Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, garfield said:

If the judges are scattered throughout the venue then, theoretically, corps would design shows for the whole venue and more seats could be sold.

 

really? so you propose the end zone or backfield judges seating? so then prices drop for those super 50 yard line seats if a third of the show is aimed at the windows on the side?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, lifeisaround said:

I don’t understand why dci would let a touring group go on the road knowing it owes money to university, bus companies, housing sites and staff from previous years, and were talking about more than 2019 debt!!

name value

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Glenn426 said:

Is there any public list of who was in the Instructors caucus? And who are the "Corps Directors" Voting? 

And what corps where allowed to vote? 31 total votes, 22 WC corps, the rest are all OC Corps? 9 OC corps? Or are the DCI Board or other interested unaffiliated parties allowed to vote.

With the Instructors Caucus voting 19-12 on AI and several other measures there is a clear line here. You would Assume one of the 19 in favor was Bluecoats and the other corps participating in the Task Force. Who is sitting on that Task force? You would assume that the OC Corps voted for AI as it would absolutely increase their numbers and help to ensure the survival of their corps. So without knowing details you can assume 12 WC instructors voted against AI.

For the Corps Directors Vote, I meant to say, are the Glorified Tour managers with Corps Directors titles allowed to vote over the CEO's level of their Organizations? For example, Shawn Gallant voting instead of David Gibbs?

For the Instructors, I assume the corps have several different reps there, (Saw Leon May's FB Photo,)  Gaines, May, and Sacktig were there. I would assume they where representing and voting for their corps. Given their involvement with WG and other WGI Winds group you would think these guys are joining their Bluecoats colleagues in Allowing AI to pass.

Once the 19-12 vote split happened I was talking with my wife and said no way these guys are voting one way without being in line with or having already garnered an indication from their corps directors on how the Director was going to vote. So I thought the AI proposal would pass and was shocked to see that it failed.

Was there really an independent vote? Were the staffs and directors not aligned or allowed to converse after the Instructor Caucus and before the Director's Vote ? Would a corps director openly decide against the wishes of their own instructors? 

You figured there to have been conversation between the voting instructor and the Corps Director before the process and that they where in line, and in agreement. As a Designer I would be furious to find out that a Corps Director cowardly changed his mind and voted against our discussions and against my vote as the Instructor voting on behalf of the organization.

At least 4 Corps directors did just that to their staff. 

fyi, the caucus has passed things before and directors voted it down later

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Glenn426 said:

The Soundsport that keeps being touted as an alternative is poop. To my knowledge Soundsport is not even televised, Can't tell you the name of a single Soundsport Group or who the champs (if there is a champion).

The cutting edge for Designers and the Test Bed for innovation now will be in WGI Winds. With Michael Gaines Involvement in Aimachi Winds and the other Aimachi groups... It wouldn't surprise me if WGI Winds has a Bluecoats Winds Group come out in the coming years as an outlet for the designers and participants as an alternative to DCI. 

Not sure what agreement WGI and DCI have in place but if I were WGI, I'd be pushing out emails to all DCI corps that were in favor of AI to make a WGI Winds group.

 

As to me the future of Marching Music is Indoors.

and to date 39 groups registered for dayton, compared to 223 percussion units and 365 guards. want to know a big reason why so few?

 

 

cost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MikeD said:

Designers using woodwinds is dismissed as not being creative because they have been used in scholastic marching band, while designers using just brass are creative because they can't use WW?    :huh:

That make no sense to me. Sorry. A show design can be just as creative using WW and brass as it is using just brass. 

I guess it's the difference in aesthetics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, garfield said:

No, not really.  This is not how it works  -  the voting parties are not sequestered from each other.  There's lots of time when all of the parties are at the coffee tables and break rooms at the same time; there's no effort that I've ever seen to keep them apart. 

Sure, there's contact, and maybe even coordination, between instructors and their directors, and there may also be coordination between the directors and his/her BoD.  But I think it's incorrect to think that this process was/is that kind of process.  You describe it as combative between instructors and directors, designers vs. management.  It's not that way.  Sure, both constituents can agree to promote or oppose an issue, but this process seems more designed to be inclusive and make sure that all education partners are involved in the education and instructions issues.

DCI has worked hard - and it's obvious to me - to end the "Cesar and his Senate"- type of rules proposals and decision-making for the activity.  I see them being very proactive to clarify and operate as the "assembly of associated interests" that DCI's founders envisioned.  To my eye, the entire "instructor's caucus" and both its inclusion and separation from the other interests in the decision room is evidence that unilateral decision-making is gone.

That Kathy Black vetted approval to introduce a rule change "for the entire activity" is a clear demonstration of DCI's attempt to reduce the conflict of interest, perceived or actual, that can come along with rules proposals made by individual directors.  Those of us around for a while can remember clear examples of where the personality (and his potential conflicts) sucked all of the oxygen out of the decision room.  When I think of a board meeting led by GH and some (cowering) supporters I see verbal brow-beating, shutting off of discussion, pressured votes, bad bargaining, and bad faith.  Last week, I envisioned Kathy Black out in the hallway taking the heat and the directors all together in a room calmly debating the subject without any overhang of bludgeoning pressure or threats of mistreatment for dissenters, let along dare anyone disagree.  My hunch is that one of the reasons the issue was clearly treated can be attributed to there being no presenting "strong personalities" with a conflicted vested interest in the room.

I'm thankful that there's been a willingness to have changes introduced by and for the activity as a whole instead of, perceptively, for an introducing-few.

 

Thank you for the clarity.

And yes its great that there is a democratic process to these rules and how they are discussed and voted on.

It still seems like a costly exercise. For the Chairman of the BOD of DCI to put this proposal forward they had to think that it would be passed. They mentioned the RSTF voted internally to bring this measure forward. Would the RSTF not test the waters with the Corps Directors first to see if it has enough support to pass? Why go through all of this negative press only to have the measure fail.

I tried to find information on the RSTF but could not find any. Who is on that panel? Are there any direct active representatives from the Corps? I found an article from 2011 that says that Micheal Cesario is on that Panel but not sure if he's still involved, It came out that David Glasgow is on that panel, I recognize his name as the Corps Director of Bluecoats, but recently read he is only and Executive advisor now. They mentioned Judges are also on that panel.

Perhaps this "throw it on the wall and see if it sticks" approach can be used for Proposal that are not as polarizing, but I think if this AI rule is to ever pass, they got address all aspects of the situation with actual numbers. Perhaps support from Sponsors. Perhaps say that Yamaha will be the Official Supplier of all Wood wind instruments for DCI and would maintain them and keep them functioning while on tour. Have an actual presentation from a Yamaha Rep on how they envision it working in the summer. The Model of making the change and testing out how it will work might have worked for previous proposals like Electronics, All Brass and other polarizing items but this does have some concerns that are unique.

With The RSTF and DCI having egg on their face now, lets hope they get serious about their proposals and come with solutions included in the proposal that would solve all financial and logistical concerns with the instruments and only leave the trepidation of "Legacy" in the way of a sound business idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Glenn426 said:

Perhaps support from Sponsors. Perhaps say that Yamaha will be the Official Supplier of all Wood wind instruments for DCI and would maintain them and keep them functioning while on tour. Have an actual presentation from a Yamaha Rep on how they envision it working in the summer.

Are you suggesting that the core essence of what the activity is and has always been (brass and percussion) be changed for the benefit of one corporation?

Fwiw, one of my interests aside from pageantry is motorsports. Several orgs from a gamut of motorsports series have had deals with companies to be the exclusive supplier of this or that product or component.

While the benefits of cost control are usually touted, funny thing is the costs in these deals usually go up ( for the competitor).

Edited by wolfgang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

and to date 39 groups registered for dayton, compared to 223 percussion units and 365 guards. want to know a big reason why so few?

 

 

cost

Perhaps you know some specifics but is it really more expensive to field a Winds group than it is to field a Percussion or Guard?

The Winds division is only in its 5th(??) year,  Early adopters seem to have a great experience. The Cost of getting a group to Ohio every year is expensive but yet one of the hotbeds for Winds activity is South Florida and they get themselves to Ohio every year. And comparing the cost of getting a WGI Winds to Ohio has got to pale in comparison to what it takes for an OC Corps to operate for their 2-3 week tour. With time and proper marketing from WGI this area will grow.

I think in the years to come, this area will truly see some growth. Because to me I see Rhythm X Winds a helluva lot more than I see the OC Gold Medalist throughout the year. 

Like I said in an earlier post, I feel whoever brings indoor Marching to the Summertime will be the one who survives into the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Glenn426 said:

Thank you for the clarity.

And yes its great that there is a democratic process to these rules and how they are discussed and voted on.

It still seems like a costly exercise. For the Chairman of the BOD of DCI to put this proposal forward they had to think that it would be passed. They mentioned the RSTF voted internally to bring this measure forward. Would the RSTF not test the waters with the Corps Directors first to see if it has enough support to pass? Why go through all of this negative press only to have the measure fail.

