Looking at the hate

[Rusty]

After watching the drum corps activity in general and the discussion in particular (that is, fury directed at the Cadets/George Hopkins), I felt this might be an opportune time to weigh in about a number of things.

First, let me get all my cards on the table. I marched Sky Ryders '92-'93. And I'm a Texas native. So I approach this as a long-time fan of the activity, an alumnus of a middle- to back-of-the-pack corps, and a native of a state that many keep predicting will become a drum corps powerhouse. This perspective will color at least some of my observations, for which I make no apologies.

Let me further state that I don't in the slightest condone the harassing and threatening phone calls Hopkins was hit with recently. (What numbskulls—didn't even block their numbers from his caller ID…)

And I really find the venom directed towards the Cadets in general way beyond the pale, particularly from people on the DCP boards who seem to find some Schadenfreude in the Cadets' bus mishaps and volunteer shortages this season. To those people (and you know who you are): feel free to hate the show, but the kids don't deserve this.

However. All that fury seems to be pretty indicative of how Hopkins is viewed by many in the activity. Moreover, this raw, angry anti-Cadet animus seems to have reached a fever pitch this year. (I haven't checked RAMD lately, partially because I don't think I need to, and largely because I really don't want to.) And, of course, Hopkins has been in the practice of responding in kind on his blog via positive, supportive notes from fans.

One unfamiliar with the present landscape of drum corps might find these flame wars a bit peculiar. When I marched in '93, we spent much of our time in the Midwest, so I watched Star's "Medea"--a show to which the "Dreamscape" Cadets both owe a massive debt and paid homage--evolve during the season. But while reactions towards the decidedly abstract "Medea" were certainly polarized that summer (people either loved or hated the show; I'm among the former), as they have been towards the Cadets last year and this year, I didn't see fans or fellow members lashing out at the likes of Jim Mason or Bill Cook. (Well, nothing past the usual class envy that typically existed towards $tar of Indiana. But that's a subject for a separate post.)

So it's 12 years later, and the Cadets' staff, having taken the artsy baton from Star, has gone on an acid trip for the last two years. Why burn Hopkins in effigy over the deal?

Let's start with show design. The Cadets of the last two years are representative of where much of the activity has wandered over the last six years: from a long, proud history and tradition to a near-meaningless caricature of absurd experimentation, largely for the goal of being absurd.

This is certainly a recent development. One of the things I loved about the Cadets is that there were certain things that the corps always retained. The uniform almost never changed. I loved the old plumes, the way the uniform emulated that of West Point.

But that has pretty much eroded, piece by piece. It may seem like a nitpicky complaint, but the recent changes in the uniform are more blemishes than refinements, less about improving on an old design and more like making a forcible break with the past. And for what? As nearly as many of us can tell, for the purpose of making a pointless statement.

What I really respected about the corps is they figured out a way to make tradition and innovation work together. During the 1980s and 1990s, the Cadets were behind some of the major visual evolutions of the activity. The corps was able to do things the way they had always been done and yet do things nobody had ever thought of.

Much of that is gone now. I actually have tickets for finals; it will be my first visit to finals since 1993, and my first visit to Camp Randall since the Cavaliers punched through the glass ceiling in 1992. But if it's anything like last year, I suspect it will be DCI's answer to the Academy Awards: an opportunity for the learned elite to flatter one another and lecture the unwashed masses on what is and is not true quality.

That change started to take place in earnest in 2001, when the Madison Scouts dropped to 11th place. I can understand how 2000 backfired on Madison. I'm even willing to say that 2001 wasn't one of Madison's better shows—certainly nowhere near the firepower of 1995-1997. But it is a travesty of fairness to say that Carolina Crown outplayed or outmarched the Scouts in 2001. The activity was placed on a path that Madison either could not or would not go, and the result was the purging of Scott Stewart, one of the great directors of the activity.

And the circle, frankly, was completed last year.

That was one of the greatest performances in the history of drum corps.

That comment from Dennis DeLucia during the ESPN2 broadcast is of the sort that should apply to just a handful of corps in certain select years. But its use last year in reference to the Cadets is indicative of the massive gulf between DCI and the fan base. As one writer noted in 2002, as the Scouts were on their way to dropping out of the top 12:

Ironically, the accessible, audience-friendly shows -- like those of the Madison Scouts -- are the unique ones in an ever-increasing sea of abstract and inaccessible shows. The challenge for the drum corps activity is to decide how to recognize and reward quality in all show styles, so that corps like the Madison Scouts, whose audience appeal is undeniable, will not fall by the wayside.

