The Star of Indiana Phenomenon

[TerriTroop]

Star was an atypical corps, and as such it generates a lot of discussion.

I believe Star has been influential over time, just as other corps (many no longer with us) have been influential in their own ways. There is no "most influential of all time" because all influence is woven into a very complex fabric in this activity. Years and years from now these new, colorful threads of Star's influence will blend more fully into that fabric. Right now they're fresher and thus open to more scrutiny.

[drumlaw80]

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.

Well said. It's like movie stars that die early when they are at the top of their game.

I don't think Marilyn Monroe or James Dean would be such big deals if they had lived until they were 85 years old. Star is frozen in time as a genius innovative drum corps that rocked the world in 1993.

[euponitone]

Mingus and others-

No it really is not BS and not just alumni trying to be humble. I without a doubt would bet good money that of the top 6 corps our brass talent if matched up player to player with the other lines would have been less. We had good players but not great players, with the exception of a few, but we took ownership of our responsibilities and played our book that was put in front of us. IT was all about committing to the system and becoming 70 brass players playing as one versus each individual being great.

Do you honestly think these things are unique to star?? Show me a hornline that ISNT about playing what they're given, committing to a system, and playing as one. Even to this day, I can look at the hornline of the cadets (as an outsider, or while I was there), and see baritone players that were actually saxophonists, mellos that cant sight read, tubas that can barely play a scale, and trumpets that have horrible tone above mf. Every corps has those players - and most have a lot of them, but they manage to get by. Every corps is about committing to a system (whatever that may be), and playing as one. I can understand why you would be proud of your achievements and the philosophy that helped get you there, but I'm not sure why that makes you any different than any other corps or hornline...

[mad_scotty]

one thing i wonder about with this thread, people are talking about the influence of star and attributing much of it to "star staff members" still working in the activity. i don't know how you can call most of these people "star staffers" as if they were creations of the star program whose entire professional lives have been defined by their work with star, and their ongoing commitment to bringing stars principles with them everywhere they go. most of these people are drum corps lifers who spent a brief period in their long careers with star.

take todd ryan, for instance. theres another thread here dedicated to hypothesizing about a possible blue devils star finals night match up for the title in 94, and the discussion basically revolves around "star staffer" todd ryan. at this point, he has a drum corps career going all the way back to 75, he spent 15 years with madison, 14 with the blue devils, and a brief 4 year interlude with star in the middle. from what i know about star that seems par for the course. they didn't generate their staffs by promoting age outs and grooming them for senior spots, they pulled from other corps. and those people left for other corps later. that was stars real program, creating an all star staff. and its a working model, one thats what the blue devils took from them, not staff members, but a staffing philosophy. the 86 to 94 drought was the longest period between championships in blue devils history. before then, a wayne downey hornline was enough to win, but as scoring gradually shifted the emphasis away from music and onto visual it just wasn't enough. so the blue devils picked up former madison scout and state street alum scott chandler from spirit of atlanta to run the guard, and a couple of years later talked former blue devil and current vanguard staffer scott johnson into coming back into the fold to run the percussion, and former madison scout and star staffer scott johnson into coming in to run the visual program. the results were immediate. not because they picked up a single star staffer, but because they took the star staffing philosophy of recruiting the best staffers they could find, and combined them with their own home grown talent to create an all star staff team.

it's a good system. if you look at the other extreme, trying to promote exclusively from within and use your own age outs as staffers, well, that was never a dead set rule at madison but a definite preference was given to alumni over outsiders. and while madison has produced probably more staff members than any other corps in the activity, and many of them had tremendous success elsewhere (see star and blue devils), there have been some stagnant years at madison, to go with the glory years. part of the experience staffers bring with them, in addition to new techniques and ideas, is a different way of looking at things, different methods for problem solving, for approaching and shaping issues, and that can only be a good thing. i think a smart drum corps would try to bring on a new staff member from outside the organization every year, or try to hire another corps current staffers as clinicians for camps, just to have the opportunity to see what the grass in the other guys lawn looks like from up close, instead of from over the fence, and to talk about different approaches, and hear what the other guys really think for a change. i think both corps would benefit from the exchange of ideas. in my marching day i can't imagine how much better cavaliers and phantom could have been if a cavies marching tech had worked with phantom during a couple of camps, and a phantom horn tech had reciprocated. that would have been an everyone wins type deal back in the early 90's, and i can't imagine anyone failing to benefit from similar exchanges today.

[BigSnareline]

one thing i wonder about with this thread, people are talking about the influence of star and attributing much of it to "star staff members" still working in the activity. i don't know how you can call most of these people "star staffers" as if they were creations of the star program whose entire professional lives have been defined by their work with star, and their ongoing commitment to bringing stars principles with them everywhere they go. most of these people are drum corps lifers who spent a brief period in their long careers with star.

take todd ryan, for instance. theres another thread here dedicated to hypothesizing about a possible blue devils star finals night match up for the title in 94, and the discussion basically revolves around "star staffer" todd ryan. at this point, he has a drum corps career going all the way back to 75, he spent 15 years with madison, 14 with the blue devils, and a brief 4 year interlude with star in the middle. from what i know about star that seems par for the course. they didn't generate their staffs by promoting age outs and grooming them for senior spots, they pulled from other corps. and those people left for other corps later. that was stars real program, creating an all star staff. and its a working model, one thats what the blue devils took from them, not staff members, but a staffing philosophy. the 86 to 94 drought was the longest period between championships in blue devils history. before then, a wayne downey hornline was enough to win, but as scoring gradually shifted the emphasis away from music and onto visual it just wasn't enough. so the blue devils picked up former madison scout and state street alum scott chandler from spirit of atlanta to run the guard, and a couple of years later talked former blue devil and current vanguard staffer scott johnson into coming back into the fold to run the percussion, and former madison scout and star staffer scott johnson into coming in to run the visual program. the results were immediate. not because they picked up a single star staffer, but because they took the star staffing philosophy of recruiting the best staffers they could find, and combined them with their own home grown talent to create an all star staff team.

it's a good system. if you look at the other extreme, trying to promote exclusively from within and use your own age outs as staffers, well, that was never a dead set rule at madison but a definite preference was given to alumni over outsiders. and while madison has produced probably more staff members than any other corps in the activity, and many of them had tremendous success elsewhere (see star and blue devils), there have been some stagnant years at madison, to go with the glory years. part of the experience staffers bring with them, in addition to new techniques and ideas, is a different way of looking at things, different methods for problem solving, for approaching and shaping issues, and that can only be a good thing. i think a smart drum corps would try to bring on a new staff member from outside the organization every year, or try to hire another corps current staffers as clinicians for camps, just to have the opportunity to see what the grass in the other guys lawn looks like from up close, instead of from over the fence, and to talk about different approaches, and hear what the other guys really think for a change. i think both corps would benefit from the exchange of ideas. in my marching day i can't imagine how much better cavaliers and phantom could have been if a cavies marching tech had worked with phantom during a couple of camps, and a phantom horn tech had reciprocated. that would have been an everyone wins type deal back in the early 90's, and i can't imagine anyone failing to benefit from similar exchanges today.

This post makes FAR too much sense. Good job!

[fick]

What little did I know on June 25th of 1993... I was in my 2nd year marching with Suncoast. The competition that year was held at the high school I had just graduated from (our corps was walking thru the halls to go sleep in the bandroom when I saw my senior-year math teacher..."Hi Mrs. Young!" She had a double-take - she was teaching summer school).

My mom took some pics of Star from the stands. They were marching in 92's unis. I remember seeing the show for the first time and wondering "What the B'Jesus is that?" The show grew on us as tour went on...mocking it a little...and little did we know that we were touring with such history.

Thanks for sharing the ride, Star!

