CSGreen Posted January 21, 2007 Author Share Posted January 21, 2007 You know the whole point of this thread has been a little lost, so I am really glad about Mr Nash's last statement... so let's help those groups on the bubble get their required membership, and for those who are absolutely borderline and you are someone who can help somehow, let them know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Skyliner Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 You know the whole point of this thread has been a little lost, so I am really glad about Mr Nash's last statement...so let's help those groups on the bubble get their required membership, and for those who are absolutely borderline and you are someone who can help somehow, let them know Chris: Thanks for bring this back to its original theme. I as you know have Volunteered and made my email addy known to 6 units. AND I will be available for at least 3 shows. Rockmart, Nashville, and DCA Championships. ^OO^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoothy Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 You guys are so cool to offer your help to a corps that falls short of the new ridiculous minimum rule. We marched 39 last season and won Class A. Why wouldn't the board see that it is possible to march a decent show with less than 35 members? Fortunately, we should have no problems getting above the minimum this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomPeashey Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Re: the question about public comment... While I certainly appreciate the compliments I have received about my 40 years of association with DCA and my belief in proper public relations and communications... I have to say that in this case, I have to completely disagree... Public vilification of the rules proposals would make a mockery of the system... it would make it hard to accomplish anything. Look, politics in drum corps is difficult enough... think about it... we have an arena that thrives on competition... We create almost cult like situations among our members... we are not talking croquette here... anyone who tells you that they don't want to win is lying... consequently, the ugly parochial interests often raise up their heads ... it is a miracle that anything is accomplished... but fortunately, when behind closed doors - the most competitive of individuals in leadership positions "usually" seem to come up with the right decisions for the best interests of the activity... It's bad enough that things leak out - which is inevitable given that the items to be considered are generally discussed with large numbers of staff people for a month before the meeting... but to intentionally give the politically "sterile" public a forum where they can pick apart the rules would be a disaster... they simply do not have (as a group) the knowledge necessary to make the best decisions... and don't tell me what a great corps person you are... most on here could obviously contribute, but we're talking about EVERYONE... and darn... EVERYONE can become a real two headed monster... Many ideas that are premature or before their time might die in the hoopla... many ideas that really will work for the benefit of all may die because of political pressure from within the various corps when too many people get involved... A good example would be the share point system of financial reward... had this been scrutinized for a month or more before the congress when it was enacted... I feel confident that several of the major voting corps (yes the old line corps) would have had pressure put on them to "NOT TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM US" or "WHY SHOULD A CORPS WITH 35 MEMBERS THAT HAS NEVER MADE A DCA FINALS SHARE IN THE DCA MONEY?" Finally, I'm sorry, I just don't get it... shall we go back to Tony Schlecta deciding what rules the corps compete under? (for those under 50, Tony was the drum corps chairman for the VFW who ruled with an iron fist and personally decided the fate of drum corps for years) Shall we go to an applause meter "cheapening" the product to encourage applause? Only the educated staff and management of the corps who have proved that they have the knowledge and experience to succeed in drum corps should decide HOW their corps compete... The fans are the benefactors of this... Hasn't anyone figured out that "if it ain't broke - don't fix it" is a really great idea... this system is NOT broken and has produced an amazingly stable system that rewards all and demands entertainment for the audience... Give it a rest guys... it's a rule... let's stop talking and to anyone in the area of a corps with fewer than 35 people... let's go out and help them recruit - help them succeed... let's make the whole thing a moot question... Tom Retired from DCA and hiding in Seattle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Periphery Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Shall we go to an applause meter "cheapening" the product to encourage applause? I have read in several places here that some of this is coming from certain presenters who do not wish to have certain smaller corps on their