asifindnoarta Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 You wouldn't happen to play french horn, do you? No, I do not play french horn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asifindnoarta Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 OK Mr Spock lets get logical . Show me those moves . Describe in your mind what would be better . Pick a block any block .And tell me what you would do in it's place.How do you feel about follow the leader ?? Company Fronts?? Pass thru's ?? Squares that fold and flex ?? Files that open to box ?? What do you know about tension release?? Any views on push , pull ?? Shoe string ties and pulls ?? Action / Reaction ?? Body sculpturing ?? Expand / contract ?? Velocity ?? Flex , inversions , and dare i ask rotations ?? What other forms are used that you find redundant ?/ Define for me visual musicality . Will you share with me your understanding of Comp and Rep . Enquiring minds need to know ?? I haven't given these points the satisfactory analysis required to report on them... as suggested by my initial statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcvet13 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Aftert reading this thread I can only deduce that the 2 or 3 individuals that are bashing the current state of drill writing (drill writers) are either: A- wanna-be drill writers or B- failed drill writers PJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssorrell Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Let me get back to the original topic a bit...if we were to attempt to build this so called "formal body of knowledge"...where would this "knowledge" come from? Obviously, those that are the most successful at this "art" would be the ones with the most firsthand knowledge of what works and why it works. I would guess that those same individuals would be the ones that would contribute to the "body of knowledge", however, you want to question the "current custodians of the art". So again...where does this knowledge come from if not from those successful designers? Do you want people that aren't as successful in design to build this body of knowledge? I'm a bit confused. And I have to ask...how does one go about methodically studying a rotating block? And more importantly, why would anyone want to do such a thing? As far as I'm concerned, a successful drill design requires two elements: 1. It physically works and 2. It is asthetically pleasing. Period. No disection needed. But that's just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeBob Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 2) I'm not sure about that actually. I certainly feel pasionate about the artform but I'm not sure if my contributions would even be possible. I'd probably end up writing shows impossible to execute well unless you had excellent athletes and five years to clean it. Here's hoping that one day the world will catch up to your intellect. Oh, also: anyone can write impossible drill. Why don't you put your big mad-scientist brain to work on figuring out how to write possible drill? Or is that beneath you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xmenjeffb Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 I haven't given these points the satisfactory analysis required to report on them... as suggested by my initial statement. My point exactly but those are the points required for how design is viewed . Those plus many more like negative and positive space , horizonal and vertical design , variety and pacing . I am showing you proof that there is a system in place and you are providing me with .....?? Fluff !! I am more than willing to discuss design and to learn ways to improve and grow . You say if you did design a show it would take excellent performers only and 5 years to clean ?? Then what ever it is you wish to see happen is a fantasy that resides in your mind . leading to conclude that you may be a " legend in your spare time" . Drills must function on multiple levels for the students to achieve the design. What maybe should be considered the the quality of technique that seems to be missing in some shows. Now is that due to the design missing the level of the performers or is it bad design or has the boat been missed on the techniques required to achieve the intent ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawker Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 I haven't given these points the satisfactory analysis required to report on them... as suggested by my initial statement. Coming soon to a virtual symposium near you: Planar Analysis II : Electric Boogaloo :o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwscv87 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Are you serious? Because to be honest, and I know I am probably going to get some people mad, but that kind of drill is the worst possible kind IMO. Random squiggly lines that just move around and have nothing to do with the show is one of the worst ideas imaginable. If I could change one thing about drum corps, it would be getting rid of that and making drill actually reflect the show. I would pick that even over getting rid of amps. To each their own. 85 Garfield was filled with "random squiggly lines that just move around..." As a competitor I mocked their seeming love affair with the two step interval :P , but today I think that show was a tremendous breakthrough in design. The sense of velocity created by the forms and movement were entirely relevant to the music IMHO. The design would hold up nicely today. The fact that you don't see intention with a particular section of drill design doesn't mean the intent is not there. It may mean that you simply can't see it or it is simply not written or performed effectively. "...in the eye of the beholder" certainly applies to drill design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Here's hoping that one day the world will catch up to your intellect. Easily the funniest thing i've read on DCP this week! Oh, also: anyone can write impossible drill. Why don't you put your big mad-scientist brain to work on figuring out how to write possible drill? Or is that beneath you? No kidding. Any idiot with Pyware can write impossible drill. But even so, even if it were "possible given those five years to clean", it's no certainty that it won't just plain suck. Writing good drill that's achievable...THAT's the real challenge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madalumni Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 (edited) Easily the funniest thing i've read on DCP this week!No kidding. Any idiot with Pyware can write impossible drill. But even so, even if it were "possible given those five years to clean", it's no certainty that it won't just plain suck. Writing good drill that's achievable...THAT's the real challenge. When I first went to art school, my biggest fear was that any person with no talent could digitally create a masterpiece using the new painting software. What ended up happening, was the software revealed how inexperienced some of those people actually were because it exposed their general lack of the basic drawing, painting, and design skills. Their projects looked like randomly put together "digital sketches" The true masters were able, as one of my teachers put it, erase any digital "fingerprints" from the piece and give it a natural look. I feel Pyware exposes the same thing in the inexperienced designer. Back to the subject. How could you come up with a body of rules or principals to evaluate or guide innovation? In the art world, if there was some kind of system of rules governing what was legitimate and what was not, you would never have seen the likes of Picasso, Deibenkorn, Rothko or Chagall because all of them thought differently and painted differently...by knowing how to throw out the so called rules. And by insight and experience alone, they made it work. Zingali did the same and the system of judging had to change to accommodate his ideas and innovations. The closest thing I've seen to a system that can analyze modern drill is something called Planar Analysis. It describes types of visual events, how frequently they occur, and how they are put together. But it still falls short, because it only categorizes 9 types of movement. What happens when another "Zingali" comes along with 5 or 6 new types that haven't been invented yet? Edited July 22, 2006 by madalumni 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.