Talk:Drum and bugle corps (classic)

Untitled
Fair warning that I intend to do a significant revert on this article in the near future (i.e. tomorrow, Wednesday September 29th 2004). A "drum and bugle corps" is a "drum and bugle corps", not a "DCI and DCA corps". While drum and bugle corps are certainly evolutions of military drum and bugle corps, they are commonly referred to worldwide as "drum and bugle corps".

A lot of the update which made this change is highly antagonistic. Mention of the failure of the Combine and the formation of DCI for that should definitely be made, but a lot of the 'conspiracy' business about manufacturers et al is truly unbelievable and is likely to get hacked to pieces.

My creds: My father brought drum corps to the United Kingdom over 30 years ago. I am active in the UK DC/WG movement.

MattJ 22:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and reverted the name change (so "DCI and DCA corps" now redirects to "drum and bugle corps"). Please do not enter into a revert war! I will update the article tomorrow.

MattJ 23:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Frankenstein problem: Drum and bugle corps and Drum & bugle corps are currently not the same content. Probably the most elegant solution will be a disambiguation page at Drum and bugle corps leading to pages serving "modern" DCI-style drum corps and "classic" drum corps. I intend to do the following:


 * Make Drum and bugle corps a disambiguation page only, forming equal disambiguation to:
 * Drum and bugle corps (classic) -- to contain the content right now at Drum & bugle corps
 * Drum and bugle corps (modern) -- to contain the content right now at Drum and bugle corps
 * Drum & bugle corps will become a redirect to the disambiguation page Drum and bugle corps. Having an ampersand in a title is a really bad idea anyway (technical reasons and "principle of least surprise".
 * DCI and DCA corps will become a direct redirect to Drum and bugle corps (modern). I may put it up as a candidate for deletion since I'm not convinced anyone refers to corps by that title, as well as it being not particularly helpful, c.f. DCUK, DCH and other movements.

MattJ 23:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's good to see the contributions thus far to the drum and bugle corps Wikipedia article. I contributed a few paragraphs myself a couple months ago and just took another look today. I was a little shocked at the transformation of the article since I last saw it! I have some issues with what has become of it.

First, at a most basic and irrefutable level, the article has become unwieldy. It desperately needs some structural revisions and section headings. I would be happy to work with anyone else who's interested in achieving this.

Second, the refutable stuff. While there has undoubtedly been a wealth of information added to the article, I don't like the direction it's taken. I marched in a DCI drum corps (although after reading the new contributions, I don't know if I'm even allowed to call it that anymore) for 4 years, aging out in 2000. So I'd like to think that I know at least a little bit about it. I'll be the first to admit that I know more about the current state of drum corps than its history. Some others obviously know a lot about the history. That's great; I think maybe we could combine our knowledge into an excellent article about drum corps.

The fundamental problem with the article is that I have no idea what audience it's supposed to be appealing to. What kind of information do you think someone is looking for when s/he looks up "drum corps" (or any variation thereof) in the Wikipedia? I find it unlikely that most people are looking for a grueling history of the warring factions within the activity. That's what is presented. It is an uninviting mishmash of information that is not giving anyone who reads it a good idea of what the heck drum corps is. For sure, what has been contributed deserves a place in the article, but it's forcing the reader to jump straight into the fire. Only someone who already knows a fair amount about drum corps would care (or even understand) what is being talking about. That is NOT an assumption that can be made when writing an article for general consumption. You cannot assume anything about the knowledge of your readers. Think big picture. Let's start at the beginning - and the best place to begin is probably not with a history lesson about the dividing forces of the activity.

So, MattJ, you say some people have started a revert war? Can we join forces to try to write a great article about drum corps?

lazytiger 04:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Man, only now after reading and rereading the article(s) a few times am I starting to make sense of all this "old" vs. "new" drum corps stuff. ...and it still doesn't make sense. I marched drum corps for four years and have been a fan for over 10 and I NEVER heard anything about this schism before it reared its ugly head in the Wikipedia of all places.

I dunno... at the risk of pissing someone off, I'll say it anyway: Someone is really living in the past here. A Wikipedia article about drum corps is NOT the place to be bringing all this up. There does not need to be any separation of what is "true" (the VFW et al era) drum corps and what is "fake" (apparently DCI falls into this category). To me, this is a real simple situation: The "true" drum corps movement belongs under the HISTORY section of the article, and DCI, DCA, DCUK, etc. should be presented as the modern face of drum corps - the one that should be explained to a total newbie coming to the Wikipedia trying to find out what drum corps is. THAT should be our audience. THAT is the angle that we should approach the article from, in my opinion. Parallels should be drawn from modern marching bands to drum corps, not historic drum corps to "new wave" drum corps. All that's going to do is confuse people (even ones that actually know something about drum corps already) and make them wonder what kind of loonies are involved in this "drum corps" thing (or at least are writing the Wikipedia article).

