The Long-term Impact of Amplification

[sburstall]

Daniel, I know you've been gone from the country for a few years, but pits HAVE been amped for the last several seasons. Size of the pit ensembles and the numbers of instruments being employed have not gone down.

In theory, amping would have allowed the pits to shrink - but only if arrangers wished to change the orchestrations they're writing for the keyboard instruments. It seems to me that if anything, the amplification has allowed arrangers to use each set of keyboards more individually, with less doubling of parts.

But the size hasn't gone down.

I agree, for all the numbers you (daniel) can throw about costs, unless the one point you mentioned and that's the reduction of pit by even 5 would need to be implemented. Instead of a smaller pit I, instead, see larger pits. With the addition of 15 new members do you seriously think that corps would put all those members on the field marching? I have a guess that 1 or 2 would end up in the pit, thus increasing the size and cost.

[audiodb]

That sounds great and all, but exactly how does DCI lower the cost of food to feed the corps and gas to move that same corps around? From what I know those are the two largest costs of maintaining a corps.

Thankfully, Liam addressed those issues a few posts back. Another thing DCI could do to keep costs from escalating further is to refrain from making more rule changes that add equipment, therefore increasing the cost of maintaining a truly competitive corps.

[Liam]

All great ideas thank you. I have no idea the logistics of it all or anything like that, but it appears to me what you propose requires a considerable amount of increased personnel at DCI. Where do you get these funds and experienced people?

By the way, I'm not trying to be an a**, I'm just curious and basically playing the role of the devil's advocate. ^0^

No worries -- your concerns and questions are right on point.

Yes -- this would require additional resources at DCI's level to coordinate. Specific skill-set resources at that. This would only be worth doing if the overall savings justified the incremental expense to undergo the project. I see corporations all the time start a cost cutting or efficiency projects or task forces and count the savings but don't factor in the additional investment in the project itself. Often they merely break-even (or worse!!!), but still think they accomplished something because the "savings" are on the operational budget while the "investment costs" are buried elsewhere. Obviously, DCI and the corps don't have this luxury!!!! :)

My recommendation would be to hire a professional resource -- someone who specializes in national sourcing and procurement -- and hire them on a contingent basis based upon savings earned. This kind of arrangment happens all the time. I, myself, once took a gig at a company with the task of lowering their inventory over a specific time period and I was paid a percentage of the reduction. They would only have to pay me if I achieved results and I had one heck of an incentive to succeed beyond even the targets they set!!!! Once the infrastructure is sufficiently changed to incorporate this new mode of operating/saving -- you no longer need the same level of resource as you are now in more of a maintenance mode.

DCI, like a lot of not-for-profits, has a bit of a "volunteer" mindset. Not that they don't pay salaries -- but they rely on folks who care about the activity enough to want to work there and accept possibly a lower pay than they could get elsewhere. That's terrific and I applaud all the hard work that is done there!!!! ^OO^

But sometimes, for certain business projects and/or requirements, you've got to find high-powered business people who don't give a hoot about your activity, but have thier own incentives to help you (usually, $$$$ :) ). Nothing wrong with that, you've just got to find a way to make it beneficial to both parties.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Liam

[drumcat]

So would you guys be in favor of a cap on pit players? What say you, 12?

[sburstall]

It could be a start to keeping costs down.

[MikeD]

My recommendation would be to hire a professional resource -- someone who specializes in national sourcing and procurement -- and hire them on a contingent basis based upon savings earned. This kind of arrangment happens all the time. I, myself, once took a gig at a company with the task of lowering their inventory over a specific time period and I was paid a percentage of the reduction. They would only have to pay me if I achieved results and I had one heck of an incentive to succeed beyond even the targets they set!!!! Once the infrastructure is sufficiently changed to incorporate this new mode of operating/saving -- you no longer need the same level of resource as you are now in more of a maintenance mode.

I can just see a truckload of widgets being delivered to your door...."Hey, it's PAYDAY!" :P

[MikeD]

So would you guys be in favor of a cap on pit players? What say you, 12?

No. Let the corps do what they wish with allocating their members.

[MikeD]

The reality has been that pit amplification has changed the sound of keyboard instruments, and to its betterment detriment.

I fixed it for you, as you got it backwards. :)

[DrumCorpsFan27]

I fixed it for you :)

Hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!!!

[MikeD]

Hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!!!

:P