Best Visualually Designed Shows in DCI History......
Brad
I like anything by Sylvester, Zingali, Gaines, and Sacktig.
Here is my top 10:
1. 2002 Cavaliers (Michael Gaines)
2. 1993 Star of Indiana (I think this was Jon Vanderkolff,but not quite sure)
3. 2000 Cavaliers (Michael Gaines)
4. 2001 Cavaliers (Michael Gaines)
5. 1993 Cadets (Marc Sylvester)
6. 1987 Cadets (I think George Zingali, or Tony Hall)
7. 1995 Cavaliers (Michael Gaines)
8. 1999 Santa Clara Vanguard (Myron Rosander)
9. 1998 Cadets (Jeff Sacktig)
10. 1985 Cadets (George Zingali)
BOY1230
standpoint....it is packed full of perfect paterns, perfect set-ups, and
perfect GE from a visual standpoint.
~G~
Bill Roderick
but was a forerunner of the shows of the 80's 90's & 00's.
Bill Roderick
"Brad" <Brdb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8c0acf38.03032...@posting.google.com...
Jglemir
is a dangerous thing.....!
Mangry
Sorry......but your wrong about this one.
Some guy named Greg Packlackee wrote the drill.
(Not sure of the spelling of his name)
Mangry
Mangry
is right near the top of the list.
Steve Brubaker was the Cavaliers drill designer for quite a few years. He wrote
that great drill from the 1991 Cavaliers show.
Some other years he wrote:
1986 - 1992
Mangry
doug
It had to be 85 cadets!!! (I marched te he)
VKGARRY73
>1980 SCV. Very ground breaking, not too well received by judges or audience,
>but was a forerunner of the shows of the 80's 90's & 00's.
>
That's because they didn't know HOW to judge it!
Also, IMO, Michael Gaines is the Emmons and Zingali of his time.
VKG
Make my life easier. Buy some souvies...http://www.cafepress.com/SCDream
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸.
·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
Kash
"Brad" <Brdb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8c0acf38.03032...@posting.google.com...
Wrigleyfied
Also 85 Garfield Cadets, the real mold-breaker
And 1989 Phantom Regiment,the greatest visual program ever.
And don't forget the best GE shows ever, 86 and 87 Sky Ryders.
Finally, 1993 Star of Indiana. Wow.
Tom Shea
Knights 83-88
Never marched a drill.
Stuart Rice
> Here is my top 10:
> 3. 2000 Cavaliers (Michael Gaines)
The most difficult I've yet studied, and among the most
movement-filled (277 moves)
> 4. 2001 Cavaliers (Michael Gaines)
Nearly as many moves as 2000 (250), and by far the most difficult that
year. Well-balanced use of movement. Not as complex as BD and CBC
that year, though.
> 7. 1995 Cavaliers (Michael Gaines)
A movement-packed show (185 moves) that was ahead of its time. Also
the most difficult that year, and among those fielded thus far of
those I had studied, excepting 86 (Star, Troopers, Cavies). The most
complex up to that point as well, excepting Star 86. Very well
balanced.
> 10. 1985 Cadets (George Zingali)
Looking forward to a chance to analyze this one.
If you're interested in considering the "best" drill based on their
complexity, difficulty, balanced use of 9 movement types, total number
of moves, or specific sequentially creative categories, I invite you
to visit my Planar Analysis page:
www.geocities.com/flatlandpress/PA.html
Stuart E. Rice
www.marchingresearch.com
LAGNAF5763
the "numbers" but it is one of the best "visually designed"!!
'86 Cavaliers - beginning of Brubakers genious
'85 Garfield - first to have the guard used as part of the ENSEMBLE instead of
a different entity
'92 & '93 Cadets - Mark Sylvester RULZ
'00 - CADETS
Reminder - we are talking VISUALLY DESIGNED , not just number of SETS!!
Stuart Rice
> Take a look and study Garfields '87 Appalachian Spring show. It might not
> have the "numbers" but it is one of the best "visually designed"!!
Planar Analysis measures choreography - movement, not design.
Choreographed marching is an art of movement, not just a succession of
pretty pictures. It is two dimensional dance. The design is
incidental.
