Talk:Drum and bugle corps (classic)

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  In Regard to Ms. Burr's Changes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Catherine Burr again... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the Combine (of the articles, that is) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Editing procedures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  not even close to done 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Whew... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  But DCUK isn't DCI! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disambiguation page is fine with me 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Looks good, but... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Enough! Name change and disambiguation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Mr. Bound" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What a stinker!  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified