Talk:Drum and bugle corps (modern)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Drum Corps  
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Drum Corps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Drum and bugle corps (modern) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article scope[edit]

I think this article has become too detailed and too biased toward certain portions of the activity. Much of the content is directly related to DCI and belongs elsewhere (the DCI article, DrumCorpsWiki, etc.), IMO. I've begun removing content and editing text for clarity, and I hope that (over time) this article will present of a broad overview of drum and bugle corps. Jaymendoza (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Style, Grammar, Spelling[edit]

The "Drum and Bugle Corps (modern)" article is full of style and grammar errors. From a "manual of style" point of view, it's pretty poorly written. There's a specific way to flag the article with an indication that it needs to be edited for grammar, style, etc, but I don't know how to do that. So I start by flagging it here. If anyone knows the tag that will create the standard Wikipedia "needs editing" box, please add it. I will make corrections to the poor grammar as time permits, and I encourage others to do likewise. In your spare time, when you're not arguing with vandals and reverting their vandalism, of course.

I must agree. It is an embarrassingly bad article. The writing is so poor that at times it is truly difficult to understand. Gingermint (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree as well. I will go ahead and tag the article to indicate its need for editing. I also think the article could benefit from a discussion on what exactly belongs here. Much of the content seems to be fairly trivial and too detailed (e.g. references to specific drill moves, which I have recently removed). Jaymendoza (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Some more specifics on the instrumentation (how many of what instruments... or does that matter? Are all the instruments in G written transposed or are they written in C, such as the Bb Tuba etc.) is in order. We could certainly learn more about the percussion and maybe see an example of a score. Gingermint (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This expanded DCI article is my solution to the clash between "classic" and "modern" drum corps that has reared its ugly head. As I explained in the Talk:Drum and bugle corps discussion, I intend on using this article for information about "modern" drum corps, rather than creating "Drum and bugle corps (modern)" and "Drum and bugle corps (classic)" articles. Hopefully this will appease the drum corps "purists" who think DCI isn't really drum corps. The purists can keep the Drum and bugle corps article, as long as prominent links to the DCI and DCA articles remain at the top.

And hopefully no one thinks that DCI really needs an article expressly for DCI itself without any info about the corps and activity it governs. Trying to separate them is fruitless, in my opinion.

Lazytiger 02:30, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reorganization of articles[edit]

The discussion page on the Drum and bugle corps article is getting pretty long, so I figured I'd post to this discussion instead.

I was wondering what the big differences (if any) are between DCI and the other associations around the world. I think I might be trying to cover too much ground with the DCI article, but the one nice thing about it is that the activity and the rules and particularities of DCI can be discussed all in one place. I assume that the Drum and bugle corps (modern) article will be based on the DCI article, so what generalities or differentiations will have to be made in order to cover drum corps around the world?

Also, one of the reasons I was against the (modern) and (classic) articles is simply because I don't like parenthetical words in titles. Are there any other wordings we could use to avoid the parentheses? "Modern drum and bugle corps"? Eh... I don't really like that either. I don't know... I guess the parentheses really aren't that big of a deal, but does anyone have any other ideas for the sake of argument?

Lazytiger 23:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One of the DCI critics responds...[edit]

DCI and DCA are NOT drum & bugle corps - nor do they really advertise themselves as such amongst marching band people, other than using the name of classic/alumni drum & bugle corps traditional history and activity.

I recommend the drum and bugle corps page to any prospective parent and DCI or DCA corps member. You may well disagree, but you should also realize the war that rages between the two.

There are plenty of honest marching bands out there. There are far fewer genuine drum & bugle corps out there. But if you aren't getting the truth about both sides, my advice is to run very quickly away from people who are only interested in your money and in defrauding you - because their interests and careers depend upon it.

The only decent people in DCI and DCA are those who keep silent - and they are becoming far fewer all the time as time passes. The sooner the split comes between "field performance theater" and drum & bugle corps, the better.

-- Catherine Well-known in drum & bugle corps circles, for good and ill (depending on your politics). Who LazyTiger is, is anyone's guess - but it's obvious who he is approved by.

Boo hoo.[edit]

Catherine, no matter how much you despise DCI and think that it's not drum corps, DCI is never EVER going to NOT be called drum corps. This is a reality that you're just going to have to deal with. Most immediately, you're going to have to deal with the fact that there are two very different activities competing for the same Wikipedia article title. No matter how strongly you and I feel about our respective positions, neither of us exclusive rights to take over the drum and bugle corps article and discuss one version of drum corps.

Therefore, I don't see how there's any proper solution other than an equal disambiguation page pointing to a classic drum corps article and a modern drum corps article. As soon as that plan is enacted, I'll edit the modern page and you can edit the classic page if you wish. I won't touch the classic page and I would advise you not to touch the modern page.

Lazytiger 19:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) (who am I? why don't you check my user page?)

If only someone will edit the heck out of this article so it isn't so terrible. And is "Boo hoo" really appropriate for a heading? Gingermint (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have now disambiguated the articles. I deliberately chose the parentheticals following the Wikipedia guide for "what to do in this sort of case", so it should work okay.

