SYMPOSIUM ADDRESS:

The Drum & Bugle Corps Activity: A Qualitative Approach

Christopher L. Atkinson


"As an individual performer, it is an overwhelming rush to participate in front of
thousands of enthusiastic fans.  But the individual experience is just a fraction of
what being in drum corps means.  It is about being a part of something that is
bigger than any one person.  It is about the thousands of people who have made
this activity unique.  The beauty of the drum corps experience, with everyone
striving for the same perfection, reaching that moment at the same time and
reaping rewards that far exceed what any of us as individuals would have
obtained.  It is about a legacy of performance excellence and a standard that is
higher than one could imagine.  It is the cumulative legacy that will continue
because of the impact that all involved have made." -David Gibbs, Former
Chairman of the Board, Drum Corps International and Director, Blue Devils

Directors in the drum and bugle corps activity, like sports coaches or directors of
any youth activity that seeks to broaden its students in some way, often speak in
terms like those above.  They do so partly because they sincerely believe in the
validity of what they are doing and in the positive significance it has in the lives
of its young members.  As the world becomes a more complex and seemingly
uncaring place, people like David Gibbs see activities such as drum and bugle
corps playing increasingly important roles in youth development.  Many young
people are exposed to all that is bad about the human condition everyday, and
many see championing the idea of "building character, teaching the value of hard
work, and instructing the leaders of tomorrow" as a way to do something about it. 
Answering dubious influences with an unparalleled experience of some sort-the
feeling of being a "part of something larger than oneself" and recognizing that
hard work can and should pay off-is an important aspect of team competition of
all types (Williams 1998).  It is a major reason why people participate in the drum
and bugle corps activity in various capacities-as members, staff, and volunteers.

However, drum and bugle corps is in many respects quite unlike other youth
activities.  Like other teams, drum corps practice, usually on weekends during the
winter and for most of each day during the summer.  Like other sports, drum
corps is based on a competitive model.  Unlike most high school sports, though,
the competitions take place every summer across the country.  Drum corps travel
thousands of miles to various shows on a 60-day national tour, and corps from
around the world compete for the title of champion.  While most teams have
around 15 members, including alternates, world-class drum and bugle corps have
135 members.  The logistics behind keeping an operation supporting that many
young people going for an entire summer are immense, involved, and
cost-intensive.  Supporting a drum and bugle corps in its performance schedule
requires a small army of unpaid volunteers that cook, sew, drive, sell souvenirs at
competitions, and otherwise assist and enable the group.

The corps' performances, once largely composed of popular music and simple
drill moves, have become complex artistic statements involving exceedingly
difficult musical arrangements and frenetically-paced marching drills. The shows
are judged by a panel of experts in their fields-most are music educators or
professional designers.  The corps management and design staff is saddled with
the responsibility of creating a program that challenges the corps members, as
part of its teaching role, appealing to the artistic nature of the activity, achieving
results from a competitive standpoint, and providing entertainment value to the
audience.  Most drum corps have made an effort to push the activity in an
evolutionary way-to redefine the idea of what is possible in drum corps.  Judges
are often impressed with attained excellence, meaning the difficulty of the show,
and how well the members perform it.  The audience at a drum corps show is
composed chiefly of middle-class people who have children in drum corps
currently, were once members of drum corps, or just find the activity interesting
and entertaining.  Many follow the competitive aspect, and others just want value
for their entertainment dollar.

It is, by all accounts, a cumbersome model for a youth activity.  A principal
reason for the confused nature of the model lies in its reliance on the successful
meeting of four competing interests: educational goals, entertainment goals,
artistic integrity, and economic reality.  In this analysis, the unique nature of the
drum corps activity and the placement of these competing interests will be
examined through various means, in an effort to understand and appreciate the
challenges of and the opportunities for the future of the activity.

