Symposium: Drum Corps 1997: The state of the activity, by S. Stewart
Whitney Densmore
As I was unable to locate the article posted below by newsreader or
DejaNews, I was granted permission by Steve Powers, Editor of Drum Corps
World, to re-post Scott Stewart's article.
Thanks, Steve.
Whitney Densmore
****
Drum Corps 1997
The state of the activity
by Scott Stewart
Introduction
The premise of this paper is that the activity we know as junior drum and
bugle corps is in an extremely critical situation at this point in time and
that a comprehensive plan for its survival must be created and implemented
if it is to have a future.
The opinions expressed are based on 30 years of personal experience as a
participant and student of the activity, as well as constant and countless
conversations with management, board members, performing members, teaching
and support staff, show sponsors, hard-core and casual fans, judges and
virtually anyone else who was in any way connected with drum corps.
Additional source materials include any written opinions that have appeared
in the drum corps media, the many letters that come across my desk, reports
of various DCI and regional committees, as well as surveys conducted over
the years including my activity-wide 1995 directors survey, the 1994 DCI
marketing report, the 1994 division II and III survey and the 1993-1994
Drum Corps World fan survey.
This paper is not being written for any personal, professional or
organizational gain, but simply out of love for an activity that has not
only been the passion of my life, but has allowed me to maximize my
potential and affect others in a positive manner more than any other venue
I can envision.
The purpose is to offer suggestions on where we may have gone wrong,
propose solutions to the problems and stimulate discussion on the topic of
deep change within our activity so that it can not only survive, but grow.
The most challenging aspect of analyzing and isolating the problems of our
activity is that we are all part of the process which has led us to be as
dysfunctional as we are. We all exist in -- and are part of -- the
unhealthy environment we have created. Because of this, it is difficult to
disassociate oneself from the problems and look at them objectively.
However, we must do that to be successful.
Perhaps a helpful mindset would be to pretend that we are already dead as
an activity and are starting over, with the ability to correct and/or avoid
the problems of the past. This will help avoid the temptation to think in
a way which serves to perpetuate or protect the direction we are currently
taking.
Analysis of our Current Situation
The model of a successful drum corps in our activity is one that has 128
talented members (plus more on a waiting list) who come from everywhere
except the town the corps is from; a large, well--paid administrative and
teaching (and in some case support) staff; more rolling stock and
performance equipment (especially in the pit) than one can imagine; and a
huge budget (and sadly, in many cases, a huge debt).
This model corps also tours for up to nine weeks during the summer and is
unable to do any local appearances that would enable it to have local
exposure (and, in most cases, support). Its success if gauged by its
competitive ranking on an international level and nothing less than a
progressive climb from top 21, to top 12, to top six, to number one is
worth continuing existence for.
Competitive prowess is determined -- or at least enhanced by -- the
presence of "celebrity" designers, coordinators and instructors who produce
"cutting-edge works of art" that transcend the comprehensive abilities of
the "mere-mortal" audience.
Although it is impressive that a small handful of corps have successfully
mutated to that level, is it realistic to believe that there are more than
a handful of corps that can ever achieve this and is it healthy to use this
as a model for success when it is so self-defeating?
One of the main reasons for the death of so many corps in the last 25 years
(we have gone from about 1,000 junior corps in 1972 to less than 100 in
1997) is that they were forced to survive in an environment where the model
for success was virtually unattainable.
The reason this has occurred is quite simple. DCI began as a private club
with a mission to serve its select membership. Very quickly it became the
only game in town for the entire activity, but the organization failed to
understand that it had inherited responsibility for the entire activity.
The result was that the decision-makers for DCI (including myself at times)
made decisions that were targeted for the top end of the activity rather
than what was realistic and beneficial for the health and growth of the
entire activity. Many times these decisions were based on what I believe
to be an erroneous assumption that the activity could and should transform
itself into something much larger, more main-stream and more glamorous than
it was ever capable of becoming.
A Healthier Future
To create a more realistic and healthy environment, we must first agree on
the philosophical base that will dictate how we make decisions in the
future. I would offer the following thoughts toward that objective.
Drum corps is a unique and valuable, but relatively small, fragile mini-
society which will only survive based on cooperation and fraternalism among
the participants. The leadership must share an understanding of what the
foundational building blocks are that make its existence worthwhile.
Drum corps cannot operate on the same value system that the rest of our
society does. It must aspire to a higher, more altruistic set of standards
and values if it is to continue.