Anyone agree or disagree? I don't want to spend time on the article until I know there's a consensus and people's work won't be torn apart by dissenters.

lazytiger 04:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Looking through the revision history of "drum and bugle corps" and "drum & bugle corps", I see that two people, catherineburr and an anonymous person (IP 69.211.128.96) are largely responsible for all the new content. We all know the strengths and weaknesses of the Wikipedia. I think this anonymous person is one out of a ridiculously small group of people who subscribes to this conspiracy theory on modern drum corps. I understand that the objection is at such a fundamental level that it would in fact require two different articles to explain two totally different activities, but the objection is nonsense. It's making me twitch. This person should not be writing an article about drum corps, as s/he does not at all represent what 99.9% of drum corps fans believe, or indeed, are even aware of. This person needs to crawl back under their rock and stay there.

I am all for the inclusion of the historical information that has been presented, but it is just that: history. The conspiracy baloney needs to be eliminated, or at the very least should only be a footnote in the article, not a dominant feature. /rant

Lazytiger 17:14, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, this article and discussion page don't seem to be too active. That's a good thing, since that probably means not many people have read the article, either. I've rationalized a bit, and I think I have a good solution to our problems. Since no one is in this discussion to tell me otherwise, I intend on implementing my plan and writing new articles to the extent that my knowledge of the subject allows. However, I will not actually commit these plans to the Wikipedia until I have new material to contribute. I plan on fully integrating the existing content, subject to my comments below. By no means will my writing being definitive; I just want to establish the proper framework to which I hope others will contribute.

1. "Drum and bugle corps" will be the main article. 2. "Drum & bugle corps" will be a redirect to "Drum and bugle corps". 3. The "DCI and DCA corps" redirect will be eliminated; it never should have existed. 4. There will NOT be any "drum and bugle corps (modern)" or "... (classic)" articles. 5. Rather, "Drum and bugle corps" will be an article that focuses almost exclusively on the history of the activity, scarcely mentioning DCI or DCA beyond their due places in the history of drum corps and prominent links to their respective articles. 6. The "Drum Corps International" and "Drum Corps Associates" articles will be the appropriate places to discuss those respective activities. They will become full, comprehensive articles discussing the "modern" drum corps activity. 7. Any contributions about "modern" drum corps activities in other parts of the world should be added to the DCI article, or if the author wishes, as separate new article(s). Mention them in the "Drum and bugle corps" article only in the same capacity that DCI and DCA are mentioned. 8. Any opinionated or loaded commentary (explicitly including the conspiracy theories) will be eliminated from the articles. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article; there is absolutely NO room for opinion or bad informal writing. Encyclopedia articles are written in a 100% formal, factual manner appealing to the lowest common denominator. Assume the reader knows nothing about the subject. The formality is less important than the factuality, but we should strive to maintain at least some level of formality. I tend to write in a semi-formal manner, which I think is more inviting to the reader.

I hope to have some new content ready later this week. Lazytiger 04:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've implemented several parts of my plan as I laid out in my previous post. I've written a new (incomplete) article at Drum Corps International for "modern" drum corps. However, I do not plan on doing anything more with this article. I added the "disputed" status to the top of the page, along with a link to the DCI and DCA articles. This article should be a comprehensive non-conspiratorial history of the drum corps activity. I do not know enough about the history of drum corps to do it justice. I really hope someone else does, because this article needs serious help.

Lazytiger 03:03, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Star Of Indiana: I am searching for information regarding them. While they do have a site that covers some information on BLAST! and Cyberjam (as well as those shows having their own sites) and much information on the corps, what I'm actually looking for is the ill fated BLAST! II: Shockwave. I know as much as that it was a short-lived sequel to blast that used a more traditional marching-band instrumentation, but after that, I'm stumped.

Also, as a fan of both drum corps and wiki, I appreciate what you're doing with this article. Thank you.

--Mr Bound 20:44, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Catherine Burr responds
Interesting misspelling of the link with my name above - not alleging a conspiracy (unless the shoe fits) because it doesn't matter.

What does matter is what is becoming more and more of an intelligent setting-forth of the differences between DCIA corps and drum & bugle corps (which is the same thing as "drum and bugle corps" - I just like the ampersand). BTW, it's a fair attempt, Matt - but attempting to make the distinction between camps by varying and/& puts too much to chance. Most people will read the main page, and IMO not all will read this discussion page. Thus, I've referenced both pages at the top - along with the DCA and DCI links on BOTH pages (nice try there, Lazytiger).

As to alleging that DCIA opinions are somehow "factual" and classic alumni opinions are not (or dead or stuck-in-the-past or whatever), puh-leeeze. Drum & bugle corps people were drummers and buglers FIRST. It's our opinions that matter and are deserving of respect - such is yet another drum & bugle corps value which DCIA has got rid of for the "latest and greatest" - and the unbiased observer can easily see the political implications and the feeding of divisions on both sides, of young against old.

I feel sorry for corps rookies today who cannot feel as we did - and do - a continuous part of a glorious past activity that will be passed on intact. In two years, what you have spent so much money on and so much sweat on will be "old" and "outdated" and no one will care. The only thing left will be the resume credit and you'll get to say you marched. You'll also have a DVD. Whoopie. I'll take being a part of a proud tradition, of drum & bugle corps at large, and being one of the many, some of whom I first marched with 34 years ago who are still my drum corps brothers. We earned what we did, and still own it, intact, while with all of DCIA's money and politics (stolen from us, whom they never credit other than to market themselves) you have to beg to even be recognized as a genuine drum & bugle corps - by alumni who love drum & bugle corps most. That's really sad. That so many people (who are becoming fewer and fewer) I know actually encourage young people in this is something I find abominable.

Let what DCIA does - and whom they really are - stand on their own merits, such as they are. I checked your page Lazytiger - you're 25 years old and haven't lived through the changes I have. That's not to say that I'm smarter because I am older than you. I will rest my arguments on the merits. It's up to you to neglect my experiences or not - many do.

I have marched in pre-DCI corps (including Velvet Knights), DCI corps (Velvet Knights first making associate membership - against a total of 46 "Class A" corps, when there were 46 or so Class A junior corps who would make the trek), to Blue Devils (my first real experience with what I call a DCIA corps, and an experience I can't recommend to anyone), to DCA in Minnesota Brass and Kilties, and now I am FIRMLY committed to the classic alumni camp.

I was never interested in marching band. Concert band, YES (have recently done this in a brass band). Orchestra, YES (which I did as a violinist). Choir, YES. But no one is really interested in marching band other than people in marching band - or in a parade or band shell. And no one is really interested in drum & bugle corps other than drum & bugle corps people - or in a parade, for military honors or on a football field doing a genuine drum corps show, which TAKES THE FIELD, from end zone to end zone. Morphing mutated sperm just doesn't do it, and dancing on a football field is ridiculous except at a half-time - where the band ISN'T the main event, but a diversion.

Such is what it always has been, is and always will be - not because I say so, but because of the nature of the genres and their settings. Anything else is an experiment - good at best, but also sterile and incapable of healthy, wholesome growth.

And remember - Gore Vidal points out that conspiracies are the human condition, except when geniuses are involved. And DCIA got rid of their geniuses (or they died off) a looooong time ago...

Fortunately, drum & bugle corps still has 'em.

In Regard to Ms. Burr's Changes
I do not feel that the recent information you added to this page has helped in the least to try and resolve the NPOV dispute here. Both sides have a point, and you have made it clear where you stand, but I cannot help but feel that there is quite a bit of personal influence in your additions to the article.

I can believe that you are malcontent with the state of Drum Corps as is, but I know that as someone who recently became interested in the Drum Corps concept I would not want to go to the main page and see a lengthly diatribe about DCI/DCA corps moving towards, as I get the impression, oblivion.

There may well have been bias in the previous version of the article, but I do not feel the latest edits have helped.

--Mr Bound 13:39, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Ms. Burr, I assure you that my misspelling of your name was entirely unintentional. You seem to be a little too quick considering things as possible conspiracies. Calm down. I'm trying to come up with a solution here, which I hope everyone can recognize. Yes, I'm 25, and I volunteered that information precisely because I want everyone to understand what I know and don't know. I've said repeatedly that I don't know much about the history of the activity. That's why I have avoided editing this article, instead creating my own under Drum Corps International.

Don't tell me any more about what Drum & bugle corps is and isn't. There is no right or wrong answer; I believe what I know, and you believe what you know. I've already given up on this article (both Drum and bugle corps and Drum & bugle corps); you are free to do whatever you see fit with it. I can tell you purely from a writing and editing standpoint that this article is a piece of crap. If I was you, I'd be more concerned with overhauling it to create an actual cohesive article. Then I'd worry a little bit more about the finer points of your conspiratorial arguments. Please, strip all mention of DCI and DCA out. I would in fact prefer that they weren't included in what has become of this article. I hope removing them makes the article more readable, and you can be happy in your world and I'll be happy in mine.

As long as the DCI and DCA links remain at the top, I'm never touching this article again.

Lazytiger 17:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Catherine Burr again...
The fact that some of my critics allege they cannot see the importance of my points, and the reasons therefore, is an indication that they are lacking understanding, IMO. As to LazyTiger's advising me to "calm down" - I know that language. You can deny conspiracies all you like, sir - such doesn't make it true. After all, what is a conspiracy but some people working together in ways others don't know about - often for good reason.

It was alleged the articles were disjointed before I re-edited them. Perhaps if the both of you had left them alone?

And I proudly acknowledge my bias towards classic alumni corps. The articles are allegedly about drum & bugle corps - not a politicized form of band. Deny the controversies and what has been done and not done, covered up and not covered up.

It doesn't wash any more.

The sooner DCIA corps starts calling itself field performance theater (or whatever) and leaves drum & bugle corps alone, the better. As Blast! has already proven, however, without drum & bugle corps and its fraternity to exploit, it won't last.

And the most talented marching band kids will choose marching bands which neither lie about what they are nor participate in the destruction of another musical/fraternal genre. And decent adults, managers, fundraisers and teachers will refuse to indoctrinate kids (of all ages) into a meaningless (next year) activity such as DCIA which is so widely hated.

So y'all honestly remain "proud" - as long as you can. It will continue to make an interesting story of ego and denial, for no one's lasting good.

YOU BETCHA I have a bias - and I don't have to insult your emotions, intelligence or writing skills in a sorry attempt to defeat my opponents. The only oblivion to come are in meaningless "morphed/mutated/ genres which have neither meaning nor reason for being other than faddish marketing opportunities for a few.

-- Catherine

You are truly off your rocker, Catherine. I don't lack in understanding of your points, I simply think they are ridiculous. The vision you have of DCI is absolutely nothing like the DCI that I and tens of thousands of others have been a part of and enjoyed since its inception. All that matters not, of course, as you have entrenched yourself as a conspirator. Your opinion, no matter how valid you feel it is, is representative of an incredibly small number of people. I imagine that's why you are so emphatic about your points. But that does not give you license to hijack an article and turn it into a dissertation on your pet conspiracy theories. You openly boast that you have a huge bias toward "true" drum & bugle corps. I have to tell you that your biases (or anyone elses, including mine) have no business being in a publication that is supposed to serve explicitly as an unbiased reference source. That's what an encyclopedia is, and that's what we're trying to accomplish with Wikipedia. You are entitled to your opinions, but there are proper and improper places to express them.

I think you're despicable and very misguided, and I'm sure you think the same of anyone who supports DCI. But here's what it comes down to: I wrote an article about DCI and managed to not slander "classic" drum corps in any way. I expect the same of this article: you can talk factually as much as you like about your version of drum corps, but there is no place for conspiracy theories about DCI in a reputable article about drum corps. I would suggest that you quell your hatred for DCI by simply not discussing it rather than slandering it in your article.

For all your talk, you've more than made clear your hatred for DCI, but have said comparatively very little about the activity that you apparently love so much. I really hope there's more to the "true" drum corps activity than sitting around bitching and moaning about how DCI stole your thunder, because that's pathetic. Prove me wrong by writing a good conspiracy free article about "true" drum corps as you know it. I would really like to read that, and I'm not being sarcastic. You could garner a lot more support for your cause if you explain what your activity is all about without taking jabs at DCI. If you feel that you can't make your argument without taking DCI through the mud, well, I don't think you have a very good argument. Either you have a viable, existing activity or you don't. Don't cry, "Boo hoo, it's all DCI's fault. DCI is the devil." All that's doing is creating animosity.

If you have something constructive or enlightening to say about drum corps, please, let's hear it. If all you want to do is bitch about the abomination known as DCI, you are in the wrong place, ma'am. Wikipedia should maintain absolute neutrality; if you want to advocate conspiracies, I suggest you post to some newsgroups.

Lazytiger 14:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have some gripes about points made previously.

"You can deny conspiracies all you like, sir - such doesn't make it true."

And you can claim conspiracies all you like, but that also does not make them truth. I can claim that there is a sentient civilization growing inside my computer monitor and that there's a government conspiracy to keep the world from knowing about it, but that's only true insofar as I believe it.

"It was alleged the articles were disjointed before I re-edited them. Perhaps if the both of you had left them alone?"

They would have remained disjointed. Neither of us wanted that, and I believe Lazytiger was working to improve them. In our opinions, however, you have not helped to correct them.

"And decent adults, managers, fundraisers and teachers will refuse to indoctrinate kids (of all ages) into a meaningless (next year) activity such as DCIA which is so widely hated."

Widely hated? Where, then, are all the detractors? They certainly aren't heard of much. Perhaps they're drowned out by the many who have accepted that drum corps is evolving and are loving it.

"The only oblivion to come are in meaningless "morphed/mutated/ genres which have neither meaning nor reason for being other than faddish marketing opportunities for a few."

I do not know where exactly you are finding these power and money-hungry figureheads from DCI/DCA. It's fairly difficult to make yourself wealthy and powerful running a nonprofit organization.

--Mr Bound 19:26, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

To clarify this myself before someone else does it for me, I realize that neutrality allows for all points of view to be presented, but none should dominate the article. And I would further argue that it is possible to present grievances in a manner that is not so antagonistic.

Therefore, I should revise my earlier statements to say that the haters of DCI are entitled to have their view represented in this article, but the current state of the article is hardly neutral. In order to avoid any possible edit wars, no one that is a fan of "modern" drum corps has touched the article since the "classic" fan(s) started taking over.

As I've already made clear, I don't plan on having much detail on DCI in this article; I've already started another article at Drum Corps International for that. However, I think it is very important that the unsuspecting Wikipedia user does not come across this article and leave with a bad impression of drum corps, both "classic" and "modern". That helps no one. I hope we can collaborate without getting the urge to spit in each other's eyes.

