DCI partnering with Varsity Performing Arts to launch "SoundSport Scholastic" events

[inbetween]

1 minute ago, garfield said:

Oh, sure one can.  Cheer is dangerous.  Kids do dumb things.  Adults do dumber things.  There's risk in chasing a desire to be great.

Varsity isn't the cause of all evil in the cheer world, and one can't possibly deny the laser-like vision of the founders, and even that of the second buyers!, have made them the force we're, apparently, afraid of today.

I don't have a dog in the fight beyond drum corps, but I don't see Flo offering this kind of exposure to drum corps' participant demo even if Flo might appeal to some who want to watch sports on the same subscription.

 

I'm not even thinking about the risk of danger associated with cheerleading. I'm talking about being required to use certain hotels, only being able to compete at their shows(they'll DQ for going to other competitions) being required to wear their uniforms, bows, warm ups etc. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Varsity will not allow corps to host their own shows, produce their own merchandise, etc. Not to mention "scholastic sound sport" is a direct attack on WGI. WGI already offers "winter marching band". 

[cixelsyd]

2 hours ago, inbetween said:

Varsity only cares about one thing, money. And DCI is being a fool. 

 

1 hour ago, garfield said:

Funny, that's the one thing that drum corps and DCI fret about, too.

So much for DCI becoming a mission-driven organization.

[hostrauser]

22 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/this-is-not-a-democracy-its-a-cheerocracy

Follow-up: https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-coming-collapse-of-a-cheerleading

This sounds like an abhorrent company, and a much, much bigger fish than those DCI usually swims with. Maybe it all turns out okay. But it really feels like DCI just sold off Soundsport. I really hope Varsity's interference remains limited to Soundsport and not DCI proper.

[cixelsyd]

[Tim K]

I have attended SoundSport quite a few times, some years the entire event, other years “stopped by.” It’s a nice event, but if I had to categorize it, I’m not sure how I would define it. In general I would say it is entertaining, but I kind of get the feeling it is just put together. Over the years I have seen small drum corps often with young performers (middle school age) and the venue has helped give the corps a bit of a spotlight. There has been a Latin American dance group with a live band. There have been alumni corps, reunion corps, small musical ensembles, a Family act of four generations playing traditional Chinese instruments. There are some talented groups and some that are less so, but they’ve got more guts than I do, and maybe more talent too. 

Looking at SoundSport from a positive angle, it is an opportunity for all sorts of groups to perform before an audience that seems to appreciate the effort. That being said, it also appears as if SoundSport has trouble filling slots, is a bit thrown together, and I wondered if 2019 was going to be it for SoundSport. My guess is that this partnership with “Varsity” is an attempt to give SoundSport new life. Having scholastic groups is an excellent idea.

My thoughts:

1. Don’t have SoundSport and DrumLine Battle at the same time and practically next to each other. DrumLine Battle is loud (which is a plus) and the audience is louder, and it interferes with SoundSport. Also, the same audience probably wants to attend both events. 

2. Categorize SoundSport a bit and have it a youth activity. Have a category for an aspiring drum corps, another for smaller groups or bands, a creative category that could be anything goes.

3. Give alumni corps and reunion corps a venue to perform, and maybe compete. They do not fit in SoundSport but I do find they add to the atmosphere in a positive way. 

4. Though it has nothing to do with a DCI and Varsity partnership, keep the food trucks outside of the venues. Amazing variety, great food, enough said.

[Jeff Ream]

4 hours ago, garfield said:

And what, pray tell, could that "something" short term be?  Unless DCI is willing to actually sell the brand to Varsity, then the benefit to DCI would be any up-front payments (based on something) plus national exposure layered on top of marketing to the exact age demo.

I thought of this while (literally) in the shower this morning:  Varsity knows about cheer, and books, and selling outfits but what do they know about MUSIC?

Does Varsity need to know and understand music in order to make a partnership (sale/agreement) a good one?  I'm pretty sure Varsity doesn't want to deal with 40 drum corps in two brackets individually so, SONOFAGUN!, they're dealing with The Brand, DCI itself.

Could Varsity actually be the "Unbiased" decision-maker that could force the member corps to accept something "less" short-term in order to get something "more" long-term?  Would forcing them to have music experience/understanding be diluting any potential benefit from that arms-length management structure?

