I would like to ask everyone as a community, us Cornellians included, to let this whole criticism stuff go so we can actually have a conversation about the set for once. I've been heavily involved with the set this year and I'm very intrigued by some of the comments. I feel like further discussion would be very helpful.
siddyp said:
I might be repeating what has already been said, but its the 'dancing.' NOT the style of dancing, but choreography and flow. If you designed a routine that flowed better, I think you'd dominate like it was nobody's business.
Sid, as always thanks for the love and much respect to you as well! This isn't necessarily directed towards your comments as many people now and in the past have commented that our set doesn't flow. But I've always wondered what everyone actually means by "flow". When I think of flow I think dynamics; there should be build ups, hit, take it back down, etc... You should tell a story. Nothing should be forced; the set should invite the viewer in. Looking at the routine in this light, I feel like its the best flow we've ever had!
For example, right after the shoot down of the banner, we keep the hype of the gimmick alive but deescalate at the same time. We put the saaps away and no beats are wasted going into another build with bedi (which I thought matched the milky instrumental quite well). The music builds and you can feel that something is coming and we hit it with college. I felt like this part of the routine kept the viewer engaged and the transition from saaps was achieved without a break.
Would love to hear others' opinions about what "flow" really means and its relevance to the set!
Psant said:
- Reduce gimmicks that interrupt - This one is controversial, but here's the general idea. In a bhangra routine, which is a dance routine, it's generally favored when a high percentage of the set is being danced to. Thus, by having an excess of gimmicks, you are reducing dancing time.
Once again these comments aren't necessarily directed towards Psant as I would love to get many opinions on this. We've been knocked for not integrating gimmicks well for quite a while and we have put a lot of effort into placing them strategically in the set to avoid reducing dancing time.
An example where I thought the gimmick was well integrated was Brennan's Wushu (thats what we call the blue guy twirling a saap like a demon). Everyone behind him was dancing and buiding up the hit as he started twirling. When Aashiq hit everyone is smashing double saaps forward with him. We continue to dance as he twirls and he gets a new saap and goes right back into choreo with us. No stoppage in dancing, no beats taken away to continue the dance forward after the gimmick. Isn't that well integrated?
I know people will allude to the "ejaculation on stage" gimmick as taking away from dancing time but that was a sacrifice we had to make. The concept was a fakeout of the magic khunda gimmick last year. To create that effect the dancers behind the blue and yellow guy had to be in that pose. Everyone thought they knew what was happening and BAM we hit you guys with quite the surprise.
I think we made up for it, however, when the girls are doing the neckspin. As they are getting ready everyone is squatting which highlights the prep to the neckspin but doesn't stop the dancing. As they are spinning everyone is jumping behind him. Those jumps are strategic - everyone says we take it easy behind the gimmick but we were literally jumping as the gimmick is happening.
Please don't take these comments as me defending the set. Anik, Armaan and I have put in a lot of effort thinking about criticisms given to us in the past and have taken steps to correct them. Further discussion would really help clarify what you guys mean by some of your comments and enable us to create something better the next time!