All I'm saying is, present your information without the insinuation that it is anything more than opinion. People have the right to know that there are people who think DCI is a sham, but that cannot be forced down people's throats as it is now.

I think it's important to acknowledge that there are only 3 or 4 people at most involved in the editing of this article right now. Can we please all take turns at editing the article with the understanding that everyone is simply trying to achieve neutrality? And beyond neutrality, I want the article to have good structure. That shouldn't be so controversial, but with this group, I'm not holding my breath.

As is the nature of Wikipedia, our trial-and-error edits will be immediately visible to anyone. But let's go ahead and get started on the editing and hope for the best.

Lazytiger 03:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

the Combine (of the articles, that is)
The first order of business as I see it, and (amazingly) I think everyone is actually in agreement here, is that the Drum and bugle corps and the Drum & bugle corps articles need to be combined. There should be be no distinction between the two, and one should simply be a redirect to the other. I don't think anyone will strenuously object to Drum and bugle corps being the main article, so that's what I'm going to do. I'm simply going to dump the contents of the Drum & bugle corps article at the end of the Drum and bugle corps. Then, it will be edited and combined along with the existing content by everyone. I'll also take care of any links pointed at Drum & bugle corps. (not that it really matters since the article isn't being deleted, it's just becoming a redirect.)

Lazytiger 13:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Editing procedures
I have put an edit warning at the top of the article. I'm currently working on a major rewrite. No one seems to be in much of a hurry to work on this article, which is a good thing. I'm not sure how long it's going to take me to rewrite the article, but it will only serve as a pain if someone alters it in the meantime. Let's try to maintain a single line of edits. Everyone will have their say, but let's not trip all over each other's edits by doing them at the same time.

I know some of my comments in this discussion have been hasty, but I assure everyone that my utmost goal of this article is simply to have a good one. I don't want nasty disagreements, and I promise that with my edits I am trying to keep everyone happy. AND to end up with an article that is understandable to a newbie. Also, I want to be right up front in saying that I think this article should be a lot shorter than it currently is. Beyond simple readability, Wikipedia starts objecting to pages bigger than 32 kilobytes (which we have already reached since I added the content from Drum & bugle corps).

Remember, Wikipedia is not meant to be an end-all, be-all source of information. We are just trying to create a good summation of the topic.

So, if you will please, everyone hold off on edits until I am done with mine. I won't hold the page up any longer than until this evening. Then we'll move on to the next person's edits, if anyone's waiting.

Thanks.

Lazytiger 15:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

not even close to done
Well, I went ahead and removed the "edit" notice from the page. I'm not even close to being done editing the article yet, so I figured it wasn't appropriate to keep that message up any longer.

So, there are no changes to the article yet. I'm completely tearing the article apart and putting it back together, so there's no intermediary edits that I can post. If no one is really burning to edit the article as well, please give me a chance to finish. I hope to have it done within a few days.

I'm trying to remain as impartial as I can. I am learning to look at the issue from both camps, and I hope to achieve something that is, well, not abhorrent to either side. If you hate what I've done, you can always revert to the previous version, so give me a chance.

Lazytiger 22:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A quick note: I support the two aforementioned pages ("drum and bugle corps" and "drum & bugle corps") becoming the same page. It does not make sense for a person's choice to use or not use an ampersand to change the information they receive

--Mr Bound 01:37, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Whew...
Well, it's done... for now, at least. Some spots are still kind of weak, but I was getting weary of more writing and editing.

Hopefully, everyone can be somewhat satisfied with the changes. If there's something essential you feel is missing or wrong, by all means please add or fix it. But I plead with you - please don't get into any nitty-gritty details or name any names. The article is pretty long already, and I don't want it to get bogged down by too many details. That's really not how an encyclopedia article should be.

Some weak spots of note:


 * the "combine" (I really don't know much about it, so I just sped over it)
 * Evolution of the Field Drum (I'm a drummer, so I ought to have had more detail here, but it was the last thing I did and I was getting tired of editing)
 * the end - after describing the two camps' points of view, it becomes kind of directionless. Need a good, strong ending to the article.
 * inspection and competition - coverage is kind of spotty. I just cobbled together some paragraphs.
 * not sure exactly what all should be included in the intro section (before the table of contents), before it jumps into other sections to be continued. See note below.

Other notes:

I made a concerted effort to avoid talking about the divide in the activity until it was discussed in the article. I would advise others to do the same, as it's important to develop the article properly and not introduce information that isn't explained until later. I know it can be difficult, but that's what good writing is all about.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks.

Lazytiger 20:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But DCUK isn't DCI!
First of all, Lazytiger, thank you for stepping into the breach here. Work came up and bit me soon after I laid my great plans, and I've only just gotten back to Wikipedia.

I'm going to have a look at the articles shortly. However, there was specific "method behind my madness" in suggesting drum and bugle corps (modern) -- in that the many "modern" drum corps organizations throughout the world, while they may have been based on DCI, are not DCI, if you see what I mean.

