George Hopkins - soothsayer

[Stu]

didnt this start over what to call a " color guard" and for decades havent guarded a thing?...if so I dont think the earth would shift if it was called performace ensemble or whatever one wants to call it............its drum corps.or whatever one wants to call it........lol

So, if it is about changing nomenclature and we rename the rifle to 'wooden implement' all problems with some people seeing them as weapons will be resolved?

[Stu]

The idiocy of changing nomenclature from reality to perception of use: A tomato is botanically a fruit; however throughout history for culinary purposes it has mainly been used in the manner of a vegetable. Should we therefore now change its official designation to a vegetable, ‘even though it is actually, and botanically, a fruit’? Or should we continue to say correctly that it is a fruit being used in the manner of a vegetable?

[rayfallon]

I think it's interesting that folks want to fight to save wooden rifle replicas, whose purpose has long since come and gone, at least as a weapon.

We needed them for AL & VFW rules (how long ago is that?) to "guard the colors". The originals were authentic replicas of an M-1 Carbine that were heavy as all get out. Then the replicas that have endured until very recently.

As far back as 1983 I thought it was borderline nuts to have replica rifles spinning during Leonard Bernstein's "Mass" - one of the most profound works about Peace ever put on the field.

I get in trouble for saying this, as my daughter has been spinning these things since she was around 6, and can make them just about sing. But why rifles?

We purists (and there are a lot more purists out there than admit it) get hung up on the whackiest things - "if it has a valve it's not a bugle" "if it's going to have a second valve we should make it a rotary valve so we don't have 2 pistons" "if it's not in G, it's not a bugle" the list goes on and on.

Only the percussionists in our activity have been at all flexible - if you can beat on it, put it on the field. But even they differ on the importance of rudiments and their place in the Universe.

For me, a dinosaur at 62 and while not exactly "proud of it" certainly pretty much at ease with it, and a Viet Nam Veteran, I'd love it if we never put a make-believe weapon on the field again. For me, there are too many real ones out there already.

What to use? Anything you can spin, throw, catch, accessorize. I LOVED the poles that Cadets used this year.

I see no reason to get stuck in symbols of past wars, unless you're doing that kind of show, e.g. Madison's Corps of Brothers show - have to admit I wasn't crazy about mellophones as make-believe M16s, but I've heard mellophones used as weapons of minimal destruction in the past, especially the old G-D Whalley Royce horns - ewwwwwww.

OK, that's my story - I'm sticking to it. For me it's not nomenclature - it's being stuck using something "because we always have."

That's almost never been a good reason for anything.

Edited October 10, 2013 by rayfallon

[MikeD]

As such, the change in nomenclatures has not kept up with these changes, oddly enough. There appears a need to change all aspects of the activity in some quarters, yet with an apparent quixotic compelling need to keep the traditional nomenclatures fully intact. Thats rather odd to me. I dont quite understand the apparent contradiction in this. Oh well. Its no big deal in the grand scheme of things, I suppose.

I think your last statement is one reason why it hasn't changed. There hasn't been enough, if any, movement to rename the various elements of what makes up a drum corps. Here in NJ there was a small movement in the 70's and early 80's in the HS band world to change 'color guard' to 'band front'. You never hear that term used today around NJ; it remains 'color guard' to this day.

[GUARDLING]

So, if it is about changing nomenclature and we rename the rifle to 'wooden implement' all problems with some people seeing them as weapons will be resolved?

You answered my quote BUT in what I said did you hear me say anything about Weapons,, I said about the name " color Guard " which was what was being discussed...

my answer or statement was about guards and what we havent guarded in decades

[GUARDLING]

I think it's interesting that folks want to fight to save wooden rifle replicas, whose purpose has long since come and gone, at least as a weapon.

We needed them for AL & VFW rules (how long ago is that?) to "guard the colors". The originals were authentic replicas of an M-1 Carbine that were heavy as all get out. Then the replicas that have endured until very recently.

As far back as 1983 I thought it was borderline nuts to have replica rifles spinning during Leonard Bernstein's "Mass" - one of the most profound works about Peace ever put on the field.

