The Numbers Continue to Fall

[audiodb]

You miss my point. Imagine for one second (and I'm not condoning this) that there is no Division 2/3. There's just D1. The argument is that zero corps would be started. I'm making a point that this woudn't be true; corps would still start.

Where? DCI is the only junior circuit left, and they don't allow startup corps in their division I.

[JimF-LowBari]

You miss my point. Imagine for one second (and I'm not condoning this) that there is no Division 2/3. There's just D1. The argument is that zero corps would be started. I'm making a point that this woudn't be true; corps would still start.

With the exception of Bill Cook, who would have pockets deep enough to start a Div I sized corps from scratch? #### when Div II/III corps are having problems getting the start up money, image how much harder it would be for a "start up" Div I corps.

Edited October 10, 2006 by JimF-xWSMBari

[OMello1]

And yea, I'm disturbed by the deceptive promotion language that leads one to believe that DCI is servicing "youth", when the reality is that they're creating a big league playground and valuable learning environment for some of the most talented and often affluent "young adults" in American College Music Culture.

I'll leave you with a final thought or question. You state: "it is the corps themselves that modify their own definition through the governing federation, DCI."

It seems fudamentally wrong that a small few (Top 21) can define what an entire activity is to be. You hit the nail on the head. That's a clear example of how a small collective (particularly when compared to the number of corps over the years) has affected the vast majority over time. And I would say that it is more accurate that today's competitive marching bands are "sub-genre" of the corps activity. You seem like an intelligent person with years under your belt. Surely you remember what marching bands were like before they started doing "corps style" marching shows. Interesting how you flipped that one around. There must be some level of responsibility placed upon DCI, that "governing federation" for where we are today, the good and the bad. Ironically, in another similar post, someone suggests that we should be "celebrating" the health of the activity. Many like myself are blown away by such thinking.

I give DCI every positive credit for what it is due, but I also blast it for what it is largely responsible for as well, and that is DCI not taking REAL steps to preserve and grow the activity for the purpose in which it (drum corps) was originally founded for... to service youth in their development toward becoming young, civic-minded adults. I can certainly understand how this may not have been an issue in 1972, but we're all grown up now... let's be real. There is a moral and ethical disconnect that has occurred within the corps activity over the years as it relates to youth development, and I believe it stems from DCI's lack of a moral and ethical compass in that area. DCI should be held accountable for its role in the decline of youth participants today. Not applauded as a champion and advocate of the cause. There'll be no free passes given here. History speaks loud and clear.

A couple things caught my eye in this:

1) I agree that the term "youth activity" is, in some cases, a little misleading when describing DCI, as there are hundreds (or thousands) of participants that are 18 or older. And in fact, much of the top 12 will have an average age over 18. But there are also many corps with an average age less than 18, especially when you consider D2 & D3 as well (this statement is drawn from my own experiences and I do not have facts to support my claim...but we all know I'm right! b**bs ). It would be interesting to see what the average age of all partiticpants is...my guess would be in the 17-18 range. Maybe not legally considered "children", but when did that ever become the goal anyway? The term "youth" as it is used by DCI to describe its participants is a subjective term and always has been.

2) I also agree that it would be wrong for a select 21 corps to define what an entire activity is (how many active drum corps are there in the world? well over 100, right?). But they don't...these 21 define what they want to be. And if the extension is being made to other corps or organizations that are not members, that really isn't their fault. The corps that work to achieve members status in DCI are and should be allowed to define what they are and how they will go about their business. For those corps who don't want to play by those rules...well...there ARE other options (though pretty limited). Why should DCI be frowned upon for doing what it does better than any other similar organizations has? DCI has done what they wanted to do well enough that it has become the preeminate drum and bugle corps association in the world. They should be commended for that, not ridiculed.

3) I don't think we could really define drum corps and marching band as a sub-category of either. They have somewhat different roots: drum & bugle corps started with the military parades, high school marching band took a slightly diffent route and came up through school music programs as half-time entertainment during athletic events. Although, they certainly cannot be split completely as there are shared traits and goals during the development of both. It really is a more recent development that these two activities have "combined" and basically do the same thing now, but with slightly different rules and such. I am a proponent for the definition of MARCHING MUSIC to include (but not limited to): DCI, DCA, BOA, USSBA, WGI and the numerous local circuits. Drum corps and marching band are sub-genres of the Marching Music Activity.

