Martybucs Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 You think DCO forced them to tour? Blue Stars? In the first year of the circuit? Their director was one of the driving forces behind the formantion of DCI. Blue Rock came in 22nd at the 73 DCI prelims. Why would DCI force them to tour? They were dead last at every show, it appears. Not sure why 2-7 toured. You can 'blame' DCI, but I hardly agree. Corps admins are responsible for the health of the corps and it's members. if a corps director agreed to do something they knew was against their better interests, if DCI did ask them to tour, I place the blame on them for agreeing. The decline in shows was not instantaneous...it happened throughout the 70's and into the 80's. It's up to each corps to use the things they wish. It's not DCI's fault for expanding the available instrumentation. Yes, it is. There were more small local corps way back because the vets who made up those posts had kids of junior corps age. When thiose kids aged out...and the post membership got older...the posts pulled back from drum corps. I see head sand buried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundown Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 I'm new here as of today and enjoy the discussions I've been reading. Since someone started the topic of high school bands (and I don't really want to go there), I have a question about corps instrumentation. There was a time when corps were cool. High school bands couldn't touch them, and the instrumentation was unique. Then, corps got on the HS "band"wagon (pardon the pun) and started using keybords (the first sign of losing our identity). Next, we see the brass being called by band instrument nomenclature - trumpets, tubas, and trombones. I'm old school, so can someone explain to me where we lost our frame of reference - after all, they are drum and BUGLE corps?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 (edited) You think DCI forced them to tour? No. I was merely pointing out that such touring took place long before the "decline in corps and shows drove DCI into the touring mode", as you contended. Blue Rock came in 22nd at the 73 DCI prelims. Why would DCI force them to tour? Never said DCI forced them to tour. Again, just illustrating that touring expanded at DCI's inception. Not sure why 2-7 toured. You can 'blame' DCI, but I hardly agree. Didn't say DCI was to "blame" for anything. I didn't even use the word "blame". For the third time, I'm just showing how much touring went on in DCI's earliest years. Don't put words in my mouth. Corps admins are responsible for the health of the corps and it's members. if a corps director agreed to do something they knew was against their better interests, if DCI did ask them to tour, I place the blame on them for agreeing. For the fourth time....oh, never mind. Blaming the corps directors again, I see? Of course, "DCI" is made up of....(wait for it)....corps directors! So are you blaming "DCI", then? Maybe a little more insight is required here. One of the principal objectives of the handful of top corps that initiated DCI's creation was to feed their desire to tour. Several of them were already touring out of a desire to compete for titles at several geographically scattered world-class contests. Taking more control over the shows on the way to/from those major contests (and, eventually, the major contests as well) enabled these top corps, the DCI member corps, to establish logical tours with a series of paying show appearances that made the travel more practical (for the DCI member corps). Now, to fill those shows, other corps had to be attracted to participate. To sell DCI Championships as the world championship of drum corps, other corps had to be attracted. To line up new prospective member corps to replace those that folded over time, other corps had to be attracted. And if there's one thing DCI has always been good at, it's attracting other corps. Like flies to....honey, other corps were drawn to DCI's regionals, open prelim shows, class A/all-girl/division II/III events, and sanctioned tour shows. Events, audiences and revenue were built - and used, as originally intended, to subsidize the desired touring of a small group of corps we now know as DCI member corps. By the end of 1974, the majority of competing junior units had been involved in DCI events. Out of those 189 corps, DCI granted membership to 12. Say anything you want about the quality of DCI's corps, but an organization that excludes over 90% of it's participants from membership is going to be a drain on the quantity. The decline in shows was not instantaneous...it happened throughout the 70's and into the 80's. The decline in shows is still going today.... It's up to each corps to use the things they wish. It's not DCI's fault for expanding the available instrumentation. Flimsy rhetoric. One look at the number of division I corps not using amps will illustrate how quickly equipment becomes mandatory to compete at a certain level. One look at the number of corps not using pit percussion in any division (zero) will illustrate how that phenomenon extends throughout the activity until there is no "choice" anymore. Yes, it is. There were more small local corps way back because the vets who made up those posts had kids of junior corps age. When thiose kids aged