were her, I would have done a different routine every show. Keep the judges on their toes.

Wing it, girlfriend. 

[cixelsyd]

17 hours ago, Tim K said:

I don’t want to see a 55+ rule go into effect, but I do think we need to keep a few things in perspective. There has been mention of Mandarins, Blue Stars, and BAC having small corps in the past. In each case that was prior to props, having so many paid instructors on staff, travel expenses were not as high, and there were other corps of similar size. Costs are important to keep in mind. There are many things you could do in drum corps in the past with fewer costs that you cannot do today. 

One of those things you could do back in the day is start a corps.  Will that still be possible when the barrier to entry is a 55 member minimum?

[cixelsyd]

DCI has updated their Policies and Procedures Manual.  It is available online at https://www.dci.org/static/about-drum-corps-international.

So it is official... but unclear.

Page 48 (open class operating policies) says "Each unit must have a minimum of 30 performing members."

Page 82 (DCI participation levels, responsibilities guide, open class) says "Number of performers 55-154".

Page 83 (DCI participation levels, moving between levels up) says "55 or more members".

I conclude from this that the intent is for all open-class corps, new and existing, to be 55 members minimum, and that page 48 is an oversight soon to be corrected.

(There is more news in this P&P revision, but that is a topic for another thread.)
 

[xandandl]

58 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

DCI has updated their Policies and Procedures Manual.  It is available online at https://www.dci.org/static/about-drum-corps-international.

So it is official... but unclear.

Page 48 (open class operating policies) says "Each unit must have a minimum of 30 performing members."

Page 82 (DCI participation levels, responsibilities guide, open class) says "Number of performers 55-154".

Page 83 (DCI participation levels, moving between levels up) says "55 or more members".

I conclude from this that the intent is for all open-class corps, new and existing, to be 55 members minimum, and that page 48 is an oversight soon to be corrected.

(There is more news in this P&P revision, but that is a topic for another thread.)
 

do the 22 people pushing props around the field count towards the 55? how about the off-field sound techs if they are not yet age 22?

[garfield]

22 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

Then leave it at 30.

How will quality improve?  For that matter, how will quality change at all? 

In the naive view, where the 30-55 corps accept this change and go SoundSport, we would have the same corps with the same quality performing at the same shows.  The only difference is that a few of them now have to pay more to participate because they are SoundSport instead of OC - that will not help their quality.  Meanwhile, the quality of the other corps does not change.

The alternative (where these corps drop out like Encorps) just makes shows smaller.

Trombones.  Sousaphones.  Concert French horns.  It appears BD has no objection to resembling a marching band.  And yes, they are good at it.  If you have any concern, try asking here if anyone thinks BD is not major league status, and see what responses you get.

Ironically, I am not sure either.  I mean, "exclusivity" can range from that which is earned (from obvious quality) to that which is contrived (by making a private club).  So the nature of the answer determines the sarcasm content of the question, I guess.

DCI evidently sees no problem with that.  To them, band is not a four letter word.

At some point, being "exclusive" can go too far.  

Now, I realize that DCI.org is out of date (there, it still says 30 members), so referring to the strategic plan published there risks inaccuracy.  Regardless, it sure looks like DCI wants to grow and improve.  Part of how they go about that is to spread their impact through increasing participation.  More corps would accomplish that.  So does the licensing of SoundSport all over the globe.

Fear of "diluting the brand", IMO, runs exactly counter to that.  Fewer corps.  Fewer events.  Fewer event partners.  Run everything ourselves.  Market "exclusivity" as the end, not even just a means to an end.  We have seen this philosophy before (G7), so it is not surprising to see it reappear.

When the compulsion to be "exclusive" causes an organization to exclude some participants, fans, and supporters (volunteers and donors), it can become counterproductive.  If 54-member corps "dilute the brand", then SoundSport surely does as well.  One day, corps 55-75 in size will be seen as "diluting the brand", so move the goalposts again.  For that matter, how is the whole of open-class not "diluting the brand"?  Cast it all off.

Then what is the measure?  We are talking about tossing 7 corps overboard, and moving the goalposts so that most other prospective corps are shut out.  Less corps means less performances at some shows, true.  It also means less shows, less show hosts, less people marching, less people running corps, less $$$ brought into the overall activity by people running corps, less fans of the less corps, and so forth.  No matter how you measure growth, this moves the needle - downward.

And if that was not bad enough, apparently the SoundSport program, whose founding principle was to grow participation, has now been perverted to take advantage of groups at that level and squeeze money out of them instead.  The hell with growth.  The only possible growth I see here would be in the pockets of the corps who remain above that raised bar.  The rich get richer.

First off, look past the director on the podium and stare at the faces in the choir.  There you'll see me, just so we're clear.  

I think you misunderstand the goal.  The goal is to have more full-size and competitive corps to improve the experience for fans in order to justify charging more for tickets to new shows.

The quality of the fan experience will improve because there will be more competitive corps competing against one another in individual classes.  Improving OC corps and shows makes them more attractive to show promoters to accept their inclusion in a show vs. another WC corps. 

Again, it's not the quality of the corps that I'm referring to, it's the quality of the fan experience at the shows.  But I also disagree with your premise:  The G7 threat put the burning fire under many OC corps - and WC! - and all of a sudden, the last decade has seen a HUGE improvement in the quality of OC shows, the management of their orgs, and the fan experience of going to see them compete.  I'm not saying that using a stick always gets results but it appears that this time it did. 

The measure is and will be the competition and entertainment at venues where the WC corps compete.  All else is build-up to that.

My understanding is that Soundsport offered something like less-than-five competitions for orgs to participate in each of recent years.  I think it's reasonable to think that renewed emphasis on the Soundsport schedule will be part of the "55-plan".

 

 

[JimF-LowBari]

46 minutes ago, garfield said:

First off, look past the director on the podium and stare at the faces in the choir.  There you'll see me, just so we're clear.  

I think you misunderstand the goal.  The goal is to have more full-size and competitive corps to improve the experience for fans in order to justify charging more for tickets to new shows.

The quality of the fan experience will improve because there will be more competitive corps competing against one another in individual classes.  Improving OC corps and shows makes them more attractive to show promoters to accept their inclusion in a show vs. another WC corps. 

Again, it's not the quality of the corps that I'm referring to, it's the quality of the fan experience at the shows.  But I also disagree with your premise:  The G7 threat put the burning fire under many OC corps - and WC! - and all of a sudden, the last decade has seen a HUGE improvement in the quality of OC shows, the management of their orgs, and the fan experience of going to see them compete.  I'm not saying that using a stick always gets results but it appears that this time it did. 

The measure is and will be the competition and entertainment at venues where the WC corps compete.  All else is build-up to that.

My understanding is that Soundsport offered something like less-than-five competitions for orgs to participate in each of recent years.  I think it's reasonable to think that renewed emphasis on the Soundsport schedule will be part of the "55-plan".

 

 

How does this lead to more full size and more competitive corps? Sounds like “rules say you must be more competitive..  so poof... you are more competitive “.

DCA started the 35 or more rule. Result was better shows for fans as they saw bigger corps that could do more.... other result was loss of two corps... IOW just because it’s written on a piece of paper doesn’t mean it’s going to work that way

Edited November 20, 2019 by JimF-LowBari

[cixelsyd]

27 minutes ago, garfield said:

First off, look past the director on the podium and stare at the faces in the choir.  There you'll see me, just so we're clear.  

Understood.  I am addressing the message, not the messenger.

Quote

I think you misunderstand the goal.  The goal is to have more full-size and competitive corps to improve the experience for fans in order to justify charging more for tickets to new shows.

Then you can understand my confusion.  Also in the news today, newly published WC criteria which essentially caps WC at their current number.  

Quote

The quality of the fan experience will improve because there will be more competitive corps competing against one another in individual classes.  Improving OC corps and shows makes them more attractive to show promoters to accept their inclusion in a show vs. another WC corps. 

Again, it's not the quality of the corps that I'm referring to, it's the quality of the fan experience at the shows. 

a.  They are not competing against one another if they are in individual classes.

b.  What makes an OC corps attractive to a show sponsor is the bargain price.

c.  The quality of the fan experience will only improve as long as they see OC corps have a shot at moving up.  Otherwise, the fan will be checking out food, souvies or lot warmups until the "real corps" start performing.

Quote

But I also disagree with your premise:  The G7 threat put the burning fire under many OC corps - and WC! - and all of a sudden, the last decade has seen a HUGE improvement in the quality of OC shows, the management of their orgs, and the fan experience of going to see them compete.  I'm not saying that using a stick always gets results but it appears that this time it did. 

Really?  You credit "the G7 threat" for any improvements in OC since?  So death threats are actually a GOOD thing.  Who knew?

The top 12 OC corps at championships and the 8 best regional corps have always been good.  They did not suck until 2010, and then suddenly start trying in response to some G7 "tough love". 

The difference now is the other dozens of corps are gone.  Survival of the fittest.  Naturally, the average quality of the survivors is impressive. 

Quote

The measure is and will be the competition and entertainment at venues where the WC corps compete.  All else is build-up to that.

"The measure" (i.e. how success is measured) is more likely how many people participate, how many people support/follow, and how much $$$ is generated for DCI and the corps.  Even if the $$$ are all that matters, the previous two factors heavily influence the bottom line.

The other measure is whether those metrics are trending toward growth or decline.

Quote

My understanding is that Soundsport offered something like less-than-five competitions for orgs to participate in each of recent years.  I think it's reasonable to think that renewed emphasis on the Soundsport schedule will be part of the "55-plan".

Of course.  SoundSport groups must be one of those "new revenue streams" in the strategic plan, which will be grown by sweeping half of open-class down there against their will.

[cixelsyd]

1 hour ago, JimF-LowBari said:

DCA started the 35 or more rule. Result was better shows for fans as they saw bigger corps that could do more.... other result was loss of two corps... IOW just because it’s written on a piece of paper doesn’t mean it’s going to work that way

The result was the same show, except the little corps became exhibition status, leaving fewer competing corps.

[JimF-LowBari]

7 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

The result was the same show, except the little corps became exhibition status, leaving fewer competing corps.

Except that after the 35 rule some of those corps were no longer around or at least not even fielding an exhibition corps.

Just to be clear I was against the 35 or more rule until a show sponsor told me about the angry response from some of the audience. So I see the point but idea of DCI mandating things and expecting all Corps to be ABLE to follow was point I was trying to make

Edited November 20, 2019 by JimF-LowBari