POSITIVenrgy Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 No one has significantly commented on SCV 2010, as you have, but their 2010 should NEVER EVER been done after Star of 1993. SCV did not and could not perform Bartok visually or musically as did Star. Please don't insult people by attempting to say something positive about SCV's show last season that was in reality a joke in comparison to drum corps of the past. *SIGH* Posts like this just make me tired all over. Where does one begin? Thank you, Rifuarian......(where are you fsubone?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddyt Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 No one has significantly commented on SCV 2010, as you have, but their 2010 should NEVER EVER been done after Star of 1993. SCV did not and could not perform Bartok visually or musically as did Star. Please don't insult people by attempting to say something positive about SCV's show last season that was in reality a joke in comparison to drum corps of the past. It's called taste, dude. One's offerings may be more to their liking than another, without the need for any "insult". I am as much a fan of Star's '93 program as the next. But I will never go so far as to paint it as the end-all-be-all of drum corps. No corps, in the history of the activity, deserves to be put on the pedestal you put SOI on for any reason. To say that a corps "did not" perform to one's standards is one thing. To say that they "could not"....? THAT is an insult. Not only to the Santa Clara Vanguard, past and present, but to anyone with any connection to this activity whatsoever. Grow up. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corbin Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 (edited) It's called taste, dude. One's offerings may be more to their liking than another, without the need for any "insult". I am as much a fan of Star's '93 program as the next. But I will never go so far as to paint it as the end-all-be-all of drum corps. No corps, in the history of the activity, deserves to be put on the pedestal you put SOI on for any reason. To say that a corps "did not" perform to one's standards is one thing. To say that they "could not"....? THAT is an insult. Not only to the Santa Clara Vanguard, past and present, but to anyone with any connection to this activity whatsoever. Grow up. Let me say that I did not call Star 93...the end-all-be-all of drum corps shows. I put this show on a pedestal as compared to SCV 2010. Why is it so hard to point out realistic limitations, ESPECIALLY after the fact. SCV did not have the ability to perform Bartok visually or musically as well as Star 93, period. Therefore, they could not perform this music as well as Star. Considering the amount of complaining and moaning that goes on the DCP forums, it is amazing that someone has the audacity to tell me to grow up. I have been participating in this activity for 20 years, and I am fully grown. The problem as I see it is that many are not used to people giving direct OPINIONS. Edited May 15, 2011 by Corbin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddyt Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Let me say that I did not call Star 93...the end-all-be-all of drum corps shows. I put this show on a pedestal as compared to SCV 2010. Why is it so hard to point out realistic limitations, ESPECIALLY after the fact. SCV did not have the ability to perform Bartok visually or musically as well as Star 93, period. Therefore, they could not perform this music as well as Star. Considering the amount of complaining and moaning that goes on the DCP forums, it is amazing that someone has the audacity to tell me to grow up. I have been participating in this activity for 20 years, and I am fully grown. The problem as I see it is that many are not used to people giving direct OPINIONS. Well then, in your 20 years experience, I'm sure you can enlighten us all as to how the kids of SCV 2010 could never be able to outperform, musically and visually, a corps almost 20 years older than they were. Because (go re-read your post) you not only stated that they DID not. You stated that they COULD not. Opinions are one thing. Stating things as though they have been commanded from on high and written in stone from atop a mountain are completely different. When you state that SCV "could not" perform to the level of Star '93, you speak on behalf of the abilities of each of the 150 members of the 2010 Santa Clara Vanguard. So, please. Explain. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corbin Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Well then, in your 20 years experience, I'm sure you can enlighten us all as to how the kids of SCV 2010 could never be able to outperform, musically and visually, a corps almost 20 years older than they were. Because (go re-read your post) you not only stated that they DID not. You stated that they COULD not. Opinions are one thing. Stating things as though they have been commanded from on high and written in stone from atop a mountain are completely different. When you state that SCV "could not" perform to the level of Star '93, you speak on behalf of the abilities of each of the 150 members of the 2010 Santa Clara Vanguard. So, please. Explain. I'll be glad to, but I sincerely don't argue for the sake of argument which is just exactly what this is. Nor do I feel I need to get the last word in and here's the reason why. You are not interested in dialogue, just to insult me because you feel I have insulted not a person, but a particular group of a particular year of a particular organization. In other words, context is everything. I will not repay your personal insult of me by insulting you back, but will rather cease dialogue with you on SCV 2010 and Star 93 from here on out. In a direct way, I will say that if you feel the need to insult me, because you feel I have insulted then I am not the only that may need to consider growing up. I will not reply to you again on this particular issue. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddyt Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 (edited) I'll be glad to, but I sincerely don't argue for the sake of argument which is just exactly what this is. Nor do I feel I need to get the last word in and here's the reason why. You are not interested in dialogue, just to insult me because you feel I have insulted not a person, but a particular group of a particular year of a particular organization. In other words, context is everything. I will not repay your personal insult of me by insulting you back, but will rather cease dialogue with you on SCV 2010 and Star 93 from here on out. In a direct way, I will say that if you feel the need to insult me, because you feel I have insulted then I am not the only that may need to consider growing up. I will not reply to you again on this particular issue. Actually, no. You've got 20+ years of experience in this activity, so I am curious to know how/why it is in your mind that SCV could never perform up to the standards of Star '93. It's part of discussion forums. When you state an opinion (and go so far as to state that opinion in ALL CAPS while pretending to not be looking for any kind of retort), there are times other folks on that forum may ask you to back up or further explain your opinion. No one is necessarily right or wrong in the situation. But to make a statement like you did and leave it as though it's just the way of things without expecting or being prepared to back it up makes it look like typical hit-and-run flame bait. I'll apologize if my initial post came off as insulting to you, but go back and re-read what I replied to and tell me there wasn't an air of superiority to what you wrote. I have no ties to SCV whatsoever. Ask anyone on here that knows me. I'm a Cadet borg (top of the signature). This forum is rife with people who dislike a certain corps or a certain show. 99%, however, have the decency to at least expound upon why that is, whether it's considered right or wrong in the eyes of any particular reader. Your post just flatly stated that SCV 2010 could never live up to Star 1993. All I'm asking is for your reasons why. ETA: I'm also curious as to what "realistic limitations" you're referring to. ... After the fact, of course. Edited May 15, 2011 by chaddyt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Other Mike Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Let me say that I did not call Star 93...the end-all-be-all of drum corps shows. I put this show on a pedestal as compared to SCV 2010. Why is it so hard to point out realistic limitations, ESPECIALLY after the fact. SCV did not have the ability to perform Bartok visually or musically as well as Star 93, period. Therefore, they could not perform this music as well as Star. Considering the amount of complaining and moaning that goes on the DCP forums, it is amazing that someone has the audacity to tell me to grow up. I have been participating in this activity for 20 years, and I am fully grown. The problem as I see it is that many are not used to people giving direct OPINIONS. usually, when people offer their opinoins they say things like "I feel such and such" or "IMHO". What you typed came off as fact. While I didn't care all that much for SCV 10, I did appreciate it for what they attempted. For you to say there is nothing positive to say about them really comes across as insulting many people. Maybe you don't realize just how "superior" you come across. I'm an arrogant bast### most of the time and can #### people off with the best of um, but wow, you got me beat by a mile. Good luck making friends 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazek Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 I don't understand all the comparisons between SCV '10 and Star '93... For one, Star barely used any Bartok throughout their show, and a large majority of the memorable parts of the show are all from Barber's Medea. SCV used no Barber, and I don't think the shows should be compared on the basis of "oh, they both used some of Bartok's music". I also don't believe Star should be placed on such a high pedestal, but that's a different issue entirely. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcsnare93 Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 usually, when people offer their opinoins they say things like "I feel such and such" or "IMHO". What you typed came off as fact. While I didn't care all that much for SCV 10, I did appreciate it for what they attempted. For you to say there is nothing positive to say about them really comes across as insulting many people. Maybe you don't realize just how "superior" you come across. I'm an arrogant bast### most of the time and can #### people off with the best of um, but wow, you got me beat by a mile. Good luck making friends It should be the default understanding that what someone says and writes is their opinion. Not having that as a default is how we ended up with the terrible popular style "IMHO it could be argued that...". NB, when I say it's a terrible style, that's my opinion, not a universal truth or peer reviewed fact cited in a published journal. See? But back on topic, if SCV 2010 was a "joke," then I think that joke was lost on a great many people. Regardless of one's opinion, having some tact can go a long way. Hopefully he'll realize that in the future. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 No one has significantly commented on SCV 2010, as you have, but their 2010 should NEVER EVER been done after Star of 1993. SCV did not and could not perform Bartok visually or musically as did Star. Please don't insult people by attempting to say something positive about SCV's show last season that was in reality a joke in comparison to drum corps of the past. i think you have managed to cover that view as "significantly" as will ever be needed. so mission accomplished, and congrats. i'm one of those strange people who managed to love both Star's and SCV's radically different treatments of Bartok, both musically and visually. but maybe there's something wrong with me. 1 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.