So who wrote that? Some bitter RAMDian? Nope--Donald Chinn, of Drum Corps World. I would suggest that if DCW, the activity's paper of record, was willing to make such a blunt statement, that things were in reality far worse. And can anybody really say that this state of events has changed in the last four years, that shows have become more fan-friendly?

Look, I don't mind change, especially if it's innovative or amounts to progress. I hadn't seen 2000 Cadets until the Classic Countdown last year. From pretty much the opening form to the closer, I kept having to pick my jaw up off the floor about once every minute or two. As usual, some variation on the drill forms and percussion features filtered down to lower-tier corps within the next few years. Also, there are some changes that I will definitely agree don't mean a whole lot (when it comes to the Cadets' unis, I don't miss the patch or the longer cummerbund).

But one of Hopkins's publicly stated reasons for all these changes to the activity has been to make drum corps as accessible as possible to as wide a segment of the public as possible--an opportunity now much greater thanks to platforms like ESPN2. And now that we have a chance to really showcase the activity, what do we get to point to as the best we have to offer? Arguably the most inaccessible, obtuse, abstract, warped show in the history of the activity. For those of us who really are trying to introduce our uninitiated friends to the amazing stuff they've been missing out on over the summer, we face an unbelievable handicap trying to explain why they should think drum corps is cool when watching the 2005 Cadets.

If these changes were somehow quarantined only to the Cadets, that would be enough. But the alterations to the activity go well beyond the types of shows that find their way to the field.

Let's start with infamous key change of 1999. I understand all the arguments. Some of them I readily accept. B-flat horns do have a brighter timbre that a lot of people prefer, they are easier to tune, and I'm certain they're cheaper. And I have no interest in renewing the debate, because at this point the G bugle is quite dead and isn't coming back (sorry, Troopers).

But what I don't understand has been the goal of these rule changes, aside from entrenching the Cadets and other powerhouse corps as the de facto oligopoly of the activity. The math on this is quite simple. Another of Hopkins's publicly stated goals with nearly every rule change has been to give as many kids as possible the opportunity to march drum corps. Hence, B-flat horns, with saxophones and electronics in the offing if he can manage it. But with that as a backdrop, I would sure love an explanation for this recent statement:

The number of corps will not grow! They are too expensive to manage and fuel costs will over time, make our current model impossible to maintain. That said, a shift in what constitutes success will allow the leaders of the activity to spread their wings, to align with the bands of the world, to support the industry in keeping music alive and well within the scholastic world and thus, over years, we will become partners.

So the changes Hopkins has lobbied for will let more kids march, but will keep a cap on the number of corps. Am I the only one who sees the rather gaping disconnect between these two schools of thought? The only way to square that circle is to conclude that these are rule changes that conveniently help the big guys at the expense of the little guys. And recent history bears me out on this. After watching so many Division I corps fold over the last ten years, what are we to conclude but that Hopkins not only condones but encourages the current atmosphere in which a new corps has to raise an insane amount of money to be viable? And if it's this difficult for Division I, then how about Division II/III, which has seen even worse hemorrhaging of units over the last two to three years? And is it any wonder that fantastic Division II corps like Pacific Crest are complete unknowns outside a small geographic area?

This is, admittedly, where I harbor my own bitterness as a native Texan. I've been asked a few times over the years by those outside the state why Texas doesn't have a bigger drum corps presence. The state has practically everything going for it: decent year-round weather and a near-bottomless pit of top-flight talent courtesy of some of the best high school marching bands in the nation. And it's not for lack of interest, as the Bluecoats, Madison Scouts and Cavaliers (among others) will readily attest.

The reason is a financial chicken-and-egg quandary. As Colts director Greg Orwoll openly said after making finals in 1993, fundraising becomes easier after achieving top 12 status. In all fairness, competitive success is no guarantee of financial viability. But the way the activity is presently structured, pretty much any fledgling corps is faced with a financial Mount Everest to climb.

Sadly, the activity has always been Darwinian; drum corps history is littered with folded organizations (VK moment of silence, please). But the changes Hopkins has imposed--particularly through amplification--have pretty much relegated most Division II/III units to an utterly irrelevant status. And the changes he threatens to bring to the table (read: electronics) will do that and worse to not a few Division I corps, who will find themselves forced to raise ever more obscene amounts of money to keep up.

But I think the source of such animus towards Hopkins is his basic, central reasoning for this change and the others he has foisted upon DCI in the last six years: "Marching band = drum corps".

