cixelsyd

I am confused now. Are DC and MB two activities, or one, in your opinion(s)?

Really? We would not be having this discussion if not for what they did almost a century ago. And there are drum corps who were not actually serving in the military as buglers and drummers before entering the field competitive activity. So what? In both cases, once an idiom was established and popularized by hundreds of such ensembles, it became possible for new ones to enter directly. Part of what I was referring to when I said "much has changed". Did we not just spend pages and pages determining that the very definitions of these terms are set by the people involved? You are on record saying so, several times. Having reached that conclusion, you must therefore admit that since the people in charge of corps/bands/AL/VFW/DCI have been, and still are, declaring the distinction between drum corps and marching band, that they are indeed different. Or do you want to take back what you have said up until now? As for this: To me, a "band" is something that stays together long enough to perform more than once, like the word suggests. So those examples do not sound like "bands", in a literal sense.

I cannot speak for "you all", only for myself - but here goes. Quite simply, it is terminology. Drum corps and marching band are two different things. This is undeniable fact, evidenced by the practice of those who have organized field competitions over the past 90 years - they have established and maintained separate divisions for the two species, due to their differences in instrumentation, usage and intent. I am well aware that they are similar, and that some people like to underscore that thought by describing drum corps as a subset of a wider category of marching arts which marching bands also inhabit. But marching band is also a subset of the marching arts. If we called that wider category "marching band", then "marching band" would have to be a subset of "marching band", which makes no sense. At times, when people state it in such blunt terms as "drum corps is marching band", I am left to wonder if they are thinking how little sense that makes, or if they merely want to rattle the cage of some legacy drum corps person. No. In a literal sense, "marching band" is taking a pre-existing "band" and putting it on the march. By definition, the intent of "marching band" is to use whatever instrumentation the band includes. This is why American scholastic marching bands typically field brass, woodwinds and percussion, mirroring the ensemble format so prevalent in the schools. That is also why some bands here and there have employed vocalists, piano and strings - just like some bands here and there in the concert setting. Likewise, electronics have crept into the scholastic band scene both indoors and outdoors. Meanwhile, "drum corps" came into existence as a form of military signaling in the pre-electronic era. The devices used by drum corps (drums, bugles, even flags) were selected for their durability and effectiveness in the environment they were to be used (outdoors). When veterans returning from World War I sought a peacetime activity to maintain their esprit de corps, drum corps was a natural and practical choice. And when veterans and others got the idea to establish marching music contests, the outdoor effectiveness of drum corps made it at least as viable a choice as the more musically adept marching band (evidently more so, if you judge by audience sizes). It was with that intent that drum corps has enjoyed 90 years of organized field competition. Much has changed over that time, but drum corps and marching band still have that basic difference in intent. Right now, that difference of intent results in at least one basic difference in instrumentation (woodwinds). Even if that changes, there is a question regarding whether the resulting usage would be a band-style approach of balancing brass to the woodwinds, or a corps-style approach like that of Japan and Europe where brass exploits the full dynamic range. None - I like marching band. I like drum corps more. As long as we have both to choose from, that is fine. Well, I hope you now realize it is not that simple.

Not ridiculous when you consider that drum corps has, at times, sold tickets to end zone and/or backside stands. If you really have "seen it all", you would know this.

No, the question is not simple. Your poll says "Drum and bugle corps" is PRIMARILY defined by _______.". The question you ask in this post is not the same at all. "Drum and bugle corps" (or "drum corps") is, as the name suggests, defined by its instrumentation. However, at this point in time, "our activity" has been changed to the point where the uniqueness of the instrumentation has been so diluted that we have debates over whether what remains really is "drum corps"; therefore, what defines DCI is not necessarily what contributes most to its current uniqueness. I guess you realize that a proper poll does not start with the pollster giving his desired answer to the question.

I would not be so sure about that. After making change after change for the stated purpose of aligning more with band, if DCI decides to add woodwinds as well, then at that point it would make perfect sense to start calling it "marching band" as yet one more change to further the alignment. They wasted no time clinging to terms like "soprano" or "contrabass" once the Bb trumpets and tubas were introduced. As many have pointed out, it is up to the leaders of DCI what to call themselves. If they find it beneficial to refer to themselves colloquially as "marching bands", they will. If they become convinced that a full renaming/rebranding is an investment that will pay off, they will do that too. (Besides, they will need something else to change once there are no more instrument changes left.)

Not at all. When one group of corps makes a rule change, they do not mind if another group of corps follows suit. In fact, it makes things more convenient if corps from two different circuits ever want to compete in the same contest.

If we rewind to what you originally said, which was this: In the context where you posted that statement (i.e. debating the definition of "drum corps"), I disagree for two reasons: - DCI was not created for the purpose of changing the definition of "drum corps". (Of course, the corps have made such changes both before and after DCI, but that was not why DCI was created.) - DCI was not created to make their "drum corps" different from all the other "drum corps". Clear so far?

