Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 10:41:59 -1000 From: hanson@kyoa.enet.dec.com (Bob Hanson) Message-Id: <1993Jul13.195059.1376@e2big.mko.dec.com> Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. Subject: Re: Excitement in Competitions (was: Re: technical vs artistic...) In article , steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes... > >Next Issue (related): The Role of Competitors > >I've said this several times: if you alienate competitors (and I've seen this >happen many times)--the best competitors--you will have NO SPORT, NO >COMPETITIONS, NO MONEY, etc. This is probably very true, Steve. Count me as one of the alienated comp- etitors. For me, it came down to the simple matter of "why should I pay so much cash out of my own pockets and bear the aggravation of travel only to get a plaque on the wall, half a paragraph, and a bad picture?" From what I understand, others have become disgruntled for a variety of reasons, and we have seen a marked dropoff (for whatever reasons) in attendance of comps. (Like the UP event.) >Next Issue (related to above): Choreography and Crowd Appeal > >Everybody knows the Precision Event is boring. The reason for this is the >lack of drama in the event. I tend to agree that Ballet is *more* interesting than Precision, but I certainly don't agree with the lack of drama premise, and less do I agree that "everybody knows the Precision Event is boring." Again, only speaking >From personal experience, the single greatest moment of my 'career' in kiting was at Wildwood my first year in Masters. Toughest final I've ever seen, with all the "names" in the pit. Reallll close scores...the entire field was within just 3 points, if I recall correctly, and they witheld the results until the banquet. Everyone was surprised at the "upset finish," none more so than I. There was a *lot* of drama there. And Marty has already said that he didn't consider Precision to be boring. /bob/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 06:05:35 -1000 From: ilh@lcs.mit.edu (Lee Hetherington) Message-Id: Organization: MIT/LCS Spoken Language Systems Subject: Re: Excitement in Competitions (was: Re: technical vs artistic...) In article steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes: Now its important to note that I can talk about "Choreography" without any reference to "Art", "Emotion", etc. All of these things are implicit in the _routine itself_, but not in the JUDGING OF THE ROUTINE (which is what I'm talking about here). A judge can look for timing to music, difficulty of the music, etc., without looking to be "touched" by the routine. A judge should leave THIS to the crowd. Hmm...I guess *I* can't think about choreography without thinking about art and emotion. I'll take your approach and consult Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary: choreography: 1: the art of symbolically representing dancing, 2 a: the composition and arrangement of dances esp. for ballet, b: a composition created by this art, 3: something resembling choreography. Sorry, but the word "art" is all over the place. It's also very prevalent in "ballet" too. And of course, I think this WILL happen if we make judging more objective: if we encourage new compeitiors to come perform on a level, predictible playing field, THEY will make competitions exciting to watch. You feel very strongly that judging must be as objective as possible. How do you judge "difficulty of the music" objectively? I'd really like to know what you picture as the ideal competitive environment. Are you thinking of something more along the lines of the compulsory moves (not figures, they've been eliminated) in figure skating where everyone has to do a set of predefined moves, but get to do them in the order they want to the music they want? Even that event has an artistic merit score. Disclaimer: I haven't seen a stunt kite competition yet. I will be going to Newport as a spectator in a few weeks, though. Maybe then I'll know what I'm talking about. Right now, I'm talking as a naive stunt kite flyer. However, I'm probably a whole lot more like the potential mass market than people who go to competitions all the time. -- Lee Hetherington ilh@lcs.mit.edu = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 08:16:02 -1000 From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) Message-Id: Organization: VisionAire, San Francisco, CA Subject: Excitement in Competitions (was: Re: technical vs artistic...) Well people, instead of answering some 1/2 dozen articles specifically, I'm going to try to answer people's concerns in a generalized single post. ****** First Issue: Excitement. There seems to be an equation of "exciting" (crowd pleasing) routines with "artistic" routines, and an equation of "fair judging" with "boring routines". I think the exact opposite is true. The thrill of a difficult move pulled off perfectly (whether it be double-axel in ice skating or an 80 yard run in football) is the most exciting thing a sport will have to offer the public (and the competitors, too). To me, it is exactly the "Artsy" aspects that some people try to put into their routine in lieu