Dot vs Form

[LockePoetic]

the only person misinformed is you... they lost music and visual on finals night...

3rd in 03

2nd in 04

2nd in 05

the only years in the 2000s they have won it outright have been 2000 and 2002

still not bad, but its not like they're untouchable...

Judges are stupid, and most of them still base the majority of their opinions on a tick-esque system where you are punished more for being dirty occasionally than rewarded for doing ridiculous things cleanly the rest of the time. 03 Cavaliers are a great example.

Enough of that soapbox...on to another one...

With the advent of computer based drill writing, there is a much wider range of drill moves and maneuvers that can be designed and imagined. However, they can only truly be brought to life using a dot system. The part in Frameworks where marchers seemingly at random peel off into what slow develops into a condensing box could not be done within a form based visual system. Dots provide the drill writer with a the freedom unprecedented in form based systems. He can essentially write what ever he wants within the confines of physical possibility (which is slowly being stretched and pushed further) without having to worry about if the marcher will be able to find a form. Transitional drill is essentially eliminated, and there is no guess work. What you put into the computer is what comes out on the field.

[Morgoth Bauglir]

I think that is a great part. It is a good feeling writing drill on a computer and knowing that if it works on the screen it will probably work on the field. You can see the transitions, it tells you the step size required and you can tell if there will be collisions. All the things you need to know if it will work. Knowing that the performers don't need to worry about anything other than where they need to go lets you do a lot more. Blind pass through, crazy rotations/expansions, ect are all a lot easier with dot based marching.

[idontwan2know]

Really?  Are you sure about that?  I might double check your sources.....

My source are multiple Cavies alums who have all said that in the final week or two of tour, dressing forms was discussed by the staff.

Now thats just absurd.  If anything, the Cavaliers have MORE visual vocabulary BECAUSE of their system.  Look at the drill they've put on the field in the past decade.....it doesn't look like there's anything they can't do.  Which would mean that a dot-system only ENHANCES what a corps can do.  And you can try to debate that point, but there's no evidence to support it....select some FORM-system moves that can rival Cavies' drill of late.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can call it absurd all you want, but the fact is that there are some drill effects that cannot be achieved as long as you stick rigidly to straightline pathing from one dot to the next. Any kind of follow the leader move is out, for example. Both BD and SCV have created cool visual effects in the last ten years with high velocity snake type moves... you simply cannot do that in the Cavies system. Admittedly, it's not a huge loss, but it is there.

Nobody is criticizing the Cavies here. I'm simply pointing out that a lot of people who try to implement their method of doing drill don't understand all the ramifications going in.

Not every drill writer can write drill appropriate for the system. It requires a lot of fore-thought, and a lot of layering and subsets to achieve the effects they do. In a less extreme dot type system, you might have a set where you'll be told to take a curved path between dots in order to avoid a collision, or to create some kind of effect. If the Cavies wanted to do the same thing, it would require a number of sub-sets, and might just not be done at all. I don't think most people realize just how much their system of teaching and marching drill affects the look of their drill, beyond the simple cleanliness. A lot of the "look" of Cavies drill is dictated by the dot system, and that's why other corps doing geometrical drill never look quite the same.

The level of demand on the performers in terms of the sheer number of dots, half dots, quarter dots, etc. they need to be responsible for and absolutely cannot depend on anyone else for because everyone else's individual drill is likely completely different is amazing. For the same reasons(each person's individual drill likely being completely different from the people around him at any given moment), the Cavies depend on each marcher to realize the mistakes they made and self-clean the show. As others have pointed out, the culture of personal accountability and responsibility required to do things the way the Cavies do simply isn't in place at most corps(and I've *never* seen a marching band that has it).

Personally, I believe in dots to learn(and by learn, I mean drilled into the head until it's known backwards and forwards) and clean the show, and guiding to perform it.

[this_guy]

what do judges notice more...

lets use an arc for example

1) an arc where everyone is in it except for 1 person who missed their dot,

or

2) an arc that might not be where the drill writers wrote it, but its still an arc..

Don't wanna beat a dead horse here, but it doesn't seem like this question has been directly addressed...

Sounds like you're asking which is more likely to be perceived as a mistake, right? Obviously, they're both errors, because neither is what the original form intended. With that viewpoint, then yes, number 1 is more likely to appear to be a mistake than number 2. I don't think anyone's arguing with that logic.

Now let's talk about that...is it suggested that if a judge doesn't notice a mistake then one wasn't made? (If a tree falls in the woods, and no one's around to hear it...) True, said judge may not view this form as an error and may award this as a perfectly achieved arc. But isn't the point of the activity to eliminate as many mistakes as possible? I think what OMello is saying, is that both groups made an error -- therefore neither really acheived more than the other.

Now, let's talk about the hypothetical rest of the season -- that arc looked clean from up top so it's never addressed in rehearsals and perhaps the arc is now habitually a few feet over from where it was originally designed. This mistake is, therefore in place for the duration of the season. No one in the audience notices, but it's still a mistake. Is the objective to hide as many errors as possible, or commit as few errors as possible???

Group #1, on the other hand is more likely to address this issue, to work with those 2 or 3 people to acheive this form and by the end of the season, the arc is exactly as it was meant to look, in the place it was written. No mistake has been made in this particular instance. In this situation, I'd say that Group #1 achieved more. Have you ever seen The Cavaliers early in the season? It's not very pretty, but as the season progresses, it gets better and better until it's as clean as it has been in recent years. That's the way the dot system works.

I'm in no way bashing the "form" system -- obviously it works for many, and different types of drill require it, but I'm merely trying to give a better understanding of the mindset of the Dot System.

[Morgoth Bauglir]

So I guess the question is, which is better? Fo something to be right, or just good enough to not notice.

[PR_ducky]

Most people that try to adopt a "pure" dot system(even though in reality there is no such thing, even Cavies talk form at the end of tour), simply don't understand what's required to make it work.

Really?  Are you sure about that?  I might double check your sources.....

With a Cavies-type dot system, you also give up parts of the visual vocabulary. Because the performers always take a straight line path from one set to the next, certain types of moves are difficult/impossible to create. Any move that would normally require a performer to take a "path" requires multpile subsets, or simply can't be done.

Now thats just absurd.  If anything, the Cavaliers have MORE visual vocabulary BECAUSE of their system.  Look at the drill they've put on the field in the past decade.....it doesn't look like there's anything they can't do.  Which would mean that a dot-system only ENHANCES what a corps can do.  And you can try to debate that point, but there's no evidence to support it....select some FORM-system moves that can rival Cavies' drill of late.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you watch the cavies drill closely you will see that nothing they are executing is all that difficult from the memebrs standpoint.

It looks alot more complicated than it is. There is a lot of contrary motion and cyclical movement, but nothing all that complicated.

Its just designed very very well.

[Morgoth Bauglir]

It looks alot more complicated than it is. There is a lot of contrary motion and cyclical movement, but nothing all that complicated.

Its just designed very very well.

That's kind of the point. Their use of the dot system allows that stuff to be executed. The members don't have to think about all the crazy-ness going on around them. They just have Point A to Point B. The beauty is when all of the members are thinking about their own jobs, then we the audience see the whole visual unit. It's like a clock. Each individual part has no job but it't own. But as a unit the true function of all the parts is evident. When the performer does not have to think about the form, just himself, that is when the great drill becomes possible.

[this_guy]

Ding Ding Ding Ding!!!!

You (once again) nailed it, G-Cym.

Besides, the corps has plenty of complexity in the velocity and great distances they have to travel in the course of their show!

[Hrothgar15]

That's kind of the point.  Their use of the dot system allows that stuff to be executed.  The members don't have to think about all the crazy-ness going on around them.  They just have Point A to Point B.  The beauty is when all of the members are thinking about their own jobs, then we the audience see the whole visual unit.  It's like a clock.  Each individual part has no job but it't own.  But as a unit the true function of all the parts is evident.  When the performer does not have to think about the form, just himself, that is when the great drill becomes possible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[pr82292]

Most people that try to adopt a "pure" dot system(even though in reality there is no such thing, even Cavies talk form at the end of tour), simply don't understand what's required to make it work.

Really?  Are you sure about that?  I might double check your sources.....

With a Cavies-type dot system, you also give up parts of the visual vocabulary. Because the performers always take a straight line path from one set to the next, certain types of moves are difficult/impossible to create. Any move that would normally require a performer to take a "path" requires multpile subsets, or simply can't be done.

Now thats just absurd.  If anything, the Cavaliers have MORE visual vocabulary BECAUSE of their system.  Look at the drill they've put on the field in the past decade.....it doesn't look like there's anything they can't do.  Which would mean that a dot-system only ENHANCES what a corps can do.  And you can try to debate that point, but there's no evidence to support it....select some FORM-system moves that can rival Cavies' drill of late.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They can not do anything that would require a curved path be taken to achieve the end form. Cavies do a lot of forms/moves that look very difficult but if you analyse it, they are actually marching a rather simplistic form but making it look harder/better by the use of contrary movement. I have only taught two marching bands since I aged out and both had several forms that Cavies would not be able to perform due to the system they use. That fact was accentuated when the band I taught last fall had a member of Cavies in it and he had trouble with the concept.