> '86 Cavaliers - beginning of Brubakers genious
Should get a chance to analyze this before the year is out.
> '85 Garfield - first to have the guard used as part of the ENSEMBLE instead
> of a different entity
This one also.
> '92 & '93 Cadets - Mark Sylvester RULZ
Don't have either of these.
> '00 - CADETS
This one has already been analyzed. It had a great volume of movement
- the most I have measured thus far (284 moves). However, a lot of
this is empty calories. The total difficulty of the show was easily
beaten by the Cavies' 277 moves. The difficulty level of the average
move was tenth among finalists that year, suggesting that the Cadets
had a preponderance of relatively easier moves. The show was the
fourth most complex (3.380 moves on the field at any given time, on
average).
In creative terms, the 2000 Cadets ranked ninth in balance (42.41% -
anything below 60% is inconsiderate). The other four (sequence based)
creative categories (6th, 1st, 6th, 7th) showed little tendency toward
any premeditated exploration of the movement spectrum (beyond what may
be expected of finalists), with the exception of Variety Grouping (1st
with 18.87%) which suggests they had a *slight* inclination to present
the movement spectrum in grouped segments.
> Reminder - we are talking VISUALLY DESIGNED , not just number of SETS!!
See www.geocities.com/flatlandpress/PA.html
Stuart E. Rice
www.marchingresearch.com
Brad
Visual Design me to is an art form, much like painting or sculpting or
writing is. Comparing drill by using a numeric formula is like
comparing Picaso's work to Leonardo da Vinci's work using numbers.
A visual ge judge does not sit there with a calculator when he is
evaluating a show. The average fan doesn't count the number of sets
nor does he/she count the number of things going on at the same time.
It's a matter of taste.
Visual design change drastically after the tick system was dismantled.
This was because designers could now take risks and write more
expressively without having to worry about being "perfect".
Shostakovich was a much better composer when he wrote from the heart
than he was while he was restricted by the Soviet Union.
Michael Gaines is my favorite visual designer, and is the biggest
influence in my writing. Despite all that, I don't believe all his
drill is really that hard. If you watch the Cavaliers of the past few
years during this current run of theirs very closely, the drill is
full of lots of little tricks. Some of them are very original. It is
also full of near flawless transitions and flows extremely well. Yes
the big effects are really hard and full of lots of fast movement, but
all in all it's not much harder to perform than anyone else. His
drill is just harder to clean because it has less room for error.
This is due to all the angular and solid geometric forms he uses.
Visual design isn't about numbers or formulas, it's about art and
expression. Is is a coincidence that Marc Sylvester is also a
successful artist as well as one of the most successful drill writers
in the world?
Shadow_7
And yet the visual judge is supposed to give a number to represent it on
the judging sheets.
While there may be some question at what counts as numbers. Number of
steps, then the fastest show tempo wise wins. Number of moves, then the
one with the most scatter drills wins. Number of loop to loops of an
inanimate object, then the prettiest guard wins.
But we'll never know if there's any real correlation between these if we
don't bother to count and compare. And since an increasing percentage of
the score is visual then it must have some bearing. Lord knows we don't
want the decision to be based on decibels with current instrumentation.
Madison might find themselves with another ring.
S7
Brad
> > Visual Design can not be judged by numbers, nor is it a science.
>
> And yet the visual judge is supposed to give a number to represent it on
> the judging sheets.
Well obviously we know there has to be a number put to it score wise,
otherwise it would not be a competitive activity. I mean we as fans
should not have to use formulas of number of moves and such to say
which is a better design. If that were the case, each move would have
a degree of difficulty taken into account before the judge puts down a
score, like olympic divers do with each different dive.
Shadow_7
>>
>> And yet the visual judge is supposed to give a number to represent it
>> on the judging sheets.
>
> Well obviously we know there has to be a number put to it score wise,
> otherwise it would not be a competitive activity.
In the old days they'd pit two animals(human or otherwise) against each
other. That last one living was the winner of the competition. If both
died, then it was a TIE. At least one example of a "competition" that
didn't include a score or numeric value associated with it.