Drum corps exists to provide a meaningful, challenging, positive experience
to the youthful participants (primarily) and to the fans, supporters and
adult staffs (secondarily), through an environment which encourages
musical, physical, social and personal growth and the achievement of
excellence, utilizing a unique, exciting, tradition-based entertainment
form as its vehicle.
The concepts of "cutting edge art form," financial profit and celebrity
status for individuals and over-emphasis of competitive dominance are not
part of this definition.
Decisions must be made that serve what is best for the survival and growth
of the entire activity, not the interests of a select few. The activity
needs groups at all levels to be healthy and ensure longevity. The more
corps that exist, the stronger our future will be. More corps mean more
participants, relatives, friends and alumni as fans and greater awareness,
in general, of our activity.
This philosophical base must be used as the foundation for the following
six topics so that we can adjust our current direction and work toward a
better future.
1. Tour structure and schedule.
2. Competitive environment.
3. Economics of drum corps.
4. Maintenance and growth of our fan base.
5. Membership levels.
6. Administration and governance of DCI.
Tour Structure and Schedule
Currently -- and many times in the past -- tour schedules have been
structured with the financial "bottom-line" as the rationalization or
because a vocal individual had a new idea. All the corps then followed the
direction, even if it wasn't the most realistic or sensible thing to do.
Most corps currently tour too much. The more intense the touring and time
commitment, the more the local base is depleted. This affects the
membership base, the teaching and support staff base and the value to,
exposure to and support from the local community. Also, most corps are not
developed enough to have the vehicular and managerial quality necessary to
support extended touring at a healthy level for the membership.
To correct this, the first step is to put more emphasis on the regions
rather than on national touring and to stress regional show development.
It is important that there are enough shows to accommodate all levels of
drum corps to a satisfactory degree. One of the steps in this is to
shorten the DCI portion of the season to the last four weeks of the summer,
with regional championships taking place four weekends before the DCI
Championships.
In order to accomplish this, the DCI tour schedule must be revised (some
shows may become regional shows), there could only be one meeting, if any,
of all DCI corps prior to championships and the championships would have to
be in a location which was accessible to most corps and would allow the
tour prior to championships to flow sensibly.
My suggestion would be that the championship not be farther south than
Tennessee or farther west than Denver. We must also settle on a
championship date from 1999 onward that allows the season to be a
standardized length each year.
In addition, I would suggest condensing DCI Championship Week to five days
instead of six by eliminating quarter-finals. This would allow for more
shows prior to DCI week, less experienced corps could leave on tour later
for championships, less housing and stadium costs and greater spectator
participation at the division II and III competitions. The new schedule
for the week could be: Tuesday, I&E; Wednesday/Thursday, division II and
III; Friday, semi-finals of division I (same as present quarter-finals) and
Saturday, division I finals.
Another part of this solution would be to restrict touring based on
classification. The object is for all (except *division IA) to tour less.
The message is that touring is the last ingredient a corps should be
concerned with until other criteria (organization, operational, membership
size and performance excellence) have been met.
Restrictions on touring would be:
Regional season --
* division IA can tour more than two weeks and out of their region
(subject to national control and regional line-up balance)
Division I -- two weeks
Division II and III -- one week
* Division IIIA -- weekends only
DCI season
* Division IA -- four weeks
Division I -- three weeks
Division II/III -- two weeks
* Division IIIA -- weekends and championships only
These are maximum touring lengths, there are no minimums. No corps is
required to tour more than they feel is healthy for their group.
* Discussion of these divisions later in this paper.
Competitive Environment
There is an obvious conflict that exists in an activity which depends on
cooperation and fraternalism for survival, yet emphasizes and promotes
competitive dominance as the ultimate goal. The dilemma is magnified when
you add the factor that it is an entirely subjective adjudication system
that utilizes a vertical ranking over another. The final, fatal flaw is
that, in our system, the only way for one group to gain is for another to
fall.
The pursuit of excellence and using competition in a healthy way to gauge
and improve one's own performance is extremely positive. Our society and,
unfortunately, our activity as well, uses competition in a way which is
negative because it rewards outcome instead of the process. True "victory"
and educational value comes from improvement and achievement and the
process which encourages those things, not a "final score" which is many
times affected by factors outside the participants' control.
The more subjective in nature the scoring is, the less control the
participant has over the outcome. In our current system, the end is more
important than the means -- which dilutes the emphasis on the process and
negates the positive reason for competition.
Petty protection of egos (at the expense of others) becomes more important
than our stated objective -- development and improvement of everyone
involved.
In a healthy competitive environment, there is respect for and
encouragement of other participants. To what degree does that exist in our
present environment?
To rectify this, we need a system (and people implementing that system)
that stresses more objective evaluation of various quality levels and is
concerned with rating, not ranking the groups. This encourages growth,
improvement and satisfaction because you are evaluated and rewarded for the
level which has been achieved rather than being forced into an arbitrary
rung on the competitive ladder.
In this system, everyone can succeed it they achieve the criteria
necessary. This is the only system which educationally makes sense. Of
course, in a system like this, the ego-maniac may not be as satisfied, but
it is more important to better serve the masses than the selfish few. If
deemed an advantage, we could integrate a system which allowed for naming a
winner at non-championship shows and the crowning of a champion for each
division at championships, but beyond that the level achieved is the
benchmark, not a forced, politically-influenced ranking hierarchy.
This is a very complex topic and, given human nature, may never be solved
completely, but there are ways to drastically improve our current
situation. Part of the solution involves the way we do things, but a major
part also centers on how we think about things.
Another part of the solution is to have the performances of the corps
evaluated by the evaluatory panels less often. I am suggesting that
evaluations take place once a week on Saturdays. The advantages of this
are numerous including:
1. Availability of a large pool of potential evaluators because of lessened
time commitment.
2. Ability to use more judges per show if deemed advantageous.
3. Massive financial savings (fees, transportation, housing,
administration).
4. Teaches performers that emphasis should be on personal and group
improvement and entertainment of the audience rather than the final
score.
5. Removes a perceived advantage of excessive touring since everyone would
have equal access to Saturday shows.
Evaluators who rate championships would only have one or two prior
exposures and could remain more objective.
Improvement can also be accomplished regarding the criteria on which the
corps are evaluated. Weight must be given to performers' achievement which
is the combination of execution and difficulty level. General effect marks
should reflect actual effect achieved, not intended, wished-for or assumed.
An added advantage of this is that the audience would benefit because shows
would be produced that they could better appreciate.
There should be no separate design credit because it already is part of the
other two areas. The sheets would be set up to reward corps for various
achievement levels which would coincide and determine divisional
classifications of corps and pay scales.
Other areas to be discussed would include the critique. It could be
valuable as an educational tool for less developed staffs if the evaluators
were properly qualified and motivated. It would automatically lose its
importance as a political forum because the system would reward more
objective achievement levels rather than jockeying for specific positions.
We also must put thought into where judges are positioned so that their
involvement does not distract from the audience members' enjoyment of the
performance. This specifically refers to loud tape commentary and visual
obstruction.
Economics of Drum Corps
Drum corps cannot operate on the same economic system as the rest of our
society. It simply does not and cannot raise enough dollars to pay
everyone involved and be as inefficient and wasteful with its resources as
much of the rest of our society is.
Over the years we have inflated the costs involved with operating our
activity to the point where nearly every group that is still alive has an
unhealthy financial situation. One of the biggest factors contributing to
this is the extended touring that has been previously discussed. Because
of the extensive amount of time involved on these tours, many corps have
difficulty finding altruistic management, teaching and support staff and
must pay for these services which could be volunteer-based.
The costs involved with owning or leasing and maintaining the rolling stock
which is necessary (or perceived as necessary) to transport the groups on
these tours is extraordinary as well.
Because the corps are never at their home base, they do not have the
exposure and worth to their community which would allow for support from
their community. In addition, many groups have a poor concept of realistic
budgeting procedures and lack creativity in utilizing their limited
resources.
Much of this stems from our activity's (and society's) inability to
understand that longevity and continuance of worthwhile programs is more
important than short-term gain.
The result is that much of the burden is passed on to the performing
member. When you combine this with the extended touring that prohibits them
from working during the summer, you realize that our activity is now
non-accessible to a large share of young people who cannot afford to
participate.
The cost burden is also passed on to the show sponsor who must then raise
ticket prices. This discourages the curious from possibly attending a show
for the first time and becoming a fan. It also drives the current fan, who
is already disenchanted with the product being offered, further away and
causes him to attend fewer, if any, drum corps shows.
Maintenance and Growth of Fan Base
In any activity that requires the support of a fan base to further its
endeavors, it is important that those supporters (fans) are kept
interested in the activity that needs their support. Over the past decade
we have alienated much of our fan base. I believe this has happened
because, rather than fostering a fraternal atmosphere where the fan felt he
was an important part of the activity, he was treated as a consumer who was
expected to purchase his product (drum corps) from the manufacturer (DCI).