I get in trouble for saying this, as my daughter has been spinning these things since she was around 6, and can make them just about sing. But why rifles?

We purists (and there are a lot more purists out there than admit it) get hung up on the whackiest things - "if it has a valve it's not a bugle" "if it's going to have a second valve we should make it a rotary valve so we don't have 2 pistons" "if it's not in G, it's not a bugle" the list goes on and on.

Only the percussionists in our activity have been at all flexible - if you can beat on it, put it on the field. But even they differ on the importance of rudiments and their place in the Universe.

For me, a dinosaur at 62 and while not exactly "proud of it" certainly pretty much at ease with it, and a Viet Nam Veteran, I'd love it if we never put a make-believe weapon on the field again. For me, there are too many real ones out there already.

What to use? Anything you can spin, throw, catch, accessorize. I LOVED the poles that Cadets used this year.

I see no reason to get stuck in symbols of past wars, unless you're doing that kind of show, e.g. Madison's Corps of Brothers show - have to admit I wasn't crazy about mellophones as make-believe M16s, but I've heard mellophones used as weapons of minimal destruction in the past, especially the old G-D Whalley Royce horns - ewwwwwww.

OK, that's my story - I'm sticking to it. For me it's not nomenclature - it's being stuck using something "because we always have."

That's almost never been a good reason for anything.

very well said Ray

[Stu]

You answered my quote BUT in what I said did you hear me say anything about Weapons,, I said about the name " color Guard " which was what was being discussed...

my answer or statement was about guards and what we havent guarded in decades

Yes I did respond to your post directly; by stating that changing the name of 'color guard' to ‘performance ensemble’ would be as dumb to me as changing the word ‘rifle’ to ‘wooden implement’, or changing the official designation of a tomato from being a ‘fruit’ to ‘vegetable’, or changing the name of the NFL (National Football League) to NPPKRL (National Punt Pass Kick and Run League) to reflect the current way the game is played. I laughed very hard at those who found PC offense at the term 'pit' (being obtuse to the fact that it was a derivative of pit orchestra) and for PC reasons it was renamed 'front ensemble'.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Stu

[Stu]

I think it's interesting that folks want to fight to save wooden rifle replicas, whose purpose has long since come and gone, at least as a weapon.

We needed them for AL & VFW rules (how long ago is that?) to "guard the colors". The originals were authentic replicas of an M-1 Carbine that were heavy as all get out. Then the replicas that have endured until very recently.

As far back as 1983 I thought it was borderline nuts to have replica rifles spinning during Leonard Bernstein's "Mass" - one of the most profound works about Peace ever put on the field.

I get in trouble for saying this, as my daughter has been spinning these things since she was around 6, and can make them just about sing. But why rifles?

We purists (and there are a lot more purists out there than admit it) get hung up on the whackiest things - "if it has a valve it's not a bugle" "if it's going to have a second valve we should make it a rotary valve so we don't have 2 pistons" "if it's not in G, it's not a bugle" the list goes on and on.

Only the percussionists in our activity have been at all flexible - if you can beat on it, put it on the field. But even they differ on the importance of rudiments and their place in the Universe.

For me, a dinosaur at 62 and while not exactly "proud of it" certainly pretty much at ease with it, and a Viet Nam Veteran, I'd love it if we never put a make-believe weapon on the field again. For me, there are too many real ones out there already.

What to use? Anything you can spin, throw, catch, accessorize. I LOVED the poles that Cadets used this year.

I see no reason to get stuck in symbols of past wars, unless you're doing that kind of show, e.g. Madison's Corps of Brothers show - have to admit I wasn't crazy about mellophones as make-believe M16s, but I've heard mellophones used as weapons of minimal destruction in the past, especially the old G-D Whalley Royce horns - ewwwwwww.

OK, that's my story - I'm sticking to it. For me it's not nomenclature - it's being stuck using something "because we always have."

That's almost never been a good reason for anything.

