Talk:Pipes and drums

Merge with Pipe band
I think this page should be merged and redirected to pipe band. I don't think the historical distinction in usage is sufficient to justify maintaining two seperate articles.

I agree, I also think this page should be merged with pipe band. A section on military pipe bands within the pipe band article should suffice to cover the material here. - Taylordonaldson 16:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree - if anything, "Pipe Band" should be merged into this article. The historical designation "Pipes and Drums" is older than the more colloquial Pipe Band. Michael Dorosh 17:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

On a fundamental level however, "Pipes and Drums" and "Pipe Band" refer to the same thing - a musical ensemble consisting of Highland pipers and drummers. I don't think "Pipe Band" should be regarded as a colloquial or vernacular term. It has been adopted as the standard terminology in the modern piping/drumming community. For many in that community, "Pipes and Drums" is an antiquated term. It is certainly necessary to acknowledge the semantic differences between these terms and to note the historical and military connotation of both, however I don't believe these differences warrant maintaining two articles on the same subject. The end result is simply confusing and misleading for readers. Taylordonaldson 04:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is why I would suggest merging "Pipe Band" into "Pipes and Drums", putting a REDIRECT up for "Pipe Band", and explaining that military Pipes and Drums came first and that the term "Pipe Band" was originally a colloquialism for military bands that spread into "official" usage among civvie bands. As for antiquated, who cares what a bunch of civvies think of the term, it is the official designation of professional military bands round the world - I still play with one on occasion. We certainly don't think the term is "antiquated". Nor should the perceptions of those not involved directly with a military Pipes and Drums have any bearing on how the term is presented here.  All in my opinion, of course. ;-) Michael Dorosh 13:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've gone ahead and merged the articles; y'all can make what adjustments you feel are necessary. I think the two articles flow into each other well, but some stuff could be reorganized - like a description of what the band really is being moved earlier in the section.Michael Dorosh 13:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a thought: who cares what a bunch of civvies think is a funny thing to say considering that wikipedia is a civilian encyclopedia. Though I'm sure as a military man, its traditions have become very important to you, please keep in mind that the military is only a small subset of the general population. Rainwarrior 16:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, but the the opposite is true too - who cares what a bunch of Army guys think. ;) My view is that the historical usage stems from military Pipes and Drums, with "Pipe Band" become a colloquial offshoot of that, which later grew to be an official term, and widely used at that. The point made above was that civilians think the term is "antiquated".  My response is - who cares what they think - the fact is that it cannot be "antiquated" if it is still the proper term in current use universally among military bands. Civvies or anyone else for that matter can think what they like, "antiquated" is incorrect since the term is a current one. I can think the sky is green all I want, but wikipedia has no choice but to report that the sky is, in fact, blue.Michael Dorosh 18:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)