S7
Bill
cross to cross ending... its gotta be up there....
Don
> In addition, I'd add '91 Star... company fronts out of know where, the
> cross to cross ending... its gotta be up there....
AMEN!
Stuart Rice
120+ people marching on a field 100 yards wide for 11 minutes 'can't
be judged by numbers,' huh.
> nor is it a science.
Obviously not for folks like you.
> Visual Design me to is an art form, much like painting or sculpting or
> writing is.
'Visual design is an art form,' eh. Hmm. Fascinating! Tell me more.
I'd like to buy one for my living room.
> Comparing drill by using a numeric formula is like
> comparing Picaso's work to Leonardo da Vinci's work using numbers.
Actually, numbers are used to identify the drill moves and rate their
difficulty. Counting them is another story - what I guess you would
consider the "mysterious" part.
> A visual ge judge does not sit there with a calculator when he is
> evaluating a show.
Well we can't all be super geeks.
> The average fan doesn't count the number of sets
> nor does he/she count the number of things going on at the same time.
> It's a matter of taste.
Kind of like chuck-a-rama.
> Visual design change drastically after the tick system was dismantled.
Fascinating.
> This was because designers could now take risks and write more
> expressively without having to worry about being "perfect".
So tell me, how does one 'write more expressively.'
> Shostakovich was a much better composer when he wrote from the heart
> than he was while he was restricted by the Soviet Union.
I disagree.
> Michael Gaines is my favorite visual designer, and is the biggest
> influence in my writing. Despite all that, I don't believe all his
> drill is really that hard.
No drill is difficult if you're properly trained. Unfortunately,
almost nobody in DCI can identify the nine types of movement, let
alone march them without killing a tree first.
> If you watch the Cavaliers of the past few
> years during this current run of theirs very closely, the drill is
> full of lots of little tricks.
No kidding.
> Some of them are very original. It is
> also full of near flawless transitions and flows extremely well. Yes
> the big effects are really hard and full of lots of fast movement, but
> all in all it's not much harder to perform than anyone else.
> His drill is just harder to clean because it has less room for error.
Again, this is a question of training, which you obviously neither
have nor teach.
> This is due to all the angular and solid geometric forms he uses.
Yes, I'm sure its difficult to stand in a geometric form.
> Visual design isn't about numbers or formulas, it's about art and
> expression.
Great. Except Planar Analysis measures choreography, not pretty
pictures.
> Is is a coincidence that Marc Sylvester is also a
> successful artist as well as one of the most successful drill writers
> in the world?
Not in your eyes.
Well, my years of music theory were apparently for nothing, since the
art of music cannot be measured or analyzed (sorry, Dr. Roens).
Planar Analysis has been published in no fewer than eight issues of
Drum Corps World between 1996 and 2002. The nine movement types have
never been challenged, let along disproved by anyone I know of, much
less this aesthetes and know-nothingists like this fellow. As
flattering as it is to think that choreographed marching is
inscruitable, the fact remains that it can be measured, and has been
for years.
Planar Analysis has consistently predicted GE Visual placement within
1-2 places among the DCI top 6, and has been immeasureably useful in
my own choreography (which I do without drill sheets) and instruction
of marching (in which I administer improvisational exercises). Those
who use the word "design" are living in the stone ages. If you want
to understand marching - 2-dimensional choreography - study movement,
not design.
For more information on Planar Analysis, visit:
sgordon
: That's because they didn't know HOW to judge it!
Just like, today if you come out with an old-style show, they
don't know how to judge that!
Scott
Brad
Stuart Rice
> Tell me again why you're not a big time drill writer?
1. I'm not inbred.
2. I'm married with children.
3. I have a mortgage.
4. I live in Utah.
Those are the reasons I can account for (and the fact that I doubt too
many corps are interested in hiring someone who enjoys choreographing
marching - sans drill charts). I'm more curious as to why I'm not a
consultant, though.
Stuart E. Rice
Brad
> consultant, though.
>
>
> Stuart E. Rice
Wow, the drum corps world must be losing out big time......
You just proved my point about your ego.