Methodology

For this study, I examined several sources of data, corresponding to the various
competing interests involved in the issue.  First, I conducted two interviews, one
with the Director of Development & Public Relations for a corps and another
with the Corps Director of a competing group.  Both corps are similarly situated
in that they have been successful within the community's competitive framework;
both groups are currently working to improve their standing-both competitively
and financially.  For the audience perspective, I examined the "Letters to the
Editor" sections of ten recent issues of Drum Corps World, the widely respected
journal of the activity.  Throughout the process, I considered the impact of the
judging community, as evidenced in recap sheets from the various competitions
that took place throughout the summer (in this case, June through August of
2000), final corps placements, and the substance of a "judges clinic" that took
place in Allentown, PA, where judges had an opportunity to explain how they
form an opinion on a corps performance and assign a score.  Finally, I turned my
attention to the recently released DVDs of the 2000 Championships the
educational/artistic perspective.  The DVDs include added audio tracks that allow
the design staff and/or corps management to "enlighten the audience," through
explanation of the show design, the challenging nature of the performance, or the
talent of the design staff and the corps membership in a type of free-form
interview.  The DVDs also included an audio track of one of the members of the
judging team, providing his comments on the achievement of each corps,
recorded as it happened during the actual finals performance.

The interviews were conducted via telephone and consisted of three basic
questions:

1. What do you see as the greatest development opportunities for your corps over
the near term?

2. What are some of the obstacles, and how do you see the corps overcoming
them?

3. In what direction do you see the drum corps activity in general, and specifically
your corps, heading over the next ten years?

These questions were selected with the intention of being as neutral as possible
while still providing some loose framework for discussion.  I knew in advance
that all corps have issues that are important to their individual organizations,
whether they be financial, artistic, managerial, or membership issues.  From my
previous knowledge of the drum corps community, I knew that most, if not all
corps, have operational challenges that face, if not threaten, the organization.  For
the final question, I knew that drum corps staff members are nothing if not
opinionated, and most enjoy sharing their opinions on the state of the activity and
its prospects.  The opinions of the drum corps management community are
diverse on any given issue, and I expected to receive differing perspectives in
each of the two interviews I conducted based on these questions.  This turned out
to be quite accurate-how the opinions differ says a great deal about the nature of
the activity at this juncture.

As a method of gauging fan response, using "Letters to the Editor" seemed like it
could work, though I anticipated a few problems.  Perhaps most importantly, the
opinions of the people who write letters to the editor of practically any
publication are negatively skewed.  They write because they have a problem with
the way things are done, would like to draw attention to an inconsistency, or want
to change the way something is approached.  This is certainly the case with the
drum corps community's leading publication.  While I do trust that the letters as
printed offer a representative range of the letters sent to the publication, I know
that people are also more apt to write when they do not appreciate or like what is
going on.  The drum corps audience has been notoriously vocal in its dissent on
the direction that some corps are taking within the activity.  However, the stands
are still full at most shows and people still come out to see the performances of
the groups, despite this vocal segment of the community.

It is the belief of many within the community that this is a minority opinion, and
that most fans recognize the value of the activity.  But there is no clear way to tell
that from reading letters to the editor.  Perhaps the only way to provide a real
glimpse into the typical fan's reaction would be to conduct a survey at an actual
drum and bugle corps competition, or a series of competitions.  Another manner
would be to get a mailing list of people who buy drum corps tickets (to regional
or championships competitions, most likely), and send surveys to a sample that
would be representative of the prevailing wisdom of the fan base.  There was, of
course, no way to effectively accomplish either of these alternatives, given
limited resources and the constraints present.  The letters are useful data, but only
as a means of discerning one particular viewpoint on the subject; they are
necessarily flawed in that respect.

Examining both the judging system itself and the trends of scoring over the past
several seasons, and given the nature of the corps programs involved, the most
complex artistic packages generally score the highest.  This assumes a
consistently high level of performance among all competitors, as one would find
at the end of the season in the championship contests.  Such a conclusion rests on
competitive placements and examination of each show in terms of content and
relative complexity.  It also rests on an understanding that the most popular show
(in terms of audience response) does not necessarily have the best outcome in
terms of score, which is an important point in the ongoing judging debate.  There
are, of course, exceptions, and the inherently "personal" nature of a judge's
response to a show makes analysis problematic.  One would have to follow the
responses of a particular set of judges over the course of every show they judge in
a given season, and attend every contest to gain an appreciation of the
externalities present at the show (like "general effect"), to give a fair analysis. 
Even then it would not be comprehensive, because it would be still be an opinion
described by another opinion.  Still, there does not seem to be any other way of
approaching the judging standpoint other than to assume consistency and analyze
the numbers versus show content.