show roster. You yourself have said in another thread about this that DCA will not disallow any corps, and that the decision whether a corps will be allowed to appear is, again, up to that particular presenter. This is about money, and the money is sort of controlled by the applause meter, so to speak, especially if that applause meter does not indicate that small corps draw in $$$ for the presenter. This is the problem. $$$ It is about $$$ and $$$ only. It most certainly is not about drum corps. Smaller corps do not generate a large fan base that spends a lot of money. In fact, smallers corps make certain DCP members "uncomfortable" and "empathetic" because they are so silly looking, play so poorly and look so tattered and thin. Aww . . . And now, a brief aside. Woe is me to be wasting my talent and enthusiasm as a member of any corps that places below Finalist status or is small. The family atmosphere of a small corps is not worthy of my time or efforts because they do not have $$$-spending fans raving for them and show presenters demanding them. Smaller corps are totally devoid of worth to DCA, so I should avoid marching with one and should either travel silly distances to march with a larger, more worthwhile corps, or be happy to sit in the stands and cheering for the larger groups that have a place and that "have value".[/aside] If DCA allows a show's presenters to decide who gets to appear based on size then you have just cheapened the activity by using an applause meter. What if a presenter decides that they do not politically agree with corps that use the color red in their uniform? Can they be allowed to select certain corps to exclude based on the color of a sash or flag or pants? Tell the presenters, "This is DCA's lineup for this show. You are being allowed to host this show." If they persist in trying to tell DCA who gets to compete or even who gets to be seen then DCA is a totally useless thing. It is merely a pimp for the popular corps. That fictional applause meter of yours that could cheapen our activity is not really so fictional to those of us that will not generate enough applause to get in the gate. That metert is real and it will bar the path towards growth and maybe even survival. This ruling is simply the directors of the larger corps telling us in smaller units, as I have said several times before: Grow or Die. Maybe "Grow or Go Away" is more a more accurate portrayal of the sentiment behind this, but "Grow or Die" is what it means to us in small corps. If we do not grow according to DCA's ideas of what is healthy fiscal expansion, then we die. We cannot recruit if we cannot tell prospective members that we are a drum corps, but, what a shame, we will not get to compete for scores and ranking this season. That is hard to sell. It is really hard to sell. So, if we fail to meet DCA's idea of how large we should be (and not how large we are ready to be) then we get a sort of competitive Death Penalty for that year. So we lose new and potential members, thereby losing the older members because "nothing of value is happening in this corps." –OR– We force ourselves to carry more personal debt than we are comfortable with and take on more people before we are ready to do so, we compete, do poorly because we cannot afford to hire a staff to get us clean enough and "competitive" (and worth $$$ to the show presenter) and we come home a little burned out and lose members because "nothing of value is happening in this corps." People wander off, dues money starts to run dry, and the core members default on personal loans to pay for everything because we had no time to build properly. Strange how no one wants to be in a start up corps unless it is going to actually DO something or GO somewhere. Strange how new recruits want to go to shows and to compete. Strange that when we cannot do that (compete) that people (and their money) start to drift away. A corps with over 100 members can absorb the loss of a bunch of disgruntled members. A corps with 30 cannot. So our only choice now is to grow or die. I am not trying to pick a fight, Tom. I am very sincerely worried about the survival of the corps that I am fortunate enough to play with as well as all of the others like us. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Skyliner Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 (edited) Re: the question about public comment...While I certainly appreciate the compliments I have received about my 40 years of association with DCA and my belief in proper public relations and communications... I have to say that in this case, I have to completely disagree... Public vilification of the rules proposals would make a mockery of the system... it would make it hard to accomplish anything. Look, politics in drum corps is difficult enough... think about it... we have an arena that thrives on competition... We create almost cult like situations among our members... we are not talking croquette here... anyone who tells you that they don't want to win is lying... consequently, the ugly parochial interests often raise up their heads ... it is a miracle that anything is accomplished... but fortunately, when behind