Catherine, your insinuation of fraud is potentially libelous. You might want to reconsider its continued presence on these pages.

Please see my comments here for a longer discussion.

MattJ 17:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

more about reorganization[edit]

Right now, the DCI and DCA articles are just redirects to the modern article. I think that they should have their own articles, based on the text that is now under the "circuits" section. We should try not to make this article too long, and I think it's already pushing the limit while some sections aren't even fleshed out yet.

Also, under the DCI section it says that DCI is the original organization on which all others are based. While it might be the organization on which others are based, it's not the original—DCA has been around longer than DCI. I imagine that the general lack of mention of DCA in the article (DCI alone seems to be used in lieu of mentioning both) along with that incorrect piece of history won't sit well with DCA people when this article comes to their attention.

Also, it would be nice to have a picture or two! Does anyone know how the rights work for that? Do you need the permission of the corps, the circuit, the photographer (if taken by a professional)?

Lazytiger 14:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Potential rewrite of the Visuals section[edit]

I was looking through the visual performance section and was unsatisfied with it, so I drew up some stuff to consider for inclusion. Feedback is welcome, and criticism likewise appreciated. Please pardon the size.

Visual Program

Guard The guard is a crucial part of a corps' visual program. The athletic and theatrical abilities of guard members are above and beyond any similar activity. In addition to uniforms that are custom-made for each season, members use flags, rifles, and sabers to create visual effects that enhance the show, as well as dance to great effect. The Santa Clara Vanguard may unofficially have the most memorable guard effect, with their performance of the "Bottle Dance" from Fiddler on the Roof.

Marching Technique There are a variety of marching styles used in the drum corps world. Since high-speed drill was pioneered by the Cadets in 1983, marching styles have been focused on smooth motion by performers regardless of tempo. The two most generic forms of marching, straight-leg and bent-knee, are characterized by the Cadets and the Cavaliers respectively, although almost every corps has its own unique style somewhat in the realm of one of those two categories. Traditional high-step marching has faded almost completely from drum corps, due to the visual speed and smoothness requirements, as well as desire for a uniform and consistent sound as unaffected by the lower torso as possible. Backwards movement or marching, as well as sideways marching, has also evolved. Turning in the direction of movement is rare, with the prevailing form today for backwards marching is up on the toes, with the heels off the ground (exceptions include The Cadets, who at slow tempos opt to roll back on the heel and pop the toe on the backwards march). Sideways movement is usually done the same style as forwards or backwards moves, incorporating a torso twist to keep the horn facing the front sideline.

Marching percussion deserve special mention in marching style, especially sideways maneuvers. Since the harness and equipment percussionists must carry makes it impossible for them to turn shoulders as the rest of the corps, drum lines have developed a "crab-step", with the legs moving out sideways and then crossing slightly, keeping one "leading" foot in front of the other "trailing" foot. This enables the marching percussion to move with relative ease while maintaining a front-facing position. Horn lines of drum corps have occasionally emulated the crab-step in their drill.

Drill Formations and Maneuvers The marching performed today on fields across the country is a far cry from the drill styles thirty years ago. In early competitons for DCI corps, drill usually began with the corps set up on the back sideline, from which they would take the field. Drill was almost entirely symmetrical, but in time gave way to asymmetrical drill forms.

Forms using lines and curves have long been used to create drill that is simple, yet powerful. The speed of the drill can create either a slow and flowing form or a series of quickly spinning bars to the viewer. Follow-the-leader forms frequently crop up, as do Perhaps the most famous maneuver using a line is the company front, with the corps in a line stretching across the field, usually parallel to the sideline, and moving in unison in the same direction. Another famous line-based maneuver that is sometimes said to have sparked the widespread use of asymmetric drill would be the "Z-Pull", pioneered by The Cadets in 1983 and frequently repeated and modified in many sucessive shows. The Z-Pull takes a form in the shape of the letter Z or S and expands it, giving the appearance it is being pulled from each end, until it ends as a basic line or curve.

Shapes and symbols have also been used to great effect by drum corps, with the most basic being geometric figures such as squares or blocks, triangles, circles, and other regular or irregular figures. The translation and rotation of these figures, especially at speed, creates interesting and exciting drill. The Cavaliers have performed several memorable drill moves in recent history, including a "rotating" double helix maneuver during their performance of The Planets, and the "diamond cutter" from 1999, a square "diamond" where groups of four members spun in boxes throughout the form. The Madison Scoutshave also used their corps symbol, the Fleur-de-lis, in drill, with a heartily enthusiastic response from fans in the audience.

Standing still might seem the simplest of drill moves, but for a drum corps even "standing still" is usually not completely stationary. In what is referred to as a "park and play", or sometimes "park and blow", "park and bark", or "park and wail", the corps holds position but members typically add their own leans, small steps, horn movements and pops, and other colorful flourishes.

looks good to me[edit]

Your contributions for the visual section look fine to me. Besides, this is the Wikipedia! Every article is always under revision!  ;) Just go ahead and post whatever content you have, and if there's something wrong with it or if it needs tweaking, it will be done. There's no need to submit it to the discussion page first.