Well, it almost does now, but it didn't before. And that's something else I appreciated about drum corps, and particularly about the Cadets. Pretty much anybody can join a marching band. But <em>drum corps</em>--that's a cut above. I always took a bit of pleasure in recognizing that I had participated in an activity that forced me to find that limit of my endurance and ability, and then push that limit out a notch or two. There has long been a sense of lofty separateness about the activity--if high school and college marching bands have been AA ball, drum corps has been the major leagues. But through the near-inconceivable amount of influence and clout Hopkins has held within the activity, he has changed it to the point that it is practically unrecognizable from the one I latched onto in 1991. Due in large part to his leverage on the activity, drum corps has gone from being elite and inspiring to something rather silly.

So why all the hate? I say it's really quite simple. In an activity that isn't terribly large, where influence is held by a very small group of people, George Hopkins has wielded a ridiculous amount of power. And he has made it perfectly clear over the last ten or so years (certainly since 1999) that where the Cadets go, the rest of the activity is to follow. And many longtime drum corps fans are dealing with this tragic turn of events, this dumbing down and dilution of drum corps, the only way they know how.

Am I wrong? I look forward to reading any responses on Hopkins's blog or here on DCP.

[madalumni]

Well put.

[cire]

definently not condoning the prank call situation, but him going to the police wont get him anywhere. he was not threatened in any way, at least from what he described.. i honestly dont see anything coming about from it..

but other than that..

great writeup

[icecubeguy]

After watching the drum corps activity in general and the discussion in particular (that is, fury directed at the Cadets/George Hopkins), I felt this might be an opportune time to weigh in about a number of things.

First, let me get all my cards on the table. I marched Sky Ryders '92-'93. And I'm a Texas native. So I approach this as a long-time fan of the activity, an alumnus of a middle- to back-of-the-pack corps, and a native of a state that many keep predicting will become a drum corps powerhouse. This perspective will color at least some of my observations, for which I make no apologies.

Let me further state that I don't in the slightest condone the harassing and threatening phone calls Hopkins was hit with recently. (What numbskulls—didn't even block their numbers from his caller ID…)

And I really find the venom directed towards the Cadets in general way beyond the pale, particularly from people on the DCP boards who seem to find some Schadenfreude in the Cadets' bus mishaps and volunteer shortages this season. To those people (and you know who you are): feel free to hate the show, but the kids don't deserve this.

However. All that fury seems to be pretty indicative of how Hopkins is viewed by many in the activity. Moreover, this raw, angry anti-Cadet animus seems to have reached a fever pitch this year. (I haven't checked RAMD lately, partially because I don't think I need to, and largely because I really don't want to.) And, of course, Hopkins has been in the practice of responding in kind on his blog via positive, supportive notes from fans.

One unfamiliar with the present landscape of drum corps might find these flame wars a bit peculiar. When I marched in '93, we spent much of our time in the Midwest, so I watched Star's "Medea"--a show to which the "Dreamscape" Cadets both owe a massive debt and paid homage--evolve during the season. But while reactions towards the decidedly abstract "Medea" were certainly polarized that summer (people either loved or hated the show; I'm among the former), as they have been towards the Cadets last year and this year, I didn't see fans or fellow members lashing out at the likes of Jim Mason or Bill Cook. (Well, nothing past the usual class envy that typically existed towards $tar of Indiana. But that's a subject for a separate post.)

So it's 12 years later, and the Cadets' staff, having taken the artsy baton from Star, has gone on an acid trip for the last two years. Why burn Hopkins in effigy over the deal?

Let's start with show design. The Cadets of the last two years are representative of where much of the activity has wandered over the last six years: from a long, proud history and tradition to a near-meaningless caricature of absurd experimentation, largely for the goal of being absurd.

This is certainly a recent development. One of the things I loved about the Cadets is that there were certain things that the corps always retained. The uniform almost never changed. I loved the old plumes, the way the uniform emulated that of West Point.

But that has pretty much eroded, piece by piece. It may seem like a nitpicky complaint, but the recent changes in the uniform are more blemishes than refinements, less about improving on an old design and more like making a forcible break with the past. And for what? As nearly as many of us can tell, for the purpose of making a pointless statement.

What I really respected about the corps is they figured out a way to make tradition and innovation work together. During the 1980s and 1990s, the Cadets were behind some of the major visual evolutions of the activity. The corps was able to do things the way they had always been done and yet do things nobody had ever thought of.