exciting moves that make routines very boring to watch. (More on this below). Next Issue (related): The Role of Competitors I've said this several times: if you alienate competitors (and I've seen this happen many times)--the best competitors--you will have NO SPORT, NO COMPETITIONS, NO MONEY, etc. Again, YOU CANNOT TREAT "CROWD APPEAL" AS A _PRIMARY_. As I implied above, I think that crowd appeal will fall into place as more and more intense competition comes about, and competitors are pushed harder and harder to do better and better. Next Issue (related to above): Choreography and Crowd Appeal Everybody knows the Precision Event is boring. The reason for this is the lack of drama in the event. Difficult moves are performed, but they are not given context by music like in the Choreographed event. The musical context is what makes a routine exciting. Music should be used to "frame" moves of various kinds (again, remember that _timing_ is a very difficult thing with sport kites, so a well timed routine--viz. a well choreographed one--implies difficulty). With this musical "framing", the attention of the crowd is drawn to that particular moment in time, when a move that the choregrapher wants to highlight is performed. Now its important to note that I can talk about "Choreography" without any reference to "Art", "Emotion", etc. All of these things are implicit in the _routine itself_, but not in the JUDGING OF THE ROUTINE (which is what I'm talking about here). A judge can look for timing to music, difficulty of the music, etc., without looking to be "touched" by the routine. A judge should leave THIS to the crowd. And of course, I think this WILL happen if we make judging more objective: if we encourage new compeitiors to come perform on a level, predictible playing field, THEY will make competitions exciting to watch. Next Issue: Sport Kite Marketing This is such a giant issue that I'm going to tacitly duck out of it for now... At this time, I'm going to stick to the (relatively small) Judging Issue... -- _______ Steve Thomas steveth@netcom.com "Hokey weapons and worn out legends are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." -- Hans Solo = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 14:03:58 -1000 From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) Message-Id: Organization: VisionAire, San Francisco, CA Subject: Re: Excitement in Competitions (was: Re: technical vs artistic...) In article ilh@lcs.mit.edu writes: >In article >steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes: > Now its important to note that I can talk about "Choreography" > without any reference to "Art", "Emotion", etc. All of these > things are implicit in the _routine itself_, but not in the JUDGING > OF THE ROUTINE (which is what I'm talking about here). A judge can > look for timing to music, difficulty of the music, etc., without > looking to be "touched" by the routine. A judge should leave THIS > to the crowd. > >Hmm...I guess *I* can't think about choreography without thinking >about art and emotion. I'll take your approach and consult Webster's >Ninth Collegiate Dictionary: > >choreography: 1: the art of symbolically representing dancing, 2 a: >the composition and arrangement of dances esp. for ballet, b: a >composition created by this art, 3: something resembling choreography. > >Sorry, but the word "art" is all over the place. It's also very >prevalent in "ballet" too. There's a double meaning of "art" (might want to look that one up, too...) that can equate it with the word "skill"... > > And of course, I think this WILL happen if we make judging more > objective: if we encourage new compeitiors to come perform on a > level, predictible playing field, THEY will make competitions > exciting to watch. > >You feel very strongly that judging must be as objective as possible. >How do you judge "difficulty of the music" objectively? There's complicated music, and simple music. There's music that's very uniform and doesn't change much, and then there's music that changes all over the place. The Choreography part of the score should reflect this: somebody can *perfectly* choreograph something, but it might be intensely easy to choreograph. On the other hand, somebody could pick very difficult music to choreograph, but not follow it as well... Etc. > >I'd really like to know what you picture as the ideal competitive >environment. Are you thinking of something more along the lines of >the compulsory moves (not figures, they've been eliminated) in figure >skating where everyone has to do a set of predefined moves, but get to >do them in the order they want to the music they want? Even that >event has an artistic merit score. No, I think the current choreographed event--in essence--works pretty well. I think that, with a slight modification of the rules, the choreographed event can become a perfect place to see the Best Flyers in the World (or the State, or the Area, or Today's Competition) show what can be done with a Sport Kite. -- _______ Steve Thomas steveth@netcom.com "Hokey weapons and worn out legends are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." -- Hans Solo