Besides, despite the controversies that have come up, this isn't a particularly high-traffic page, at least in terms of editing (and I assume viewing as well). So don't be bashful about committing changes. Let's have 'em! This is the essence of Wikipedia!

Lazytiger 23:37, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear Matt[edit]

Your allegations that my opinion that DCI and DCA employs fraud in their commercial hustles and exploitations of the hopes and dreams of kids (of all ages) is inherent in the unwillingness of y'all to let go of the term "drum & bugle corps" - particularly when DCI and DCA itself will flip-flop the term with "marching band" in its own marketing materials. Further, apologists for DCI and DCA attack drum & bugle corps as "outdated", "stuck-in-the-past" and even "dead" - when it is far from being so. And even if there were no drum and bugle corps left - nationally in America and internationally elsewhere, the genre would still exist, one day to be rebuilt again when those historically exploiting the genre - which include some very not-nice people (would you like to go there?) - find no more financial benefit in doing so.

And that is why who gets to own the term "drum & bugle corps" is so important to those of us who care more about drum & bugle corps than the financial exploitation thereof.

You can attempt to chill my criticism of DCIA, but I've been doing this for years now - and all the ones who stand by for you errand boys and girls have oft-stated that such comments aren't worth their time. And thus, you relative unknowns promulgating the idea that stopping critics like me is important is going to open the door to more public unmasking of y'all as those more interested in the business of using drum & bugle corps than those who are fighting for the existence of the genre on its own merits.

Will be back when I have more time and interest. RAMD has announced y'all, and that's an important tie-in - no doubt you and LazyTiger know nothing about that, eh?

-- Catherine

In response[edit]


Your first sentence doesn't make sense -- to me anyway. Accusing anyone of fraud without extremely solid evidence is potentially libellous, that's where I stand on that; end of story. Your position with regards to DCI or DCA and their methods of operation stands separately.

As far as attacking classic drum and bugle corps as "outdated", "stuck in the past" and "dead" -- nowhere have I done this. Although personally I find it unlikely that there will be a groundswell of support to renew interest in AL/VFW-based classic drum corps to the extent you foresee, I would be more than happy to see more "classic-style" corps again. They are, after all, an important part of the history and formation of modern drum corps.

Ownership of the term... well, both types of marching unit are "drum and bugle corps", like it or not. You aren't going to change that. Business interest? Catherine, you *marched* in DCI corps in the 70's. Are you seriously trying to tell me that all the staff on the several corps you marched with were in it for money, and not for either making music or giving young people a "life experience"? I disagree with your opinion, but I respect your right to hold it.

RAMD doesn't like you much. I can't say I read it particularly regularly; I didn't know that the Wikipedia article had been announced there. So, "no doubt" I know absolutely nothing about that. Rather than spend my time reading newsgroups I spend time being in contact with people in the activity and seeing what active marching units are doing -- and supporting them, rather than doing them down at every possible opportunity!

Best wishes,

MattJ 09:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Catherine vandalises the page[edit]

Real nice, Ms. Burr. Real nice. For someone who constantly attacks people for being "errand boys" you're acting pretty damn childish.

competitions section[edit]

I did some editing on the competitions section; I think it reads better now. But I'm still a little fuzzy on how the "minimum performance and lot" system works... MattJ, would you like to expand on that a bit? Thanks.

Lazytiger 14:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Minimum Performance and Lot[edit]

Well, I'm not sure *how* to expand it more than what's already there!

In more detail: Once the unit registration deadline has passed for the season, a number of units are randomly chosen to perform at the first two shows by the circuit organizer; the unit is therefore obliged to attend and perform at their allotted show, plus Finals at the end of the season. After the show allocated by lot as above, units must then perform in at least 'n' shows (often 3 or 4) within the season in addition to Finals (where the unit themselves chooses which shows to perform in).

MattJ 13:41, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Anyone who wants to help over at DrumCorpsWiki, your contributions there would be most appreciated. It's a Wiki entirely for drum corps which can allow much greater detail... spread the word...

Harlan Landes 17:59, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Content about specific corps?[edit]

Last night, an unregistered user (IP added a couple paragraphs talking (giving a sales pitch, really) about the Blue Devils. Now, I love BD as much as the next guy, but I really think we ought to shy away from such talk about specific corps in this article. If this person wants to talk so much about BD, he or she is more than welcome to start a separate article for BD. However, I think the Drum Corps Wiki has that covered. Regardless, I don't think that this information belongs here. I was not a fan of the information about Star being in there either, but now it's really going in the wrong direction.

I just wanted to see if anyone else has an opinion about this before I deleted those sections out of the article.

Lazytiger 14:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I had planned to edit it out later this afternoon. While the USMCDB and Star are exceptions, BD entertainment is really no different from other groups that have formed out of corps such as the Colts, if I recall correctly. I would advise polishing it up and moving it to drumcorpswiki.

Yeah, that'd be fair to other corps. Those should really belong to Drum Corps Wiki.

--Mr Bound 17:46, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if these "professional" activities should be discussed in the article at all. They are not drum corps. (oh boy... am I opening a door for the "old school" fogies to kick down?) Indeed, they are run by organizations that also have ties to drum corps, but that's not a good enough reason to discuss them in the article. The Marine D&BC certainly deserves a place, but perhaps the title of the section should be changed to something other than "Professional Activities". Really, with that title, we're just asking for advertising. And here it comes. The paragraph about Star's activities since its departure from DCI amounts to special treatment of that corps. And apparently someone from BD felt they should be included, too. We all know where this is heading.

There should be some sort of generic passage about the existence of professional activities spawned from drum corps, but it's a fine line trying to talk about it without inciting people to do exactly what they're doing now - adding inappropriate detailed information about commercial activities.

I'll also add that we might be getting dangerously close to special treatment of corps in the "Visual Program" section, as well. In a general reference encyclopedia article, specific corps names and activities should not be used so liberally. That's what the Drum Corps Wiki should be for.

We should strive for an evenness of informational depth. When we suddenly start talking about specific accomplishments of corps in one section, it detracts from the overall generic, lay-person voicing that we should be going for. Know what's appropriate and where. If it's something that gives unfair attention to a specific corps, or is overly detailed, it probably shouldn't be in this article. Again, that's what the Drum Corps Wiki should be for.

Lazytiger 18:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You make some very good points. If I can manage it, later this evening, I might try and do a bit of POV pruning from the visual sections. I feel a touch responsible, since I did put most of that in.

As for the entire section about professional activities...I'm still not entirely certain where I stand on that. Perhaps Star and the USMDBC can have their own articles? I know that a ways back I was looking for information on Blast! and Blast! 2: Shockwave, and I was somewhat disappointed Wiki had nothing on it. Star's also done Cyberjam...perhaps every Star production could be consolidated into one article? I know that when I saw Blast! a couple of years ago I was impressed, and it did win a Tony award for choreography.

The USMDBC section is also done well, and I think that with the picture it would make a decent stand-alone article.

At the moment, I have some work to engage in, but I'll be back on this evening and I'll take a look at some of the things being discussed here.

--Mr Bound 22:49, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Not tonight, apparently. I'm beat. However, I did have another thought regarding individual corps mentions, originally for this article but more fitting in the DCI article: a table or some kind of mention on who has won the World Championship and how many times. Just wanted to make sure I didn't forget it.

--Mr Bound 03:18, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Star, and all of its reincarnations, are certainly worthy of their own article. I would definitely be happier if they weren't discussed in detail in the drum corps article, just as no other corps should be directly covered, either. Perhaps an article titled "Star of Indiana" should be created, and "Brass Theater", "Blast", and "Cyberjam" articles could be created as redirects to the Star article. I definitely think there should be exactly one article discussing everything related to Star. Although, I do have to wonder if such an article would be more appropriate in the Drum Corps Wiki. I'm concerned that we're going to have a lot of needless overlap between the Wikipedia and the Drum Corps Wiki. But on the other hand, one could certainly argue that that's not a big deal. If someone wants to maintain both, so be it.

I just looked at the Star article in the DC Wiki and saw that there's a template, but no information besides a few links. I'm going to delete the Star info from the drum corps article and put it into that article. I'll do the same for the BD info, too.

BTW, I noticed some unidentified person rewrote the Star paragraph. It's better. Good job, whoever you are.

Lazytiger 15:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added the table I mentioned to the Drum Corps International article. My table formatting still seems clumsy, however. If you can take a look, I'd be glad to see anything aided.

--Mr Bound 02:19, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Catherine's "triumphant" return (copied from Talk:Drum and bugle corps (classic))[edit]

Regarding what some might call "vandalism" of the pages on April 17,

Catherine Burr appears to have once again returned to lend her extremely conservative views regarding the Drum and Bugle Corps activities to our work here. I'd like to remind Catherine that she is, of course, free to lend her opinions as long as she does so in a manner that fits a neutral point of view (Catherine, feel free to see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for more on this). Until then, I will continue to be reverting pretty much everything Catherine attempts to lend to these pages, as most of it is bias bordering on reactionary.

As to Catherine directly: welcome back! Things are much more lively with you here. Do you work for Ameritech, or what? All your IP edits have been from "Ameritech Electronic Commerce". --Mr Bound 00:56, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Is this the same "Catherine" from RAMD? Kurt Weber 02:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If this individual from RAMD is, as I believe, a Ms. Catherine Burr who is an extremely conservative individual when it comes to the marching arts, a great proponent of classic drum and bugle corps and a great detractor when it comes to the governance of the modern activity, then yes, we are talking about the same person. I feel good about being civil enough to abide by the "no personal attacks" policy tonight. Questions? Comments? It doesn't look like she's been active since her most recent one or two day stint. Mr Bound 02:29, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Two articles?[edit]

Just out of curiosity, why are there two different drum corps articles? IMO it's kind of odd to have drum corps history suddenly stop in one and restart in another, and my instinct would be to merge them together, but I'm sure there's a reason for the seperation. --Frontierbrass 23:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • There was a long and tiring debate between the proponents and detractors of the drum and bugle corps activity as it exists today, and largely has evolved since 1972 and the formation of Drum Corps International, and drum corps as it was before that under the governance of the AFL and VFWs. It resulted in the articles being split, and it works, although both badly need to be copyedited. You can find the majority of debate on the talk pages of the two articles and the disambiguation page. In the spirit of no personal attacks, I'll state quite neutrally that the debate was mostly between pro-modern-corps User:Lazytiger and myself and established drum corps conservative Catherine Burr. Futher questions? I'm glad to answer. Mr Bound 23:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

In My Own Words (for a change)[edit]

To translate the above paragraph:

  • There continues to be a long and tiring debate (those of us who have marched for decades know better than our younger critics just how tiring it is) between the proponents of the DCI and DCA corporate-marching-band corruption of what they continue to erroneously term "drum & bugle corps" and those of us who insist that our unique and special, fraternal and militarily-based genre, like any other unique and special genre, has never and will never change. Not on the merits anyway.

Drum & bugle corps were *never* under the governance of the American Legion and VFW - not even those drum & bugle corps which were organized by and completely held at American Legion and VFW posts. A corps was its own organization, and chose to compete OR NOT at contests sponsored and/or judged by the American Legion and/or VFW - OR NOT.

As for my not being personally attacked by those people who continue to mischaracterize my posts and what they describe, that's just very familiar par for the course.

As for me being a "conservative" drum corps commentator, that's also revealing. Most people I know don't think me conservative enough. And I agree that I haven't been so, in the past. But I keep getting better, as the corruption keeps getting worse.

Let's take an example, of "traditional" and "modern" jazz. One can be an aficionado of one and not the other, and vice versa. One can talk about one without talking about the other. "Modern" jazz proponents must speak of their "roots", but they don't devalue and claim that "traditional" jazz is dying - at least these days, no one who's neutral. In fact, there are all sorts of societies dedicated to various forms of "traditional" jazz. So why is it, if drum & bugle corps is actually worth anything at all, that the "traditionalists" are labelled conservative, and must be saddled with the "modernists"? That is, if the things I allege aren't the case. Even more, what it "modern" jazz types asserted that "traditional" jazz fans and performers were dying and/or dead - even though there are plenty of traditionalists out there?

That some people get confused, intentionally or otherwise, is par for the course - and more of the costs of DCI and/or those who keep promoting "modern" band, er... "drum corps".

-- Catherine

      • Since I haven't been getting e-mailed from unknown screen names concerning this article lately, I thought it was time to do a periodic check-in. I had written some more directed responses to all the personal attacks in this, but decided it's really not worth it. What's even more amusing <not really> to see is that since I didn't respond in person, someone actually brought me into this discussion - just because they apparently can't promote their own DCI/DCA "product" on its own merits (whatever they are). The very fact of preferring to create an "enemy" (let's see - I've gone from insane, to crazy, to vengeful, and now I'm simply a "conservative" - all terms from DCI/DCA proponents) to attack, in addition to stealing the (marketing brand/)term drum & bugle corps from a past, present and future the "moderns" dishonor, should be enough "proof" to any "neutral" observer. As for us "purists" being "appeased"... IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED AND IT NEVER WILL. -- Catherine***

  • All you need to know is, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you can't figure that out, your vandalism of this page will continue to be reverted to something that's actually factual and neutral.--Frontierbrass 08:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

article getting too long[edit]

Does anyone else feel that the article is getting too long? Every time the page is edited, Wikipedia gives a soft warning that the article should be shorter. Perhaps we could first try to eliminate some overlap between the drum corps-related articles. Then if it's still too long (which I'm guessing it will be), we could break the article into a few separate articles, i.e., one for history (which is what I wish we could unreservedly use the "classic" article for, but I don't want to fight that fight), one for instrumentation (we effectively have one already for marching percussion), etc. Some sections could use some straight-up editorial reduction (a good opportunity to get rid of a lot of unneeded corps-specific references).

Anyway, I don't want to do anything radical without getting some feedback.

Lazytiger 01:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Hm...well, call me cruel and all...but I think a massive reorganization would make good sense for the articles (despite the highly vocal protest of one Ms. Burr). Looking at this article and the classic one, I see basic sections regarding the music/visual/programming evolution of drum corps, the history of the organizations running it/governance, and then the actual descriptions of the activity, the hows and whys. So perhaps merge the classic article into a kind of History of drum and bugle corps, with an outline of the history in a generic "drum and bugle corps" article, then move all the bugle evolution stuff into the appropriate article (bugle?), and split the programming evolution information between the history article and the D&BC article? I'd love to hear your own ideas. Mr Bound 03:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • After thinking about it, I'm not sure that the article is really that long. Mostly it just needs some good editing, which is what I'm doing now. I've already worked over the intro, history, musical program, and the visual program sections. I plan on eliminating virtually all of the info about divisions under the tour section, as I believe that info belongs in each circuit's respective article. We also need a thorough examination of what info is in each drum corps-related article so that there is no needless overlap. However, summations of info in one article that are more fleshed out in other articles is probably a good thing. I'll continue working on that stuff in the coming days. Lazytiger 05:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I would say that the history of the activity is long enough to warrant its own article; there are certainly enough sources to cite, and almost a hundred years of history to cover. However, this is also part of the problem with having "classic" and "modern" articles. While some (well, one) make the claim that modern drum corps is somehow different from the activity in the past, we know that it's just the way things have changed. I think a solution would be to have two articles, but not the way they're set up, with an artificial, vague definition between "classic" and "modern." Rather, one article should cover the entireity of what corps is today--from current DCI, DCA, alumni, DCUK/DCE, and other kinds of corps found today, while the other article should cover the history of the activity--drum & bugle corps as military signaling units, formation of the first civilian corps post-WWI, the real beginning of major competition in the 1930s and 40s...etc. These are just my thoughts, though, so you can take them for what they're worth.--Frontierbrass 20:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I actually feel the article is just the right lenght. In fact, with a very minor peer review, and the addition of inline references under a notes section within the article, this could become featured. I would actually like to get it featured, but since I didn't have any part in writing this article, I would need help from those who did in finding inline references and such and fixing it up so it doesn't get trashed at FAC and have to end up with the dreaded {{facfailed}} tag! Anyone up for the challenge, contact me. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 20:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I don't think you're going to find any objectors here to treating drum corps with one article, however you might elsewhere. It certainly would be nice to get rid of the classic/modern split if we're gunning for featured article status. The split was never really wanted; it was a compromise to try to appease a certain unnamed person (who really can't be appeased). One person, as many of us here can attest, is all it takes to make life miserable. She hasn't shown up here in a while, but reworking the articles—in addition to being quite a bit of work for anyone who chooses to do it—might rankle her feathers enough for an appearance. However, all that being said, I would be very happy if we could have the "modern" article, with slight alterations, moved to "Drum and bugle corps" (getting rid of the disambig), and then move the "classic" article to a new article named "History of drum and bugle corps". I'm not sure if it's worth it, though. We've been down this road before and chaos is likely to ensue again.—Lazytiger 21:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Probably true, unfortunately...but isn't there a way to deal with wiki-troublemakers? Admittedly the individual in question is persistent, but that's always been in unmoderated places (e.g., RAMD); the sort of anti-NPOV stuff she's vandalized articles with would seem to be grounds for some sort of ban, though you guys know more about how that stuff works here than I do. Like was said, this article has the potential to be really great, and it would be a shame for one person with a vendetta to have such an impact on it.-- 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually think this is a great idea! I don't understand how one person could've influence such a large split. We should merge the articles again, and if we get any opposition, we'll have a vote and see if it should be split or not. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 23:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, there are ways of dealing with vandals on Wikipedia; however, they're not particularly effective. Ms. Burr has chimed in both as herself (User:Catherineburr) and anonymously. If she causes trouble, we can petition to have her user banned, but that doesn't stop her from submitting anonymously. You can also ban IPs, but that's not 100% effective and might ban unintended people. The other option is that the article(s) could be locked by a Wikipedia administrator, but they only do that for very high-profile, oft-defaced articles, which we probably won't qualify for. The bottom line is, if we want to do this reorganization, we're just going to have to be prepared to deal with her. Potentially over and over again. I guess really that's no different than it is now.—Lazytiger 14:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a sysop; but I think that if I were to block her or protect to article to keep her from expressing her views would be against policy, especially since I'm now involved (it would have to be a third party sysop). We could always take it up with the arbcomm. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 01:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocking her definitely would be a drastic step that shouldn't be taken lightly. True, it is the essence of Wikipedia that anyone can add their views as long as they are credible. I don't know how familiar you are with her "contributions", but she has a view (which she claims is backed by many who are even more radical than her—these people seem awfully quiet for being so radical) that is totally out of touch with anyone else I've ever talked to. And she makes very slanderous statements, even going so far as to insinuate murder. Are conspiracy theories supposed to be allowed into articles as though they are undisputed truths? That's basically what she wants. We are at irreconcilable odds with what she believes should be included in the articles. How are you supposed to deal with someone that (from your perspective) comes out of nowhere with crazy talk and insists on having it included? I don't have a good solution here. At any rate, I am in favor of modifying the modern article so that it is suitable to soon replace the disambig page. That would basically entail changing the opening statements to be a little more broad, and add info stating that "classic" style corps still exist under the History section, which would also provide a Main article at History of drum and bugle corps subhead. And then we wait for Ms. Burr to come in and throw a tantrum telling us what huge idiotic fan boys we are while defacing or defaming the article. Go team.—Lazytiger 14:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, we can't really change the entire article format to conform to her point of view simply because she wants to yell and scream and gripe about it. What we have to put in the article is what is agreed upon by the parties in question in a neutral matter, this means that if modern drum corps is an evolution of classic corps, and the parties in charge agree on this, then that's what should go in the article. People may hate the Bush, but that doesn't mean his article is full of conspiracy theories and flaming towards him, it's all written in a positive light that people agree on, with sections dedicated to views by the opposition. If most people involved with drum corps, whether modern or classic, agree that they're basically one and the same and that the older form is a classical form still practiced today and the younger form is a evolution of this older form, then that's what the the article should say, under one topic. It shouldn't be divided into two each one claiming to be the "true form". This isn't a civil war! Despite this, she does still have the right to have her views included in a neutral manner, contrasting what's written as the norm... most likely under a "criticisms" section. This is because she is a minority point of view, and not the point of view taken by those in charge and those who participate in drum corps (whether classic or modern). Even if she doesn't agree, it's still the way it has to be written! Her views, which as you say, are minority, can't affect the entire topic just because she believes that's what should be said and nothing else. If she becomes a problem, you could always take the road to arbitration, which includes several options to resolve disputes, with the arbcom being the last resort. These are the steps that should be taken. As long as the views of DCI and classic corps are almost universally agreed upon as being the same activity in different stages, then that is what has to go in the article. After all, some people in Venezuela find Chavez's government illegal, but that doesn't mean that the Venezuela article has to agree with them entirely. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 18:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. I'm not trying to suppress her point of view, it's just that she has made it clear that she has no desire to write a neutral article about her views. She simply hates "modern" drum corps so much all she wants to do is defame it. I have reworked the modern article a little, including a tidbit about how Ms. Burr feels (under History), and tried to make it fitting of being the one and only drum corps article, which should also serve as a segue into the History of... article. The only section that needs some more fleshing out I think is about the color guard. Other than that, I think it's ready for some serious peer review.—Lazytiger 19:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments on rewrite[edit]

I actually have two comments on the article if it is to be rewritten. The article right now needs more images. The current image is actually in questionable copyright status since no public domain source is given, and the public domain tag is expired and needs to be replaced. Each section of the article should contan image of some sort (thought this isn't a requirement) showing the subject of the section (such as a guard image under colorguard), but we definately need more than one! My second comment is with the new introduction, it's too long and explains too much. You want to introduction to give a small summary of the article and let the reader continue to read about the subject. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 21:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Great work, Lazytiger. That's a lot to do at once. I'll see what I can contribute over the next few days. Mr Bound 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thank you, Mr Bound. As far as a rewrite goes, I'm not planning on doing anything more radical than what I just did this afternoon. But I agree about the pictures. It would be nice to have more, and I've been wondering about the copyright issue for a long time. Any professional picture you find is going to be owned by Jolesch or DCI, I would assume. And the introduction—yes, it probably is too long. I was trying to keep it short, but even shorter is probably better. I'm happy to keep editing away, but I don't want to domineer this article. Please, anyone, feel free to step up.—Lazytiger 22:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like it. I'm trying to get some of the knowledgeable folks from DCP to come over and offer their assistance, so hopefully we'll get even more good stuff in here. Oh, and BC, I hope the Kilties are treating you well ;-)--Frontierbrass 17:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've rewritten the intro, what do you think? Tell me if it's missing anything. As for images, we could always find persons with amateur images and post them on there, or we could ask some corps for permission. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 22:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been piddling around with the article today, cleaning up a few bits and pieces that seemed ambiguous, misleading, or poorly-worded. It's probably annoyed the heck out of some of you more experienced wikipedians, eh? In any case, I just want to make sure that people remember that when we're talking about "modern drum & bugle corps," it's not just the corps at the top level of DCI, which is the feeling I got occasionally, especially from the sentences (which I edited) about the differences between band and corps. For instance, talking about how much greater the instructors are in drum corps is inaccurate, considering that A) most of those people also work with bands and B) not every corps is a DCI Division 1 finalist. We need to remember that we're also talking about Divisions II and III, DCA corps, and corps from outside North America. Orpheus73 19:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the bulk of this article was written mostly by tons of random users adding little bits here and there, not two or three major users as this talkpage would have you believe. Hence the reason why the article has all of those faults you've noted. Some of the more experienced users here have attempted to uniform it in the past, but really, it seems that none of us are as enthusiastic about editing articles in bulk as we once were, for example, I mostly do "janitoral work" just fixing small errors, changing wording, deleting vandalism and unsourced nonesense to many, many articles including this one. Once upon a time though, I used to rewrite entire sections and get articles featured (basically I mostly spent my time doing what you have just done to this article here), but I don't do that anymore because Wikipedia has become more of a hobby for me, not an activity as it once was for me a year ago. I have recently, however, been meaning to get together with the other regular editors to this article to clean it up some, but I just haven't had the time to organize something like that, and as you can see from this talkpage, it has been tried before and failed. Either way, the edits you've done to this article are great, hence the reason why I encouraged you to register and welcomed you, and I'm sure the other active editors in this article will all do the same. So don't worry about any of us getting annoyed with your changes and continue to fix and uniform this and other articles I saw you edit because they really need the attention! -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 20:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Orpheus73 23:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, using Creative Commons search to find images we can use... (Sbutler (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]


I am getting a little concerned, as have others above, about the 'mammothness' of this article. I always look in the multi-volume encyclopaedias to find what they say about DC. The 50th anniversary edition of the World Book had quite a good article. But these articles are a couple of column inches, with a picture if you're lucky. I believe it is possible to have sub-pages coming off this article which are linked to from within the article itself. Keeping the main article simple and adding more information in sub-articles, without getting too complex and replacing drumcorpswiki with a tidy corner of Wikipedia's servers, would help to get across the message. The message is that DC is something, and this is what it is; "it's not just a band, and please appreciate this art form - thank you," or something like that. All while remaining encyclopaedic. So far it's more fanatic. Maybe we're all trying to make up for those omitted definitions in countless encyclopaedias. What do you think? (Sbutler (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Drum Corps Wiki[edit]

Is there a reason the link to DrumCorpsWiki: has been removed? I can understand if it's policy to not explicity link to other wiki projects. I am just curious. --Ambassadorhorn 00:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't think anyone removed it to spite the DrumCorpsWiki, and there's certainly no policy about not linking to other wiki projects. Where was the link you're referring to?—Lazytiger 02:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would like to point out that one of the problems I see with DrumCorpsWiki is that many articles are direct copyright violations from corps websites and history pages. Again, I don't know if there's a policy on that, but it might be something to consider. Mr Bound 02:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm not terribly familiar with DrumCorpsWiki; I didn't know there were such issues. Regardless, I don't think there's any reason to really worry about having a link to it from the Wikipedia drum corps article. There are all kinds of external links from Wikipedia and no one is claiming any responsibility for the content of those sites. They're simply FYI (and at your own risk).—Lazytiger 16:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • DrumCorpsWiki is in need of a lot of work and does not benefit from a large pool of editors like Wikipedia. I'll put the copyvios down on my todo list. I think its a bit unfair to characterize the whole site on the basis of some of the articles but I guess thats what some do with Wikipedia as well. Leaving the link out of this article is not out of line in the context of Wikipedia, I was just wondering why it disappeared. --Ambassadorhorn 23:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History, merging, etc.[edit]

I reworked the intro earlier today, and I just touched on the history section. That still needs a lot more work. I have the two volumes of A History of Drum & Bugle Corps, which seems like the best possible place for info. I don't know if Catherine considers Drum Corps World to be a shill for DCI, but hopefully not. (I'm sure she does now, even if she didn't before reading this sentence.) I know people that have been in the activity for decades, so I'll talk to them as well. Short of being 20 years older and having been there myself, I'm not sure how else I can make this article any more truthful or insightful. Then ...shudder... I might move on to getting the classic article ready to move to History of drum and bugle corps.—Lazytiger 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had hoped you'd be successful in merging the two articles. To keep them separate is misleading and factually wrong. The "Classic" drum corps circuit is hardly a reality these days anyway. --Eddylyons (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An accurate page on soprano horns[edit]

I'm wondering if I could gather some colaborators to create a new soprano/instrument page for an accurate link? Just let me know. --C.lettinga 19:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)c.lettingaReply[reply]

fixing it myself--C.lettinga 04:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Season - Divisions[edit]

The description of the current divisions is a little vague. The way the Descriptions for both World and Open class read, the essentially mean the same thing. Are they? --Eddylyons (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Drum and bugle corps (modern). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drum and bugle corps (modern). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 9 August 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drum and bugle corps (modern)Drum and bugle corps – The present Drum and bugle corps is a disambiguation page. However, it should be an article about primary topic. This article, Drum and bugle corps (modern) is the the primary topic. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it should be moved—but not before that page is moved to Drum and bugle corps (disambiguation).
I am proposing this to stimulate discussion and obtain consensus. In 2004, there were opposing points of view: #One of the DCI critics responds... and #Boo hoo. . Let's see if anything has changed in 14 years. Senator2029 “Talk” 21:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, there in Englad, they are also called drum and bugle corps. Their primary local organization is Drum Corps United Kingdom. Some units also participate in Drum Corps Europe. GWFrog (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose — The article is named Drum and bugle corps (modern) to differentiate it from Drum and bugle corps (classic)... (Both articles do need cleanup work...) GWFrog (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose (1) for the reasons set out by GWFrog, (2) because the DAB page drum and bugle corps is - in my opinion, correctly - tagged as a {{dabconcept}} (the tag was added in May 2011 by a very experienced editor indeed), and (3) because if there is a WP:PTOPIC in cases like this, it's usually the original meaning rather than the most recent. Narky Blert (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Junior" ?[edit]

The term "junior" is used in the article with no explanation other than "(DCI)" placed once parenthetically after it. This should be explicitly defined. Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]