Stuart Rice
Thanks for making me an offender for a word.
Thanks for killing this thread.
Thanks for asking questions you don't really want answered.
Thanks for reminding me why I'm not directly involved in this activity.
Stuart E. Rice
www.marchingresearch.com
Brad
Anytime pal........
>
> Stuart E. Rice
> www.marchingresearch.com
Stuart Rice
> ser...@juno.com (Stuart Rice) wrote in message news:<d12adb54.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > Brdb...@aol.com (Brad) wrote in message news:<8c0acf38.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > > I'm more curious as to why I'm not a
> > > > consultant, though.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Stuart E. Rice
> > >
> > > Wow, the drum corps world must be losing out big time......
> > >
> > > You just proved my point about your ego.
> >
> > Thanks for making me an offender for a word.
> > Thanks for killing this thread.
> > Thanks for asking questions you don't really want answered.
> >
> > Thanks for reminding me why I'm not directly involved in this activity.
> >
>
> Anytime pal........
Wow. A gentleman *and* a scholar. Hey, its been fascinating to hear
your insights about how I can't measure drill. But enough about me.
Let's talk about you, Brad. How old are you? What have you done with
marching? How many trees do they have to kill to teach you a show?
Stuart E. Rice
www.marchingresearch.com
Brad
Stuart Rice
Right. But not long enough to provide a few simple answers you won't
be ashamed of. Early twenties, I'd guess.
Stuart E. Rice
www.marchingresearch.com
Virgil Trucks
Boys, you are pathetic.
VT
ser...@juno.com (Stuart Rice) wrote in message news:<d12adb54.03040...@posting.google.com>...
Jeff Ream
>Subject: Re: Best Visually Designed Shows in DCI History......
>From: corp...@hotmail.com (Virgil Trucks)
>Date: 4/7/2003 8:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <2668adb2.03040...@posting.google.com>
Jeff Ream
"I'm the drummer your guard captain warned you about"
Stuart Rice
corp...@hotmail.com (Virgil Trucks) wrote in message news:<2668adb2.03040...@posting.google.com>...
don avery
Give it a break Mr. Rice. We all get the picture that you are so much
more advanced than everyone else. I've read your articles and
research with a bit of wonder and amusement, it seems a little anal
for my taste. But to each his own. But do you really have to attack
others so much? Maybe this is why no one has asked you to work with
their group. Calm down, lighten up.
Don Avery
Mike Poche
>Give it a break Mr. Rice. We all get the picture that you are so much
>more advanced than everyone else.
>I've read your articles and
>research with a bit of wonder and amusement, it seems a little anal
>for my taste.
I realize this is a "visual" thread, but THAT was a little TOO visual. :-)
The OTHER Mike
Stuart Rice
Whoa there. Easy, Don. Nobody's attacking anyone here. We're just
having a nice pleasant conversation sorting some things out. There's
no need to start rumors of war or complaining about how insecure you
feel around people learning things about drum corps (god forbid).
Planar Analysis isn't for everyone. Neither is analyzing counterpoint
or diagramming sentences. So what. I'm not interested in "design."
Its good advice for everyone on RAMD: if you aren't interested in the
subject, then do us all a favor, and give your pie hole a rest.
Stuart E. Rice
www.marchingresearch.com
don avery
Really. It sounded like you were attacking people that didn't agree
with you or understand your analysis. I do agree that people can
better understand music or drill by analysis. But remember, analysis
is a reaction, not an action. I think the ability to analize is
important, but not critical. We all have had many classes in analizing
music.But you can create music or drill without knowledge of past
creations. And sometimes this makes for some very original creations.
Sometimes I think we look to the past too much for our infuences.
I've never had any formal instruction in drill writing, but seem to do
OK. My work would probably not score high with your analysis, but
that doesn't really concern me. I like it and the people that view my
work seem to like it. Maybe this is just left brain vs.right brain
stuff. Analizing vs. creating. Reaction vs. action.
As a former emgineering major turned musis educator I understand this
very well. Sometimes I over analize things and forget to experience
them. I'm not trying to find fault with your analysis, to each his
own. But just becuase someone doesn't agree with you, that does not
make them insecure. My concern was not really with your analysis, it
was with your personal style. Your comments seemed out of line and
defensive.