 

i am amazed they want involved in a non profit business.

 

but face it, DCi needs $$$.

[Jeff Ream]

2 hours ago, inbetween said:

I'm not even thinking about the risk of danger associated with cheerleading. I'm talking about being required to use certain hotels, only being able to compete at their shows(they'll DQ for going to other competitions) being required to wear their uniforms, bows, warm ups etc. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Varsity will not allow corps to host their own shows, produce their own merchandise, etc. Not to mention "scholastic sound sport" is a direct attack on WGI. WGI already offers "winter marching band". 

and dozens of circuits offer fall marching band.

 

Varisty doesn't partner without a long term goal.

 

ownership and control

[N.E. Brigand]

2 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

So much for DCI becoming a mission-driven organization.

This strikes a chord for me. Just this week I took part in an installment of an ongoing Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion discussion among the leadership team of the non-profit performing arts company where I work. One concern that has been raised in previous EDI discussions was the transparency of our decision-making process, at all levels, and in the course of considering that subject, we moved into a conversation about how artistic and financial decision are made.

A few years ago, as part of an effort to respond to a long-term structural deficit, we cut our overall expenses by a lot compared to what we'd spend in previous seasons. Subsequently, board members told our executive directors how impressed they were that those cuts weren't evident in our artistic product, which looked as impressive as ever. But if you peered behind the scenes, you might find exhausted staff scraping by on very little pay, who stick around because they believe in the mission, even to the detriment of their well-being and personal finances. (And that further ties back to EDI concerns: for various historical and systemic reasons, people of color are likelier to come from poorer backgrounds, with fewer savings to lean on, and thus, no matter how much they wanted to sacrifice for an organization's mission, they would be less able to do so.) So in this discussion we asked ourselves a question:

Historically, we start our annual planning process by identifying the artistic work we'd like to bring to our community, and then we consider what it would cost to produce that work, and whether or not we can afford it, and then if we really think the project is important but it's too expensive, we  look for what we can cut: how short a period can we employ the already underpaid staff, for instance. But what if instead we assumed a different starting point? What if we never planned a season where anyone in these positions was employed for fewer than, say 32 weeks, and every person made a reasonable wage? And only then did we choose the productions, still selected as those that would best serve the community, but with this new constraint.

There would be trade-offs, to be sure. For example, the physical aspects of the work might not be as good: those board members I mentioned probably wouldn't be able to say they couldn't see the cuts. Maybe the audience would too. Would they be less likely to support work they deemed inferior? Is there a way to bring them along on this journey with us?

Surely there a parts of that conversation like that applies to drum corps. And there also are aspects of treating people right beyond finances and workload. Turning to one recent point of controversy in this field: did Mandarins, for instance, prioritize competitive success above members' well being and therefore give less credence to complaints about abusive behavior? If so, did they do so in response to fears that their long term survival depended on scoring better? Turning to a more general point of concern in drum corps: is there money being spent on equipment, props, costumes, even instrumentation that would better be spent on staff or member well-being? I do know that some of that is purchased via arrangements that pay off financially for the corps, but is that true of all corps, or only the best corps? Do judges reward corps for spending more money? Does that perpetuate a system where the corps who are already financially successful can afford to treat people right and those who are struggling cannot? No easy answers here, I'm sure. But to bring this back full circle to the subject of transparency:

DCI's leadership cannot be so ignorant as to have been completely unaware of the concerns about Varsity that others have raised here. Should DCI explain how they decided that those concerns were either overblown or worth the risk in getting involved with this company?

Edited August 27, 2020 by N.E. Brigand

[lowend]

Two things...this is not Varsity getting their nose under the tent.  They are in the tent through their ownership of DSI (shoes, gloves, flags, field equipment) and Stanbury uniforms.  They also own BSN, which supplies many school athletic teams and HerffJones (yearbooks, class rings, caps & gowns, invitations, etc).  

[Jeff Ream]

17 minutes ago, lowend said:

Two things...this is not Varsity getting their nose under the tent.  They are in the tent through their ownership of DSI (shoes, gloves, flags, field equipment) and Stanbury uniforms.  They also own BSN, which supplies many school athletic teams and HerffJones (yearbooks, class rings, caps & gowns, invitations, etc).  

exactly.