The director/designer audio component of the DVDs offered an interesting,
valuable, and heretofore lacking perspective.  Since the material discussed was
self-selected, the viewer was able to garner a sense of what was "important to the
corps" about their show, based on the commentary of the corps representative. 
Much like the "judge's critique" after a show, when the corps staff gets to speak to
the judges about the results and trade notes on what the corps was trying to
accomplish versus what the judge saw, the DVDs offer a sort of "audience
critique" to be viewed at home.  In this case, though, the commentator is not
prompted by any questions, making it ripe for qualitative study.  The only
prompting is done by the concurrently running tape of the corps performance. 
Coding of these commentaries revealed much in terms of individual corps
identity and perspective on the activity, including the difficulties of the idiom.

The judging track on the DVD set, while interesting from the standpoint of
hearing a judge perform his duty while the show is in progress, is largely
influenced by the corps staff, and comments are generally reflective of previous
critiques.  One might imagine that the corps spends the whole summer
communicating intent to the judges, and therefore the judges and the corps staff
have the best chance of clarity in their relationship by the final performance.  The
intent as understood by the judge is reflected well in the staff commentary, so my
focus stayed principally with the latter.

Analysis

Interviews

My first interview was with the Director of Development for a drum and bugle
corps (Director A).  Director A did not make any attempt to hide the more
problematic aspects of the organization's current picture or its prospects.  A
consistent code throughout the interview was the importance of fundraising and
effective financial management to the future of the corps.  He is cognizant of the
fact that his role as head of development is an extremely difficult job, and
perhaps looks at the lapse in development over the past several years as a
surmountable challenge, not simply as an irritant.  He seems like he is really
trying to change the way people view the organization, and if they are not yet
familiar with it, then he wants a swift introduction.  Public relations for the
organization seems more informed by openness and honesty than by exaggerating
the positives in any way.

At several points in the interview, I caught a glimpse of some of the internal
struggles that inform organizational processes.  Director A talked about the
younger staff members learning the ropes from the older staff members and often
challenging their notions of effective management.  This provides for an
interesting managerial growth formula, because no way of thinking is sacred in
the organization.  He also spoke about the influx of new design staff as being a
positive aspect of the corps' development plan.  The importance of this facet is
easy for many involved in drum corps to see, since the corps performs one show
all summer, designed back in the winter and modified slightly as circumstances
change throughout the performance season.  A corps must start with a clear
picture of what it hopes to accomplish if the design staff is to be effective in its
activities.  This "clear picture" is another recurring code throughout the interview,
and he rightly points to this issue as a management concern.  Effective
management in a drum corps is carried down throughout the organization from a
clearly defined vision at the top.  His point about corps members recognizing
poor management and having that reflected in their performance is particularly
affecting.     

Director A exhibits what I would describe as the optimistic growth outlook for
the drum corps activity.   He is realistic about the constraints of the debt currently
vexing the corps, but overwhelmingly optimistic about the group and what it can
accomplish in the future.  Any questioning of the activity itself-its lengthy
summer tour, judging systems, administrative and business models, creative
issues, and its importance as a youth activity-is virtually nonexistent.  Director A
strongly believes in the future of the activity and his corps, and the reasons he
gives are corps member-centered (an important recurring code).  He feels that the
most important aspect of drum corps is the experience it gives to its members. 
Similarly, he feels that the outlook for that sort of experience continuing was
exceptionally good, that the family atmosphere provided by the corps was an
important reason why the group will survive and prosper, and therefore did not
question the activity's defining character.

Director B brought up many of the same fundraising issues that Director A spoke
of, but his tone seemed to me more uncertain of the activity's future.  He spoke
frankly of the activity, its cumbersome tour model, the costs associated with
playing what could be becoming a "rich-kids sport," and its usefulness as an
educational forum for students when compared with other models for musical
instruction. He took the activity's far-flung nature to task, citing the importance of
the corps' hometown connections and its responsibility to the city's youth as a
defining principle for future endeavors.  He spoke about the competitive
atmosphere of the drum corps community only briefly, and that was to claim that
the atmosphere had little to do with the success of the organization. 

Director B is the director of a drum and bugle corps; by the nature of his position
and his years of involvement with the activity, one can discern that damning the
activity in general or reforming it out of existence are not his principal goals. 
There are probably two ways Director B looks at the activity: first, as a supporter
and fan of drum corps that has made corps management his life's work, and
second, as an administrator that sees an unworkable business model and rising
costs of participation in an activity that might not benefit as many young people
as it could.  As a "drum corps manager," he wants to make sure that drum corps
remains relevant to the mission it sets for itself.  As an administrator, his
cost-benefit analyses do not necessarily line up with his propensity to be a drum
corps supporter.  Perhaps he is more a music educator than a drum corps
educator.  If this is the case, then supporting a drum corps, while fun and valuable
for the kids involved, might not be as an appropriate use of scarce resources as
staying local and involving (and educating) more kids.

Director B's arguments obviously have a clear and unifying focus.  If anything, his
comments speak to a greater concern: the relevance of the activity to providing a
positive, nurturing experience to the greatest number possible, and how the
activity might adapt in the future to better provide this value to its membership. 
He refuses to even see drum corps itself as a sacred aspect of music education,
and would be willing to discard the present model, I think, if he could be assured
of greater value for more students.  By approaching the subject in this manner,
Director B is not condemning drum corps as much as he is championing the cause
of music education.  This approach may not win him support from drum corps
fans that enjoy national tours, but it might well benefit more kids with a valuable
education in music, pride, and work ethic.  At several points in the interview, he
seemed to encourage me to look beyond the temporal aspect of music education
(drum corps), and focus instead on outcomes (kids learning about music and life
and having a good time doing so, while the organization acts as an integral part of
the community that supports it).  The message is, in a sense, more important than
the medium.

Which Director has a better notion of the inherent problems associated with the
activity and the possible outcomes of such difficulties is anyone's guess at this
point.  The reality for the activity in general no doubt lies somewhere in between. 
In any event, the two interviews do show the sort of diversity of opinion one
encounters in the activity.  Such understanding is helpful to fully comprehending
the issues that are the source of many of the activity's pressing concerns.

 (Angry) Letters to the Editor

When I began to look at issues of Drum Corps World's "Letters to the Editor" to
try to gauge the prevailing wisdom of the fan base with regard to the activity and
its future, I expected to find some negative comment.  That the "Opinions"
section of most major publications is generally filled with dissent of all types, I
was expecting to find a good portion of faultfinding.

Nothing could have prepared me for the outpouring of negative energy that has
pervaded the publication's "Letters" section over the past year.  While most
grudgingly admit the talent of the corps members, they generally agree on the
following

1. Drum corps was better long ago.  Depending on whom you ask, that could be
any time from the 1970's to the early 1990's; it seems to vary as a function of how
old the writer is.

2. Writers of these letters discern the presence of an "evolutionary process" that
intends to make drum corps into a high art form.  They see this trend as
threatening to the activity. 

3. The increasingly complex shows don't entertain them.  They want to hear more
"popular" or "signature" (music closely aligned with one particular corps) tunes.

4. Their favorite corps are audience-oriented.  They think the lack of
audience-oriented programming is driving away fans.  

5. They think the judging system has damaged the activity.

In general, these people are angry and want drum corps to either be what it during
its "glory days," or to seriously and vigorously reform itself by playing to the
audience more than to the judging community.  Some recommend implementing
fan response into the judging system.  Some are so exasperated that they threaten
to "leave the activity entirely," or just "fed up" with what they perceive as elitism. 

Very few people write in to say positive things about the activity.  One that did
conjectured that "only people with complaints ever write in."  She went on to say
that she liked how drum corps was evolving and challenging its listeners.  One
other fan abhorred the prospect of listening to "banal" popular tunes when the
activity has evolved to a much different level.

I am hesitant to draw any conclusions from these codes because there is quite
obviously only "one side" of the argument being adequately represented here. 
Additionally, some of the arguments seem strained at best.  It is a well-known
fact that drum corps in the past have taken obscure music and played it in
competition, and there are numerous instances of such tunes becoming "classics." 
The argument totally against the activity evolving in terms of its performance
level does not exactly hold up to stringent examination.  Additionally, most
people who write these letters do not seem to understand that, as talent levels
have risen, the need for increasingly difficult shows has also risen.  Reducing the
programming options of the community to only popular music is severely limiting
to the activity in terms of its ability to challenge its members.  Most popular
music is, by all accounts, a good deal less complex and easier to play than some
classical music being attempted by world-class drum and bugle corps.
This is not to downplay the point, though-only to make up for the lack of an
opposing view.  These fans have a relevant point to add to the discussion, when it
comes down to it.  Drum and bugle corps as an activity desperately needs its fans
if it is to grow or even survive.  That means it cannot fail to entertain its
audience; it does so only at its own peril.  The evolution of programming for
drum corps cannot become so esoteric, in other words, that it completely
alienates the people who buy tickets, because they will likely stop buying tickets. 
The drum corps business model has simply not afforded itself the luxury of being
audience-optional.

Judges v. Fans

One issue of general concern for drum corps fans is the judging system.  Drum
Corps judges are the most vilified group in the entire activity, though this is
perhaps unfair.  Given the competitive nature of the drum corps idiom, their
participation is crucial to determining accomplishment, and assigning the scores
that make drum and bugle corps a sport.  The competitive interest is a large
consideration for many fans, as indicated by the furor over judging
inconsistencies and "ties" between champions (1996, 1999, and 2000).  The
audience, in general, does not agree with the method that judges use to determine
placement.  While the level of the disagreement fluctuates widely, the substance
is remarkably consistent, almost always involving personal preference, the corps
being discussed, and the particular performance in question.  With such opinions
being as subjective as they are, and every fan having an opinion, it is no wonder
that judges are vilified.  They would be vilified regardless of what method of
judging they employ, because someone is always going to be disappointed-that is
the essence of human nature.

The current scoring method, comprising performance and "general effect"
indicators for each section of the corps and the group as a whole, is often
dismissed as inadequate, politically motivated, or worse.  Yet, the corps
themselves have a significant role in the fabrication of the scoring system-staff
members do, in effect, give the judges instructions for judging.  Corps directors
make up the board for the activity's governing organization, Drum Corps
International.  The judges themselves are perceived as experts on what they are
judging because they have reached a certain tier of expertise and experience. 
Barring misconduct, the judges are put in their positions by Drum Corps
International, and left to the business of judging.  As such, the judges can be no
more arbitrary in their determination of contest placement than the governing
organization that hires them, which is composed of the corps through their
directors.  The judges' opinions are necessarily subjective because they are
opinions, no matter how well informed or expert they are.  However, the
competitive nature of the activity seems to make criticism of the judging system
inevitable, regardless of whether it is warranted.

The defining issue in scoring is technique and level of proficiency.  In theory, a
corps that has a relatively "easier" program and performs it immaculately will
receive credit for the accomplishment, but the corps that performs a substantially
more difficult program, and does so at an equally high level of accomplishment,
will be awarded more credit.  Major exceptions to this involve the "general
effect" indicator, which is admittedly and entirely subjective.  Essentially a "gut
reaction" indicator, it is the wild card that separates the top corps from the
also-rans.  This makes it a frequent target for the "politics" argument-that no
matter how well a corps performs, if it does not get the necessary "GE" marks, it
will not win.