But clearly, you were not referring to high school MB when you said, "Drum corps has always been marching band". Similar, but still different - different in instrumentation, different in usage, and different in intent. And what if the day comes when they are the same? It would still remain true that there was about a century-long period where there were two distinct activities, worthy of separate identification. I would find it most clear to refer to them by the names they chose and used over that century. That is nice, but this discussion is between people with activity familiarity, not the general public.

Curious to see if all of the "others" who share your view here are just as open minded about DCI referring to their activity as a "sport".

Like who?

Bands compete in Drum Corps Europe. Drum corps compete in the marching band circuit in Japan.

In what way? What was different about DCI rules vs. American Legion rules in 1972? If DCI had been created with the goal of making, as you say, "a different kind of drum corps from the rest of the activity", then they would have done so in 1972. Furthermore, they would have shown an interest in being different from the rest of the activity over time, rather than encouraging everyone else to use their rules (i.e. after they started making rule changes of their own). I do not dispute that the corps wanted to make changes. Corps have proposed changes all through the history of the activity. Even under AL/VFW, many transformative changes were made at the request of the corps. Even after 1972, AL/VFW adopted all the subsequent changes the corps dreamed up. Much like today, I am sure there were some who would have liked the changes to go through faster... but that was not why DCI was created. Again, it was: Financial - letting others run the big shows meant accepting their pay scale. The corps decided it was worth the effort to run things themselves, for the additional money they could make. Organizational - there was no central tour planning, and no single championship. Corps took the better aspects of what AL and VFW offered, and cobbled their seasons together. Governance - who would not want some control over their activity? Yes, that would include rules, too, but bear in mind that the most disturbing rule issues were not proposals for change being rejected, but rather, changes being imposed on the corps from the VFW. Mallet percussion instruments, permitted in VFW Nationals in the early 1960s, were suddenly banned in 1969. No rules banned the costumes or routines employed by corps like Cavaliers and Madison in 1971, but the man in charge of the VFW contest disliked them, and disallowed them by decree. At that point, the corps would have preferred the same kind of drum corps they had, not this different kind of drum corps imposed at the whim of Tony Schlecta.

Yes, I would (if it was Memphis Blues Brass Band). No - sorry. Note the parts I bolded. Had you stuck with "marching music", I would agree... but drum corps and marching band are two different activities. The field competitive activities of drum corps and marching band have been distinct from each other since they were organized 90 years ago, and they still are. We can make semantic arguments about the Ohio State band, ELP, BST, ETC., but that will not change that basic fact. For those engaged in that talk about founders and their intent... well, the founders of organized field competition, AL and VFW, created it for drum corps and marching band simultaneously and as separate entities.

But again, DCI was not created with a goal of making a "different kind of drum corps" from the rest of the activity. In opposite fashion, DCI encouraged the rest of the activity (even AL/VFW) to adopt DCI rules and, thus, present the same kind of drum corps as DCI.

Not sure what either of you are objecting to. As far as I know, that is what DCI has been doing. The rule changes have amended the definitions in the DCI rulebook. Did you have an example in mind, or is this just a theoretical discussion? Sorry, but the mission of an organization comes first. If their mission is to be nothing other than a business, responsive to the market above all else, then fine. If their mission is something else (say, hypothetically, to preserve the drum corps activity), then their range of choices must be from within that context. Taking a course of action contrary to the mission requires a procedurally defined, greater consensus; if that slows down the process, too bad. Of course, none of your examples necessarily run afoul of mission or bylaws, so like with Stu, I would ask if this is just a theoretical discussion.

No. DCI was not created with any defined agenda to make a different kind of drum corps. It was created to change the financial, operational and governance parameters that the founding corps worked under, from those imposed by external groups like VFW to new ones that the corps had control over.

That is false. Whenever DCI or a corps writes self-descriptive press material, they refer to themselves as "drum corps". It is not just a brand (not yet, anyway).

Not sure that they have "resisted". Frankly, I would not be surprised to see a name change proposed at some point. After all, the rationale of needing to align with the band activity is widely accepted within DCI; calling themselves bands would be another way of aligning.

When did cost become a disqualifier for DCI changes?

Because "marching band" is literally that - taking whatever is in your pre-existing school music program and putting it out on the field. For whatever reason, American scholastic music has gravitated toward the band format, so that is what most marching ensembles field as well. But some schools also have orchestra, vocal music, piano, electronics, etc., and we have seen such devices included in marching band shows too (despite the difficulties).

