Dot marching vs. being in the form

[Mello Dude]

I don't think the Sub- Sets need a multiplier here.( comment removed per forum guidelines - ee)

A marcher "out of step" is.... out of step. Period.

Sub-sets, dots, multipliers, etc or not.

Yep. I watched Crossmen a few years ago and pretty plainly half the corps didn't know the closure at the beginning of the year. Phasing, out of step..it was pretty awful.

[perc2100]

Discussion about the pro's and con's of marching to the dot vs marching within the form.

The only thing that matters is a good staff. Any of the supposed cons of dot or form are attributed to staff or membership not excelling at their job (to put it nicely). Also, a great drill writer understands the teaching philosophies of the vis staff and writes drill to play up their strengths (i.e. the vis designer works in tandem, to an extent, with the Vis Caption Head to make sure the by Finals the drill looks impeccable).

But really, dot vs form emphasis is all about personal staff philosophies, and near-perfect drill execution is capable with either technique.

[TwoValves]

What I see from many top 12 drumcorps is tons of interval errors, and distance errors, and cover and dress errors.

Knowing where your set and subsets are is one thing, but what are you going to do if being in your subset , at the proper place, makes a bad interval problem ever worse?

Are you going to make adjustments , or are you just going to go to your designated subset and ignore all interval and distance errors, because it is not your responsibility to adjust to them?

Yes, that's exactly what you do. If one person misses a dot, there is one error. If an angle of a line is set incorrectly and every in the the line adjusts to correct it, you have an entire ensemble making a form error. Which do you suppose has a more detrimental effect on a judges sheet?

[perc2100]

Yes, that's exactly what you do. If one person misses a dot, there is one error. If an angle of a line is set incorrectly and every in the the line adjusts to correct it, you have an entire ensemble making a form error. Which do you suppose has a more detrimental effect on a judges sheet?

Or possibly more importantly (as someone will probably counter-argue that judges don't necessarily know what the from is supposed to be and thus might not be inclined to 'tick' a full ensemble error if the form is still kind of intact), which do you suppose will be more difficult for the corps to recover from? What might be a half-step error (adjustment) on the person setting the form could wind up being a multi-step error (adjustment) to the person at the end of the form.

Again, I think it's a moot argument and a competent vis designer/staff/membership can make any visual program almost flawless regardless of teaching philosophies.

[nemesiscorps]

On the other side of things, if the forms are perfect, does it necessarily matter that they are in the absolute correct positions on the field as it was written on paper? No, the judges and the audiences don't have the drill charts to compare and determine that kind of error.

No, it does not matter if forms are in the absolute correct positions on the field as it was on paper.

However, when you consider the fundamental objective of pursuing consistency in performance, "form marching" limits your opportunity to achieve performance consistency (and quality). Why? Because form marching requires that the performer constantly adjust to what the form gives you, which by definition is different every time.

Example: With form marching, five separate runs of the same drill set can result in 5 separate physical locations of that form on the field. Every time you ran that same set again and again, it required a different physical demand for each performer, regarding step size, upper-body positioning, demands of visual dress (seeing the form) and physical dress (actually getting into the form), etc. Now multiply that by the number of drill sets (and physical adjustment responsibilities) in the show. Assuming that the performing ensemble possesses even an intermediate level of skill development, this requirement to "go with what the form gives you" will obviously negatively impact other parts of their performance.

Using "Howdy-era" examples of clean marching (I think he cited 1980), clearly the visual demand on the performer was not what it is today. Those drills didn't require the kind of detail-oriented approaches that are required today. Those drills were slower in development, they did not have nearly as much content as contemporary designs, they had less complex forms and form development, and they were designed in a manner where sight-lines were taken into account.

Drills today are downright dangerous for the performer. Outrageously quick tempos, blind moves, jazz-running, maintaining much more defined/articulated and physically demanding individual marching techniques, integrated body choreography, and every section of the corps is integrated into the visual design with equal performance demands. It's actually comical that anyone serious would even compare the two and advocate that the same technique from 30 years ago is better for today's visual demands on the performers than contemporary "dot-emphasis" approaches.

There are two central points that support what most people refer to as "dot marching."

1. Marching with "dot emphasis" supports achieving performance consistency, because every individual is always working to achieve the exact same individual goal on every step, and every rep. You also don't need the rest of the corps to be present in order to study or practice your show. Start here, end there, and use your predetermined mid-sets/sub-sets in the process... every single time. You can even use the technology-based tools to analyze every set of the drill, and your personal positioning and movement throughout the show. Even a first year high school marcher can understand and work to achieve what's demanded of them, in much shorter time than the potential years that it takes to develop superior level form marching skills. With dots, you're acting on known information and only working to achieve clear, consistent objectives. In addition, you're going to ultimately develop muscle memory for every set of that show, because of the never changing variable in physical demand. Repetition moves you toward perfection, and you're in control of the outcome.

2. We all know that action beats reaction. "Form marching" means that you're constantly making different adjustments (reacting) to unknown outcomes (exactly where that form may end up on the field... this time). You're literally reacting to what is happening around you. Some reps of the same sets are easier, some more challenging, but the fact that you're always adjusting, other performance areas will be negatively impacted. "Dot emphasis" approaches takes all of that away.