In this environment, he felt disassociated from the activity and lost his
feelings of loyalty and obligation that were once an important aspect of
his involvement.
There are several more issues associated with this problem as well. I feel
the biggest, by far, is that the corps stopped producing programs that
entertained the fans by eliciting a unique type of gut-level emotional
reaction. This was a foundational building block of what attracted people
to drum corps in the first place. As a small but influential contingent of
designers and judges managed to convince the entire activity that exciting,
colorful, melodic, tradition-based and sometimes "obvious" programming was
now passe, the shows lost their appeal and the audience eroded.
In addition, the activity was led to believe that being unprepared at the
beginning of the season was a sign of creative genius. The result was that
audiences attending events before the end of the season were deprived of
quality performances in many cases.
To make matters worse, we greatly inflated the costs of attending our
events by raising ticket prices drastically and holding championships in a
location perceived by many as being difficult to access.
By attending to the above, I believe we an maintain our current fans and
recover many that have been lost. In addition, it will be an important
factor in attracting new supporters.
New fans will come as a result of efforts at a local show level as well as
an increase in the number of drum corps and the number of people associated
with these new corps.
Money spent by DCI at a national level will do little to attract new fans.
The television broadcast is the most valuable tool we have for attracting
new fans at a national level. It would be even more effective if we could
ensure that it would be shown when people would be watching their
televisions.
Membership Levels
All junior drum corps that desire to be should be allowed to be members of
DCI. The criteria outlined below would indicate which division the corps
would qualify for and the touring restrictions explained earlier would
apply.
The objectives are to offer realistic guidelines for development, to
diminish the amount of touring and encourage more community-based corps and
allow for growth and success at various levels.
I would see a small group of division IA corps, a slightly larger group of
division I corps and a hopefully ever-growing number of division II, III
and IIIA corps.
These four areas would be used for determining division membership:
1. Organizational -- by-laws, organizational structure, insurance
compliance, tax reporting compliance, budgeting and financial reporting.
2. Operational -- management, support and teaching staff, vehicles, food
program, scheduling (must ensure safe, healthy, educational
environment).
3. Performance excellence.
4. Size of membership.
Areas 1,2 and 4 would be monitored by a separate, knowledgeable, impartial
committee. Area 3 would be determined by evaluation panels.
There would be five divisions for purposes of classification and touring
restrictions, but only marketed as three (division I/II/III) as is
currently done.
1. Division IA -- 110-128 members, top performance excellence level.
2. Division I -- 90-128 members, at least second performance excellence
level.
3. Division II -- 60-129 members, at least third performance excellence
level.
4. Division III -- 30-128 members, at least fourth performance excellence
level.
5. Division IIIA -- 1-128, no minimum performance excellence level.
Organizational standards must be met by all corps, although division IA
cannot have flaws. Operational standards must be adequate to ensure
positive achievement of touring options at various levels.
Pay scales would be based on performance excellence level achieved.
Bonus paid on size of corps membership.
Administration and Governance of DCI
The next issue concerns the administration of DCI or, more specifically,
the DCI office. Although I don't have the definitive answer at this point,
I can't help but question whether or not we really need to do all we
attempt to do.
What projects and services are really necessary for fulfilling our mission?
What can we do without?
I also question whether we need to spend all of the money we do. Since
most corps and show sponsors in the activity are struggling to survive, it
seems incongruent that the DCI budget is at the level it is.
Over the years, DCI has come to be viewed as having very deep financial
pockets. Part of this comes from the liberal spending of resources on
various projects and part comes from the corporate image which DCI has
tried to present. The result is that we pay too many people too much for
things that should be done out of altruism and love for our activity.
The actions of the governing body of DCI affect the health and survival of
the entire activity. Throughout the history of DCI, those who constitute
this decision-making body have been chosen on the basis of a subjective,
competitive hierarchy. This is certainly not the best way to choose the
people who control the fate of the rest of the activity.
The governing body of DCI should be made up of individuals who have the
broadest and most sincere sensitivity to, and understanding of, the entire
activity. They must also posses a vision for the future that is based on
historical perspective, evolution and current status of all the varied
aspects of drum and bugle corps.
Every organization ultimately thrives or dies on its leadership's ability
to develop and sustain a sound philosophical base with which to guide its
decision-making process. We have not been successful enough in this regard
to ensure the survival of our activity.
We must do better!