Much of that is gone now. I actually have tickets for finals; it will be my first visit to finals since 1993, and my first visit to Camp Randall since the Cavaliers punched through the glass ceiling in 1992. But if it's anything like last year, I suspect it will be DCI's answer to the Academy Awards: an opportunity for the learned elite to flatter one another and lecture the unwashed masses on what is and is not true quality.

That change started to take place in earnest in 2001, when the Madison Scouts dropped to 11th place. I can understand how 2000 backfired on Madison. I'm even willing to say that 2001 wasn't one of Madison's better shows—certainly nowhere near the firepower of 1995-1997. But it is a travesty of fairness to say that Carolina Crown outplayed or outmarched the Scouts in 2001. The activity was placed on a path that Madison either could not or would not go, and the result was the purging of Scott Stewart, one of the great directors of the activity.

And the circle, frankly, was completed last year.

That comment from Dennis DeLucia during the ESPN2 broadcast is of the sort that should apply to just a handful of corps in certain select years. But its use last year in reference to the Cadets is indicative of the massive gulf between DCI and the fan base. As one writer noted in 2002, as the Scouts were on their way to dropping out of the top 12:

So who wrote that? Some bitter RAMDian? Nope--Donald Chinn, of Drum Corps World. I would suggest that if DCW, the activity's paper of record, was willing to make such a blunt statement, that things were in reality far worse. And can anybody really say that this state of events has changed in the last four years, that shows have become more fan-friendly?

Look, I don't mind change, especially if it's innovative or amounts to progress. I hadn't seen 2000 Cadets until the Classic Countdown last year. From pretty much the opening form to the closer, I kept having to pick my jaw up off the floor about once every minute or two. As usual, some variation on the drill forms and percussion features filtered down to lower-tier corps within the next few years. Also, there are some changes that I will definitely agree don't mean a whole lot (when it comes to the Cadets' unis, I don't miss the patch or the longer cummerbund).

But one of Hopkins's publicly stated reasons for all these changes to the activity has been to make drum corps as accessible as possible to as wide a segment of the public as possible--an opportunity now much greater thanks to platforms like ESPN2. And now that we have a chance to really showcase the activity, what do we get to point to as the best we have to offer? Arguably the most inaccessible, obtuse, abstract, warped show in the history of the activity. For those of us who really are trying to introduce our uninitiated friends to the amazing stuff they've been missing out on over the summer, we face an unbelievable handicap trying to explain why they should think drum corps is cool when watching the 2005 Cadets.

If these changes were somehow quarantined only to the Cadets, that would be enough. But the alterations to the activity go well beyond the types of shows that find their way to the field.

Let's start with infamous key change of 1999. I understand all the arguments. Some of them I readily accept. B-flat horns do have a brighter timbre that a lot of people prefer, they are easier to tune, and I'm certain they're cheaper. And I have no interest in renewing the debate, because at this point the G bugle is quite dead and isn't coming back (sorry, Troopers).

But what I don't understand has been the goal of these rule changes, aside from entrenching the Cadets and other powerhouse corps as the de facto oligopoly of the activity. The math on this is quite simple. Another of Hopkins's publicly stated goals with nearly every rule change has been to give as many kids as possible the opportunity to march drum corps. Hence, B-flat horns, with saxophones and electronics in the offing if he can manage it. But with that as a backdrop, I would sure love an explanation for this recent statement:

So the changes Hopkins has lobbied for will let more kids march, but will keep a cap on the number of corps. Am I the only one who sees the rather gaping disconnect between these two schools of thought? The only way to square that circle is to conclude that these are rule changes that conveniently help the big guys at the expense of the little guys. And recent history bears me out on this. After watching so many Division I corps fold over the last ten years, what are we to conclude but that Hopkins not only condones but encourages the current atmosphere in which a new corps has to raise an insane amount of money to be viable? And if it's this difficult for Division I, then how about Division II/III, which has seen even worse hemorrhaging of units over the last two to three years? And is it any wonder that fantastic Division II corps like Pacific Crest are complete unknowns outside a small geographic area?

This is, admittedly, where I harbor my own bitterness as a native Texan. I've been asked a few times over the years by those outside the state why Texas doesn't have a bigger drum corps presence. The state has practically everything going for it: decent year-round weather and a near-bottomless pit of top-flight talent courtesy of some of the best high school marching bands in the nation. And it's not for lack of interest, as the Bluecoats, Madison Scouts and Cavaliers (among others) will readily attest.

