Jump to content

Madison Scouts 2022


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, C.Holland said:

I don't believe more stuff is the solution, but instead how its all used is important.  

 
Stairs and the ability to create different heights, are beneficial.   Mandarins method of creating height this year, with some steplike objects that stack against each other is a great idea, and not a budget buster.   And those are small enough that they're moved quickly, and the components are stackable to create a variety of levels for performers and scenery.


Platforms from steeldeck and staging concepts are built for our use in concerts, and for the rigors of tour.  They already have the agility to add casters, lock together, and have paintable ply toppers.  They're pretty reasonable for cost and built to outlast the roach.  If you've got 8 of those you can roll around, you can create all kinds of layers on the field. 

4'x6'x2' foam blocks (covered in cheesecloth and sealed with elmer's glue) can hold a couple of performers on them.  They super light to move around.   The cheesecloth shell makes them take paint really well.  

2x2x2 acting cubes are also incredibly durable, cheap to build or buy, and if you paint them some sweet contrasting color, give you pop all over the field, plus again, choreograph them into the show and you've now got almost unlimited platforms, sculptures, or can be used as additional bodies on the field for forms. 

There's no reason to kill your budget on props or methods of creating levels.   Designers just need to choreograph it into the show BEFORE the season so you're not wasting time standing around  thinking "so we need to add 32 counts of body work, and figure out what to do with these things here".  

Plan ahead.   

 

Shameless plug -> hey drum corps visual heads and band directors...    i'm a theatre designer, tech director, and production manager.  If you need set designs...  feel free to reach out.  I can help you keep your budget down while helping you find ideas for your shows.   

 

now back to your regularly scheduled banter. 

 

 

Chris with your knowledge you need to seriously be in their design team!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, C.Holland said:

have you spoken to those in the development part of the corps?    funding has been reported as better than we've seen in many many years.   Try giving them a call if you're actually concerned.  

i'm not missing the point on male only inclusion.  That's called gender discrimination.  If you're trying to find community base arts funding. Welcome to 2022, I'll reference Title 9.  (which will likely #### off every boomer in this forum)  “no individual shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving (local/state/federal) financial assistance."  This wording has been found on many a grant application i've had to read, at levels ranging from townships up to federal. 

I'm very familiar with the Scouts' fundraising activities. We'll have to agree to disagree about gender discrimination and the Scouts. I understand you think the Scouts being all-male is gender discrimination, which is OK. It does not meet the legal definition of gender discrimination and has not had a negative impact on their fundraising.

If I understand what you're saying correctly--municipalities can't provide financial assistance to an all-male group like the Scouts--how do you explain the financial assistance the Village of Rosemont provides to the Cavaliers? In 2022 it is $180,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, C.Holland said:

have you spoken to those in the development part of the corps?    funding has been reported as better than we've seen in many many years.   Try giving them a call if you're actually concerned.  

i'm not missing the point on male only inclusion.  That's called gender discrimination.  If you're trying to find community base arts funding. Welcome to 2022, I'll reference Title 9.  (which will likely #### off every boomer in this forum)  “no individual shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving (local/state/federal) financial assistance."  This wording has been found on many a grant application i've had to read, at levels ranging from townships up to federal. 

Last time I looked…The Cavaliers are sponsored by the Village of Rosemont. Just sayin….

Edited by GREENBLUE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, madisonsmiley said:

I'm very familiar with the Scouts' fundraising activities. We'll have to agree to disagree about gender discrimination and the Scouts. I understand you think the Scouts being all-male is gender discrimination, which is OK. It does not meet the legal definition of gender discrimination and has not had a negative impact on their fundraising.

If I understand what you're saying correctly--municipalities can't provide financial assistance to an all-male group like the Scouts--how do you explain the financial assistance the Village of Rosemont provides to the Cavaliers? In 2022 it is $180,000.

Have you spoken lately with the people in charge of development to express your concerns?    Have you read some current applications for grants and submitted on behalf of anyone lately?  Start there. 

No, I dont know what deal Cav's has with the village, and that's not a concern of mine.  They're a good corps.  Good for them. 

No I dont know what every group is applying for.  I have my own companies to deal with, and while I'm not on the board, I do shoot them, CK, and the current Program Coord an email once in a while to catchup and check in.  


But I am saying, that all the grant apps that came across my desk for arts funding has requirements, one of which is not discriminating by gender.  In fact, any grant (private or public) that references applicants meet NEA requirements (usually telling you to "click here to find out") means you have to operate in compliance with Title 6, and Title 9, and depending on what the grant is for, you may also have to operate under Section 504, ADA 1990, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.  Not all grants are the same, and some have these requirements, some do not.  

However, if you truly believe that only allowing men into the corps isn't discrimination, you have some really f'd up views.  And perhaps it is actually best for you to move on. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2022 at 3:59 PM, henry7184 said:

Opening the gender field up theoretically opens up the talent pool. Before allowing persons of different genders to be members, they were limiting themselves to men only. Now they have access to the full talent pool out there. Will that pay off? Who knows. 