While the corps themselves make up the rules of the game, so to speak, and the
judges perform their duties according to the guidelines in place, neither side
makes the audience's reaction a significant factor in the final score determination. 
If one looks only at scoring as an indicator, the situation looks as damning for
corps directors and designers as it does for the judging community, because one
could make the case that they are actively ignoring their audience through a sort
of musical-visual elitism run amok.  But scoring, as is often pointed out, is an
incomplete view of drum corps, because we are missing the intent of the judge in
assigning a particular score; similarly, letters to the editor usually only provide
one perspective-the vehement, negative side of the story.  In and of themselves,
they provide part of the answer, but the subject is too complicated to be
adequately explained by one source of data.

DVDs

The analysis of the DVDs, however, yielded a great deal of interesting and useful
information.  Their inclusion is, in many ways, a perfect example of the validity
of the qualitative approach.  Each director or designer is given the full duration of
his unit's show to discuss whatever could be of interest.  The commentary is
entirely self-selected, and the result provides a source with much explanatory
power.  The results and coding are as follows (next page):


DVD Commentary                     
CODE x Corps

     CBC  Cvls BD   SCV  Csds BK
Corps Identity(incl.family,trad'n,sig moves/music
     5    3    3    4    5    14
Positive Youth Orientation
     2    0    1    0    2    1
Skill/Talent of the Corps Members
     6    6    5    4    1    9
Presenting Adequate Challenge to Corps Members
     0    5    7    3    2    4
Aesthetics & Design Explanation
     5    21   18   16   15   8
Evolution of the Design
     5    1    6    3    3    2
Skill/Talent of the Design Staff
     2    3    6    2    2    7
Translation/Adapt to Drum Corps Idiom;Approach
     2    3    4    8    3    2
Conveying emotion to audience
     3    3    3    3    2    3
General Audience Focus
     7    5    3    5    9    2
 
The most obvious conclusion one can derive from this data is a sense for the
focus of each corps.  The ten codes indicated above were echoed consistently in
each commentary.  Taken together, the codes form cohesive groups: Corps
Identity, Member Focus, Aesthetic Focus, and Audience Focus.  The corps
identity category includes ideas and concepts that make the corps a viscous unit,
and help it to differentiate itself from other units.  The member focus is
concerned with the talent level of the corps and how well the corps served its
purpose in providing an educational challenge.  The aesthetic focus category
allows the viewer to look at the program through the eyes of the design staff, to
see how well pleased the staff is with the finished product from an artistic
perspective.  This category also includes how many times the commentator
thought it was necessary or interesting to point out or explain an individual aspect
of the design; this can either indicate a complicated idea that needed further
explanation, or a particularly creative, subtle aspect of the design that could be
overlooked.  Finally, the audience focus comes into play.  This is perhaps the
easiest to understand, most obvious portion of the DVD commentary-when the
design representative or corps director points out an aspect of the show that
shows the attempt by the corps to reach out to the audience, actively please the
audience, or convey some kind of emotional impact to the audience.  This is
particularly useful because one can see and hear whether or not the corps was
successful in achieving its audience-related goals by the crowd's response.

Of the corps, the Blue Knights seemed most interested in talking about their corps
identity.  This may be because they have undergone a transformation of sorts, in
terms of uniform and style, and they want to cement the change by underscoring
it.  They also talk a great deal about their focus on the group as a family, and its
members as supportive of the unique identity and approach of the corps.  Both the
Cadets and the Boston Crusaders pointed out that they were a positive youth
activity, which is a hallmark of drum corps in general.  The top two corps, the
Cadets and the Cavaliers, share a healthy audience focus and appreciation of the
skill and talent of their members.  The Blue Knights' Director made it a point to
recognize the skill of the corps, as well-in fact, more than the top two corps.  This
could indicate that perhaps the Blue Knights did not feel they received the credit
they deserved, considering the difficulty and challenge of their show.  

The Blue Devils had a focus on making sure that their show provided an adequate
challenge to the members, indicating that the corps recognizes its place as an
educator.  In terms of explanation and identification of aesthetic moments, the
Cavaliers have made it a top priority.  This is especially noticeable in the context
of the rankings.  The Cavaliers and the Cadets placed first-the Cavaliers played a
complex show based on contemporary wind music, and the Cadets played an
accessible Disney-type show.  The Cadets director obviously felt that their show
needed much less explanation, although both corps seemed very focused on
providing good entertainment value to their fans.