You did say this: Is that not what you meant? (Edit: forgot to answer this) I think DCI, their corps, the TEPs and others (even you and I) are all contributing to putting butts in seats. If you were willing to listen, then you would have already gleaned the following from my previous posts: - I do not necessarily want fans to judge... but I do want a wider judging pool for sure. - There is no "better corps". Judging is subjective, so all we have are opinions on who the "better corps" is. The only time we can speak about "the better corps" is when our opinions are in consensus. - With opinions, we might also have bias. That is true of both fans and judges. As for the "fan favorite"... maybe I did not explain this previously. I have no interest in even discussing the possibility of surveying fans not in attendance at an event, and including their favoritism in the scoring system. The opinions of the people who paid admission to that event, however, have a certain value that is worth discussing.

That is impossible. 5% of the score can only change 5 points worth. The way you rant that even 0.05 can change "everything" sounds hysterical. If "everything" to a corps revolves around 0.05 in one show, their perspective and priorities are seriously out of whack. (Most of what I hear from people currently involved in the activity indicates a healthier perspective than that, fortunately.) I have some thoughts on "consistency" that I will go into later. Firstly, there are no audiences that are all Madison fans, or all (name any corps) fans. Crowds are a mix of fans of different corps, fans of all corps, and spectators who are not as rabid followers of the activity. Just as a louder crowd response overstates one aspect of audience engagement vs. the others, a louder response to the home corps overstates the presence of home fans vs. general fans and fans of other corps. Regardless, the manner in which fan input is taken can be set up to dilute the effect of home advantage that concerns you so much. Maybe you are imagining a simple vote where fans pick just one corps, and hometown fans would disproportionately pick the home corps. Take the typical seven-corps show. There, Madison fans would be giving Madison 1, Blue Devils 0, anyone else 0 as well. That would be pointless. If instead, we ask fans to rank all the corps, then that one fan ballot becomes Madison 7, Blue Devils 6, other corps 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. At that point, even if a number of Madison fans do as you fear and vote their corps first no matter what, their votes are far less likely to move the corps into a different placement from where the rest of the fan voters rank them. Are you saying that the judges of that day, several of whom still serve as highly respected judges in DCI today, were judging randomly and using the tick system as an "excuse" for it? Not buying it. Also not seeing this 1st one night, 5th the next trend you claim. You might be able to show that scores in the 1970s, for example, showed more variability than today. But how do we know that corps were not more variable in their performance from day to day back then, and the results simply reflect that? No - you are making mine. There is not much accountability. You have not provided a single example of accountability as applied to DCI judges. It took another poster to provide two examples where judges were so incompetent that they could not begin to explain their marks against the criteria on their sheets. For all the rest, if they can do that much, there is no further accountability. As far as "meeting in the middle", I think that would require a complete change in attitude regarding "consistency". There was a lot of fuss about "consistency" back then from people in the instructional community. Corps wanted to see their score go up every time their show improved. Never mind that different judges are evaluating them on different days. Never mind that they must rank first, then rate. Never mind that, as we all know, you cannot compare scores from different shows. And never mind that in the 35-show tour of today, you are expecting multiple judges to allocate the typical 50 scoring increments your corps climbs through over the course of the season in a way that ensures they steadily ascend with each incremental improvement. For over 30 years, corps staffs have made this obsession with consistency their priority with the judging community. And look what it got us. Scores so "consistent" now that they fail to respond to the performance of the day. Judges using recaps as required reading, and carrying yellow slips of paper to keep track of the recent scores they are expected to increment. And a growing divergence between judges and fans as to what is generally effective. I think we could use a little less "consistency". Now, how to get it? The consistency we have now is the result of a very small pool of judges, trained and conditioned to provide just that. We need a larger, more diverse pool of adjudicators. A fan voting component in the scoring system is one way to provide that. There are others. We could simply recruit and train more judges in the current system. The most practical manner would be to look to related marching arts, where there are many other competent judges already practicing their craft. Maybe that would be your idea of "meeting in the middle".

Again, it is also people within DCI who are hung up on using terms like "entertainment". They are proposing and developing the 37th set of changes to the judging system in pursuit of that objective. I would contend that "effect" that is not understood by fans is not so effective after all. Let me also clarify - I did not say that GE or entertainment have eluded the system entirely. However, there have been too many occasions where the corps everyone inside/outside of the system is talking about afterward as the standout "effect" show of the night turned up on the recap with effect results mirroring those of the performance captions. Well, thanks for the insight, but my question was addressed to Guardling, and I would still like to hear his/her answer.

You can also have an unlimited number of people of any age on the field during the pre-show, and make limitless use of pre-recorded electronics. Well, limitless as long as you comply with copyright law (though even that appears debatable based on recent shows). Woodwinds are also permissible in off-site warmups, rehearsals and clinics. And unlike social media, corps members are allowed to use woodwinds even during tour.