I'm still in preference of drum and bugle corps (classic) and drum and bugle corps (modern) with drum and bugle corps (with redirects to it up the wazoo) being a pure disambiguation page, for this reason.

Thanks,

MattJ 20:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation page is fine with me
Whatever you want to do is fine, really. Having modern and classic articles with a disambiguation page certainly isn't unreasonable. I see how that could work, and I also see how the current solution has its weaknesses. I tried to convince myself that the DCI article could serve as an article for the discussion of all modern drum corps (and in some yet-to-be-determined relation to the DCA article and DCUK, etc.). But in the end, I'm not so sure that DCI shouldn't have an article to discuss just DCI itself (not the activity), and another article should discuss modern drum corps without being exclusive to DCI, DCA, DCUK, etc. There's so much overlap between them that it would be kind of stupid to re-explain it in each article.

I think it would be good to have a brief explanation of the divide in the activity on the drum and bugle corps page, and then have links to the classic and modern articles. And then the proponents of each can have their way with their article.

Lazytiger 01:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I hope that settles things a bit.
As an independent observer (and the editor who produced the current version of the marching band article), I think I've settled things out a bit. This article is now focused on "classic" drum and bugle corps, but states that clearly in the opening paragraphs and suggests looking at the DCI and DCA entries. I've also boiled down the invective to a much shorter section, moving some of the information about the schism between old and new styles to the history section, and editing the rest into a simple contrast between the two.

I understand that emotions are running high here. There are people who have been very hurt by DCI/DCA, and want to vent. I feel your pain - I'm a marching band guy and don't like DCI much at all - but this is not the place for opinion, or thinly-veiled opinion masquerading as fact. Rather than focusing on how DCI/DCA is killing "real" drum corps, why don't we try to add some more useful information?
 * The section on the evolution of the bugle is great. How about more info on the marching style, uniforms, etc.?  I don't know enough to add that stuff.
 * Also, in the same vein, it might be nice to say how "classic" corps is different in style from marching band or DCI/DCA. What, in a technical sense, makes it unique?
 * In general, don't be afraid to use headings, and to nest them. The automatic table of contents feature is really nice, and we should use it.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts. Enjoy!

Looks good, but...
Thanks to Dave_Fried for working on the article. I think it's really respectable and neutral now. However, there's still one problem: as MattJ has pointed out, modern drum corps consists of more than just DCI and DCA. Right now, all we have are the drum and bugle corps article and the DCI article. There's no real content in the DCA article, and we haven't covered DCUK and DC Europe at all. This article is great, except that it gives preference to classic corps while modern corps have no corresponding article (the DCI article doesn't fit the bill). There needs to be an equal (and not DCI-exclusive) article for modern drum corps. It is unfair to discuss classic drum corps in the drum and bugle corps article and then relegate modern drum corps to an article with some other name. Hence, there's still a need for two separate articles, modern and classic, along with an equal disambiguation page. So, as good as the article is with your edits, I think it will have to be short-lived in order to address this problem.

I know it's a very tricky situation deciding what information should go where. Obviously, modern drum corps shares its history with classic corps. We have to decide what belongs in the main (disambiguation) article and what belongs under each of the new articles. This is going to require revision and rearrangement of content between the existing articles into the new articles.

Lazytiger 19:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Catherine Burr responds again
Fortunately, for me, Lazytiger, your accusations in one post and then following up with a calmer "opinion" is self-evident.

DCI is not drum & bugle corps. George Hopkins and others have themselves said that "drum & bugle corps is marching band" and DCI markets itself to marching bands - despite claiming to be a different genre.

Drum & bugle corps traditionalists do not recognize and patronize DCI as drum & bugle corps, and all the DCI corps members - of which I was once one - were misled and/or lied to by people who nevertheless still state that they are "educating" young people and DCI's fans (as few of them as there are outside of marching band and parents) by flat-out lies, couched in the same defrauding language that child molesters use. Indeed, quite a few of the leading organizers and motivators were and are child molesters - you should check into the blemished history. I have articles I can fax to you if you (or anyone) cares to take a look.

I understand how difficult it is to face facts. It was difficult for me, and it is difficult for many in the classic alumni corps movement who love drum & bugle corps and what it has been for them (and me) to face what some have done - many whom we marched with and marched under - in our name.

There's a reason that DCI, as a youth activity, was chosen. And as time passes, more and more will have to face this. Look at the sponsors and other responsible and decent people who have come and gone. Look at how the resume credits are either self-serving, untrue and/or simply a part of a self-supporting network of a few.

It's been a decades-long scam. But now it's over. Most of the originators of DCI are dead, a few of the most powerful are nearing their retirement, and more and more who have unfortunately gotten along in DCI are leaving for more reputable associations - even many of the defrauders are looking for other avenues for their groups, away from the drum & bugle corps activity.

This is all good for classic and alumni corps, which have quite often retained - throughout it all - their relationships with their sponsors, their posts and their communities. I have no doubt many good people have and are being misled by DCI and DCA - as I once was. But the older we get, the more we have to - and are able to - face the truth of what was, as we preserve what is worth preserving.

DCI and DCA have nothing worth preserving. There are plenty of good marching bands out there for those who are interested in that. Drum & bugle corps needs to be left alone. DCI and DCA are only being fought for by the sort of people who won't let go of the fraud and its benefits, or who feel they have nothing else. I feel sorry for such people - for the basic rule of drum & bugle corps was always that all you needed to be was a living and breathing body who wanted to join a drum & bugle corps, and drum & bugle corps would do the rest.

I am well-known - for good and ill - in the online debates about drum & bugle corps and DCI. I don't know who "LazyTiger" is at all - but I can guess at those persons you are involved with, from your tone and word usage. You really ought to delete those more virulent posts - such are a dead give-away, even without anything I write, to any parent or kid who would like to grow into something better than that.

If I am wrong, I will deal with that. But I am not, and am well-supported even though posts and other "techniques" by those such as LazyTiger have come my way for the past six years as I have made the truth about DCI more public. For anyone to bring any kid into this activity without full disclosure is proof in and of itself of fraud. What is DCI and DCA so afraid of, hmmmmmmmm?

Let the buyer and prospective DCIA member beware... and may each prospective member have better people and opportunities than this mess.

-- Catherine

To LazyTiger...
Sorry, guy, but you don't get to control the definitions of drum & bugle corps from the classic/alumni standpoint - the continuous tradition - and DCI. I also note you haven't bothered with DCA - feel free to paste your DCI page there as well over my statement (copied from the DCI discussion page). After all, DCI and DCA are more and more the same each year, sharing people, politics and company endorsements.

I find it interesting - and familiar - that you want to control both pages. There's a lot of that amongst DCI types. I will continue to answer (if I care to add anything) on the DCI discussion page, and you can type whatever you wish on the main page. If you - or whatever new screen name - doesn't want to leave drum & bugle corps to those who love it and advocate for it, I'll be quite ready to come over and "play" on the DCI page.

But leave drum & bugle corps alone. And tell your friends that drum & bugle corps people feel that way. I'm simply the most vocal - and proud to be so - because none of the rest of my friends like to get (any more) of the treatment I get, and they get quite a lot of it.

Responsible people will check all this out for themselves. And if you don't get clear answers, let me know - I have a way of bringing up the blank walls, and do so quite publicly amongst all audiences, so that people can see well enough for themselves through what scam artists have really achieved the most in these past 30 years.

-- Catherine

Enough! Name change and disambiguation
Okay, I have moved this page to "(classic)", the DCI page to "(modern)" and have built a bare "disambiguation" page at "drum and bugle corps".

The disambiguation page is deliberately sparse. While a discussion of the schism between classic and modern drum corps may have been well-suited to the page, I believe there is not a way of doing this to the satisfaction of devotees of both circuits.

I have edited this page, removing a significant amount of detail relating to DCI and DCA. Several aspects of the history relating to the changes which created the Combine in the mid-70s are extremely well-written, and so I have tried to retain this as much as possible while retaining NPOV. I have however removed negative rhetoric pertaining to both sides of the debate; I do not expect this to return.

Catherine, it is very obvious that you now strongly dislike DCI, and seem to take every opportunity you can to discredit it; Google pretty much explains your viewpoint. Not that I can understand it, particularly since you marched VK and BD in the late seventies, lauded the heck out of Jim Ott, and apparently enjoyed the experience a lot.

However, Wikipedia is not the place for such attacks nor debasement, nor is it the place for ad-hominem attacks. Instead, use the space to explain why classic drum corps was (and is) so good. We'll do the same with modern drum corps.

MattJ 17:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear Matt --
Well, it was no surprise seeing you post to RAMD (that's rec.arts.marching.drumcorps) where the actual warfare is taking place on DCI's attempt to "own" the term drum & bugle corps.

People don't mind an open and honest competition. What people do mind is a hidden and dishonest bit of cheating.

I don't know who your father was, or where he came from. But the continuing attempts of DCI-DCA people to exploit the British brass band movement and other more decent organizations is continuing to fail - particularly as more and more people interact with the lovely (not) and talented (not) bunch of people who run DCI and DCA, and ask solid questions about all the scandals over the years, and the "techniques" publicly used to squelch dissent.

You can defend corporate exploitation and coverups of corruption all you wish. You can threaten legal action against me and all those people whom you deny exist - simply because they don't like what they did corrupted by people like you.

Or, decent people who feel that persons should earn their trust and be accountable over the years - to the members, to the fans and to the communities, rather than to the corporate sponsors, "arteestes" and other exploiters of children - will find out on their own.

Particularly once they know that they had better keep their eyes and ears open - and their hands on their wallets.

There are plenty of decent avenues for people who are more interested in music and camaraderie than the fake garbage being promulgated by DCI and DCA. Nor is the "international movement" in DCI/DCA corps as widespread as you like to publicize. There are plenty of marching bands and drum & bugle corps and community groups who already know to have nothing to do with y'all.

