Piper Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 The Cavs, Scouts , Cadets, BAC etc. are corps who have been around a long time. Star was just a flash in the pan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCVsopAaron Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 The Cavs, Scouts , Cadets, BAC etc. are corps who have been around a long time. Star was just a flash in the pan. You forgot Vanguard........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasburgess Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 I have to agree that the "what if" factor is the biggest reason we still talk about Star. The difference between them and say the Bridgemen, is that Star didn't fold, nor would they have if they had stayed. It was a choice, and a choice made while they were in their prime. So it's one of those things where we can't talk about their weaknesses or failures of why they're gone. It was nothing the HAD to do, it was just something they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSnareline Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Star did have an impressive run but I would not put them down in history with the likes of SCV, BD, Cavies, Madison, or Phantom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I play the baritone good Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Star has been gone for a LONG time. AND they were only here for a short time. Most influential? Definitely not. Can we move on now? Star was SOOOOOO 1993. LOL!! I really did bust out laughing when I read that. Quote of the forever, added to sig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayM Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 You forgot Vanguard........ If you consider the corps he mentioned, all of them are at least 19 years older than Vanguard. Cadets - 1934 Scouts - 1938 Boston - 1940 Cavs - 1948 Vanguard - 1967 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwallace600 Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Star did have an impressive run but I would not put them down in history with the likes of SCV, BD, Cavies, Madison, or Phantom. Star had the greatest impact on the creative direction of the activity during the time they were around, hands down. I agree with the comparisons to early '80s Cadets. The thing that struck me in the mid '90s was that SO many people complained that Star was doing TOO MUCH dance and body movement, but within 5 years virtually everyone was incorporating dance and body into their show designs (including all those who complained in '93!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastone Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Because they left the activity at the height of their success.If Cadets had pulled the plug after 1987 we'd hold them in the same regard. Star '93 was the second iteration of Garfield '85. We are always left to wonder "what if..." concerning Star. Had the Cadets pulled the plug in 87, they had 53 years of history to talk about. I think in Star's case it's like a comet that is there, makes a big impact and then it's gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishtom Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Star did have an impressive run but I would not put them down in history with the likes of SCV, BD, Cavies, Madison, or Phantom. You forgot The Cadets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedford Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 (edited) With all due repect to Jim Mason, Mr. Cook and the talented staff and membership.......................... NOT Edited April 13, 2008 by bedford 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.