From: MHUGHES@MIAMIU.BITNET
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.marching
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:07:14 GMT
Organization: Miami University - Academic Computer Service

In article <BvAK0n.C9B@uunet.uu.net>, pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt)
says:
>
>Request for Discussion
>
>Newsgroup: rec.arts.marching
>
>Purpose: Discussion of Drum & Bugle Corps, Bands, and Color Guards
>
>Why: The Drum & Bugle Corps (D&B) competetive season is held over the summer.
>This year, USENET discussion of D&B has been held in the newsgroup
>alt.drumcorps.  There was high-quality discussion of the competetive season,
>etc. from at least 100 different posters. We have a FAQ which has been posted
>to news.answers.
>
>The other two activities rec.arts.marching would include would be marching
>bands and color guards. Both competetive And non-competetive marching bands
>would be included in the discussion. The primary color guard activity is a
>guard-only competetive season held over the winter.
 
With all due respect to these activities, there has been very little (if any)
discussion about color guards and marching bands in the group.  If fact,
I don't believe marching bands have been mentioned, and we are well into the
marching season.  I feel that the reason for this is that marching bands
are a much more locally-based activity, whereas drum corps is a nationally
(even internationally) organized activity.  There is just not much to discuss
with respect to marching band activity in this forum because it is so
localized.
 
In my opinion, the group should focus on drum corps. My preference for a name
would be rec.drumcorps.
 
>Naming Options: During informal discussion, it was suggested that the group be
>either directly under rec, or under rec.music. The rec.arts hierarchy is
>recommended here, because music is not always present in these performances,
>but "marching" is. Also, the word "march" is used to describe what
>participants in these activities do, whether or not they're performing a
>rigid, military two-step.
>
>The absence of "drumcorps" from the name is to cast a wider net -- all three
>activities -- for the rec group. At a future date, there's a natural point for
>a drum corps-only group -- rec.arts.marching.drumcorps.
 
But why regress from having a drumcorps-only group (as we do now) to not
having one, only to say in the future that one is again justified?  We have
plenty of traffic to justify a *rec.drumcorps* group right now!
 
This may also have the effect of *not* catching the eye of a Net user who is
a fan of drum corps specifically.
 
If the original goal is letting the discussions in alt.drumcorps reach a
wider audience by forming a group in the rec. hierarchy, I personally don't
see why it should be called anything other than *rec.drumcorps*.  For
discussions about bands or color guards, propose separate groups.
 
>An alternative suggestion is to go ahead and have the CFV be for two groups:
>rec.arts.marching.drumcorps and rec.arts.marching.misc. We may do a straw poll
>to see if we will issue the CFV for the two groups.
>
 
This is a viable alternative.  If there is sufficient traffic re.
marching bands in a group called rec.arts.marching.misc, that would certainly
justify the existence of a separate group for marching bands/color guards.
We have already provided ample evidence of interest in a drum corps group
under the rec. umbrella.
 
>Discussion of this proposal should take place in news.groups.
>
>--phil
>pae@blackcat.stortek.com
 
Mike Hughes
 
 
+ Michael Hughes     Department of Mathematics and Statistics  +
+                    Miami University     Oxford, OH 45056     +
+                                                              +
+                    internet <mhughes@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu>  +
+                    bitnet   <mhughes@miamiu.bitnet>          +