Talk:Drum Corps International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States / Indiana (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Drum Corps (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.


This article is once again standing on its own, but is now specific to DCI. Information pertaining to all modern drum corps is in the drum and bugle corps (modern) article. Lazytiger 15:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. It'd be nice if the trash stayed on RAMD and didn't plague the rest of the 'net. I just created a new article of DCI Division I World Champions with more in-depth info and linked to it in the main DCI article. Ross 05:43, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Too bad, LazyTiger[edit]

You can attempt to present the purified, corporate view of DCI all you wish. But if you continue to exploit drum & bugle corps (classic or modern is the same thing - it's called DRUM & BUGLE CORPS) I will continue to put the lie to what you and Matt are attempting to exploit.

Now, you can (and will and have) call me a loony or whatever is the epithet of the day. But hopefully, people will do some checking for themselves on the history of what people involved in DCI and DCA actually do for a living.

Drum & bugle corps is a fraternal hobby. It was never intended to enable corporate exploiters disguised as charitable bingo games, it was never intended to be a protective network for child molesters, it was never intended to cover up suicides and counterfeiters and murderers. And yet, that is what DCI does - as well as covering up all of its "failures", which they promptly blame on their targets who didn't sit well with how they were being exploited.

I can play this game as long as you can. You seemed to feel that the way things were - as long as the DCI and DCA links were there - was enough. Now, it's not enough. Now, this might simply be to keep me "busy".

Time will continue to tell. And in the meantime, the one or two people who actually have no clue and stumble onto these pages will learn what they need to know about DCI - which is CAVEAT EMPTOR. I might also add Dante's disclaimer, of all those lose hope who enter here.

-- Catherine


Suicides, murders, child molesters??? What is this proposterous notion you are throwing around willy-nilly? Please catherine, I hope you can reply in some way (you did not leave a username). I honestly do not understand what you are trying to say, but perhaps you could explain your views to me in more detail. I have plenty of experience of corrupt organisations using their power for ill-gotten gain and manipulation, but DCI was never in my top-ten! Shed some light on the situation you perceive. Thanks --Sbutler 21:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Catherine, Lazytiger, myself, and were in a protracted argument with Catherine for some time. The difficulty is, since the drum corps pages were split to better collect information on the eras and circuits, the argument is similarly fragmented. If you hunt around on the drum and bugle corps, DCI, and other pages, you'll be able to find more of it. Catherine hasn't been back in a while since she went on a vandalism spree of all the drum corps pages, so it's unlikely you'll hear from her. --Mr Bound 21:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Good grief. Note: It is very much outside the charter of wikipedia to engage in character assassination, but is this the "catherine" from the old USENET newsgroup? The one that was rudely responding to posts she didn't like with "Liar" ? If so: If she's gone from these parts, then things ought to be a lot more sane. I feel bad for who she must be IRL to spout this kind of thing...if this is the same infamous person of yore then she's been trolling for as long as I can remember.Tgm1024 (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"prettified" table[edit]

I wouldn't say that Flamurai's new table is any prettier or better than it was before, just different. It used to match the look of the scoring table from the Drum and bugle corps (modern) article.

Flamurai added some stuff about I&E and neutralized some Div I info. I am unsure where the line is as far as what info should be in this DCI article and what should be in the Drum and bugle corps (modern) article. We're definitely getting some overlap of information. Most of the content of the DCI article originated in the modern article, was cut and pasted here, and some of the info is now finding its way back over there. But some of it is also remaining here with slightly different wording and content.

Anyone have any ideas about where to put what and minimize overlap?

Lazytiger 18:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The new table style better blends with the Wikipedia page, image frame, etc. The other table is presenting different information. There's no need for them to be the same. I will make that table at least have the same border style when I get a chance, though.
It's important for NPOV that this article be relevant to all DCI corps, not just division I corps. I don't think overlap is necessarily a bad thing just as long as the information is consistent between the articles. It's important that a reader get enough information to understand that article. For example, this article had said, "when camps end", without a previous mention of what camps were. The reader shouldn't be expected to read Drum and bugle corps (modern) first.
– flamurai (t) 20:32, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)


In other business matters, the Board of Directors renewed the Division I competitive status of Pacific Crest of Diamond Bar, Calif., and Esperanza of San Diego, Calif., Pursuant to the DCI By-laws, the board of directors voted unanimously to terminate the membership of the Troopers from Casper, Wyoming due to internal and external compliance issues, spanning several years. [1] Ross Uber - Talk - Contributions - 23:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I was just looking at the list on DCI's website and saw that the Troopers were on it, and thought "hey, wait a minute..." I should have guessed it wasn't up-to-date.
Lazytiger 01:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Drum corps organization infobox created[edit]

I created an infobox template for drum corps organizations (not corps). If you want to add any more categories that are reasonable, then feel free to. This might help the article look more professional. Sherwelthlangley 22:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Image question[edit]

