BRASSO Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) I used to start off with something like "its sort of like marching band but <talk about list of differences>".. now that list of differences is almost nonexistent so its a harder sell than it used to be. Now we can better understand why DCI insists on clinging to the term " Drum Corps", rather than " Marching Band ". But soon, these things have an inevitability about them, and so DCI will come into the 21st Century here, name their units correcttly, then you will not be required to attempt a convoluted explanation with the unfamiliar ( that only confuses the uninitated ). You'll be able in the not to distant future tell the uninitiated that you are going to a " summer Marching Band Show", ask them to come along with you and let the chips fall where they may. But the good news for you is that soon you'll not be required to do any more verbal gymnastics anymore that only tends to make the uninitated have their eyes roll back into their heads as you try to explain the former differences to all your unititiated friends, fellow students, colleagues, co workers, etc, Edited March 26, 2014 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seen-it-all Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Now we can better understand why DCI insists on clinging to the term " Drum Corps", rather than " Marching Band ". Oh, there's an infinitely much better way to understand why DCI is doing what they're doing (if that's what people are really trying to do). Why don't you just ASK THEM? You can contact Dan Acheson directly and ask the man himself. Or contact any corps director and ask THEM why they insist on calling their group a drum corps. This entire thread has spun so far out of control with the same four or five people arguing with each other over what drum corps should really be called as THEY see it, and so far, nobody has had the wisdom or intelligence to actually ask the people who have the most control over what the name officially is (or will be), or discover why they continue to refer to themselves in that way. Wouldn't that be a really important and apppropriate and relevant viewpoint to have at your disposal when diving into your little dictionary cockfight on DCP?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 I don't know about that. Straight leg technique is awful for your knees and back. Luckily I didn't have to worry about that part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mello Dude Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Oh, there's an infinitely much better way to understand why DCI is doing what they're doing (if that's what people are really trying to do). Why don't you just ASK THEM? You can contact Dan Acheson directly and ask the man himself. Or contact any corps director and ask THEM why they insist on calling their group a drum corps. This entire thread has spun so far out of control with the same four or five people arguing with each other over what drum corps should really be called as THEY see it, and so far, nobody has had the wisdom or intelligence to actually ask the people who have the most control over what the name officially is (or will be), or discover why they continue to refer to themselves in that way. Wouldn't that be a really important and apppropriate and relevant viewpoint to have at your disposal when diving into your little dictionary cockfight on DCP?? Interesting POV. Are you saying to turn over the definition of "drum corps" to people that have a monetary vested interest in it staying "drum corps"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seen-it-all Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Interesting POV. Are you saying to turn over the definition of "drum corps" to people that have a monetary vested interest in it staying "drum corps"? No. You don't read well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mello Dude Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 No. You don't read well. Actually, why don't you contact them and have them usher a statement here then? I would welcome more debate on this topic as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Actually, why don't you contact them and have them usher a statement here then? I would welcome more debate on this topic as well. I would think it incumbent on someone who wants DCI to change the name of the organization(s) to contact them with their complaints, not someone who is fine with things as they are. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) 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. If you agree that the corps wanted to make changes then you agree that they wanted to create a different kind of drum corps. I'm not being crypt here or try to trap you in a logical conundrum. It's just straight, they wanted to make changes because they wanted to create a different kind of drum corps for themselves and the fans. One implies the other. How can you say they wanted to make changes but didn't want to be a different kind of drum corps? Change literally implies different. Edited March 26, 2014 by charlie1223 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Windish Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 I have a hard time understanding the fear of discussions like this. Your thoughts ARE being read by people in position to make/not make/influence what will be. We even have the option to remain anonymous here, so why be so defensive? Anyway, my desire is to see a different name put into play. Even if today's groups have always been marching bands (of a sort) it's clear to me that's kind of a negative stigma. I like to think what goes on in today's DCI transcends that standard. And, yes, I feel that way about the term drum corps, too. The search for a different term(s) is an effort toward better utility of name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 If you agree that the corps wanted to make changes then you agree that they wanted to create a different kind of drum corps. I'm not being crypt here or try to trap you in a logical conundrum. It's just straight, they wanted to make changes because they wanted to create a different kind of drum corps for themselves and the fans. One implies the other. How can you say they wanted to make changes but didn't want to be a different kind of drum corps? Change literally implies different. If we rewind to what you originally said, which was this: 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". 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts