Sutasaurus Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 (edited) 58 minutes ago, garfield said: It matters because the discussion was about losing "legacy" fans' SPENDING on the activity, and the contention is that newer fans and their spending would replace the legacy fan's spending. Why are you folks getting hung up on the nouns used? In the context of the discussion of spending patterns of various age groups, are you so triggered that we can't discuss age? If that's the case, then ALL of the arguments so far presented around which age category will more support DCI financially are invalid. Does anyone think DCI doesn't parse their data by age bracket and participant category? I'm sorry if it's triggering, but that doesn't delegitimize the research or its need. The entire discussion was not centered around legacy spending, only a portion of it was. Perhaps people, myself included, are hung up on the nouns you use to make your point. I’m not here to tell you what to say but I will tell you how you say it offends people. Your response? “Whatever”. “Careful, Rude is the word of the day.” Really? That’s the best you can do? How about adding “pompous” to the word of the day? Treat others with a bit more civility and it will be returned in kind. Pfft. Kinda sums it up Edited January 13, 2020 by Sutasaurus 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 1 minute ago, garfield said: I appreciate that there are other constituents who want or have a voice, but the discussion referenced was about the relative SPENDING patterns of "old", "legacy" (presumably without marching members in their family) versus the younger families with marching members. I don't bring up anything to discourage discussion; quite the opposite. Rational discussion without personal attacks is my goal. I CAN say what data DCI had. Why do you presume that you're entitled to the info when you have no involvement with the activity besides buying a ticket? Entitled? Never said I was entitled to the info. On the other hand, DCI is not entitled to a favorable public response to their WW proposal - unless they can make a credible case for it. And to do that, they might need to share some of that data analysis. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 (edited) 34 minutes ago, garfield said: And, somehow, you believe you are entitled to such facts. Do you have a corps association through which you can get the data? I understand the concept of “need to know”. But I am calling out you talking out of both sides of your mouth on this. You defend DCI by saying in essence posters should be ashamed that they don’t trust DCIs gathering of the “facts”. But.... if anyone asks about those facts you claim that they have no reason to know anything. You want others to back up what they post but...: And IIRC last week you claimed not to be privy to any special DCI scoop. So where is your “need to know” on DCIs facts gathering and analysis. I see defense of DCI and nothing behind it edit: should have used “right to know” instead of “reason to know” Edited January 13, 2020 by JimF-LowBari 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCIat14 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 4 hours ago, garfield said: Because increasing the size is, by definition, more inclusive. I'd wager that, if increasing member limits comes up again, "inclusive" will not be part of their reasoning. ...and yet increasing member limits does nothing to increase revenue per se as expenses also increase. Both increasing size and the inclusion of woodwinds face the same issues - large corps or small - it adds increased cost and in reality would likely offset any potential increased revenue. As others have stated, those woodwind players who wish to be included seem to be finding ways and their families already enjoy the activity. Can you imagine a small open class corps having to purchase woodwinds, reeds, and keep them up in addition to brass & drums? Yikes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybersnyder Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 6 minutes ago, DCIat14 said: ...and yet increasing member limits does nothing to increase revenue per se as expenses also increase. Both increasing size and the inclusion of woodwinds face the same issues - large corps or small - it adds increased cost and in reality would likely offset any potential increased revenue. As others have stated, those woodwind players who wish to be included seem to be finding ways and their families already enjoy the activity. Can you imagine a small open class corps having to purchase woodwinds, reeds, and keep them up in addition to brass & drums? Yikes! Has anyone here been in a band where you don't bring your own woodwind instrument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricS Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 On 1/10/2020 at 11:54 PM, TwoValves said: She had absolutely no way to reconcile her claims that the Task Force was assembled to explore new revenue streams, yet there is nothing in the explanations she has that identify a single dollar of new revenue that could be achieved by changing the "available instrumentation" of the ensembles. She contradicts herself in saying that they are not proposing to increase the size of the corps. They really screwed up by trying to hide a "design & instrumentation" rule proposal under the guise of "we need to make more money." There's zero logic there. Anyone care to take a stab at how allowing "all instruments" would contribute to new revenue in any way? Is DCI having financial troubles? There should be an explanation as to why more revenue is needed, not that they just say it is. Maybe it is time to re-evaluate the activity and propose new model that is more economically feasible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCIat14 Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 1 minute ago, cybersnyder said: Has anyone here been in a band where you don't bring your own woodwind instrument? Wouldn't that be outside the norm for DCI though? I understand most don't bring their own tubas/contras, but if trumpets are provided in band then clarinets are as well in our area. Reeds might have been at member cost, which would make sense, but can you imagine how many reeds they would go through with all the weather changes? Yikes!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 5 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said: Just catching up and saw this: "A proposal recommending the repositioning of judges customarily located in the press box to vantage points closer to the field and audience has been passed along to a committee for further evaluation." I'm glad it didn't fail outright, since it would be a step in the right direction. Have judges and instructors not realized how uneven the listening experience has been over the past 15 years? And particularly over the past 10 years since synthesizers were permitted? Or has DCI just thought it was too challenging logistically to seat judges elsewhere? Can you imagine how different scores might have been if music and G.E. judges were sitting outside of the very narrow musical sweet spot that too many corps were aiming for? There have been so many shows in that time where my seat in the 35-40 yard line was blasted by some corps' goo drowning out their brass. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, cybersnyder said: Has anyone here been in a band where you don't bring your own woodwind instrument? Shrug... in HS in mid 70s only instruments School provided were drums and sousaphones. In college late 70s the school provided all. Edited January 13, 2020 by JimF-LowBari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 41 minutes ago, Sutasaurus said: The entire discussion was not centered around legacy spending, only a portion of it was. Perhaps people, myself included, are hung up on the nouns you use to make your point. I’m not here to tell you what to say but I will tell you how you say it offends people. Your response? “Whatever”. “Careful, Rude is the word of the day.” Really? That’s the best you can do? How about adding “pompous” to the word of the day? Treat others with a bit more civility and it will be returned in kind. Pfft. Kinda sums it up Thanks for sharing. Perhaps people, yourself included, are too sensitive when their contentions are tested. Perhaps people's contentions should be better-based in rational thought and facts that can be corroborated instead of personal invectives or worse. But do carry on. (Oh, and I never said the "entire" discussion. Again, why are people surprised when their baseless contentions about the motivation of people they've never met are challenged?) 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.