JayM Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 The dot system gives the members exact spots on the field, i.e. "dots" that they connect in order to make their show. Some corps go as detailed as quarter steps in order to make sure everyone is in exactly the right spot at all times. The rationale here is that if everyone is exactly in their spot, then the forms will look right. Usually it involves members just relying on their dots instead of "dressing" or "guiding" to the form I assume you mean quarter sets. We were expected to have midsets and quarter sets for just about every dot. It gets tedious but becomes natural after a while. Like, if you're moving from splitting yardlines to a yardline twelve 8 to 5 steps over, the midset is two off the yardline six 8 to 5 steps from where you are currently, and the quarter sets are one off the yardline and then three off the yardline as you approach the yardline. It sounds complicated when typed out, but like I said before, becomes fairly natural since you're thinking about it so much of the time. In addition, and I don't know if this differs in corps who don't use the dot system, we checked our dot books after pretty much every rep, even in ensemble rehearsal, when it was physically possible to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloudHype Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I assume you mean quarter sets. We were expected to have midsets and quarter sets for just about every dot. It gets tedious but becomes natural after a while. Like, if you're moving from splitting yardlines to a yardline twelve 8 to 5 steps over, the midset is two off the yardline six 8 to 5 steps from where you are currently, and the quarter sets are one off the yardline and then three off the yardline as you approach the yardline. It sounds complicated when typed out, but like I said before, becomes fairly natural since you're thinking about it so much of the time. In addition, and I don't know if this differs in corps who don't use the dot system, we checked our dot books after pretty much every rep, even in ensemble rehearsal, when it was physically possible to do so. I think they where aiming at the dot being a quarter step: .025 to the inside of the 45. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloudHype Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 There are two teaching philosophies, dot and form system. The dot system gives the members exact spots on the field, i.e. "dots" that they connect in order to make their show. Some corps go as detailed as quarter steps in order to make sure everyone is in exactly the right spot at all times. The rationale here is that if everyone is exactly in their spot, then the forms will look right. Usually it involves members just relying on their dots instead of "dressing" or "guiding" to the form I'm going to take this into a writers view. The dot system: If everybody takes an EQUAL size step in a straight path to their dot, then drill happens. It's more then knowing your endpoint, it's knowing your individual responsibility for that set. Sometimes, the style of drill will dictate this choice since not all designers write in a style that is appropriate for that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayM Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) I think they where aiming at the dot being a quarter step: .025 to the inside of the 45. Haha, oops! Yeah, you're right. Although not to the thousandth, just to the hundredth (a quarter step being .25). Edited July 13, 2012 by JayM 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloudHype Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Haha, oops! Yeah, you're right. Although not the the thousandth, just to the hundredth (a quarter step being .25). Go me! Maybe I need to go to sleep instead of writing this opener. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Haha, oops! Yeah, you're right. Although not to the thousandth, just to the hundredth (a quarter step being .25). Yes, that's what I meant. While I was expected to know quarter sets for all sets, we were detailed all the way down to quarter steps (.25). It really made things detailed, and made sure that we all knew exactly what size step and what path to take to our next dot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deloop Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 It's actually 1.6 steps between the hashes, which would measure out to a 24" step between them. Some corps actually mark out both the actual hash, and a "secret" hash at 20 steps of 22.5" steps. It's a weird system, and makes it hard to share a field with another corps. High school hashes are 3.75 steps closer to the sidelines than college hashes, and pro hashes are 6 steps closer to the center than a college hash I'd like to blame the hash problem on a strange decision on the part of pyware/the people who use it to graph out football fields as 157.5' long instead of 160' like it's supposed to. For many high schools, the back hash is not a problem, and that's fine. But DCI corps should not be plotting drill based on incorrect numbers. It creates automatic flaws (see: designed dirt). The program should have the hashes in the real spots (40' apart, instead of 37'6") along with a secret hash shown (at 37'6"). And the dots should be written in relation to the distance from the actual hash. On today's drill sheets, a dot that is 4 behind the back hash (seen as 105 feet (7.5+97.5) from the front side line) should be written on the dot sheet as 2.33 behind the hash (level of rounding still depends on the individual corps). This way drill writers can draw all sorts of pretty pictures spanning the hashes and kids with dots based on the back hash can be in the form and on their dot without doing anything dumb like stepping off of some invisible hash. And anytime the drill writer wants to make a form based on the real back hash, he can just draw it there and the visual staff doesn't have to determine which sets are based on secret hashes and which are based on painted hashes. The concept works for corps that use a 7.5 to 5 steps size between hashes as well. By showing the grid as being taller between hashes, drill can be drawn to be aesthetically pleasing while mapping the dots out accurately. I realize this still leaves and creates new problems, but it's still way better than the current system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiritVet Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 There are two teaching philosophies, dot and form system. The dot system gives the members exact spots on the field, i.e. "dots" that they connect in order to make their show. Some corps go as detailed as quarter steps in order to make sure everyone is in exactly the right spot at all times. The rationale here is that if everyone is exactly in their spot, then the forms will look right. Usually it involves members just relying on their dots instead of "dressing" or "guiding" to the form The other method is the form system, where members are a little less reliant on dots, and more reliant on the big picture of the form. Usually, it will involved members focusing on their relationship to the people around them, and how it relates to the overall form. It usually has people "guiding" the form when they reach each set, so people will move away from their dot in order to make the form look right. This can end up with people moving far away from where they originally were in order to make the set look right. The risk here though is that if a majority of the form is significantly off, then everyone will be very far off. Like if the front of a line is 4 or 5 steps off, then the entire line will be 4 or 5 steps off their actual dot. Most people have come to the conclusion that you can run a visual program with just a dot system, but you can't use one with just a form system. Rationale of dot vs. form: Your dots on the field are analogous to the notes you play. Theoretically, you should know what note you're playing, the length, articulation, etc. therefore, you should know where exactly your dot is on the field. However, you're a part of an ensemble (musical and visual), so same as you wouldn't play your note dead on A=440Hz when the rest of the hornline is at 442, you wouldn't go to your dot 10.0 steps from the hash when you're supposed to be in a company front that happened to develop at 9.5 during a performance. To add another layer to the thought process, you can even think of form as giving you more information so that you can hit your dot more precisely. Say you're backing into a set that's 5.75 in front of a hash. Something like that is hard to read just off of basic field markings. But, if you know that snare drummer over beside you at 6.0 in front is holding while you're heading into your set, you can look for him instead of trying to spot 11.75 away from the numbers (which may not even be at the next show). WHILE AT THE SAME TIME (back to dot)...you know your mid and quarter sets for this move, which help you understand your path size responsibility to help you go to your dot. tl;dr: drill is fun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 A lot of "Hash" talk on here. Good thing it doesn't anything to do with drum corps.... I personally never paid much attention to hash marks for the most part. I marched in relationship to other corps members and not to the field. Hash marks and yard lines were reference points...they were just not gospel. Truth is I marched our show frequently on an empty parking lot in South Boston without hashes. We just learned to march in relationship to each other, and adjusted for each other's mistakes (if any). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAZZER Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I'm going to take this into a writers view. The dot system: If everybody takes an EQUAL size step in a straight path to their dot, then drill happens. It's more then knowing your endpoint, it's knowing your individual responsibility for that set. Sometimes, the style of drill will dictate this choice since not all designers write in a style that is appropriate for that. However, curvilinear paths and adjusted pacing is also part of many visual programs. I guess that is part of knowing one's responsibility for the set [form]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.