[mingusmonk]

Mingus and others-

No it really is not BS and not just alumni trying to be humble. I without a doubt would bet good money that of the top 6 corps our brass talent if matched up player to player with the other lines would have been less. We had good players but not great players, with the exception of a few, but we took ownership of our responsibilities and played our book that was put in front of us. IT was all about committing to the system and becoming 70 brass players playing as one versus each individual being great.

Making our hornline was as much about attitude as it was about technical playing ability. Heck me for one can not sight read a lick and if you would have put a 3rd valve on my mellophone I would not have been in very good shape. Yes I could play our book and made sure by time to move in it was clean as I felt it my responsibility to have it that way. I will accept that if you put us on the move player versus player then we could hang with anyone. I feel I personally was better on the move than standing in an arc and maybe in that light we did have talent. We taught people how to play on the move and sound as close as possible to the sound that was produced in the arc. If you wanted to be in our line then that was your responsibility to learn how to perform on the move.

Brent,

I don't know you from Adam, so I can't make any judgements on your skills, specifically. But I had Star members as staffers when I was in high school during your early years. I went to high school and college with a handfull of Star members. I went to some Star camps. I marched in another D1 corps that had members leave for Star. Sure, there may have been other corps that had a better sop line. Or another specific corps could have run circles around the bass drums, etc. But as a whole, 90 to 93, Star had as good all-around drum corps talent as anybody out there. Go ahead and take the compliment. As I foreshadowed, it would seem that people don't appreciate how the self-deprication comes across. It sounds like you are saying you all were so good at just being good people, that your drum corps skills werent the factor. They were. You were no longer the scrappy little underdog. And it's OK.

[SaraNYC]

Mingus and others-

No it really is not BS and not just alumni trying to be humble. I without a doubt would bet good money that of the top 6 corps our brass talent if matched up player to player with the other lines would have been less. We had good players but not great players, with the exception of a few, but we took ownership of our responsibilities and played our book that was put in front of us. IT was all about committing to the system and becoming 70 brass players playing as one versus each individual being great.

Talent was never what Star was about.

It was about what Brent so eloquently stated above.

[Medeabrass]

By the "logic" so far presented in this thread, it can "reasonably" be inferred that:

"Star's influence is exaggerated because in order to influential, you must be around for a long time".....

According to this "logic", JFK was also only around for a short time and was a "Flash in the pan", so his influence should be considered minimal. I suppose that Robert Byrd is the most influential political leader in American history?

Although many corps had a larger operating budget than Star, our success was apparently due to spending................

If money TRULY "bought success", than there would have been several corps ahead of that we couldn't have ever overtaken. As a member of Star from 92-94, and later a staff member (Which, btw paid terribly), I would be insulted by this insinuation if it weren't so incredibly asinine. I marched in some other groups before Star, and I can tell you unequivocally, that our success at Star was in no small part due to the fact that we worked hard and were efficient and disciplined in our approach. We did not have as much talent as a number of groups that we competed against. We didn't have as large of a budget as a number of competing groups. We did have a great staff and good product (I'm sure that many competing groups felt that way in regards to their own situation), but without the hard work and commitment from the members, the success that we enjoyed couldn't have ever been realized.

Consider this as it has applied to baseball:

Of the 30 teams that have exceeded $100-million payrolls, two have won the World Series (2004 and 2007 Red Sox). The Yankees won titles in 1998-2000, but are 0-for-7 since topping $100 million in 2001.

Star was never the Yankees or the Red Sox of DCI....more like the Marlins, Diamondbacks or Angels. I will respect anyone who is jealous or hates Star because we were hard-working members of an efficient organization, but spare me from the ridiculous idea that Star "bought success". :troll food: That "theory" attests to the lack of intelligence of anyone who actually believes it.

Besides the influence of a large number of former Star members and staff currently teaching and contributing to the activity, it appears that Star continues to heavily influence ill-informed people to make ridiculous comments about the organization on the web 15 years later. I guess you take the bad with the good......

