Dot vs Form

[ZSDAvenger]

OMell1, you responded to Phantom&Phitch but ingored his argument.

A well formed arc that is in a slightly different place on the field than what was written is going to look better than an arc that was created by 'dot' marchers and has one or two people stick out.

I dont see your logic unless maybe you hand the judges your drill charts before a show.....

[OMello1]

I do not come from a drum corps that has a ton of marching talent. Using only dot would never have worked, and using only form is certainly a bad idea, so what are you suggesting? I'm not being obstinate... I honestly want to know. I like talking about visual stuff. I'm a geek like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am actually a proponent of a type of mixed system. I like the dot approach, but there will be a point where its limitations become the limitations of the group using it. If you know anything about Pyware (the software that many/most drill writers use today), it will print coordinates with a resolution up to 1/4 step, which is a little less than 6 inches (actually, the new version of Pyware will allow resolution up to 1/8 or 1/16 of a step, but I don't think that is very practical).

In linear geometric drill, this shouldn't be an issue (a good drill writer will not write linear, geometric drill with 1/4, or even 1/2 steps as part of the coordinate...). The problem is when you get into curvalinear drill, and especially in intervals less than 2 steps (the wider the interval, the more it can absorb small errors). The drill chart will show a nice curved form with perfect intervals, but the coordinate the performer gets will be rounded to the nearest 1/4 step. If the performers all hit their coordinate perfectly, the form will be bumpy and have interval errors...remember, they could be several inches off where the drill chart shows they should be (and in a true dot system, the performers have no need for the drill charts, and therefore would not realize the problem). I suppose this is why the resolution of coordinates has been increased with the new version of Pyware. But I'm not sure that even the best marchers in a refined dot system (okay...The Cavaliers) would be able to spot the difference between 3/16 and 1/4 of a step...especially when moving at 200bpm backwards into a blind halt. THIS is where a very small amount of form talk can mean the difference between a ragged curved form and a nice looking one.

M

[ZSDAvenger]

As for doing it one way during half of the day and another in the other half, that seems like a huge waste.  I could see switching over the course of the season as the corps gets better, I suppose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It may surprise you to know that a certain blue team that wins a lot uses this method.

Call up the visual staff there and tell them to get with the times!

And as for "Nobody is going to remember all of their dots," are you serious?  What are you people doing during rehearsal?  Like I said, my corps used mostly guiding and we still knew that. You have to-- how are you going to guide to a 2 by 2 diagonal if you don't know that's what it's supposed to be?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Knowing your dot and knowing your spacing go hand in hand, but even if you dont know your exact dot but do know your spacing relative to your neighbors front to back and side to side, you'd also be surprised at how well the form can be created when talented and intelligent marchers are employed.

Would this work for less experienced and less talented groups? no. Smart and experienced ones? It can and has been done.

[OMello1]

OMell1, you responded to Phantom&Phitch but ingored his argument.

A well formed arc that is in a slightly different place on the field than what was written is going to look better than an arc that was created by 'dot' marchers and has one or two people stick out.

I dont see your logic unless maybe you hand the judges your drill charts before a show.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because we are going under the assumption that the arc formed by guiding is without form/inteval errors and the one formed by coordinate marching has form/interval errors (not to mention that the type of errors in the original comparison are different...form/interval error vs. field placement error). The two variables in this relationship don't have a direct relationship (any type of error can happen under either system)...the comparison doesn't work. You are asking to compare an ideal form situation (in terms of intervals & form) with a less than ideal dot situation, and that doesn't work either.

The original post should remove the extranenous variable (which is what form system is being used) and stick to the independent variable (achievment of an arc) and the dependent variable (the interpretation of the achievement by the judge), which also would need to be a measurable outcome (the score), but since it is still ultimately subjective...the whole thing lacks any true "logic".

Like I said before, and error is an error, regardless of the system being used. The comparison is faulty and therefore is not valid. That is why I didn't originally address this comparison.

M

Edited September 15, 2005 by OMello1

[ZSDAvenger]

Because we are going under the assumption that the arc formed by guiding is without error and the one formed by coordinate marching has errors

Of course thats the assumption. Its assuming the form arc looks better because the marchers are looking at eachother and correcting the form in real time. And its assuming the dot arc looks worse because the marchers are ignoring any errors made by the people around them.

(not to mention that the type of errors we are comparing are different...form/interval error vs. field placement error).

Irrelevant. Field placement error has no affect on one's ability to dress to the form. We're talking about the quality of the arc that is made, not the location that it was made.

The two variables in this relationship don't have a direct relationship...the comparison doesn't work.  You are asking to compare an ideal form situation with a less than ideal dot situation, and that doesn't work either.

see above

The original post should remove the extranenous variable (which is what form system is being used) and stick to the independent variable (achievment of an arc) and the dependent variable (the interpretation of the achievement by the judge), which also would need to be a measurable outcome (the score), but since it is still ultimately subjective...the whole thing lacks any true "logic".

so should you! see the 2nd quote and its response.

[OMello1]

Of course thats the assumption.  Its assuming the form arc looks better because the marchers are looking at eachother and correcting the form in real time. And its assuming the dot arc looks worse because the marchers are ignoring any errors made by the people around them.

