Scooter Pirtle Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) Ironic to think that DCI went on the record in 1975 permanently opposing the adoption of three valve bugles! (Drum Corps News inadvertently left out the word “valved” in its article): Edited January 4, 2020 by Scooter Pirtle 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 41 minutes ago, Scooter Pirtle said: Ironic to think that DCI went on the record in 1975 permanently opposing the adoption of three valve bugles! (Drum Corps News inadvertently left out the word “valved” in its article): They were trying to placate the guys who were still upset about the addition of the rotor 20 years earlier. They didn't feel it necessary to say "no woodwinds" because everyone attached to the activity at that point understood what a ridiculous idea it would be to fundamentally change the sound of the product. Cuz, y'know, marching bands already existed, so the option was already there. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 58 minutes ago, Scooter Pirtle said: Ironic to think that DCI went on the record in 1975 permanently opposing the adoption of three valve bugles! (Drum Corps News inadvertently left out the word “valved” in its article): Did they actually choose which three instruments they were opposed to? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 59 minutes ago, Scooter Pirtle said: Ironic to think that DCI went on the record in 1975 permanently opposing the adoption of three valve bugles! (Drum Corps News inadvertently left out the word “valved” in its article): Also interesting that they needed 2/3 majority back then and only a simply majority today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 16 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said: Completely agree that if WW allowed they will raise membership to around 200. Which means purchasing a set of 'marching woodwinds' (is that even a thing?) ($), at least 1 more bus ($), more mouths for the food truck to feed ($), WW Caption head & techs ($). For the relatively few Corps that have the fiscal ability to cover these costs, WW may not be a financial burden. For others, who have to find a way to 'keep up with the Joneses' it is just another straw on the camels back. Reading the entire proposal, it states (& I quote) "Fiscal Impact...DCI and the corps will be able to leverage additional revenue opportunities through marketing to a new target audience of performers, families, and friends. Additional expenses will be minimal for DCI and individual expenses for individual corps will depend upon instrumentation decisions." To me, this does not look like a well thought out 'Fiscal Impact" - It seems to say 'WW won't cost much, let the individual Corps work it out, but we may get more parents of WW players in the stands'. This is way less thought out than the G7 or other cockamamy proposals of the past. And DCI made this person Chairman of the BOD? As I have stated in several places, their over riding focus is revenue without considering expenses. The proposal proves it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn426 Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 (edited) So this proposal came from the BOD, you have to think this has already been discussed internally, not only within DCI BOD but with the member corps themselves. The BOD would not even bother submitting this proposal if it didn't already have positive support from everyone within, Surely they wouldn't risk the public outcry for an exercise in the mechanics of a DCI proposal. Edited January 5, 2020 by Glenn426 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 11 hours ago, cixelsyd said: Why wait? They just changed the minimum corps sizes with no regard to the rule change process. By that same behavior, they could change the max any time they want. Just like amps. Get one piece in, let it settle, then take the next step. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 11 hours ago, Terri Schehr said: Our mutual friend who is 18 has vehemently spoken out against this. So try ok boomer on him. #fail And lord knows his corps had enough controversy this off season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 10 hours ago, Weaklefthand4ever said: That makes sense. I've tried to get involved on the volunteer side since my marching days are clearly long past me. The problem I've run into is that corps really want someone who can be with them for the entire tour. Maybe when I'm independently wealthy and can afford not to work the summer months I'll be able to that. For now, I guess I'll just stick to being in the stands. Many corps have people only to give a week or two Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 9 hours ago, Terri Schehr said: So did they think that they were going to just covertly slip this one by us? I know they think we’re stupid and inferior but most of us have passable reading skills. Doh! 🙄 They wanted it to be silent until they put it out. They don’t realize how many people internally talk, and worse, they often blame the wrong people. 1 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.