The reason is a financial chicken-and-egg quandary. As Colts director Greg Orwoll openly said after making finals in 1993, fundraising becomes easier after achieving top 12 status. In all fairness, competitive success is no guarantee of financial viability. But the way the activity is presently structured, pretty much any fledgling corps is faced with a financial Mount Everest to climb.

Sadly, the activity has always been Darwinian; drum corps history is littered with folded organizations (VK moment of silence, please). But the changes Hopkins has imposed--particularly through amplification--have pretty much relegated most Division II/III units to an utterly irrelevant status. And the changes he threatens to bring to the table (read: electronics) will do that and worse to not a few Division I corps, who will find themselves forced to raise ever more obscene amounts of money to keep up.

But I think the source of such animus towards Hopkins is his basic, central reasoning for this change and the others he has foisted upon DCI in the last six years: "Marching band = drum corps".

Well, it almost does now, but it didn't before. And that's something else I appreciated about drum corps, and particularly about the Cadets. Pretty much anybody can join a marching band. But <em>drum corps</em>--that's a cut above. I always took a bit of pleasure in recognizing that I had participated in an activity that forced me to find that limit of my endurance and ability, and then push that limit out a notch or two. There has long been a sense of lofty separateness about the activity--if high school and college marching bands have been AA ball, drum corps has been the major leagues. But through the near-inconceivable amount of influence and clout Hopkins has held within the activity, he has changed it to the point that it is practically unrecognizable from the one I latched onto in 1991. Due in large part to his leverage on the activity, drum corps has gone from being elite and inspiring to something rather silly.

So why all the hate? I say it's really quite simple. In an activity that isn't terribly large, where influence is held by a very small group of people, George Hopkins has wielded a ridiculous amount of power. And he has made it perfectly clear over the last ten or so years (certainly since 1999) that where the Cadets go, the rest of the activity is to follow. And many longtime drum corps fans are dealing with this tragic turn of events, this dumbing down and dilution of drum corps, the only way they know how.

Am I wrong? I look forward to reading any responses on Hopkins's blog or here on DCP.

Wow - I seriously see your point and reasoning. Your posting took a great deal of thought . . . . . . . .wow. I really do not know how to respond to this because the logic is extremely clear - I have never read anything posted in such a clear and concise manner on DCP - I actually feel thing s clearing up a bit - seriously - Thanks for this posting. I just really feel the same I guess.......this has me really thinking....wow

[crunch2402]

I'm not going to quote that, because it's really quite long... However...

I haven't been around the drum corps world for very long... I went to my first show in 2002, was blown away, and marched Madison in 2003, the first post-Stewart year... It's a rather sad commentary on the state of DCI when, as a member of the Madison Scouts, while we were proud, were in the minority when it comes to philosophy and method of operation...

As someone who has kept up pretty well with drum corps since mid-2002, I was mostly angry and completely baffled upon seeing the video of the Cadets' show last year (unfortunately, I was unable to attend any shows last summer)... I didn't even understand the show, much less have any respect for it... And we're displaying that on ESPN2 to showcase the best brass and drum players and marchers in the world...

Innovation is a great thing... Without innovation, we'd still have the pit marching on the field, and symmetrical drill would have been maxed out (not that either one of those things is inherently bad)... But there comes a point where innovation begins to reach too far, and that point has come and (unfortunately) gone...

Hopkins' methodology of trying to get as many people involved as possible, while feasible in many arenas, is just not so in drum corps, at least not if drum corps is to retain its isolation from just a summer high school band... As the quality of drum corps goes up (albeit because potential members have less places to audition and less spots to fill), it's plainly obvious that there's an abundance of talent across the United States to fill more programs, but because of financial reasons, there's not that flexibility anymore... Don't get me wrong, there are corps out there that have made the transition to amplification very well without letting it get out of hand (Scouts immediately come to mind, though I know there's others)...

I can't even fathom how much time and money amplification has added on to the activity, now with even a sound guy needed to keep everything balanced during the show... How is that drum corps? Even if a marching member placed their horn down on the ground and marched to the soundboard to make an adjustment, it's still ridiculous... At what point was it decided that the balance and sound of a live drum corps show should be determined by a staff member sitting on the sidelines in front of a soundboard listening to a show through headphones? At what point was it decided that the show should NOT be determined by the kids that bleed, sweat, and push their bodies beyond the conceivable limits to get 20,000 people to stand up in August?

All that to say, you struck some chords with me... I anticipate there will be some very interesting opinions that will be flushed out as a result of this post...

thank you

[Michael Boo]

...

But I think the source of such animus towards Hopkins is his basic, central reasoning for this change and the others he has foisted upon DCI in the last six years: "Marching band = drum corps".

...

If I may be so bold as to comment on that famous/infamous PowerPoint presentation George gave at the January 2004 DCI seminar in Orlando, the "DRUM CORPS = MARCHING BAND" slide that Vince Lamb wrote about in Drum Corps World that was picked up on and reacted to with a resounding explosion of sentiment...

I was there for the presentation. Indeed, George put up a "slide" that said that verbatim.

HOWEVER, the context in Vince's article was totally missing, and personally, (NOT speaking on behalf of DCI in any way, shape or form, but for my self), I thought it got twisted by the lack of a preface to the "slide." George had stated immediately before that went up on the screen that we needed to do a better job of marketing to the public what we really were, because in the minds of the average person on the street that didn't know better, "DRUM CORPS = MARCHING BAND."

See how the context changes dramatically?

Forgive me if that wasn't what you were directly referring to.

Mike

[ShortAndFast]

Am I wrong? I look forward to reading any responses on Hopkins's blog or here on DCP.

You posted a well written essay, but it's long and I'm not going to quote the whole thing!

If I try to boil down your argument, you seem to be saying that:

1) drum corps has become much less entertaining and more abstract than in the past

2) drum corps is harder to sell to new audience members these days

3) many smaller/lower placing corps can no longer financially support themselves

4) DCI has made recent rule changes that make it more like marching band

5) George Hopkins is responsible for 1-4

I'd say that 1 & 2 are false, 3 & 4 are true, and 5 is an oversimplification.

Personally I think that shows are much more entertaining today than they were five years ago, and that this has had absolutely nothing to do with corps being more like the 2001 Madison Scouts. I mean, who in the top 6 does NOT have a fan friendly show this year? The Cadets have certainly chosen these past two years to add BOA design elements into a DCI show, but the resulting shows have hardly been inaccessible, unmelodic or abstract.

It's also false to claim that Hoppy uniquely influences DCI. Let's remember that the Cadets have won but a single title since 2000. Have they really had more influence on the activity than Jeff Fiedler's Cavaliers who have 3 titles and 2 silver medals during the period? I've seen far more corps copying aspects of the Cavies' visual programs than I have any aspect of the Cadets' recent shows. George only gets to make rule changes when he can persuade other directors to vote for them. Any of the changes you mention (Bb horns, amps, etc.) only passed because MANY directors felt they were the right move for the activity to make.

[Keith Laubhan]

George had stated immediately before that went up on the screen that we needed to do a better job of marketing to the public what we really were, because in the minds of the average person on the street that didn't know better, "DRUM CORPS = MARCHING BAND."

See how the context changes dramatically?

Wow... that insight into the context of that does change things considerably. Thanks for posting, Mike.

---

And Rusty, good, thoughtful post. Even on the stuff I don't agree with, I appreciate the amount of effort you put into making your point.

Thanks for sharing!

[Boybugle63]

[so why all the hate? I say it's really quite simple. In an activity that isn't terribly large, where influence is held by a very small group of people, George Hopkins has wielded a ridiculous amount of power. And he has made it perfectly clear over the last ten or so years (certainly since 1999) that where the Cadets go, the rest of the activity is to follow. And many longtime drum corps fans are dealing with this tragic turn of events, this dumbing down and dilution of drum corps, the only way they know how.

Am I wrong? I look forward to reading any responses on Hopkins's blog or here on DCP.

From my experience with the activity -- Yes, you are wrong. Do really believe that George Hopkins has more influence over the drum corps activity more so than Jeff Fiedler or David Gibbs or ....???? You have your experience with Drum Corps, but do you understand the organization -- Drum Corps International?

Check out this link -- http://www.dci.org/news/news.cfm?news_id=f...ec-258db77e80dd

If you take a look at the video, yes, there is a political component within the organization, but that's apart of any organization.

I have a good friend who is on the DCI board. Even though he often believes George's ideas are just out there, he honestly respects the man.

Like my friend, I also respect George as well as all the division 1 Directors. For the time the Directors, the Staff and the members dedicate to an activity that I love and support each and every year, I appreciate their devotion.

[wickerbill]

Nice post. I agree with most of what you said. There's evolutionary change like assymetrical drill, three valve horns, even Bb horns, and then there's what I think is fundamental changing of the activity, which is what Hopkins is set on doing. I'm not a fan of that. Thanks for taking the time to eloquently put into words what many of us are thinking.