Don Avery
Stuart Rice
> Really. It sounded like you were attacking people that didn't agree
> with you or understand your analysis.
Just having fun with them. Relax, this is RAMD.
> I do agree that people can
> better understand music or drill by analysis.
That makes you a sophist. :)
> But remember, analysis is a reaction, not an action.
Don, you're already on the wrong page. You need to appreciate
analysis for what it is before you can come to an understanding of how
it goes hand in hand with action. Once you get to that point, you
will be in a position to have me explain how it lends itself to
action.
> I think the ability to analize is important, but not critical.
It is as critical as the ability to think before you act.
> We all have had many classes in analizing music.
Absolutely wrong. Only a tiny fraction of us have.
> But you can create music or drill without knowledge of past
> creations.
Didn't say you couldn't (though I doubt the great composers wrote
their music in an educational vacuum).
> And sometimes this makes for some very original creations.
By accident, sure. What counts, though, is being able to
intentionally make a great work at will. That is an artist. You have
to understand your craft to do that.
> Sometimes I think we look to the past too much for our infuences.
> I've never had any formal instruction in drill writing, but seem to do
> OK.
You've just spoken on behalf of every drill writer in the world.
> My work would probably not score high with your analysis, but
> that doesn't really concern me.
First, every drill has a strength which Planar Analysis reflects.
Second, some very unknown drill writers have scored very high in some
categories. Third, anyone can write better drill by understanding
Planar Analysis, so if you consider yourself a drill writer, it should
concern you.
> I like it and the people that view my work seem to like it.
If you're happy with your work, then we have nothing to talk about.
Planar Analysis is for people who want to understand and choreograph
better marching.
> Maybe this is just left brain vs.right brain
> stuff. Analizing vs. creating. Reaction vs. action.
You're working mighty hard to write this off (and you're not alone.
The vast majority of drill writers are a little defiant about their
laziness and inertia when it comes to learning).
> As a former emgineering major turned musis educator I understand this
> very well. Sometimes I over analize things and forget to experience
> them. I'm not trying to find fault with your analysis, to each his
> own.
When you begin to care about what you do enough to study it, you will
be in a position to care about how it can help you do it better.
Until then, you can call it what you want.
> But just becuase someone doesn't agree with you, that does not
> make them insecure.
Sure. Not agreeing about politics, religion, education, etc.
However, insisting you cannot/should not use your brain is a
manifestation of insecurity over one's ignorance. But be my guest -
fight for their right to be ignorant and thrust that ignorance on
others.
> My concern was not really with your analysis, it
> was with your personal style. Your comments seemed out of line and
> defensive.
Yep, its all about style, isn't it. Sad but true.
Stuart E. Rice
www.marchingresearch.com
don avery
> xeni...@aol.com (don avery) wrote in message news:<73fe58ff.03041...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Really. It sounded like you were attacking people that didn't agree
> > with you or understand your analysis.
>
> Just having fun with them. Relax, this is RAMD.
Are there no limits to "having fun"? Do you really need to attack
someone that probably does not have the experience level of yourself?
>
> > I do agree that people can
> > better understand music or drill by analysis.
>
> That makes you a sophist. :)
>
> > But remember, analysis is a reaction, not an action.
>
> Don, you're already on the wrong page. You need to appreciate
> analysis for what it is before you can come to an understanding of how
> it goes hand in hand with action. Once you get to that point, you
> will be in a position to have me explain how it lends itself to
> action.
Maybe I do understand what it is. I just don't assign it the
importance that you do.
>
> > I think the ability to analize is important, but not critical.
>
> It is as critical as the ability to think before you act.
Not so. While I do understand the proper place for thinking, mostly
in learning some technical skill. Thinking at times will get in the
way of peak performance. Ask any athlete or artist. Most talk their
best performance is when they are "playing over the head" or "out of
their mind". Both evoke images of acting without thinking.
>
> > We all have had many classes in analizing music.
>
> Absolutely wrong. Only a tiny fraction of us have.
We meaning both of us.
