garfield

George Hopkins - soothsayer

Recommended Posts

Back in the late '90s, the term was officially changed to "auxiliary" and it read so on the judging sheets. There was an award presented at the DCI World Championships for "Best Auxiliary." (There was not yet a caption that received points on the sheets...it was a direct judgement call by a separate judge who determined the best unit.)

Later on, it was decided to reconnect with the historical element of the activity and call it "color guard" again. And it will stay that way until it is changed again, prior to it being changed back...and forth...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 The archaic and outdated nomenclature of " Color Guards " however,with no imitation rifles and / or sabres present, ( and nothing to be " guarded ", nor " honored " )but instead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 ?

What would be 'absurd and silly' would be to change the name of Baseball to something like Home Plate Ball because that more reflects how the game is scored, or what would be 'absurd and silly' would be to change the name of Cricket because some do not find the connection to the insect, or what would be ‘absurd and silly’ would be to change NFL to NPPKRL because the foot, though used on occasion, is rarely used in the current version of the sport, or what would be ‘absurd and silly’ would be to change the designation name pit to front ensemble because pit is seen as a PC derogatory term by some and not a historical term for a pit orchestra, what would be ‘absurd and silly’ would be to eliminate rifles and sabers from drum corps, not because of design issues, but because of a few who have fabricated an obtuse PC issue, and what would be ‘absurd and silly’ would be to change the historical name of guard to dance auxiliaries for the same PC idiocy.

Edited by Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

you are so right on all accoiunts.......but sometimes people argue just for argument sake......some things arent all that big a deal when looking at the big picture especially when there are much bigger things to debate about..lol...............as a guard person, who was a horn player for many years also, I for 1 dont really care at this point what were called as long as we are given full and equal credit for what is brought to the field.( now thers a debate waiting to happen )...OH MY!>>>>>>> I may have argued BITD being called something other than a color guard mainly because i think many of us back then were a tad snobbish being called something that band guards were called BUT I'm older and wiser...lol......I hope. :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Without picking a fight about mythical weapons, it does seem to me from what I've read that you interpret PC as whatever you personally disagree with. I'll only speak for myself, but I'm hardly a politically correct person and I find more bunk in your objections than in the objects of those objections.

Whoops, guess I did pick a fight. But at least I wasn't PC about it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without picking a fight about mythical weapons, it does seem to me from what I've read that you interpret PC as whatever you personally disagree with. I'll only speak for myself, but I'm hardly a politically correct person and I find more bunk in your objections than in the objects of those objections.

Making decisions based on PC is not 'whatever I personally disagree with'; it is an action by powers at be which is done, not for safety or design choices, but PC decisions are done in the name of not 'offending anyone' and the fear of law suits fabricated by obtuse opinions of a few who ignore facts; and that PC placation disrupts activities, agitates issues, and quite frankly it is an impossible absurd silly task to try to please everyone. Various people will always find various offenses to various things, and in this case very, very, very, very, very, very few people are 'offended' by the use of wooden rifles in the marching arts activity and even less ore offended by the term color guard.

Whoops, guess I did pick a fight. But at least I wasn't PC about it.

Thank you for not being PC!!!!!

Edited by Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making decisions based on PC is not 'whatever I personally disagree with'; it is an action by powers at be which is done, not for safety or design choices, but PC decisions are done in the name of not 'offending anyone' and the fear of law suits fabricated by obtuse opinions of a few who ignore facts; and that PC placation disrupts activities, agitates issues, and quite frankly it is an impossible absurd silly task to try to please everyone. Various people will always find various offenses to various things, and in this case very, very, very, very, very, very few people are 'offended' by the use of wooden rifles in the marching arts activity and even less ore offended by the term color guard.

Thank you for not being PC!!!!!

STUIE < STUIE< STUIE...like Ray..I kinda like offending some people, BUT whats offensive is that your personal beliefs, which you are totally entitled to, you make it sound like you actually know who or how many are offended by one thing or another...thats kind of offensive in itself my friend...IMO

I will agree that some will play the PC card at the drop of a hat. that can be annoying as well as makes you wonder is it what they really feel or just for the sake of being loud and whiney.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Guardling:

" but sometimes people argue just for argument sake......some things aren't all that big a deal when looking at the big picture..."

No way! Here?!?! on DCP????!!!!

How alarming!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Well, If I was you, I wouldn't be that fearful that DCI ( or DCA) is going to " be stuck using something because we always have ". Thats not been the modus operandi at all the last 50 years of " Drum Corps ". I think we should all be able to agree here that there is probably no other youth competitive activity or sport that has undergone more transformational changes than has Drum Corps. Can you think of any other youth competitive sport or youth competitive endeavor that has come remotely close to the changes this activity has undergone ? So I would not fret that this activity does not somehow embrace " change ", or somehow will not in the future.Yet despite the changes, we've gone back to calling auxillary subsections in units that utilize no wooden rifles, no sabres, as a " Color Guard ". Why is that ? 'Makes little sense to me at all. Why the eager and willing acceptance on the part of many to eschew traditional instruments of Drum Corps competition but on the other hand so reticent to drop the traditional nomenclatures that frankly no longer apply at all, if we are honest with ourselves regarding this ? If a unit wants to drop rifles, and sabres in their Corps, thats cool. No problem with that from me ( except perhaps some minor disappointment ). But then why call a unit with no rifles, sabres, but instead with air blades, or other twirly things a " Corps Color Guard ". Thats a strange nomenclature, and frankly an incorrect nomenclature. There is no rational basis to keep such a caricature of what " it is" . In the big scheme of things..., called " real life ",.... its really no big deal, of course. But it is sort of mildly odd to me, thats all.

Edited by BRASSO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... BUT whats offensive is that your personal beliefs, which you are totally entitled to, you make it sound like you actually know who or how many are offended by one thing or another...thats kind of offensive in itself my friend...IMO

So my pointing out that a school expelling an elementary school child based on a picture he drew of his loving dad in the United States Army is PC gone wild, and my stating that opinion is offensive? Or pointing out that a school district expelling kids from school for playing with innocuous air foam dart guns (on their parent’s personal property I might add) is PC gone wild, and my stating that opinion is offensive? Or stating that a few, very few, across tis great nation who are offended by wooden rifles in marching activities and think that, apart from factual data, think that the spinning and tossing reflect gun horror and will increase the chance of that child being involved in gun crime is PC gone wild, and my stating that opinion is offensive? All that shows is the PC sort are overly sensitive, and that I am also far from being PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Just picking a nit here, but I'd like for any percussionist who argues the importance of rudiments to play anything, anything at all, that is NOT a rudiment. But that's probably just me in my cloistered world; I didn't know that there are actually percussionists who argue the importance of rudiments.

Didn't mean to hijack my own thread from this discussion - back to Stu arguing with everyone else. (I keed, Stu, I keed!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.