As for me, I shall continue to show you and whatever screen name you use here for what you are. After all, we already have on record that even though assertions of "links to DCI and DCA corps" pages were all you wanted, you are already proved to be a phony.

Next stop - the DCI page... And be sure to comment upon the deficient histories and self-serving errors on both Soundmachine and Corpsreps, since you allege you know so very much.

-- Catherine

Thanks for the factual correction
To the not-logged-in user who corrected the factual inaccuracy in the article regarding the Schlecta walkout, thanks for your contribution!

MattJ 10:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I suppose I should create an account on here one of these days. This is Dave Seip; I marched with Big Country (lazytiger) at Blue Stars.  A big thanks to the folks at Sound Machine for the information about that particular issue.

Catherine's "triumphant" return
Regarding what some might call "vandalism" of the pages on April 17,

Catherine Burr appears to have once again returned to lend her extremely conservative views regarding the Drum and Bugle Corps activities to our work here. I'd like to remind Catherine that she is, of course, free to lend her opinions as long as she does so in a manner that fits a neutral point of view (Catherine, feel free to see Neutral point of view for more on this). Until then, I will continue to be reverting pretty much everything Catherine attempts to lend to these pages, as most of it is bias bordering on reactionary.

As to Catherine directly: welcome back! Things are much more lively with you here. Do you work for Ameritech, or what? All your IP edits have been from "Ameritech Electronic Commerce". --Mr Bound 00:56, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Mr. Bound"
I really don't know what you are talking about.

As to my reasonings, most people I know in drum & bugle corps don't think I am "conservative" enough.

If you would like to discuss specific points, fine and good. In the interim, you can continue to mischaracterize reasoning as "reactionary" all you like.

The nature of Wikipedia is that people who have an agenda, and are paid very well for marketing therefor, can continue to do what they have been doing in their propaganda.

As for me, I am simply one person. I feel passionately about what I believe, it is true - but that's because of my history and my experiences. And the fact that I cannot be refuted, nor will I be deterred, by mobbing and bullying tactics, is why unnamed and unknown people continue to take issue with me. The absolute lack of more professional and accountable methodologies is proof in and of itself of the corruption - and the importance to propagandists - of this domination of what are alleged to be "resources".

It's a sad thing for Wikipedia, to be sure. But fortunately, there are other resources available - and will continue to be available - for those who seek the truth and characters worth learning from. And fortunately, I am merely One of the Many.

-- Catherine

Catherine,

Saw your edits to the page, and while the bugle commentaries were good and factual, I once again dispute your commentaries about corruption in modern corps. You seem to have a wealth of knowledge regarding the properties of bugles and other classic marching instruments; feel free to make additions as you see fit. Also, let's both refrain from personal attacks. I know your experience with editors here in the past has been less than savory, shall we try and start things off on a better foot? Mr Bound 03:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Why?
This article is back to being a flowery, POV mess. Can someone please tell me why we have two drum corps articles? I think the evolution over the course of history can be more than adequately described in a single article.--Frontierbrass (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It could be described in a single article, but back in the day (wow... it's been a couple years now) we split the article up as a compromise. If you read through the various talk pages, you'll see the heated debates that happened. At some point after the combatants (namely one) had not shown their faces for a while, we were planning on recombining the articles and trying to achieve featured article-quality, but the articles fell into relative dormancy.  I don't know about the other formerly-active authors, but I've lost a lot of interest.  Please, feel free to pick up the torch if you have the desire.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 03:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone wante to revisit this? There is also an article for fanfare band which appears to be describing a type of drum and bugle corps found in northern Europe.  Any way to revisit some of the decisions about page location listed above? Telescopium1 (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What a stinker!
This Wiki is terrible. I don't mean that some people have made this Wiki terrible - I mean everyone involved in editing the page has done a bad job. Regarding history - here's a hint - 'history' can actually mean something that happened before you came along. American drum and bugle corps did not originate in post-WW I veteran's groups. The Girl Scouts of Massachusetts had drum and bugle corps during the First World War, and before Americans ever fired a shot in that war. Boston schoolboys had marching competitions that were led by their own drum and bugle corps at the turn of the 20th century. Fife drum and bugle corps go back into the 19th Century.

This whole article is obviously based on personal research, and I would vote to dump the whole thing - it's that bad. MarkinBoston (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Drum and bugle corps (classic). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100709043821/http://www.drumcorpsworld.com:80/links.cfm?LinkID=26 to http://www.drumcorpsworld.com/links.cfm?LinkID=26
 * Added tag to http://www.philadelphiabrassdrumcorps.org/news.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060115084112/http://www.desplainesvanguard.com:80/ to http://www.desplainesvanguard.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Drum and bugle corps (classic). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140609210054/https://historypress.net/catalogue/bookstore/books/Racine%E2%80%99s-Horlick-Athletic-Field/9781626194441 to https://historypress.net/catalogue/bookstore/books/Racine%E2%80%99s-Horlick-Athletic-Field/9781626194441
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.desplainesvanguard.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)