>
> > But you can create music or drill without knowledge of past
> > creations.
>
> Didn't say you couldn't (though I doubt the great composers wrote
> their music in an educational vacuum).
Why are we only talking about "great" composers? How about someone
like Charles Ives? What about folk artists? There are artists out
there that learned their art by their culture or just plain intuition.
No analysis was needed.
>
> > And sometimes this makes for some very original creations.
>
> By accident, sure. What counts, though, is being able to
> intentionally make a great work at will. That is an artist. You have
> to understand your craft to do that.
No matter how much analysis you do, I doubt you will have the ability
to create a "great" work at will. There are other components. Just
because you analyze drill doesn't make you a great drill writer.
>
> > Sometimes I think we look to the past too much for our infuences.
> > I've never had any formal instruction in drill writing, but seem to do
> > OK.
>
> You've just spoken on behalf of every drill writer in the world.
Great.
>
> > My work would probably not score high with your analysis, but
> > that doesn't really concern me.
>
> First, every drill has a strength which Planar Analysis reflects.
> Second, some very unknown drill writers have scored very high in some
> categories. Third, anyone can write better drill by understanding
> Planar Analysis, so if you consider yourself a drill writer, it should
> concern you.
So if I excell at Planar Analysis I can become a high priced drill
writer? It's that easy? Program coordinators from all around will
beat a path to my door. If it were only that simple.
>
> > I like it and the people that view my work seem to like it.
>
> If you're happy with your work, then we have nothing to talk about.
> Planar Analysis is for people who want to understand and choreograph
> better marching.
Again, you think that this is a panacea for all that ails us.
>
> > Maybe this is just left brain vs.right brain
> > stuff. Analizing vs. creating. Reaction vs. action.
>
> You're working mighty hard to write this off (and you're not alone.
> The vast majority of drill writers are a little defiant about their
> laziness and inertia when it comes to learning).
maybe it's not laziness. Maybe it's just an understanding that
creativity is a fragile object. Maybe some are hesitant about
upsetting the cart.
>
> > As a former emgineering major turned musis educator I understand this
> > very well. Sometimes I over analize things and forget to experience
> > them. I'm not trying to find fault with your analysis, to each his
> > own.
>
> When you begin to care about what you do enough to study it, you will
> be in a position to care about how it can help you do it better.
> Until then, you can call it what you want.
Again, if this works for you, great. But can't you entertain the
possibiblty that it might not work for everyone?
Stuart Rice
> ser...@juno.com (Stuart Rice) wrote in message news:<d12adb54.03041...@posting.google.com>...
> > xeni...@aol.com (don avery) wrote in message news:<73fe58ff.03041...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > Really. It sounded like you were attacking people that didn't agree
> > > with you or understand your analysis.
> >
> > Just having fun with them. Relax, this is RAMD.
>
> Are there no limits to "having fun"? Do you really need to attack
> someone that probably does not have the experience level of yourself?
I really don't know what you're talking about.
> > > I do agree that people can
> > > better understand music or drill by analysis.
> >
> > That makes you a sophist. :)
> >
> > > But remember, analysis is a reaction, not an action.
> >
> > Don, you're already on the wrong page. You need to appreciate
> > analysis for what it is before you can come to an understanding of how
> > it goes hand in hand with action. Once you get to that point, you
> > will be in a position to have me explain how it lends itself to
> > action.
>
> Maybe I do understand what it is. I just don't assign it the
> importance that you do.
If you believe thinking and doing are not important, then I can
understand that.
> > > I think the ability to analize is important, but not critical.
> >
> > It is as critical as the ability to think before you act.
>
> Not so. While I do understand the proper place for thinking, mostly
> in learning some technical skill. Thinking at times will get in the
> way of peak performance.
Thinking precedes ALL performance. The training that creates peak
performance is as dependent on thinking as it is on action. Action
without thinking is violence.
> Ask any athlete or artist.
I've been a student of Tai Chi for 15 years and my studies of music
earned me a Juilliard tuition award and a degree in music education.
Please research who you are dealing with before your question their
education.