....clark, you just put a smile on my face. I could visualize you giving that eeeevil center snare stare down as you typed that.

[Medeabrass]

one thing i wonder about with this thread, people are talking about the influence of star and attributing much of it to "star staff members" still working in the activity. i don't know how you can call most of these people "star staffers" as if they were creations of the star program whose entire professional lives have been defined by their work with star, and their ongoing commitment to bringing stars principles with them everywhere they go. most of these people are drum corps lifers who spent a brief period in their long careers with star.

take todd ryan, for instance. theres another thread here dedicated to hypothesizing about a possible blue devils star finals night match up for the title in 94, and the discussion basically revolves around "star staffer" todd ryan. at this point, he has a drum corps career going all the way back to 75, he spent 15 years with madison, 14 with the blue devils, and a brief 4 year interlude with star in the middle. from what i know about star that seems par for the course. they didn't generate their staffs by promoting age outs and grooming them for senior spots, they pulled from other corps. and those people left for other corps later. that was stars real program, creating an all star staff. and its a working model, one thats what the blue devils took from them, not staff members, but a staffing philosophy. the 86 to 94 drought was the longest period between championships in blue devils history. before then, a wayne downey hornline was enough to win, but as scoring gradually shifted the emphasis away from music and onto visual it just wasn't enough. so the blue devils picked up former madison scout and state street alum scott chandler from spirit of atlanta to run the guard, and a couple of years later talked former blue devil and current vanguard staffer scott johnson into coming back into the fold to run the percussion, and formermadison scout and star staffer scott johnson into coming in to run the visual program. the results were immediate. not because they picked up a single star staffer, but because they took the star staffing philosophy of recruiting the best staffers they could find, and combined them with their own home grown talent to create an all star staff team.

it's a good system. if you look at the other extreme, trying to promote exclusively from within and use your own age outs as staffers, well, that was never a dead set rule at madison but a definite preference was given to alumni over outsiders. and while madison has produced probably more staff members than any other corps in the activity, and many of them had tremendous success elsewhere (see star and blue devils), there have been some stagnant years at madison, to go with the glory years. part of the experience staffers bring with them, in addition to new techniques and ideas, is a different way of looking at things, different methods for problem solving, for approaching and shaping issues, and that can only be a good thing. i think a smart drum corps would try to bring on a new staff member from outside the organization every year, or try to hire another corps current staffers as clinicians for camps, just to have the opportunity to see what the grass in the other guys lawn looks like from up close, instead of from over the fence, and to talk about different approaches, and hear what the other guys really think for a change. i think both corps would benefit from the exchange of ideas. in my marching day i can't imagine how much better cavaliers and phantom could have been if a cavies marching tech had worked with phantom during a couple of camps, and a phantom horn tech had reciprocated. that would have been an everyone wins type deal back in the early 90's, and i can't imagine anyone failing to benefit from similar exchanges today.

You made some good points as far as Star's biggest legacy being it's staffing philosphy, but we (that is "Star-types) are not talking about staff "lifers" exclusively. Here are just a few people who marched Star who have taught DC recently: Matt Harloff, Ron Hardin, Brian Soules, Kenny Karlin, Ray Linkous, Frank Sullivan, Ben Harloff, Andy Tye, Mark Whitlock to name just a few...then there's several who were with Blast or Brass Theater as well, but we probably aren't allowed to claim them in some people's eyes. Many of these guys have been or are currently very successful caption heads.

As far as hornlines are concerned, all you have to do is follow Donnie VanDoren's consulting stops the last few years and you'll find a large contingent of Star marchers who are teaching there. Maybe people would feel more comfortable with us claiming a "VanDoren" legacy as opposed to a Star legacy. Star DID groom talent from within the organization. You have to keep in mind though that we didn't have the luxury of decades worth of alumni to choose from. Sure, they weren't caption heads YET but they might have been had we stuck around DCI.