closed doors - the most competitive of individuals in leadership positions "usually" seem to come up with the right decisions for the best interests of the activity... It's bad enough that things leak out - which is inevitable given that the items to be considered are generally discussed with large numbers of staff people for a month before the meeting... but to intentionally give the politically "sterile" public a forum where they can pick apart the rules would be a disaster... they simply do not have (as a group) the knowledge necessary to make the best decisions... and don't tell me what a great corps person you are... most on here could obviously contribute, but we're talking about EVERYONE... and darn... EVERYONE can become a real two headed monster... Many ideas that are premature or before their time might die in the hoopla... many ideas that really will work for the benefit of all may die because of political pressure from within the various corps when too many people get involved... A good example would be the share point system of financial reward... had this been scrutinized for a month or more before the congress when it was enacted... I feel confident that several of the major voting corps (yes the old line corps) would have had pressure put on them to "NOT TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM US" or "WHY SHOULD A CORPS WITH 35 MEMBERS THAT HAS NEVER MADE A DCA FINALS SHARE IN THE DCA MONEY?" Finally, I'm sorry, I just don't get it... shall we go back to Tony Schlecta deciding what rules the corps compete under? (for those under 50, Tony was the drum corps chairman for the VFW who ruled with an iron fist and personally decided the fate of drum corps for years) Shall we go to an applause meter "cheapening" the product to encourage applause? Only the educated staff and management of the corps who have proved that they have the knowledge and experience to succeed in drum corps should decide HOW their corps compete... The fans are the benefactors of this... Hasn't anyone figured out that "if it ain't broke - don't fix it" is a really great idea... this system is NOT broken and has produced an amazingly stable system that rewards all and demands entertainment for the audience... Give it a rest guys... it's a rule... let's stop talking and to anyone in the area of a corps with fewer than 35 people... let's go out and help them recruit - help them succeed... let's make the whole thing a moot question... Tom Retired from DCA and hiding in Seattle Tom: Yes you did do an Excelent job!!!! All I am saying is that the people that propose these changes should be Proud enough to put thier Name on them. Then tell us why it is such a great idea. Let us "The Paying Public" and the Members of ALL the units give our OPINION. Then if need be that the meeting be done in Private. So BE IT. I am not asking to intrude on the deliberations. But having us here and on other Public Forums give our views. So that the people that DO get to go and vote know how the Paying Public and marching members feel. To me, "Which Corps Voted How". Is not as important as the the Result. If nothing else, it just flat looks bad, the way it was just IMPOSED on the smaller Corps. You know from reading my Posts here. I think that the Voting group should have been Enlarged not made smaller. Leaving the more Power to those that have been there longer and those that have made it to the top, with Extra Votes. Yet giving a greater voice to the ever growing number of corps. You may have also read how I think making 3 divisions might be an answer. But to Eliminate a whole group (between 22 and and 34) seems a little Dumb, Not well thought out, or very Callus. Take your pick! Also. DCA needs to take a look at word usage. The term "MEMBER" is used in a strange way. it confuses some. Where as all the corps are members in some way. My understanding is that everyone that pays ther fees and dues are members. But then it devides down by status. 1-You have a TOP Ten Open Class members. That also has Voting rights. 2-Open Class members, and Class A members. Although, I understand how this is. BUT, MANY do not. AND. YES. I think this new rule is bad for DCA. I only hope that I will be able to help one of the corps that fall short. So they can March in some Contests and the Championships. Edited January 22, 2007 by LucysSkylinerAlumni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_Bass Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 I don't want my corps to die. Where else would I go? I really enjoyed finals, even though we were in the stands on the final night, but still, I want to go for the chance to be infront of that night's audience. Plus I don't have the thousands to spend on travelling all year to some other corps for that opportunity. If that's the case, I might as well go age out of DCI. But I choose not to, so we may have that fighting chance, and be a part of something great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Many ideas that are premature or before their time might die in the hoopla... many ideas that really will work for the benefit of all may die because of political pressure from within the various corps when too many people get involved... A good example would be the share point system of financial reward... had this been scrutinized for a month or more before the congress when it was enacted... I feel confident that several of the major voting corps (yes the old line corps) would have had pressure put on them to "NOT TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM US" or "WHY SHOULD A CORPS WITH 35 MEMBERS THAT HAS NEVER MADE A DCA FINALS SHARE IN THE DCA MONEY?" But let's look at the one example that has actually been put to the test of public scrutiny. This time around, there was a proposal to change the rule regarding voting member criteria. Over the past month, it has been debated by the uninformed public, with only the opposition represented in the debate by an actual corps official. Even the better-informed of us bystanders still don't know what the rationale of this change was. And look - it still passed! If that change could proceed to passage after the one-sided criticism it received here, then I wouldn't be concerned about good proposals being shouted down by the masses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russferrer Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 I have read in several places here that some of this is coming from certain presenters who do not wish to have certain smaller corps on their show roster. You yourself have said in another thread about this that DCA will not disallow any corps, and that the decision whether a corps will be allowed to appear is, again, up to that particular presenter. leaving individual shows aside, why should sponsors dictate to DCA who performs at championship Prelims? And now, a brief aside. Woe is me to be wasting my talent and enthusiasm as a member of any corps that places below Finalist status or is small. The family atmosphere of a small corps is not worthy of my time or efforts because they do not have $$$-spending fans raving for them and show presenters demanding them. Smaller corps are totally devoid of worth to DCA, so I should avoid marching with one and should either travel silly distances to march with a larger, more worthwhile corps, or be happy to sit in the stands and cheering for the larger groups that have a place and that "have value".[/aside] Ditto This ruling is simply the directors of the larger corps telling us in smaller units, as I have said several times before: Grow or Die. Maybe "Grow or Go Away" is more a more accurate portrayal of the sentiment behind this, but "Grow or Die" is what it means to us in small corps. If we do not grow according to DCA's ideas of what is healthy fiscal expansion, then we die. We cannot recruit if we cannot tell prospective members that we are a drum corps, but, what a shame, we will not get to compete for scores and ranking this season. That is hard to sell. It is really hard to sell.So, if we fail to meet DCA's idea of how large we should be (and not how large we are ready to be) then we get a sort of competitive Death Penalty for that year. So we lose new and potential members, thereby losing the older members because "nothing of value is happening in this corps." 22-34 = Drum Corpse We force ourselves to carry more personal debt than we are comfortable with and take on more people before we are ready to do so, we compete, do poorly because we cannot afford to hire a staff to get us clean enough and "competitive" (and worth $$$ to the show presenter) and we come home a little burned out and lose members because "nothing of value is happening in this corps." People wander off, dues money starts to run dry, and the core members default on personal loans to pay for everything because we had no time to build properly. Strange how no one wants to be in a start up corps unless it is going to actually DO something or GO somewhere. Strange how new recruits want to go to shows and to compete. Strange that when we cannot do that (compete) that people (and their money) start to drift away.A corps with over 100 members can absorb the loss of a bunch of disgruntled members. A corps with 30 cannot. So our only choice now is to grow or die. Ditto. Money & time do factor into becoming a corps member... but to many of our prospective members, it's that opportunity to compete that makes us want to sacrifice the forementioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMStar85 Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 A good example would be the share point system of financial reward... had this been scrutinized for a month or more before the congress when it was enacted... I feel confident that several of the major voting corps (yes the old line corps) would have had pressure put on them to "NOT TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM US" or "WHY SHOULD A CORPS WITH 35 MEMBERS THAT HAS NEVER MADE A DCA FINALS SHARE IN THE DCA MONEY?" Now that you bring that up, I find it interesting that there has been no discussion about the re-aligning of a portion of the share point net...something about decreasing the share point pot by $xxx and splitting that extra $xxx amongst the Top 10?! Anyone? Bueller??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.