tesmusic Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Were not the silver poles and triangles/geometic figures the members utilized, props? I don't think the silver poles were props, as they were flag poles without flags, but the the geometric shapes, were, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tad_MMA Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 ...The finals night performance did have it's issues in brass, but as others have pointed out, the top 5 in '88 all had music issues. Malaguena was hot that night, which didn't hurt the corps. The Garfield Cadets had no music issues Finals night. They were 0.1 behind BD in Brass performance, and I'm still stunned they were given (out of 15 then) a 14.9 in Percussion performance rather than 15.0. The judge's tape is available to hear; he clearly says (at least 2/3 thru) "I've yet to hear an error." Their issue was that the show was much heavier on artistic merit than compelling effect. Plus, they had to follow the Scouts. No bueno... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tad_MMA Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I don't think the silver poles were props, as they were flag poles without flags, but the the geometric shapes, were, IMO. But were they "propped" up? Or were they used as an extension of the body (like a silk or a sabre)? The 1986 Garfield "guard" twirled plastic clarinets in the closer; I definitely call those weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Were not the silver poles and triangles/geometic figures the members utilized, props? they certainly were. since traditional equipment is "flag,rifle,sabre" a pole without a flag is certainly not traditional equipment and therefore falls under the definition of prop. and it seems to me that my sense is that plenty of folks voting here saw the show Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tesmusic Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) they certainly were. since traditional equipment is "flag,rifle,sabre" a pole without a flag is certainly not traditional equipment and therefore falls under the definition of prop. and it seems to me that my sense is that plenty of folks voting here saw the show So a flag pole is a prop, but it's not a prop if a flag is added? Edited February 6, 2015 by tesmusic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) So a flag pole is a prop, but it's not a prop if a flag is added? right. a pole with a flag is "equipment" :-) fwiw i don't think this definition applies anymore (at least it doesn't in WGI). "any hand-manipulated prop is also considered an adjunct of the equipment library." Edited February 6, 2015 by corpsband 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) Were not the silver poles and triangles/geometic figures the members utilized, props?. I suppose it naturally depends on what one's definition of " a prop " is. I personally don 't consider the 93 Star show as using a "prop" as the Guard showed us how talented they were by all using the same uniform equipment that they used in the show in a spinning and tossing fashion .If some adult lugs or drives something out on the field, that' won't fit comfortably into my Lanai, that's my personal definition of a " prop' . There were no large stationary stages, boxes, trampolines, ramps, and other large stuff like that . No narration, no megaphones, no signage, no lecturing us , gimmickry , no need for amplification, etc .,.. It was a compelling show that has resonated today with the newer younger fans ... and has done so without any of the props we see out there now on the field. . 20 years later and it's more compelling than ever a show. That's pretty cool to see how much the newer fans like a show from over 20 years ago that communicates so well and without needing much of anything but brass and percussion and some creative guard work to be so iconic and compelling a show performance. Sure, it did not win with the judges, but few care about that aspect, and that makes this even more compelling as few of the newer fans don't let that stand in their way of their enjoyment of it . That's a pretty cool and uplifting thing to know about this 1993 show performance too, imo . Edited February 6, 2015 by BRASSO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim K Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) I did choose Madison over Star because while it was not as innovative or ground breaking as 1993 Star, it was a tour de force. If it had been 1991 Star, I would have selected Star without a question. Personally, I think 1993 Star has brilliant moments but it may also be one of the most overrated shows of all time. I know it's probably good that most people on this site do not know me or where I live, or else they'd be an angry mob at my door ready to tar and feather me, though some do so I'd better beware. I do not say this to discredit Star either. I think Star's contributions are many both in how to present a spectacular show to corps management. 1987's Circus show is one of my favorite feel good shows. I love 1990 and 1991--Respighi music with a Zingali drill is 100% classic in my book. I just feel that if Star did not end its competitive in after 1993, we might not see "Medea"as brilliant as we do today. Absence does make the heart grow fonder. Edited February 6, 2015 by Tim K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) For accuracy sake, Star still competes . Things do change. Nothing stands still . Star has changed and morphed into something different than what we saw from them in 1993. But they still perform out on the field. The notion that they have vanished is not only inaccurate , it is an unintendred disservice to those that are currently in Star , and who perform in both exhibitions and in competitions. Edited February 6, 2015 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpenceriEuph Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) Ahead of their time? Absolutely! Innovative? Of course. Influential? I think that's an interesting term people try to apply to star 93 when they want to dismiss it as modern and intellectual. No one has to this day even attempted to design a show "like" star 93. The entire show was a single coherent stream of a single musical idea (or journey if you prefer). I don't think they even got near forte until about 6 or 7 minutes in, yet there is such build and such intensity in that harmonically rich and rhythmically thick first half. I could count the number of shows that have even played snippets of that type of music on my right hand, and I have yet to see anyone tackle the art of drum corps in that way since. I grant, Star was absolutely influential insofar as their staff and the musicians who learned under them, and definitely visually, but I would argue star's 93 show was not particularly influential in the direction of modern design as a whole. The show stands on it's own merit as *opinion time* probably the most dramatic and musical experience set to the field. And on the most basic level, it continues to excite me and physically draw me to my feet in a way that few other shows still can. After all, isn't that why we continue to go back? Edited February 6, 2015 by SpenceriEuph 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.