I tried to find information on the RSTF but could not find any. Who is on that panel? Are there any direct active representatives from the Corps? I found an article from 2011 that says that Micheal Cesario is on that Panel but not sure if he's still involved, It came out that David Glasgow is on that panel, I recognize his name as the Corps Director of Bluecoats, but recently read he is only and Executive advisor now. They mentioned Judges are also on that panel.

Perhaps this "throw it on the wall and see if it sticks" approach can be used for Proposal that are not as polarizing, but I think if this AI rule is to ever pass, they got address all aspects of the situation with actual numbers. Perhaps support from Sponsors. Perhaps say that Yamaha will be the Official Supplier of all Wood wind instruments for DCI and would maintain them and keep them functioning while on tour. Have an actual presentation from a Yamaha Rep on how they envision it working in the summer. The Model of making the change and testing out how it will work might have worked for previous proposals like Electronics, All Brass and other polarizing items but this does have some concerns that are unique.

With The RSTF and DCI having egg on their face now, lets hope they get serious about their proposals and come with solutions included in the proposal that would solve all financial and logistical concerns with the instruments and only leave the trepidation of "Legacy" in the way of a sound business idea. 

Two things to correct here.  First, if I remember correctly (and I think I do) it was not the RSTF that sent this up to the BoD, it was the New Revenue Task Force (NRTF).  I'm not certain, but I don't think that committee members are identified publicly as a course of business.  That said (and hopefully to quell suspicion) I've never seen anything that suggests these committees are "secret" either.

Second to correct is your notion (implied, if not stated) that DCI or the committee had to "sell" the idea to the membership.  Not so, as I understand it.  The discussions I've read suggest the idea spawned from an idea of opening up A/I as a means to generate more revenue for the activity (not for any one corps or class of corps).  I read somewhere that discussions brought forth the idea that OC might be a better use of A/I than WC.  Also, Black's proposal for A/I consideration mentioned the future possibility of increasing membership in the future (although not part of this proposal).

I have no "inside baseball" to share, but it seems to me that the idea was formed, vetted, had due diligence and discovery applied, was suggested for presentation for the membership to consider without any BoD recommendation, discussed, voted on, and turned down.

I'm really not sure how much more transparent the process could have been to assure complete and unbiased consideration of the measure.

And I absolutely don't believe that anyone at DCI has egg on their face, no more than any director's proposal failing has left egg on his/her face.  Again, I never got the impression from the original proposal or from the Dan Potter video with Black that she or the BoD were recommending that the membership adopt A/I or not.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Glenn426 said:

Thank you for the clarity.

And yes its great that there is a democratic process to these rules and how they are discussed and voted on.

It still seems like a costly exercise. For the Chairman of the BOD of DCI to put this proposal forward they had to think that it would be passed. They mentioned the RSTF voted internally to bring this measure forward. Would the RSTF not test the waters with the Corps Directors first to see if it has enough support to pass? Why go through all of this negative press only to have the measure fail.

I tried to find information on the RSTF but could not find any. Who is on that panel? Are there any direct active representatives from the Corps? I found an article from 2011 that says that Micheal Cesario is on that Panel but not sure if he's still involved, It came out that David Glasgow is on that panel, I recognize his name as the Corps Director of Bluecoats, but recently read he is only and Executive advisor now. They mentioned Judges are also on that panel.

Perhaps this "throw it on the wall and see if it sticks" approach can be used for Proposal that are not as polarizing, but I think if this AI rule is to ever pass, they got address all aspects of the situation with actual numbers. Perhaps support from Sponsors. Perhaps say that Yamaha will be the Official Supplier of all Wood wind instruments for DCI and would maintain them and keep them functioning while on tour. Have an actual presentation from a Yamaha Rep on how they envision it working in the summer. The Model of making the change and testing out how it will work might have worked for previous proposals like Electronics, All Brass and other polarizing items but this does have some concerns that are unique.

With The RSTF and DCI having egg on their face now, lets hope they get serious about their proposals and come with solutions included in the proposal that would solve all financial and logistical concerns with the instruments and only leave the trepidation of "Legacy" in the way of a sound business idea. 

maybe they put it out there to squash attempts for a while. thats happened before. and entering into a circuit wide agreement with one supplier could cause serious issues for corps with existing contracts with other companies. 

 

as for egg on faces...nah. i doubt it. unless the vote total becomes public, it'll be full steam ahead onto the issues for 2020

Edited by Jeff Ream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.