4) I have to strongly disagree with your last paragraph. How is DCI NOT working toward the goal of "...service to youth in their development toward becoming young, civic-minded adults"? Just by doing what they do (organization and oversight of its member corps and peformance opportunities), they are indirectly serving youth. If the kids in the corps are not being taught to be civic-minded adults, then that is a failure of the individual corps, NOT DCI. And how can you claim that DCI isn't working towards the goal of preserving and growing the activity? Certainly, they could be doing more in many people's eyes (including mine), specifically when it comes to D2 & D3. But DCI does a lot to ensure the proper operation of the individual corps, through oversight and membership requirements of the corps. By doing this, they work to ensure that its member corps are healthy and offer the "kids" positive experiences. DCI may not directly serve the youth, but were they ever supposed to? Isn't it the individual corps that should be doing that?

M

[OMello1]

IMO DCA is the future of real drum corps...but its only a matter of time before something happens to where it gets infiltrated.

But who gets to define what "real" drum corps is? Where do we take the section cut in the history of drum and bugle corps and say "this is it! THIS is what "real" drum corps is!"? 2006? 1999? 1990? 1982? 1970? 1965? 1955? 1940? Which one of these years is "real" drum and bugle corps?

DCA is the future of their own brand of drum and bugle corps. DCI is the future of their brand of drum and bugle corps. DCE is the future of their brand. Who is to say one is real and one is fake?

And I think that we all hope that each of these organizations and their respective brand of drum and bugle corps has a long and successful future.

One doesn't "win" when the other one fails...

M

Edited October 10, 2006 by OMello1

[ScribeToo]

Where? DCI is the only junior circuit left, and they don't allow startup corps in their division I.

Pull your blinders off, Ken.

He said "let's suppose" -- do you think, since we're supposing and all, that you could feign to imagine that the rule of not being able to start out in Div I would probably not be around if there was no where else for corps to "break in" and test the waters?

Honestly, sometimes I think you're just pig-headed because you like to argue.

Stef

[drumcat]

Well, that same poster (and others) have raised the contention that DCI has been "members only" since it's inception. I was just pointing out that DCI has done things even 30 years ago that don't fit that mold. So I guess I took your statement into the context of the one you were replying to. :)

And how many corps has division I produced in the past decade? (counts on fingers) ....oh, that's right - ZERO.

Of the 23 division I corps of 2006, 15 of them have been involved in division II/III/class A on their way to where they are now. How quickly we forget....

I thought we were talking about division I corps - not just top 12.

By the way, Blue Devils started out as a class B unit in the NorCal circuit, where shows were a bit shorter in duration, much like today's division II/III rules allow. Bluecoats competed in class A in their first seven seasons on the field. Blue Knights and Glassmen are also class A alumni - both were at DCI's first class A championship in 1975, in fact.

And the last time someone simply started a division I corps was....

There'd never be any new DCI corps.

It is the only way to start a DCI corps.

DCI doesn't have an "open class" anymore - it hasn't since the early 1990s. New corps aren't allowed to jump right into division I. New corps can't even access the full tour. Even existing corps must undergo an evaluation process to be considered for division I status. Did you not know this, or am I missing something here?

- Clinics should take a minute or two to describe division II/III, at least to mention the existence of a level of DCI competition where the full summer tour is not a prerequisite.

- The DCI telecast should at least occasionally include a segment (3 to 5 minutes long) on division II/III. Doesn't have to be included every year (though it would be nice....)

- Division II/III should be better integrated with division I in events. For example, at the Allentown focus show, they've already rented the stadium for the day Saturday - why not hold a II/III show during the day there?

- Re-institute annual regional championship shows to give non-touring corps goals to aim for, instead of just the literally "moving target" of DCI Championship week. Now, you might consider that to be "promotional dollars for unprofitable shows", as you said above. But the other three ideas are certainly affordable.

