Dot marching vs. being in the form

[Stu]

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

This "do not worry about the dot but keep the form intact" philosophy will create a form that can be from 1/2 to 1-step off from the required position as well as develop an incorrect arch or angle; which is fine if the entire drill is simplistic because the error can float around rather unnoticed. Many universities that perform multiple shows each halftime teach this generalized form to form drill. However, it is a Huge problem if the drill is complex and next move is a double-blind cross-through with a rotation where precise field location and precise transition path is vital. Performers in that situation can get hurt if attention is not paid to every precise detail. So, for the top groups who desire to execute a higher level of drill than your average school band, it is awareness of what the transition form and path is supposed to look like from each "precise dot" which requires rehearsal cleaning attention.

[DaveBari]

the dot & form arguments run into walls because it should be part of the same system. both aspects of dot and form must be addressed for an ensemble to be successful as a whole and as individual performers. many tips, tricks, techniques, etc have spawned from a wide variety of designers and instructors over the years and evolution of the activity. as the number of performers (or liabilities) increases, then that effects every other performers play. kind of like blackjack. if you are sitting at a table with an amateur player who doesn't have the correct play techniques, it could jeopardize the banks of the rest.

my personal preference: all performers must know dots, strong dots (form anchors), half way or check points (spawned from their paths), distance, angle, stride, interval, and shape awareness.

the race is who can get all of the performers to the highest level before the other squads.

use any means necessary, no matter what, to get to 100.

[Howdy]

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

This "do not worry about the dot but keep the form intact" philosophy will create a form that can be from 1/2 to 1-step off from the required position as well as develop an incorrect arch or angle; which is fine if the entire drill is simplistic because the error can float around rather unnoticed. Many universities that perform multiple shows each halftime teach this generalized form to form drill. However, it is a Huge problem if the drill is complex and next move is a double-blind cross-through with a rotation where precise field location and precise transition path is vital. Performers in that situation can get hurt if attention is not paid to every precise detail. So, for the top groups who desire to execute a higher level of drill than your average school band, it is awareness of what the transition form and path is supposed to look like from each "precise dot" which requires rehearsal cleaning attention.

Nobody ever said to just ignore your dot. You need to know where it is. You need to be uncomfortable whenever you are not on your dot, but there are going to be times when to achieve higher as a corps you are going to have to step off your dot because of the mistakes of others. The tougher the drill move, the more important it is for you to concentrate on more than just being on your dot. As a matter of fact,, I have seen times when people are marching so far off of their dots that if you were to march on your dot you would litterally land on top of another person. Madisons contras in a few shows in 1993 comes to mind if my memory serves me correctly, where marchers were so far off that in a transition that they ended up in other peoples spots.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Howdy

[Howdy]

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.

With form marching, five separate runs of the same drill set can result in 5 separate physical locations of that form on the field

Re:

Same thing is true about dot and sub dot marching. No two shows are ever marched the same exact way under and system, and the more complex the drill, the greater chance marchers are not going to end up on their correct dots.

Whether you march form or dot, sub dot, or any combo, the drill/form.step/dress/interval/distance/cover/angle, etc. is different each and every time a corps performs. If you do not think so you are just kidding yourself.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Howdy

[roosevelt]

With form marching, five separate runs of the same drill set can result in 5 separate physical locations of that form on the field

Re:

Same thing is true about dot and sub dot marching. No two shows are ever marched the same exact way under and system, and the more complex the drill, the greater chance marchers are not going to end up on their correct dots.

Whether you march form or dot, sub dot, or any combo, the drill/form.step/dress/interval/distance/cover/angle, etc. is different each and every time a corps performs. If you do not think so you are just kidding yourself.

So far after seven pages we have basically everyone agreeing on two things:

1. That the system you use (form or dot) doesn't matter... it is the teaching that does. If you teach well, either system will work. If you don't, no system will.

2. You don't know what you are talking about and you obviously have an axe to grind against Pioneer.

[Stu]

With form marching, five separate runs of the same drill set can result in 5 separate physical locations of that form on the field

Re:

Same thing is true about dot and sub dot marching. No two shows are ever marched the same exact way under and system, and the more complex the drill, the greater chance marchers are not going to end up on their correct dots.