Irrelevant.  Field placement error has no affect on one's ability to dress to the form.  We're talking about the quality of the arc that is made, not the location that it was made.

see above

so should you! see the 2nd quote and its response.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now you are changing the comparison in an effort to get the outcome you are looking for, which is to get me to admit that form/interval errors in a dot system are more "evident" than form/interval errors in a form system. I will not admit that because it is not true. A form/interval error is the same in either case. A spade is a spade, in any light.

First it was an arc with interval/form errors formed exactly where the drill chart says it should be (with the exception of the errors), compared to an arc without form/interval errors but that is formed X number of steps from where the drill chart says it should be. We either compare the form/interval errors of the arcs, or we compare the field placement errors of the arcs. But we cannot cross-compare the errors and make a judgment as to which is "worse". The type of system used in either comparison is not relevent.

Now, if you are asking to compare the RECOVERY of either form/interval errors or field placement errors during the move within each individual system, then that is something that can be discussed. Am I right when I say that you believe that in a form system, form/interval errors are less "noticable" because the marchers can see and correct the error "on the fly" (through an understanding of the spacial arrangement of their body to those around them and how that should develop through time)? But that a dot marcher does not have the ability to correct form/interval errors "on the fly" because they do not have the tool of spacial arrangements available to them?

M

[Slow Adam]

A dots only approach is kinda like communism, it works great if everyone plays by the rules, but things get hairy when not everyone is as commited to the philosophy as others.

Every corps I was in learned dots, but marched the form.

[Fiedler]

Now you are changing the comparison in an effort to get the outcome you are looking for, which is to get me to admit that form/interval errors in a dot system are more "evident" than form/interval errors in a form system.  I will not admit that because it is not true.  A form/interval error is the same in either case.  A spade is a spade, in any light.

First it was an arc with interval/form errors formed exactly where the drill chart says it should be (with the exception of the errors), compared to an arc without form/interval errors but that is formed X number of steps from where the drill chart says it should be.  We either compare the form/interval errors of the arcs, or we compare the field placement errors of the arcs.  But we cannot cross-compare the errors and make a judgment as to which is "worse".  The type of system used in either comparison is not relevent.

Now, if you are asking to compare the RECOVERY of either form/interval errors or field placement errors during the move within each individual system, then that is something that can be discussed.  Am I right when I say that you believe that in a form system, form/interval errors are less "noticable" because the marchers can see and correct the error "on the fly" (through an understanding of the spacial arrangement of their body to those around them and how that should develop through time)?  But that a dot marcher does not have the ability to correct form/interval errors "on the fly" because they do not have the tool of spacial arrangements available to them?

M

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey "M"

one thing I'm not sure anyone mentioned (I've been skimming, it's late). The Cavaliers RARELY hold a form unless they stop in it...the form is usually/constantly evolving......AND...during that evolution, the spacing is always expanding or contracting...hopefully consistently.....not much HOLDING of form OR maintaining static space.

I'll never forget one of the first judges tapes when we started doing doing dot religiously in one of Brubaker's early efforts (circa 1983 or 1984):

Judge in critique in an admonishing fashion: "You're not holding consistent spaces!!!!"

ME: "That's very perceptive of you, we're expanding and contracting them evenly, hopefully you gave us credit for that?"

Judge: "???????"

It was an educational evening...for certain...

as to the single error in the arc.......we'll take that chance.....

put on a recent DVD of the Cavaliers and watch any one, two, three or four horn players (for example) for an entire show and watch how many times they're in relate-able situations where the intervals don't change and the form doesn't change....there are some instances...NOT MANY...note the visual phrase length and step size changes and velocity and meter....AND the length of time they're next to the same guy....and if they're playing.

to each their own...what works for us works for us.....and it hasn't been about errors since the tic system went away...it's supposed to be about achievement.

jeff

[84BDsop]

Wow, Jeff...I didn't realize you were using dots back when I marched...we were entirely via form in BD...probably why I had so much trouble witht he dot system with Dream this year.

We never even had drill charts..,the marching staff was up front on the 50 with a large setof acetate sheets with the drill sets on them. Once the end points were set, a staff member would pace off the form...someone up in the box would make corrections until it looked right...we'd be told to mark our spots and the tape would go down....that was our "dot."

Go to the next set....lather, rinse, repeat...then run drill from set to set to lock it in...and the rule was ALWAYS "form over mark" regardless of any drill error by someone setting the form.

[BorisTS]

It may surprise you to know that a certain blue team that wins a lot uses this method.

Call up the visual staff there and tell them to get with the times!

Knowing your dot and knowing your spacing go hand in hand, but even if you dont know your exact dot but do know your spacing relative to your neighbors front to back and side to side, you'd also be surprised at how well the form can be created when talented and intelligent marchers are employed.

Would this work for less experienced and less talented groups? no. Smart and experienced ones? It can and has been done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, then, I'll have to take that back, since they seem to do "okay." :P

About knowing all of your dots, though, I still think it doesn't take much effort-- with the number of times each set is run, you learn them whether you're trying to or not. For me personally, when learning drill I always thought of the dot, the form, and the relative spacing together, and then emphasized whichever was appropriate at the time.