charlie1223 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Interpreting rules and regulations via original intent, and amending the documents if change is desired, is the only way to keep interpretations of rules and regulations consistent. That is what I mean by competitive fairness. However, the Founders did create the phrase 'Drum Corps International'; and they did create the original bylaws, rules, regulations, and definitions specific to 'Drum Corps International'. They also created an amending process to accommodate for change. So the intent of the Founders certainly is completely and utterly relevant to all definitions within the realm of 'Drum Corps International'. So if the current voting members in DCI want to change words, phrases, and definitions that is fine; however they should do it through amending the documents not by just applying modern definitions to the original words penned by the Founders. If nothing else it is a matter of respect to those who came before you and created the entity in which you now control. Do you know what "the original" words penned by the founders of DCI even said? DCI is a company and whatever business/competition model was at first intended doesn't hold any more weight if the people running the company are now totally different. A company should not hold the intentions of its founders to heart too closely lest they completely ignore the current market conditions in which they are in. The nature of a company is to be as responsive to the market as possible (that is both producers and consumers) anything the slows that process down for the sake of respecting past intentions is bad for business. The people who produce DCI shows are not the same kind of people that produced them when DCI was founded. These are producers that don't see a problem with adding all brass instruments, or a pit, or electronics etc to an ensemble and still call it a drum corps. And there is no real reason, other than principle, that those bylaws be redesigned to remove them from the clout of "founders intentions". In terms of how the company runs it would be a silly ritual at best. Edited March 25, 2014 by charlie1223 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Not on this thread, but I distinctly recall former marchers telling me that staff used to forrbid or agressively discourage marchers from even reading whats posted on here. I'm surprised that apparently you have not heard of this policy from Corps as well. Personally, I think its within the Corps legitimate authority to limit the ability of posters to post on here should such Corps decide to choose this policy. I do not however believe that it is in their domain to restrict in any manner what public forums a marcher chooses to select for their own personal viewing pleasure. Do you believe, as I do, that marchers should not be forced to give up their ability to access a public forum for their personal viewing pleasure simply by virtue of their Corps participation ? I would hope so, anyway. Of course they are free to view whatever they wish. I'm sure they get a big laugh out of lots of the stuff written here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 aaaaand... you couldn't help yourself. I'm going to do this thread and all of DCP a favor and not debate with you the merits of one interpretation of the constitution over the other. I will debate you on anything you'd like but not on DCP. Here, I'll debate you on things related more concretely to drum corps and not simply weakly tethered to drum corps (for the sake of the forum). But for the record I did not quote Ginsburg it was from an academic paper that detailed her judicial interpretation. dons forum admin hat for a minute...not to mention, engaging in a political discussion is a fast way to close this thread. Hmmm...maybe you SHOULD respond! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Interpreting rules and regulations via original intent, and amending the documents if change is desired, is the only way to keep interpretations of rules and regulations consistent. That is what I mean by competitive fairness. However, the Founders did create the phrase 'Drum Corps International'; and they did create the original bylaws, rules, regulations, and definitions specific to 'Drum Corps International'. They also created an amending process to accommodate for change. So the intent of the Founders certainly is completely and utterly relevant to all definitions within the realm of 'Drum Corps International'. So if the current voting members in DCI want to change words, phrases, and definitions that is fine; however they should do it through amending the documents not by just applying modern definitions to the original words penned by the Founders. If nothing else it is a matter of respect to those who came before you and created the entity in which you now control. They have changed the definition of drum corps since 1972. Now it includes amps, electronics, multi-key horns, pits, etc...among other changes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 But Rush and ELP did not morph into a completely different entities. While they, as a rock bands, did perform with other types of ensembles, Alex, Geddy, and Niel as well as Kieth, Greg, and Carl still remained as separate rock bands merely performing with those other ensembles. That is why there is a conundrum going on in DCI because DCI corps are not merely performing with guest marching bands, they are ever so close to actually becoming the exact same instrumentation as high school marching bands. Blood, Sweat and Tears used instruments not common to rock bands, and they also included elements of jazz and classical in their music. Ditto chicago. Jethro Tull had a flute player as their main soloist. Maynard played disco in his shows. Don Ellis included a string section and french horns as part of his jazz ensemble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Wait, what? Re-branding isn't expensive? You mean taking the DCI logo off of everything they make, and slapping a new one on? Re-printing every badge, flyer, program, poster, sign, shirt, hat, lanyard, drum stick, etc. is a one-and-done task? It's amazingly expensive, which is probably why DCI is going to keep their name, outside of the other reasons involved. The costs would be huge to change everything over just to appease some people who thinks it's different than it used to be. When did cost become a disqualifier for DCI changes? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Why do we suppose that DCI has resisted coming to grips with a simple name for themselves as they have evolved from " Drum & Bugle Corps " to " Bands " ? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 The use of the term "drum corps" is not used descriptively but it is a brand. 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 But when they created DCI it was to create a new vision of "drum corps". As in, be a different "kind" of "drum corps" than the other "drum corps". 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Not sure what either of you are objecting to. Interpreting rules and regulations via original intent, and amending the documents if change is desired, is the only way to keep interpretations of rules and regulations consistent. That is what I mean by competitive fairness. However, the Founders did create the phrase 'Drum Corps International'; and they did create the original bylaws, rules, regulations, and definitions specific to 'Drum Corps International'. They also created an amending process to accommodate for change. So the intent of the Founders certainly is completely and utterly relevant to all definitions within the realm of 'Drum Corps International'. So if the current voting members in DCI want to change words, phrases, and definitions that is fine; however they should do it through amending the documents not by just applying modern definitions to the original words penned by the Founders. If nothing else it is a matter of respect to those who came before you and created the entity in which you now control. 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? Do you know what "the original" words penned by the founders of DCI even said? DCI is a company and whatever business/competition model was at first intended doesn't hold any more weight if the people running the company are now totally different. A company should not hold the intentions of its founders to heart too closely lest they completely ignore the current market conditions in which they are in. The nature of a company is to be as responsive to the market as possible (that is both producers and consumers) anything the slows that process down for the sake of respecting past intentions is bad for business. The people who produce DCI shows are not the same kind of people that produced them when DCI was founded. These are producers that don't see a problem with adding all brass instruments, or a pit, or electronics etc to an ensemble and still call it a drum corps. And there is no real reason, other than principle, that those bylaws be redesigned to remove them from the clout of "founders intentions". In terms of how the company runs it would be a silly ritual at best. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts