Jeff Ream Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 6 hours ago, gregory11 said: DCI 2020 Mafia............Godfather 4!!! It’s just business 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 17 hours ago, cixelsyd said: No. Never has been. Literally the first order of detailed reporting about the brand-new DCI (as published in the December 15, 1971 Drum Corps World, authored by Dave Shaw) was to respond to the concern that it sounded like a "private club". That response was the establishment of a DCI Championship contest, at which non-member corps could earn member status simply by making the top 12 there. As the article stated, "All corps: American, Canadian and otherwise, are not only welcome but are encouraged to compete for one of the twelve positions in the finals, the International Drum Corps Championship Title, membership in Drum Corps International and $21,000 in prize money." To see people post here now about DCI being a private club, brash as if proud of it, is thick with irony. Well, let's also consider the different circumstances back then. Number of corps, number of shows, member safety, performing and rolling equipment (no one cared HOW you got your corps down the road), etc. Not to mention that the new DCI was trying to pull participation away from VFW/AL control. It wouldn't have made sense to be limiting back then. $21,000? Geesh, that was nearly double the average American household income back then of just under $11,300. Isn't it reasonable to think that DCI would change over the years, too? The big marbles always rise to the top of the jar; the point is to become a big marble. Back then there were LOTS of big marbles and even more smaller ones. "Get Better" is the mantra today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 33 minutes ago, garfield said: Well, let's also consider the different circumstances back then. Number of corps, number of shows, member safety, performing and rolling equipment (no one cared HOW you got your corps down the road), etc. Not to mention that the new DCI was trying to pull participation away from VFW/AL control. It wouldn't have made sense to be limiting back then. $21,000? Geesh, that was nearly double the average American household income back then of just under $11,300. Isn't it reasonable to think that DCI would change over the years, too? Sure. I thought it reasonable that DCI would change to become less of a private club - less elitist. Especially when DCI started changing in exactly that manner - growing the size of the member corps pool, reaching out to regional and local corps, changing their stated mission to one serving "the activity" rather than just their member corps, taking actions consistent with that evolved mission, and eventually replacing the local/regional circuits with promises to serve them better than those circuits had. So what is your explanation for that? Was it all just a 40-year-long pendulum that is now swinging back? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 18 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said: It would be hilarious if after all this, DCI votes against the the 55-member minimum later this month, or votes that it won't go into effect until 2021. (Not likely, I'm sure. It appears that garfield has his ear to the ground and has heard rumblings that make it clear to him that a majority of the member corps have already tacitly endorsed these rule changes. It's rather like how a smart Speaker of the House knows not to bring a vote to the floor until he or she knows it will pass.) No special knowledge required to figure out that the member corps want to step up the competitive level of new and existing corps. I do know, however, that most Members have been indoctrinated into the ways of DCI communication and noticed that the 55/110 rules change was actually written into the rule book in October (or knew it was to be so). It's just not reasonable to think that the DCI executive office would actually codify in writing something that was less-than-assured to be ratified next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: Sure. I thought it reasonable that DCI would change to become less of a private club - less elitist. Especially when DCI started changing in exactly that manner - growing the size of the member corps pool, reaching out to regional and local corps, changing their stated mission to one serving "the activity" rather than just their member corps, taking actions consistent with that evolved mission, and eventually replacing the local/regional circuits with promises to serve them better than those circuits had. So what is your explanation for that? Was it all just a 40-year-long pendulum that is now swinging back? "...less elitist..." than "Everyone is encouraged to compete for Finals..."? I don't think it was possible to become less-elitist than that. With so much competition in those days, there was little reason to fear there being very little actual competition for the coveted positions. That change is really the one that DCI is dealing with. "Get Better" was the mantra from a decade ago and, lo and behold, we now have a group of OC corps that seem to have done exactly that. The irony is that we're now talking about an OC situation that is eerily similar to the issue the WC corps tried to address, now, a decade ago with the G7 coup attempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 11 minutes ago, garfield said: "...less elitist..." than "Everyone is encouraged to compete for Finals..."? I don't think it was possible to become less-elitist than that. I thought it was clear that allowing 22 member corps is less elitist than 13 member corps. Quote "Get Better" was the mantra from a decade ago and, lo and behold, we now have a group of OC corps that seem to have done exactly that. And... ? What will be the takeaway from this? Will this crop of open-class supercorps earn any reward for their quantum leap of improvement? Will even a single one of them ever become a member corps? Or will we decide that making existential threats to the entire open-class is a brilliant idea, and should be repeated regularly in the future? Quote The irony is that we're now talking about an OC situation that is eerily similar to the issue the WC corps tried to address, now, a decade ago with the G7 coup attempt. In what way? The Membership Affairs Committee, made up of directors of WC member corps, has formulated a rule to be applied to non-member corps (i.e. open-class). Seriously, I am not following you on how this is analogous to the G7 affair. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, garfield said: "Get Better" is the mantra today. Mantra for who? Are you part of the DCI inner circle and expressing their policy? And for anyone “less than excellent”, don’t damage the bus tires as they run over you.... IOW if you ain’t excellent you ain’t #### 🤮 Edited January 3, 2020 by JimF-LowBari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 IMO the fallacy of bigger is better is the biggest issue. often trying to get bigger has caused the biggest issues...and failures. and it stems to the clear indication dci looks at incoming revenue without truly factoring in expenses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 5 hours ago, cixelsyd said: I thought it was clear that allowing 22 member corps is less elitist than 13 member corps. And... ? What will be the takeaway from this? Will this crop of open-class supercorps earn any reward for their quantum leap of improvement? Will even a single one of them ever become a member corps? Or will we decide that making existential threats to the entire open-class is a brilliant idea, and should be repeated regularly in the future? In what way? The Membership Affairs Committee, made up of directors of WC member corps, has formulated a rule to be applied to non-member corps (i.e. open-class). Seriously, I am not following you on how this is analogous to the G7 affair. Ahh, now I see your point about elitist. No, I didn't get that at first reading. I think the takeaway is that OC "supercorps" (your term) will apply to WC for inclusion to compete in WC shows. The "Quantum Leap" (again, your term) required is really not that rigorous in the context of what WC corps are tasked with now. 110 members touring with WC successfully gets you in. Sustainability is demanding and the three-year rule demonstrates that, I think, realistically. Will any of them make it? Geesh, this is usually where I request a vaticination of the lottery numbers or stock market changes so I'll demure and say Maybe So and Could Be. I don't think the 55/110 rule is an existential threat like blowing up the Earth ($1 to N.E. Brigand's tastes in movies). It's setting a challenging bar that is realistic to attain with the proper care and resources. Had you asked if we can expect DCI to move the goal posts again, I could only offer a guess with any substance. In the end, 55/110 a solution that helps assure the existing OC and WC participants of the performance and competitive levels at their respective shows. As to the G7, I think it is analogous this way: The prime contention of the G7 was to force the O-13, and all of OC, to "Get Better", and this new 55/110 rule is, essentially, requiring the same thing to succeed in each DCI class. The G7 forced it by attempting to throw all others under the bus until they gained G7 placement. But 55/110 does it by offer; it says that, if a unit wants to play in the league above it, "here" are the target assessments of meeting those minimum standards. It's a softer blow, IMO, but the end result is much the same. You've already not denied that there's been a surge in performance level since the G7; is it unrealistic to think 55/110 might do the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 4 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said: Mantra for who? Are you part of the DCI inner circle and expressing their policy? And for anyone “less than excellent”, don’t damage the bus tires as they run over you.... IOW if you ain’t excellent you ain’t #### 🤮 Oh, of course I'm not part of "DCI inner circle" or expressing their policy. The mantra espoused by, at least, one G7 member to "Get Better" was directed at the Other 33 participating corps. I use it euphemistically here to represent the 55/110 decision's same desired result. 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.