We’ll look very hard at how to keep the district contests afloat if we go to this, and how to administer it without a lot of confusion. We want to do no harm, at the least, and do some good if possible. Thanks, and vote!

A couple of people have made comments about the number of “A” level choruses in the SAI contests vs the BHS, and I can tell you from a great deal of experience (and I am probably going to take some gaff for this) that an “A” for an SAI chorus is harder to get than an “A” for a BHS chorus.

Her chorus is in what has been consedered the “weak” cycle for years, and yet this year a chorus in that cycle just scored the highest any chorus has scored at a regional competition.

I am for the concept of this change, however I think it may still need more thought before implementation.

One of the things that I know the women do, that is not here is that they only allow the wild card choruses to be picked from those that come in second in their region. I am not sure how this would work for the number of choruses in the contest, maybe we go to the top 3?

A situation like we have in the MAD where 5 choruses are elegible for internationals could REALLY effect the district contest…..

There were also a number of people who were talking about making sure that the contest really is “The best of the best” but really is that true now?

How many choruses in other districts got higher scores than the winners of the PIO, SLD, or NED? The 2 year system would allow some of those choruses who would have won any of those districts outright the opportunity to make it to the “big show”

Finally, the financial commitment necessary to go to internationals is very large, and I think we would end up with more attendees overall if you give chorus members the time to “save up” for them, guys that would normally just come by themselves might bring the family.

Every decision that we ever make will have repercussions, and the question is whether there are more positive ones than negative ones. Obviously, the idea is to get more choruses involved.

But shouldn’t that happen individually at the chorus level anyways? What I mean to say is, if the chorus doesn’t have the motivation to keep going under a dynasty (kind of what RMD choruses might be going through with Sound of the Rockies’ recent championship streak), then how would they find any MORE under a two-year system?

From a non-competition standpoint, I would like to ask what the main reason is for this proposal. To me, it seems to be based on getting more people involved; but looking at the “future” of this makes me wonder if the attendance will fluctuate too much for this to honestly be considered a stable idea. For example, all of the people who support the VM will be there every year they compete, but in the off year, will there be as many registrations? Probably not. At least for a while, unless they choose to, all of the “big” choruses might be on one cycle, and the “small” being on the other. Say that Ambassadors wins again, and then all of a sudden, you’ve got them on a cycle as the only 100+ man chorus while the rest average 62… It would take a while for the competition to “regulate”, and we would still have the “quality” issue to deal with.

From a competitive standpoint, I hate to say it this way, but I don’t plan on going unless there’s a chance for me to get a medal out of it. Whether that’s because of the money involved, or the dedication it takes to work up a contest set; if I’m not going there to do my best, I probably won’t go.

(Please understand, as far as money goes, I’m a college student, so that is definitely affecting my mindset.)

Obviously, this will give more people a chance to experience the International stage, and will save money for all of the competitors. Those are very big advantages to consider in agreeing with the proposal.

However, the definite negative is that people like myself (prospective competitors) could miss out on a really good convention because we aren’t willing to pay to go knowing we aren’t competing for something.

Now I can’t say how this would affect me as far as being able to compete every year under the same system (quartets), because I’m currently not in one. Knowing that they are the constant, even a quartet who I really enjoy being predicted as the favorite coming in won’t draw me to a convention. And I’m sure that most fans of the Masters will be the same way if they aren’t competing. And by that logic, the money won’t be coming in.

Earlier it was said not to take the opportunity to compete every year away from us, and I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, being a prideful and competitive creature myself. I also understand how wonderful it can be for our wallets to follow this system however.

As of now, I haven’t voted. Even giving the matter a lot of thought does nothing to clear the murky view of it. But I do understand that whatever decision is final, because it takes a while for this kind of change to be implemented.

A different question, but would affiliate choruses be affected as well? I’m sure they wouldn’t look too kindly to that…

As I see it, this change is best left alone until we have a better idea. Unfortunately, even with all of the comments we have here, this is only a small part of the Society.

Now, understandably, the demographic is hard to get a full glimpse of, especially from a non-competitor’s view, and that’s not what I’m suggesting.

I just hope that whatever decision we make is truly the right one.

Sincerely,
Matthew Seivert

-Part of SoR

However, the truth of the matter is, quite frankly, the quality of the competitions could diminish, causing its popularity to fall back. Let’s be honest, how many of us go to the chorus competitions to hear every chorus vs. the number of people who only want to hear the VM, or the ambassadors, etc? If audience members are limited in the excitement of the contest, what will this do to the choruses who are less likely to make in a top ten slot?

We can list the downsides and upsides on this issue, but question that should be at the forefront of discussion is “Will this benefit the society?” I’ve pondered this question many times for the past week and while their are many downsides, the upsides seem to outweigh them. Personally I would prefer the current system we have in place, however I do not see this as a BAD change. Yes there will be a transitional period where everyone is trying to figure out what’s going on, but from what I’ve read I don’t see this hurting the contest so badly as long as it can be managed correctly.

The key to any plan is to make sure you have the right people pushing it forward. Anything can look good on paper, but those in charge of making the whole thing work will determine the proposal’s success. You may have your own opinions about the staff at headquarters, but I personally feel the staff currently employed can make this a successful new direction in the chorus contest.

Again, personally I would like to keep it things the way they are, but I’m not against what is being proposed. I say we should give it a shot and see what happens. It’s the risk takers that make a difference in any organization. This new chorus rotation plan could fall flat on its rear end, and if so, we move on. But I feel we should at least see if this will work for the betterment of the society.

I never stated that the two year rotation prevents anyone from winning. In fact, it does quite the opposite: Many choruses that do not score high enough to medal will have a much better chance to gain a medal when only half of the choruses in the world are competing. The two year rotation, by forcing the group of choruses who compete in one year (even after rotation is established) to sit out in the next year prevents any opportunity for any one chorus to compete against ALL others because only half of the choruses are allowed to compete each year. I believe that this is important to consider because a rotation reduces the amount of skilled competitors that make achieving a medal such an incredible experience.

When I say “everyone got a chance to try,” I mean that no choruses who wanted to compete last year were prevented from going to the big show by the two year system. For many choruses, the annual competition is a driving force for constant improvement.

If there is one thing I really like about this rotation, it is the idea of bringing in skilled choruses who have been the victims of overshadowing by larger groups within their district. These choruses have been prevented from reaching International, while choruses from other districts that score less able to go because they are not overshadowed; however, I don’t think that limiting every chorus to compete every other year is the proper solution. It seeks to solve that situation by chopping up the entire competition in half.

One of the best compromises that I have heard encourages the adoption of a system that allows choruses who medal to be exempt from having to sit out the next year; this way they get to continue driving towards a goal that they are so close to and other choruses can move in to have their opportunity to compete.

Despite the effectiveness of this compromise, though, I still don’t like the idea of preventing choruses who want to compete every year and have earned the right to do so from attending the International Chorus Competition.