It seems that this debate continues to expose generational gaps in teaching and performance experiences, as well as actual working knowledge of the application and use of available contemporary teaching tools, technology, and proper instructional techinque. I have yet to meet anyone that has actually used the current technology and teaching approaches properly ever contend that form marching has any advantage.

[84BDsop]

Here is proof that this teaching style does not work:

You're using a perennial celler-dweller corps as an example? Better to use someone like Cadets or BD.

[GUARDLING]

I have taught many years and for me it's both. You teach and clean to the dots BUT, members must be able to adjust to a form in a performance. There is nothing worse than teaching someone who is married to dots also with the attitude that "I'm right and on my dot and everyone else is wrong " well that may be true but who cares in the long run, the form is wrong looking.

No points for the person who hit their dot but many for the group who had the reradable forms.

[BigHoosierMack]

Example: With form marching, five separate runs of the same drill set can result in 5 separate physical locations of that form on the field. Every time you ran that same set again and again, it required a different physical demand for each performer, regarding step size, upper-body positioning, demands of visual dress (seeing the form) and physical dress (actually getting into the form), etc. Now multiply that by the number of drill sets (and physical adjustment responsibilities) in the show. Assuming that the performing ensemble possesses even an intermediate level of skill development, this requirement to "go with what the form gives you" will obviously negatively impact other parts of their performance.

It seems you have little to no experience with well educated practitioners of what the modern marching world would more accurately call "Form AWARENESS" which is really not in any way "form marching". When form awareness is crudely and poorly conveyed, it's easy to see how a "Bringer of Truth" such as yourself may be mislead, but your entire post is frought with silly little things that give me an idea that you have never used the technique you so summarily dismiss.

1) Every rep has a different performance. EVERY one, whether you are taking in information about the form, or not. Every rep at the Cavaliers 2002 (probably the best "Dot Marching" performance ever) was different. Form awareness (when utilized properly) is a tool for cleaning transition counts, not a "roadmap to your dot".

2) You seem to be under the errant impression that marching with a sense of form awareness requires more "correcting" than marching the Dot, and I believe you are missing one huge corollary. While "dot" marching, you are taking in information off the ground around you, and constantly making adjustments based on where you know you're supposed to be. Proper utilization of form awareness involves a thorough understanding of the dots, crossing counts, mid-sets, etc. The awareness of form is simply another tool for a skilled performer to check themselves, and except in VERY rare circumstances, the dot takes priority.

3) "Going with what the form gives you" is a good way to get buried, whether you marched in 1980, or 2010 regardless. Even the most "form aware" of the current flock of corps (BD) would rarely use a phrase as blunt or without insight. In times of frustration perhaps, but it would never really be an appropriate thing to say. Evaluate the form and your real location, and make a decision. If it's not a halt, you're never really going to intentionally "miss" your dot. That's just not how it works.

It seems that this debate continues to expose generational gaps in teaching and performance experiences, as well as actual working knowledge of the application and use of available contemporary teaching tools, technology, and proper instructional techinque. I have yet to meet anyone that has actually used the current technology and teaching approaches properly ever contend that form marching has any advantage.

While your assertion that Dot-only marching is the "current" technology for marching education seems.....haughty.....I'll commend you for at least admitting here that you've never met any of the greats of this great other world called "form awareness". If you had, it would hurt my soul that you knew them and still had such a narrow concept of the practice.

Put simply form awareness is akin to playing in tune. You don't simply press down the first two buttons to play a perfect A. You use the memories of proper practice to tell you what to EXPECT to feel,you evaluate what you DO feel, and you adjust accordingly, and constantly. It's a system that allows one to not only correct a problem in context (Recovery is on the sheets), but to learn when and where continued and or recurring issues may arise, allowing individual members with critical thinking skills to correct issues with direction changes, pathways, et all.

Just like we all know that the trumpets must occasionally kick out the 3rd valve slide, and force their ears a little further down the arc, so must we expand our senses if we are to truly be limitless in our visual palette. While the "Dot-Only" school of design offers unique and amazing opportunities, there are definite effects that can not be conceived, charted, taught, or cleaned in that manner.

Your awareness of form awareness is now less lacking. Cover down please.

~Michael

Edited January 17, 2011 by BigHoosierMack

[dagenh]

A dot is a dot. Unchanging, absolute. Yes, you use the tools each field gives you to get to your dot, but don't imply that that is similar to adjusting your dot itself to fit in a form. That is a completely different skill set that is pointless in a dot system.

There is NOTHING that can be achieved in a "form" system that cannot be achieved in a "dot" system. Trust me, it can be written down. Every single count is a dot, and the best "dot" corps know what they are doing every half count.

I remember one of George Hopkins DVD commentaries stated straight up that an entire section of the Cadets show at the end of a song was taught to the "dot" because if someone messed up there would be major accidents.

If you handed a "form" corps's drill sets to The Cavaliers they could convert it to dots, I don't care what they are doing on that field, it can be dots. Cadets 1998 could be dots. Cavaliers 2003 could not be done by a "form" corps, unless over half the show was done dots only. No "form" corps could do the Cavaliers drill without changing systems back and forth. Unless of course, they are only a "form" corps in name only- for traditions sake.

[Adrian]

For the record, BK is strictly form marching