I hope you understand that my arguments are from an academic standpoint.... B)

I have to say I agree with some of your ideas. The moving target will generally stop moving, but I agree that D3 should have regional championships. It's not a bad thing to have more titles for smaller groups. It would be better marketing to have the pacific champion academy vs the new england champion spartans vs the south champion ECJ, or similar. They also get to go back with a win. Let's not forget that winning is a program builder in and of itself.

Better integration may be more difficult, but I'd like to see 15 shows on finals night. Marines, D3 champ, D2 champ, finalists. I think it's appropriate, even if it means two shows in a day for the winners.

The other part about "the stadium is already rented" isn't such an easy answer. Housing is often difficult, and the logistics don't always work that way. Regular show line-ups involve way more than we've discussed, but I see your point.

Finally, the telecast didn't even go beyond mentioning the top 12. I'd only assume that this is how ESPN intended. What would be good is to do a segment in the cinecast. Instead of filling lots of dead air, it would have been pretty groovy to show the Academy's closer, or some ECJ, or Impulse. By the same token, it's even more important to promote the 6 D1 corps that were not in the cinecast. My point is that it's more important to promote your current D1 corps than the corps that might replace them later. Until DCI becomes a relegation league, the top teams are the most important to promote. Awareness is good, but if I'm DCI, and I'm going to try and market/recruit, I'm going to try to emphasize Esperanza before Spartans.

In short, it's more important to worry about the ones you have, than the ones you might later. Your point is well taken, but if DCI gets to the point where a fold is rare in D1, and right now an outright "cease operations" is indeed much less likely, you have "franchises" in place. Nurturing those is more important if you've identified that those groups are the ones that you need. DCI directors have indicated as much by shutting D2/3 out of D1. Right or wrong, they have said they'd rather go with what they have, and make that work.

[MikeD]

Finally, the telecast didn't even go beyond mentioning the top 12. I'd only assume that this is how ESPN intended.

Actually, as I understand it DCI produced the show and bought air time.

[audiodb]

I hope you understand that my arguments are from an academic standpoint.... B)

Sorry - I didn't realize that (despite what Stef thinks - ). I take DCI's participation review process seriously, as I'm sure DCI does, so I'm not so quick to think in terms of them discarding it's criteria. After all, right now, they evaluate corps' ability to tour and their competitive success. Corps will not be able to prove their capabilities in those areas without division II/III.

I have to say I agree with some of your ideas. The moving target will generally stop moving, but I agree that D3 should have regional championships. It's not a bad thing to have more titles for smaller groups. It would be better marketing to have the pacific champion academy vs the new england champion spartans vs the south champion ECJ, or similar. They also get to go back with a win. Let's not forget that winning is a program builder in and of itself.

Works for me.

Better integration may be more difficult, but I'd like to see 15 shows on finals night. Marines, D3 champ, D2 champ, finalists. I think it's appropriate, even if it means two shows in a day for the winners.

I don't think they'll mind. :)

The other part about "the stadium is already rented" isn't such an easy answer. Housing is often difficult, and the logistics don't always work that way. Regular show line-ups involve way more than we've discussed, but I see your point.

Many of those same challenges remain whether they're integrated or off at their own separate show. But for a venue that's already rented, with fans already in town (even if only a percentage of them go to the II/III event), it seems like a reasonable opportunity.

Finally, the telecast didn't even go beyond mentioning the top 12. I'd only assume that this is how ESPN intended. What would be good is to do a segment in the cinecast.

Good idea!

In short, it's more important to worry about the ones you have, than the ones you might later. Your point is well taken, but if DCI gets to the point where a fold is rare in D1, and right now an outright "cease operations" is indeed much less likely, you have "franchises" in place. Nurturing those is more important if you've identified that those groups are the ones that you need. DCI directors have indicated as much by shutting D2/3 out of D1. Right or wrong, they have said they'd rather go with what they have, and make that work.

Understood - but they're not there yet. What if they never get to that level of stability? Seems like one reason to keep II/III around for now, at least.

[drumcat]

Who is the last D1 corps to cease operations? VK? Wait; Magic didn't field for two years, right? I'll count that.

Edited October 10, 2006 by drumcat

[SoonerFan04]

Well, they did "Micro Magic" so the organization was operating in some capacity in 2001...