SCV 2009; Star 93

[BRASSO]

I see very little similarities at all between Star of Indiana '93 and Santa Clara Vanguard 2009. First and foremost Star's show in 1993 was not seen as a tradition based show at all. It was seen as new and fresh by some, too complex by others. It's theme was not easily understood by most, and it's music was considered too abstract by others. Yet the show was considered well played and well executed by all. Star '93 was not embraced at all by most of the traditionalists that were around in 1993. By CONTRAST, SC Vanguard 2009 is a show that has a familiar musical score that is accessible to many, and is by no means considered a complex show. It is much more embraced by the tradionalists that still remain here in 2009. It is tradionalist based show to it's very core. When during the course of the show the SCV member steps out front, points his brass instrument to the heavens, this member is paying honor and homage tribute to all those in SCV ( and who knows... maybe other Corps ) that have marched in the PAST. The fact that this SCV 2009 show has many people people standing and loving and cheering in favor at the end is a testimony to the continuing appeal to a tradition based show, done very well. ( " Simple Gifts "... yes, indeed ) Don't get me wrong, Star '93 was a superbly performed and creative and innovative show. But the two Corps appeal with these 2 shows could not be more striking than similar in my opinion.

Edited July 10, 2009 by BRASSO

[Contrajefe]

When during the course of the show the SCV member steps out front, points his brass instrument to the heavens...

Should read "her," as noted on about a bajillion threads, though admittedly impossible to tell from high-cam.

[MaestroBen]

Interestingly enough Spirit of Atlanta had gone on just before them and boy were they loud and on fire. I actually thought at the time Spirit might beat Star on that night, but of course that wasn't the case. If memory serves Star got an 80.3 or something along those lines and Spirit was in the mid 70's. Come to think of it I'm not sure Spirit even made finals that year.

Thanks for the Spirit '93 compliment. As Apathy said, we [spirit] didn't make finals. Dang, we almost didn't make semifinals. For whatever reason, that corps just couldn't put together a good show at any major show. And, I just looked back at corpsreps, and, indeed, our shows went way down at just about every major show. And, while I might have some judging conspiracies hiding in the back of my brain...we probably deserved those corps. I remember a particularly dreadful performance in Ypsilanti, where for a good portion of the 3rd song a good portion of the hornline was 5 yards off. Oof!

But, it was a fun show to play. Marching? We really moved around the field a lot...at least for me, personally, there was a lot more visual demand in that show than in any show I marched in Madison (with the possible exception of the triple-time side of the field in the Malaga drum solo in '94). I'm not sure that degree of visual demand served that show well. There were a lot of inexperienced marchers in that corps. I remember that the guy that ended up plugging a soprano hole next to me 1/2-way through the season had never marched anywhere (not corps, not high school, NOTHING), before.

I think Spirit '93 (especially the music...and it seems like we had a drum-line that ended up placing easily in the top 12 in semifinals) is definitely a show people should check out on the fan network. How often do you get to hear a drum corps play Handel and M.C. Hammer in the same show?

Anyway, back on topic. Yes, I got to watch Star many times from the side in '93. It was very weird with the old uniforms. I still didn't like it most of the season. But, by the time I watched it from the stands on finals night....they had convinced me.

[Rusty]

Star 1993, as others have said, was much less readable than people think. You were constantly thrown off guard, the type of tension and release, at times, had a shocking quality to it, and their was much less story and more individual development of ideas related to each musical section. That was the brilliance of that show, but it's also the difference between Star 93 and say Garfield 87. Both are legendary and maybe two of the best ever, but if I had to compare SCV this year to one, it would be Garfield 87.

I think this nails it. I marched elsewhere in '93, but I saw Star progress and evolve throughout the season. It's easy to look at Medea through the prism of drum corps today and marvel at what a brilliant show it was, but I think you had to be there to understand it was also very divisive. There weren't many fence sitters--either you really, really loved it (that was me) or really, really hated it.

As to SCV this year: I am thoroughly looking forward to seeing them in Houston this year. It takes a lot to get me choked up over anything, but I got just a bit emotional watching the vid on Fan Network.

[BRASSO]

I think this nails it. I marched elsewhere in '93, but I saw Star progress and evolve throughout the season. It's easy to look at Medea through the prism of drum corps today and marvel at what a brilliant show it was, but I think you had to be there to understand it was also very divisive. There weren't many fence sitters--either you really, really loved it (that was me) or really, really hated it.

As to SCV this year: I am thoroughly looking forward to seeing them in Houston this year. It takes a lot to get me choked up over anything, but I got just a bit emotional watching the vid on Fan Network.

This is why the OP's well intentioned analogy between Star '93 and SCV '09 doesn't seem to work. While Star's '93 production was " divisive " in 1993, one does not find much divisivness at all with SCV ' s 2009 show. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but there are few people that are really not understanding SCV'S show and music and therefore left scratching their heads at the end as quite a few were in 1993 with Star's show that year.

[jplattSCV]

yeah, that's about right. I saw it all season, and for a good portion of it the audiences stared with mouths agape. It wasn't until later on when they were performing it well enough to generate intensity that it started to connect. By finals it was incredible, but it was a rough trip beforehand. SCV is definitely more a layered and controlled build.

It was pretty intense from the start. But it was so subtle that it took even a sophistacated spectator multiple viewings to "get it". I know it did with me. I aged out in '92, but I spent a good deal of time travelling to shows all over the place in '93. I'd say I saw that show about 7 times that year prior to finals week. For the the first 3 or 4 viewings, I could tell they were good, but I didn't know what to think. By the finals viewing I knew it was something special. MOST of the audience there did not get it.

I have not seen SCV yet this season, but the description of the show is very reminiscant. Controlled slow buildup that is very true to its original.

Here's my hot sports opinion on why some are are disagreeing with the stattement that these shows are similar. To me, it boils down to image. There were a lot of people that really didn't like Star. So, they looked for reasons to dislike their show. Most everyone likes SCV. so they come at them from the opposite side. They WANT to like SCV's show. SCV could put a total turd on the field and there are folks that would eat it up like it was candy.

If you swapped the exact same shows. Have Star '93 perform Ballet For Martha. Have SCV '09 play Medea. I think you have exactly the same response.

Its the corps not the shows.

[jplattSCV]

yeah, that's about right. I saw it all season, and for a good portion of it the audiences stared with mouths agape. It wasn't until later on when they were performing it well enough to generate intensity that it started to connect. By finals it was incredible, but it was a rough trip beforehand. SCV is definitely more a layered and controlled build.

It was pretty intense from the start. But it was so subtle that it took even a sophistacated spectator multiple viewings to "get it". I know it did with me. I aged out in '92, but I spent a good deal of time travelling to shows all over the place in '93. I'd say I saw that show about 7 times that year prior to finals week. For the the first 3 or 4 viewings, I could tell they were good, but I didn't know what to think. By the finals viewing I knew it was something special. MOST of the audience there did not get it.

I have not seen SCV yet this season, but the description of the show is very reminiscant. Controlled slow buildup that is very true to its original.

Here's my hot sports opinion on why some are are disagreeing with the stattement that these shows are similar. To me, it boils down to image. There were a lot of people that really didn't like Star. So, they looked for reasons to dislike their show. Most everyone likes SCV. so they come at them from the opposite side. They WANT to like SCV's show. SCV could put a total turd on the field and there are folks that would eat it up like it was candy.

If you swapped the exact same shows. Have Star '93 perform Ballet For Martha. Have SCV '09 play Medea. I think you have exactly the same response.

Its the corps not the shows.

[Dr.Mickey]

SCV could put a total turd on the field and there are folks that would eat it up like it was candy.

Wow. I've got a friend who has forever said that the Cadets could "Crap on a plate" and he would love it. You guys should meet.

[jplattSCV]

Wow. I've got a friend who has forever said that the Cadets could "Crap on a plate" and he would love it. You guys should meet.

nice. This statement holds true for Cavaliers and Blue Devils also. But it is most true of dear Madison. Loyalty to the end. But we digress.

[BRASSO]

It was pretty intense from the start. But it was so subtle that it took even a sophistacated spectator multiple viewings to "get it". I know it did with me. I aged out in '92, but I spent a good deal of time travelling to shows all over the place in '93. I'd say I saw that show about 7 times that year prior to finals week. For the the first 3 or 4 viewings, I could tell they were good, but I didn't know what to think. By the finals viewing I knew it was something special. MOST of the audience there did not get it.

I have not seen SCV yet this season, but the description of the show is very reminiscant. Controlled slow buildup that is very true to its original.

Here's my hot sports opinion on why some are are disagreeing with the stattement that these shows are similar. To me, it boils down to image. There were a lot of people that really didn't like Star. So, they looked for reasons to dislike their show. Most everyone likes SCV. so they come at them from the opposite side. They WANT to like SCV's show. SCV could put a total turd on the field and there are folks that would eat it up like it was candy.

If you swapped the exact same shows. Have Star '93 perform Ballet For Martha. Have SCV '09 play Medea. I think you have exactly the same response.

Its the corps not the shows.

I'd have to disagree a bit with this. I'll acknowledge that there was some jealousy afloat in that time period regarding Star's move into the upper echelon at that time. Some of this was a result of the placement up the ladder where it was subplanting others that used to be ahead of them. This is natural and goes with the territory of any Corps that moves up. Part of it was the preceived belief that this was a wealthy Corps that had enormous resources to go out and hire some of the best staffs in the activity that money could buy ( I don't blame them for this, for the record... good for them ) However, Star was VERY well received by most audiences prior to 1993. If it was " the Corps " with the fans then the audience divisive reaction to their earlier year shows would have shown up in their earlier shows. But it didn't. Star's shows were very well received by the vast majority of fans across the Country prior to 1993's edition. So I 'd disagree that it was the Corps, instead of the show with AUDIENCES.

Also, most fans in 1993 did not get to see multiple viewings of Star '93. Remember, we did not have videos readily available on line in 1993 for viewing over and over again. Even people here admit that it took multiple viewings even in 1993 for many people to understand and appreciate better that show. Most fans at shows in 1993 never got a 2nd chance, so first impressions was all that a Corps.... any Corps.... got. I also think it does a disservice to both the fan's intelligence and SCV to state that " SCV could put a total turd on the field and there are folks that would eat it up like candy ". Oh sure, that might describe a few fans, but most people unconnected to a Corps either like what they see and hear, or don't like what they see or hear. SCV 2009 is being embraced because many people like the show compared to other shows this Corps has put out in recent years, and it seems to be connecting better with audiences everywhere. It's no more complicated than that. So from my perspective, with most fans anyway, it's mostly "the show".... not " the Corps ".

Edited July 10, 2009 by BRASSO