I am not fighting to save wooden rifles, or plastic sabers, or G bugles, or mylar heads, I am fighting for change being made based on design or safety choices not choices for change being made to placate a select few who object in the name of PC. For example, if there is a concussion problem in the NFL change is warranted, however if some find the sport of football 'war-like' and want change based on PC then I say ‘bunk’ to that.

[BRASSO]

"1867; The game of football got introduced at the college level in the US after almost 200 years since its introduction. In 1867, the first sets of rules for American football were drawn up at Princeton College. According to the Princeton rules, twenty-five players were allotted to each team. Meanwhile, Rutgers also established its own football rules based upon London Association Football Rules. Princeton and Rutgers played the first historical match of football on November 6, 1869 at New Brunswick. The game then had almost the same rules as soccer except that the handling of ball was allowed when a player was stationary. However, running with the ball and throwing it was also not allowed. The winner was decided based upon the team who scored six goals first. Rutgers won the match." - historyoffootball.us

"1869; Rutgers and Princeton played a college soccer football game, the first ever, November 6. The game used modified London Football Association rules. During the next seven years, rugby gained favor with the major eastern schools over soccer, and modern football began to develop from rugby." - NFL.com

As mentioned above... the game of " Baseball " took some elements of the European game of " Cricket " and incorporated that into their new game... unique unto itself... of what was to become the National Pastime of America called the game of " Baseball ". Nothing in sport games are generally drawn up in a total vacuum. Since we are going back to the period of 1869, why stop there ? We can go back to the 17th century and see that " Drum Corps " all had Woodwinds ( Fifes ) and " Color Guards " . But no Brass Instruments at all. But lets not go back to the 17th and 18th centuries here. That seems a bit silly. Lets stay within the last 50 years here or so, ok ? Since 1960, the games of " Cricket ", Baseball", Soccer ", " Ice Hockey ", Football", Rugby " are all wholly and completely different from one another in all the most fundamental of ways. I don't think they'd be much disagreement on this. More importantly, since 1960, these sports are all known for the absence of fundamental changes in their respective sports since 1960. By choice. By design. The changes that we do note are primarily largely cosmetic in nature. The fundamental constructs of all these sports are essentially the same as they were in 1960. This is entirely different than the systemic transformational changes that the Drum & Bugle Corps movement has undergone in this similar 50 year period. Likewise, I don't think we could have much disagreement on this either. And this is my central point.... and yet why the traditional nomenclatures have been held so tightly and retained since 1960 seems oddly outdated and archaic to me ( and others ) now.

Edited October 10, 2013 by BRASSO

[BRASSO]

didnt this start over what to call a " color guard" and for decades havent guarded a thing?...if so I dont think the earth would shift if it was called performace ensemble or whatever one wants to call it............its drum corps.or whatever one wants to call it........lol

I agree. They should be correctly called " performance ensembles " or " performance auxillaries " or " dance auxillaries " or some such. That would work... and make perfect sense. The archaic and outdated nomenclature of " Color Guards " however,with no imitation rifles and / or sabres present, ( and nothing to be " guarded ", nor " honored " )but instead incorporates the use of air blades, poles, twirly thingys, or whatever, really is sort of absurd and silly, and does not compute at all if we are honest about it. ( and why not be honest about it ? ) Why do you suppose there is the resistence in many quarters now among those that are on the side of the support for " change " seemingly resisting the change of the nomenclatures to reflect the new realities that have come about ? For example, I've never heard of a " Corps " of " Cadets " marching in ranks without real or imitation" rifles" and " sabres ", yet saying they have a " Color Guard " in their " Corps ". Has anybody else ? I'm just asking, thats all. Maybe there should be fundamental changes all around if imitation rifles and sabres in " Color Guards " are now passe or about to become verboten. Lets be real here,... a " Color Guard " without rifles and sabres can be cool and all, and is many things, but it is decidely not a " Color Guard " ( as there are no " Colors " to be " Guarded" nor " Honored ") I think we all here should all be able to agree on this point anyway. So why the resistence to the name change that seems to be fundamentally required, do we think ?

Edited October 10, 2013 by BRASSO