I really hate to ask this, but are the images in this article valid for use? I.e. has DCI changed its photography policy since 2005? The current policy allows personal use photos to be taken at events, but it does not allow uploading onto a website. This is per the 2007 Southeastern Semifinals program. Accordingly, we've got a rights issue not with the photograph but with the underlying subject, unless we've got a written permission from DCI. —C.Fred (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Program is actually for the entire 2007 season, as purchased at the Southeastern Championships in Atlanta on 14 July 2007. The program is glossy and covers all season; the Atlanta-specific information was on a loose, dropped-in sheet. —C.Fred (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I can vouch for all pictures I have personally uploaded, as none of them show corps actually performing at DCI events, only rehearsals or pictures from the lot or what have you. Other pictures are grayer are and it makes me curse DCI's draconic photo policy. Mr Bound 01:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've long wondered about this myself. Not because of DCI's rule (which sucks), but because I have a strong suspicion that many potentially good photographs—like the one of the Cavies in the article—are professionally taken (and copyrighted) by Jolesch. Does DCI's rule apply to pictures taken at events not sanctioned by DCI, e.g., parades?—Lazytiger 02:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
DCI can't control photography at non-DCI events. A corps photographed in a parade would be fine. A corps doing an exhibition someplace other than DCI competition would be fair game depending on the rules for that event. Now an image that featured an individual corps member prominently and identifiable could run afoul of privacy rights and a person's rights to control their likeness if a signed release wasn't obtained, but that's a whole other issue. I do have to agree the Cavies photo smells like a copyvio because the version uploaded is of the size and resolution one would typically find on a website rather than the higher res pics normally uploaded by wiki-photographers. Also, my experience is that most regular wiki-photographers who produce good or professional quality images will have multiple images uploaded and a gallery linked from their user page for their original work. AUTiger » talk 02:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You have to wonder about even non-DCI event photos, because who knows what type of deals DCI might have with its corps. Consider professional sports teams: you need the permission of the team and MLB, or NFL, et al, to do anything. Might be worth investigating. Another thing about that Cavies photo is that it was taken from field level, where only the pro photographers are allowed to hang out. Most fan-generated images would come from a higher vantage point in the stands.—Lazytiger 03:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It's about the location (venue/event) not the subject matter. When an organizer hosts a ticketed event (DCI, MLB, AU/NCAA), your ticket as a spectator is a license to enter their venue under their terms and conditions, i.e. rules, like personal photography only). They have a right to remove you for violating the T&Cs. If a corps appears in a public space (parade) that requires no license to enter (a ticket) then they are a part of landscape at that point. Compare to NCAA stadiums where most disallow videography and would not allow you to enter with a video camera (and/or kick you out if security saw you filming with one you smuggled in) but you are allowed to enter with a reasonably size prosumer DSLR (like a Nikon D70 or D80) and longish lens and shoot images like this or this from low sideline seats which look like they were shot on the field. AUTiger » talk 04:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
And that's my point: T&C of a DCI event include a prohibition against uploading photos. The two photos on the article identify as taken at DCI events. —C.Fred (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I am the image uploader. You're right, it smells like a copyvio. I uploaded it in days of naivity and I admit I have no knowledge of its source. I will take responsibility for this by contacting DCI and/or the Div I corps to obtain a photo that is, or can be, released for use in these articles. It is important to me that DC be given a visual identity that does represent the professionalism of marching members, as does the current pic. But we must uphold the law and individuals' and organizations' rights to have their intellectual properties copyrighted. Any suggestions are welcome on my talk page. Sbutler (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

2014 Championships[edit]

Can someone explain why the 2014 championship will not be held in Indianapolis? The link listed in the article does not explain the reasoning. Thanks! -- JTHolla! 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it had something to do with Indianapolis already being booked on the desired days. I cannot remember what exactly, but I do remember a conflict. NeuGye (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Where will they be having it in 2014? -- JTHolla! 11:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
That probably won't be decided for several more years.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 12:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

New Rules[edit]

Is anyone willing to add a section about the new rules for 2009. For instance the micing of small emsembles and the use of electronic instruments. I believe it marks a new direction (and a departure of past DCI) and wondered if anyone else feels the same. NeuGye (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I too would be interested in this. Anyone who has the knowledge, or time to research, please post something here so we can work out what needs to go in the article. (Sbutler (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

Formatting on Corps Pages[edit]

I wasn't sure where to put this, so I figured I'd post it here. From corps to corps, there's a lot of difference in how their repertoires throughout the years are listed. Is there any reason for this, other than individual editor preference? Thanks, Swampfox1942 (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

which countries participate?[edit]

Article notes "many countries" - can this be better defined? what is meant by many? The rest of the article only notes two, USA and Canada. --mgaved (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Section on constraining licensing policies *against* drum corps?[edit]

Shouldn't there be a section regarding the policies that DCI employs to restrict drum corps from even recording and showing their own performances mid-rehersal? I thing things have gone way out of control over there. Individual Corps should be free to show everything they do in order to gain membership.Tgm1024 (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Such restrictions are not "against" the corps. They are "for" the copyright holders of music under copyright protection. If a tune is under copyright, even a recording of it made during a rehearsal has copyright royalty fees due if it is presented for public viewing/listening. The corps are restricted just as the fans in the stands are asked at every show not to record the performances. Both some fans and some corps regularly disregard this restriction, frequently posting the recordings on You Tube, Facebook, et cetera and depriving the composers and publishers of their fees... GWFrog (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
That isn't true. According to the director of my former DC, they're restricted from displaying their show even if the music was entirely theirs from start to finish. There's no mention of copyright holders in this: DCI wants the sole rights to all portrayal of the show. Further, if what you said was true, then a private licensing of music from the original copyright holder would be allowable, and it's not.Tgm1024 (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)