out...and the post membership got older...the posts pulled back from drum corps. But like you always say, the veterans were gone by 1980. Yet numbers continued dropping for the 27 years since then. You can't blame the vets for all that. Edited July 10, 2007 by audiodb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martybucs Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 I'm new here as of today and enjoy the discussions I've been reading. Since someone started the topic of high school bands (and I don't really want to go there), I have a question about corps instrumentation. There was a time when corps were cool. High school bands couldn't touch them, and the instrumentation was unique. Then, corps got on the HS "band"wagon (pardon the pun) and started using keybords (the first sign of losing our identity). Next, we see the brass being called by band instrument nomenclature - trumpets, tubas, and trombones. I'm old school, so can someone explain to me where we lost our frame of reference - after all, they are drum and BUGLE corps?? Hmmmm. I don't think it's ever come up on these boards. We should discuss this. :P You'll see what I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martybucs Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 No. I was merely pointing out that such touring took place long before the "decline in corps and shows drove DCI into the touring mode", as you contended.Never said DCI forced them to tour. Again, just illustrating that touring expanded at DCI's inception. Didn't say DCI was to "blame" for anything. I didn't even use the word "blame". For the third time, I'm just showing how much touring went on in DCI's earliest years. Don't put words in my mouth. For the fourth time....oh, never mind. Blaming the corps directors again, I see? Of course, "DCI" is made up of....(wait for it)....corps directors! So are you blaming "DCI", then? Maybe a little more insight is required here. One of the principal objectives of the handful of top corps that initiated DCI's creation was to feed their desire to tour. Several of them were already touring out of a desire to compete for titles at several geographically scattered world-class contests. Taking more control over the shows on the way to/from those major contests (and, eventually, the major contests as well) enabled these top corps, the DCI member corps, to establish logical tours with a series of paying show appearances that made the travel more practical (for the DCI member corps). Now, to fill those shows, other corps had to be attracted to participate. To sell DCI Championships as the world championship of drum corps, other corps had to be attracted. To line up new prospective member corps to replace those that folded over time, other corps had to be attracted. And if there's one thing DCI has always been good at, it's attracting other corps. Like flies to....honey, other corps were drawn to DCI's regionals, open prelim shows, class A/all-girl/division II/III events, and sanctioned tour shows. Events, audiences and revenue were built - and used, as originally intended, to subsidize the desired touring of a small group of corps we now know as DCI member corps. By the end of 1974, the majority of competing junior units had been involved in DCI events. Out of those 189 corps, DCI granted membership to 12. Say anything you want about the quality of DCI's corps, but an organization that excludes over 90% of it's participants from membership is going to be a drain on the quantity. The decline in shows is still going today.... Flimsy rhetoric. One look at the number of division I corps not using amps will illustrate how quickly equipment becomes mandatory to compete at a certain level. One look at the number of corps not using pit percussion in any division (zero) will illustrate how that phenomenon extends throughout the activity until there is no "choice" anymore. But like you always say, the veterans were gone by 1980. Yet numbers continued dropping for the 27 years since then. You can't blame the vets for all that. Ditto. I agree with audiodb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 It was formed by primarily the top corps who wanted to control their own destinies, so to speak...create their own rules, prize money, judging sheets, etc... "Primarily" the top corps? These are the ten corps that formed DCI: Cavaliers Troopers Santa Clara Vanguard Madison Scouts Blue Stars 27th Lancers Garfield Cadets Blue Rock Boston Crusaders Blessed Sacrament Golden Knights These ten corps then invited three more: Anaheim Kingsmen Argonne Rebels De La Salle Oaklands Now, tell me which of these units were not "top corps". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martybucs Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Saying that no one had to go along with DCI is disingenuous. After they took over, no corps really had a choice. You can say no one had a gun to their head to go DCI, but after DCI gained control there was no place else to compete. I was there too, MikeD, but I was looking from the bottom up and you were looking from the top down and also had a stake in DCI, at least, eventually. Totally, different perspectives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 "Primarily" the top corps?These are the ten corps that formed DCI: Cavaliers Troopers Santa Clara Vanguard Madison Scouts Blue Stars 27th Lancers Garfield Cadets Blue Rock Boston Crusaders Blessed Sacrament Golden Knights These ten corps then invited three more: Anaheim Kingsmen Argonne Rebels De La Salle Oaklands Now, tell me which of these units were not "top corps". I was thinking the other way....that there were some top level corps who were not part of the frst few...e.g. St Rita's Brassmen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Saying that no one had to go along with DCI is disingenuous. After they took over, no corps really had a choice. You can say no one had a gun to their head to go DCI, but after DCI gained control there was no place else to compete.I was there too, MikeD, but I was looking from the bottom up and you were looking from the top down and also had a stake in DCI, at least, eventually. Totally, different perspectives. Not really, because I taught and judged at the local level in the mid/late 70's, in the Garden State Circuit. DCI had minimal impact on the corps in the GSC at that time. DCI had not "taken over" the hundreds of smaller corps in the country. That many failed was not due to DCI's existence...it was due to the many other environmental factors mentioned. I had almost no stake in DCI...my last year marching was the first year of DCI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 No. I was merely pointing out that such touring took place long before the "decline in corps and shows drove DCI into the touring mode", as you contended.Never said DCI forced them to tour. Again, just illustrating that touring expanded at DCI's inception. Didn't say DCI was to "blame" for anything. I didn't even use the word "blame". For the third time, I'm just showing how much touring went on in DCI's earliest years. Don't put words in my mouth. For the fourth time....oh, never mind. Your implication to me was that DCI made these corps tour. If you didn't mean that, fine. Three corps touring is hardly a huge expansion as compared to the hundred of corps in the country. If those corps shose to tour, fine. BTW...how many of the shows in the 72 tour were DCI shows, not that it really matters. Blaming the corps directors again, I see? Of course, "DCI" is made up of....(wait for it)....corps directors! So are you blaming "DCI", then? Um....an individual corps director acting for his/her corps is not the same thing as when he/she acts on behalf of DCI as part of the group. Not sure what you are trying to say. Maybe a little more insight is required here. One of the principal objectives of the handful of top corps that initiated DCI's creation was to feed their desire to tour. Several of them were already touring out of a desire to compete for titles at several geographically scattered world-class contests. Taking more control over the shows on the way to/from those major contests (and, eventually, the major contests as well) enabled these top corps, the DCI member corps, to establish logical tours with a series of paying show appearances that made the travel more practical (for the DCI member corps).Now, to fill those shows, other corps had to be attracted to participate. To sell DCI Championships as the world championship of drum corps, other corps had to be attracted. To line up new prospective member corps to replace those that folded over time, other corps had to be attracted. And if there's one thing DCI has always been good at, it's attracting other corps. Like flies to....honey, other corps were drawn to DCI's regionals, open prelim shows, class A/all-girl/division II/III events, and sanctioned tour shows. Events, audiences and revenue were built - and used, as originally intended, to subsidize the desired touring of a small group of corps we now know as DCI member corps. By the end of 1974, the majority of competing junior units had been involved in DCI events. Out of those 189 corps, DCI granted membership to 12. Say anything you want about the quality of DCI's corps, but an organization that excludes over 90% of it's participants from membership is going to be a drain on the quantity. You see things in a very skewed wzy, but that's your opinion, so fine. Mine is different. Flimsy rhetoric. One look at the number of division I corps not using amps will illustrate how quickly equipment becomes mandatory to compete at a certain level. One look at the number of corps not using pit percussion in any division (zero) will illustrate how that phenomenon extends throughout the activity until there is no "choice" anymore. "At a certain level" is indeed the point. I don't disagree that at the very top you most likely need the latest equipment in order to maximize your sound, be it brass or percussion. Back in the day, though, the little corps in circuits like the GSC used what they had or could afford...or could find players to play. it didn't impact the scoring; as a judge in that circuit I judged what was presented, not what was "missing". One corps I taught had no mallets at all....yet a wonderful timpani line...another had two good mallet players and 3 OK timpanists...at best. Other GSC corps had neither. But like you always say, the veterans were gone by 1980. Yet numbers continued dropping for the 27 years since then. You can't blame the vets for all that. I never 'blame' anybody. It was just the way it was. 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.