> Most talk their
> best performance is when they are "playing over the head" or "out of
> their mind". Both evoke images of acting without thinking.
Thinking makes those moments possible.
> > > We all have had many classes in analizing music.
> >
> > Absolutely wrong. Only a tiny fraction of us have.
>
> We meaning both of us.
Say what you mean.
> > > But you can create music or drill without knowledge of past
> > > creations.
> >
> > Didn't say you couldn't (though I doubt the great composers wrote
> > their music in an educational vacuum).
>
> Why are we only talking about "great" composers?
Would you rather make a case for mediocrity?
> How about someone like Charles Ives?
Charles Ives *is* a great composer.
> What about folk artists? There are artists out
> there that learned their art by their culture or just plain intuition.
> No analysis was needed.
There is a difference between craft and art. These people you are
talking about learned their craft principally by immitation. They are
craftsmen/craftswomen, not artists. Artists learn their craft
principally by study. Hence, our present dearth of artists in drum
corps.
> > > And sometimes this makes for some very original creations.
> >
> > By accident, sure. What counts, though, is being able to
> > intentionally make a great work at will. That is an artist. You have
> > to understand your craft to do that.
>
> No matter how much analysis you do, I doubt you will have the ability
> to create a "great" work at will. There are other components. Just
> because you analyze drill doesn't make you a great drill writer.
Congratulations on that earth-shattering insight. However, you also
judge me a poor artist because I can analyze. Apply that same
thinking to music and you are an idiot.
> > > My work would probably not score high with your analysis, but
> > > that doesn't really concern me.
> >
> > First, every drill has a strength which Planar Analysis reflects.
> > Second, some very unknown drill writers have scored very high in some
> > categories. Third, anyone can write better drill by understanding
> > Planar Analysis, so if you consider yourself a drill writer, it should
> > concern you.
>
> So if I excell at Planar Analysis I can become a high priced drill
> writer? It's that easy? Program coordinators from all around will
> beat a path to my door. If it were only that simple.
Nobody guaranteed the ability to study and analyze one's art or craft
would make you rich. Beethoven and Van Gogh lived and died poor.
However, their art lives on. Sometimes its a trade-off - and most
artists are much more interested in art than money and popularity.
> > > I like it and the people that view my work seem to like it.
> >
> > If you're happy with your work, then we have nothing to talk about.
> > Planar Analysis is for people who want to understand and choreograph
> > better marching.
>
> Again, you think that this is a panacea for all that ails us.
I said "better". I didn't say "perfect."
> > > Maybe this is just left brain vs.right brain
> > > stuff. Analizing vs. creating. Reaction vs. action.
> >
> > You're working mighty hard to write this off (and you're not alone.
> > The vast majority of drill writers are a little defiant about their
> > laziness and inertia when it comes to learning).
>
> maybe it's not laziness. Maybe it's just an understanding that
> creativity is a fragile object.
Creativity is a purposeful act, not an accident. Artists are not
one-hit-wonders.
> Maybe some are hesitant about upsetting the cart.
Creativity is an act of courage.
> > > As a former emgineering major turned musis educator I understand this
> > > very well. Sometimes I over analize things and forget to experience
> > > them. I'm not trying to find fault with your analysis, to each his
> > > own.
> >
> > When you begin to care about what you do enough to study it, you will
> > be in a position to care about how it can help you do it better.
> > Until then, you can call it what you want.
>
> Again, if this works for you, great. But can't you entertain the
> possibiblty that it might not work for everyone?
Whether you want to admit it or not, there are things in this world
that work for everyone. Breathing works for everyone. Taking a shit
works for everyone, even if you have to do it in a colostomy bag.
Thinking works for everyone. Learning makes thinking work better. If
you want to debate this method or that, you can. However, if you
haven't studied the method you're disputing, you usually look pretty
stupid arguing with someone who has.
I'm not trying to bust your balls here. I'm trying to make you think.
If you don't want to, you're excused. You're entitled to become a
craftsman. The world needs them as much as it needs artists.
However, artists are the people who are steering drum corps - not
people like Hopkins, Gibbs, and Cesario.
Stuart E. Rice
www.marchingresearch.com