They have had access to a full talent pool of males since their inception. Adding girls isn't the answer. Someone posted that scores and placement don't matter because the Scouts are trying to improve. But poor placement isn't a way to garner strong talent. Unless a kid is a die hard Madison fan they will audition elsewhere and take the best chance to win, play o Saturday night, or win a caption. Madison hasn't been "good" for as long as the current age band of eligible marchers have been aware of DCI. There is no automatic talent draw as there was in the past.

As the cream rises, Madison will be left to collect the whey at the bottom of the pool. That means the design staff can't build a high scoring show, the kids will perform more poorly than other corps, and the corps will continue to tread in the 14-17 water.

Vanguard Cadets were 2.656 points behind Madison. 
Madison was 11.362 behind Santa Clara.

That means the Madison Scouts are competing with the Vanguard Cadets NOT the Santa Clara Vanguard. Maybe trying to expand the talent pool diluted the essence of being a Madison Scout. Maybe...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, C.Holland said:

No, I dont know what deal Cav's has with the village, and that's not a concern of mine.  They're a good corps.  Good for them. 

However, if you truly believe that only allowing men into the corps isn't discrimination, you have some really f'd up views.  And perhaps it is actually best for you to move on. 

Having some trouble reconciling these two statements.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2022 at 1:23 PM, C.Holland said:

No, I dont know what deal Cav's has with the village, and that's not a concern of mine.  They're a good corps.  Good for them. 

But I am saying, that all the grant apps that came across my desk for arts funding has requirements, one of which is not discriminating by gender.  In fact, any grant (private or public) that references applicants meet NEA requirements (usually telling you to "click here to find out") means you have to operate in compliance with Title 6, and Title 9, and depending on what the grant is for, you may also have to operate under Section 504, ADA 1990, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.  Not all grants are the same, and some have these requirements, some do not.  

However, if you truly believe that only allowing men into the corps isn't discrimination, you have some really f'd up views.  And perhaps it is actually best for you to move on. 

 

I understand and agree that grant applications often need to meet NEA requirements and the applicant must comply with the relevant laws regarding discrimination, including Title 6, Title 9, Section 504, ADA 1990, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. 

The point with the Cavaliers is that they are an all-male drum corps, like the Scouts were at one time, which you claim is discriminatory and contrary to the law. Yet the Cavaliers are funded by the Village of Rosemont. How can this be if, as you claim, it is illegal? It appears you know this, but since the facts don't align with your opinion, "that's not a concern of mine?" Putting your comments together it helps us understand where you're coming from. 

Whether you or I think an all-male drum corps is discriminatory or f'd up, isn't the point. It's not discriminatory based on the law. 

It's best if I move on? This is the second time that you've asked me to leave because you don't like what I have to say. This is ironic given your interest in inclusion and diversity. As the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "You can disagree without being disagreeable." Let's not make it personal. Let's have a civil and respectful conversation moving forward. 

Edited by madisonsmiley
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scouts need a complete, and total revision to their admin staff if they are to survive.  Allowing the highjacking of their identity, vision, and basic charter is on the executive staff.  Ten years of failure is clear evidence of incompetence in leadership.  They have no identity now, and the inclusion scheme was just a desperate reach to survive by a failed admin staff.  The record proves no benefit was achieved at any level.  The board is largely to blame for their complacency, and ignorance.  It will take more than money to save this group, and time has not healed their wounds.  It's time for action. It's time to reclaim.  It's time to remove the problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2022 at 3:12 PM, madisonsmiley said:

I understand and agree that grant applications often need to meet NEA requirements and the applicant must comply with the relevant laws regarding discrimination, including Title 6, Title 9, Section 504, ADA 1990, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. 

The point with the Cavaliers is that they are an all-male drum corps, like the Scouts were at one time, which you claim is discriminatory and contrary to the law. Yet the Cavaliers are funded by the Village of Rosemont. How can this be if, as you claim, it is illegal? It appears you know this, but since the facts don't align with your opinion, "that's not a concern of mine?" Putting your comments together it helps us understand where you're coming from. 

Whether you or I think an all-male drum corps is discriminatory or f'd up, isn't the point. It's not discriminatory based on the law. 

It's best if I move on? This is the second time that you've asked me to leave because you don't like what I have to say. This is ironic given your interest in inclusion and diversity. As the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "You can disagree without being disagreeable." Let's not make it personal. Let's have a civil and respectful conversation moving forward. 

I claimed that not being discriminatory in their recruitment, opened up more financial doors than before.  In my last chat with anyone on the board, it has, and it has incredibly well.

Now, i dont know what Cav's apply for, but i do know that the $180K the village gives them barely makes a dent in a season's operations.  It might cover half the the housing costs, but not fields, food, fuel, or anything else.  So they dont exist strictly on the village's donation and the $3000 member tuition.  Its not possible.  And again, they're not my concern.  

And yes, inclusion has a line at toxicity.  Potential members unfortunately already know of problematic alumni, the ones who make sexist and snide comments on social media posts, on pictures, on tweets.  The ones who send snide PMs to members on social media.  Those things are all bad for building the corps.   The ones who continue to fling mud scare off business with their entitlement. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...