Whether you march form or dot, sub dot, or any combo, the drill/form.step/dress/interval/distance/cover/angle, etc. is different each and every time a corps performs. If you do not think so you are just kidding yourself.

a) In the sense that there are actually no "identical" twins because to be completely identical they would also have to occupy the exact same space at the exact same moment, I would agree with you. b) In the sense that there is no such thing as human perfection in anything, I would also agree with you. However, it is humanly possible for the marching errors which occur at the "uppermost" level of DCI to become so minuscule that the percentage of variation between each run is statistically irrelevant to the human eye and therefore two or more runs can certainly appear as equal in a live setting.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Stu

[Howdy]

Wello, my human eyes from viweing 2010 DCI's top 12 can clearly see that many of these corps marched very sloppy, with so many marching errors for me to critique them all would sound like a tick tape from someone with turrets syndrome.

Back to previous example, and I am not being unfair posting this clip is is from the San Antonio show, somewhere about 1/2 way thru the season:

Check out these contra bass interval errors on 7/28 starting at about 1:48 , yikes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol4nZ84lxDA&feature=related

Those interval errors are huge, and more proof in my opinion that this go to the dot - dot subset thing and ignore everything else like intervals and forms just does not work.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Howdy

[Howdy]

So far after seven pages we have basically everyone agreeing on two things:

1. That the system you use (form or dot) doesn't matter... it is the teaching that does. If you teach well, either system will work. If you don't, no system will.

2. You don't know what you are talking about and you obviously have an axe to grind against Pioneer.

Well, since you want the spotlight on Pioneer, lets see how well that go to the dot philosophy is working there. Not so good, here is proof:

Edited January 17, 2011 by Howdy

[roosevelt]

Well, since you want the spotlight on Pioneer, lets see how well that go to the dot philosophy is working there. Not so good, here is proof:

Seriously? You have no class whatsoever and with every post you only confirm that to more and more people.

I can show you plenty of examples of form corps that look terrible....but I am not going to because it is not nice. The philosophy of how to teach drill is not important. It is how effective it is taught and how capable the students are of performing it.

It is clear that you have something against Pioneer, which if my memory serves is a corps that you taught and were subsequently fired from in your first year.

Just let it go.

[nemesiscorps]

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.

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

I'm not quite sure why you're addressing me in the mocking, negative, insulting and demeaning manner that you've chosen, particularly since you have no idea of my experience or background. My guess is that my communication style somehow rubbed you the wrong way. Unlike yourself, I had no intention to speak in a derogatory way to anyone's level of knowledge or experience, and I apologize to anyone that received it in the manner that you did.

Having said that, I want to be clear that I chose to use terms that I believe most people with a basic level of knowledge about this topic have likely heard or used before (i.e. "dot-marching," "form-marching"). Obviously, I did not make those terms up myself, and in fact, I don't even use them anymore in my casual or professional discussion surrounding this tired issue. You've provided a great example of why I don't use them anymore. They drive people crazy.

I've found that many people (myself included) have somewhat of a mental model of what each of those terms means, and those mental models often lean on absolute language and concepts about the two approaches. If you use the words "dot marching" around some people, it's almost like they go into this overwhelming sense of frustration and angst, coupled with a burning desire to prove that "dot marching" is a flawed approach. The exact same thing is true for the people that hear the term "form marching." Today, those terms are now nothing short of divisive terms that drive people nuts that are serious about visual design and teaching. I've learned to take those terms out of my professional vocabulary, and should have done so in my posting. And yes, I'm quite familiar with the term, concept, and application of "form awareness," and I use it all the time for most of my high school groups that will not put the time necessary into perfecting their craft through utilizing contemporary approaches.

I'm going on my 30th year in this activity as a performer (DCI/DCA/USMC), and my 24th year designing and teaching professionally (DCI/DCA/USMC/MB). Being a pencil, drill paper, and french curve guy for almost 20 years, I finally took my formal training on the use and application of contemporary visual design software (Pyware) in 2004, after years of advocating strongly that it's use and suggested superiority was overstated and even flawed. When I finally realized that I was wrong in my position, and accepted that better ways to approach the art form have been developed over time, I cringed to think that I may have sounded like you and some others that have posted.

None of us have anything to gain in these discussions if we come here unwilling to suspend judgment in order to consider other alternatives, or if we only look to attack or discredit others, or if we bring an attitude that we're the only one that knows the "correct" information.

I do believe, without exception, that the contemporary approaches and techniques are simply better, far better than what I grew up on and preached for many years. I've learned that through experience, and still find myself apologizing to good friends that tried to get me to see the light years ago. That does not mean that you can't skin a cat another way, because excellence was achieved long before the technology came about, but those were different times, and different shows. I'm glad that this old dog was willing to learn some new tricks, even if I had to end up doing it the hard way.

I wish you the best of success in doing whatever you do.

~Bobby