The Blue Devils and the Blue Knights have widely respected design staffs; this is
in evidence in the DVD commentary, as might be expected.  Considering that
there are a few well-known "names" that are frequently the subject of discussion
in drum and bugle corps circles, it is important to identify the brand name with
the corps.  The prestige of having certain arrangers is no doubt a valuable
commodity, and the DVD serves as a forum for such issues.  

Perhaps the most interesting "spike" in terms of the DVD data has to do with the
Boston Crusaders.  The corps had an extremely successful season in terms of
judge and fan response-one of the few times that judges and fans have been in
complete agreement.  It shows in the commentary-the designer makes the
audience focus of the corps and the pride that it gave them a singular theme. 
While they seem pleased that the judges appreciated their work, and while they
give ample explanation, they are much more concerned with how well the design
worked on the audience.  It stands out in the context of the other corps, several of
which have shows that are substantially more complex and esoteric.  The
consistency of all of the top six corps in terms of their focus areas and coverage
of "all the angles" important to achieving the mission of a drum corps is an
important point to heed-each made an effort to achieve results in terms of
impressing the judges, communicating with the audience, and providing a good
education experience for their students.  The shifts in balance between one aspect
and another, and between the corps themselves in terms of these individual
attributes, are indicative of the notion that placement in the upper echelons of the
activity has a consistency, as well-the top corps might place lower one year, but
their organizational strength and resolve in achieving their mission as a drum and
bugle corps endures.  The Santa Clara Vanguard, for example, seemed eager to
speak about their strengths in all four categories, as evidenced by their uniform
scoring.

Themes & Concluding Thoughts

It is obvious from this research that level of achievement and the enrichment of
the corps members are important to the staff of all the drum and bugle corps.  The
talent level of corps members in today's activity necessitates, in the view of the
designers, more difficult music.  This is often at odds with the goal of
entertaining the audiences that attend drum and bugle corps shows, and who are,
by all accounts, the lifeblood of the activity.  Complex, arcane shows discourage
some corps fans, who in effect vote against such drum corps evolution by staying
home and not buying tickets.  The activity thus loses fans and shrinks.  This
ultimately has a negative impact on the members from a psychological
perspective-they do all the work, but the negative fan reaction could conceivably
detract from their experience.  

Directors are faced with a cumbersome economic model-the national tour that is
a hallmark of the activity has become prohibitively expensive for some groups,
necessitating additional fundraising or less traveling.  Further, directors are
confronted with the challenge of providing a worthwhile educational experience
while still entertaining the fans.  This is becoming an increasingly difficult
prospect, as many fans do not seem to want to grow with the activity.  Many
would rather drum and bugle corps return to what it was at some point in the past. 
Most of these fans do not like the esoteric nature of modern corps shows, and
instead prefer something that provides more enjoyment with less requisite
background.  This usually requires some measure of immediate familiarity, which
is a limiting factor.

In sum, the corps mission as educator often does not align well with an assurance
of entertainment value for all fans.  The business model may be the deciding
factor, though, in determining what corps play and whether the activity survives. 
If the audience will not budge, drum corps will have to change or risk losing its
fan base.  The loss of the audience will be the end of drum corps.  What will
happen remains to be seen, of course, but it will likely depend on the ability of
the audience and the drum corps community to come to terms with each other's
point of view, to sustain the future of the activity.  If that does not happen, the
cause is lost.


Bibliography

___________.  2000.  "Letters to the Editor"  Drum Corps World.  May 2000,
June 16, 2000, June 23, 2000, July 7, 2000, July 14, 2000, July 28, 2000, August
4, 2000, August 11, 2000, September, 2000, December, 2000.

Drum Corps International.  2000.  Drum Corps International (Online). 
www.dci.org

Drum Corps International.  2000.  The Drum Corps International Summer Music
Games (DVD).  
Williams, Jean M.  1998.  Applied Sport Psychology.  Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield.

    Source: geocities.com/marchingresearch