Two-year chorus rotation? What’s your opinion?
Posted by Ed Watson | Posted in Chapters, Chorus, Contests & Judging, Events, Uncategorized | Posted on March 18, 2010, 9:56 AM
183
We would like you all to think over a suggested change to our competition schedule, for choruses only. We’re in the early “what if?” stage right now, but the Society is investigating the possibility of switching our international chorus competition to a two-year rotation.
Currently, we allow approximately the 28 best Society choruses from each fall district contest (district champs and wild-cards), in addition to a few international affiliates, to compete at the next international contest, which takes place 8-9 months later. We want to gauge reaction to the idea of a system in which (approximately) the 56 best Society choruses would compete on alternating years (an equal top-down mix of still roughly 28 per year). They would also qualify roughly 20 months before the international contest, to give them more time to financially and artistically prepare.
This PDF is a hypothetical example of how a two-year cycle switch could be implemented.
This Excel spreadsheet shows an example configuration based on 2009 scores. (Please note that the spreadsheet opens to a tab that shows the final results. There are two other tabs at the bottom of the spreadsheet that show how those results were generated.)
Sweet Adelines International has used a two-year rotation since the early 1970s. Initially, they experienced alternating “strong” and “weak” years, but the “second tier” competitors raised their competitive level, and soon all years were strong years. As seen in the above hypotheticals, were the Society to implement a two-year rotation, we would avoid the “weak year” challenge from the outset.
*UPDATE: If you study the above PDF carefully, you’ll note that champions would continue to sit out for two years, which would effectively mean the champion of “rotation A” would be competing in “rotation B” three years later. *
Many believe that the two-year rotation would (or does, in the case of Sweet Adelines):
- Give each competitor more time to prepare financially and mentally for each international competition
- Facilitate balance with chapter endeavors other than competition, such as travel or community activities
- Give more choruses the opportunity to be on “the big show”
- Result in a greater number of high-level choruses
Of course, we’ve developed a different set of traditions and expectations over our 60 years of international chorus competition, and there are unanswered questions about any possible switch to a two-year rotation, including:
- Many of our international competitors already skip years voluntarily, but how would they react to a mandatory year off?
- If the international field expanded to include today’s “on the cusp” choruses, would the result be a greater number of choruses that perform at the highest level, or simply a bigger point spread at international competition?
- How would such a change affect district competitions – would the net effect be positive, negative, or neutral?
Again, we’re only in the “what if?” exploratory stage. The only thing you should infer from the fact that we’re asking these questions is that we care what you think. Please take this non-scientific poll and elaborate in the comments area.
Loading ...*Update: If more than one member of your household has tried to vote on this poll, note that the polling module used at barbershopHQ.com appears to have been designed to discourage “ballot stuffing.” Only the first poll response from a given computer will likely be logged. Sorry, but again, we’re not claiming this is a scientific poll.*
We want your feedback!
CEO, Barbershop Harmony Society
While this would allow more choruses the chance to perform on the International stage, it would result in concentrating cchampionships with few(er) choruses. If I understand correctly, champion choruses would be allowed to compete every other year. While some dearly want to see the long-anticipated matchups of VM-MoH, etc., this would result in bi-annual matchups, with liitle apparent chance for groups to cross over from one group to the other (even to odd years).
Chuck,
According to the linked PDF, they have no plans to change the rule where champs sit out for two years. I suspect that means that once a champ wins, he’ll move from the “A” rotation to the “B” rotation.
Chuck, just the opposite would be true. Champs would move from one “bracket” to the other every time they won, (forced to sit out 2 years) and of course, choruses could always voluntarily sit out to “game” the system. All this would really do is force some highly competitive choruses to take some down time, and open up the competition to more choruses. To those that say this is ‘dumbing down” the competition, remember, choruses are living, breathing, learning things and they can improve given proper motiviation. And, having been on the international stage myself, that’s quite a motivator. Thanks for your thoughts.
I have long been an advocate of what is being proposed. This might be the single best way to get more barbershoppers and their families to attend international conventions. My assumption is that some members of chapters who are sitting out a given year would attend nonetheless. By introducting twice as many barbershoppers to the convention experience we stand to increase attendance, in my view.
This would change the society for the better. Just an opinion… I believe it would change the way District competitions are handled FOR SURE. There are alot of B+ choruses out there that would smell the opportunity to make it to the “Big Show”. In turn result in higher standards, better all around singing and over all growth inside the society. It is a great idea!
As a chorus competitor in the 90s (long before coming on staff) I was thrilled to compete with my chorus each year, but also missed a little bit of the more relaxed feeling of convention that I experienced when not competing. Fortunately(?) we only competed three years in a row and I was able to enjoy the convention as a spectator. It was the least hours of sleep I’ve ever gotten in a given week …except for maybe Harmony U! This would be a nice change, IMO.
My vote: no.
Since there are no rules preventing a chorus from sitting out if they are burned out or financially drained, why do we need this?
Some choruses go every year because that is what they want to do – why take that away from them? Others sit out periodically (Phoenix, Hilltop lately) for various reasons and that’s fine too.
Everyone already has the option to do what they want; why do we need change?
It is also inevitable that patterns will emerge where there are good years and “bad years”, and that they will migrate between odd and even years. I know a medal is a medal but if a chorus medals with an 83 is that a good thing? Is someone finishing 8th the next year with an 87 a good thing? Will chorus sit out an extra year to jump into the bad year rotation for a better chance at a medal?
I guess you can all tell by now that I hate the idea.
Steve, I don’t hate the idea, but I must admit you have hit on a valuable and interesting idea – why mandate something that choruses could do voluntarily? I usually come down on the side of freedom. To seek an answer, I spoke with several Sweet Adeline chorus directors, who expressed that the motivation to stay on the hampster wheel of competition was too strong to resist. I believe you make a valuable and cogent point, and a good argument against. Thanks for that.
I am with you Steve. I have been with Hilltop for 7 years now and while it was tough to sit out the two years (and now Philly), our chorus overwhelmingly feels we are doing the right thing for our chorus TODAY. Let choruses make that determination, there will be an increase in choruses competing and, I believe, many non-competing guys will show up for the show. I am blessed to have a wife who loves the week we have spent each of the seven years, whether or not our chorus was singing.
I understand your argument but would like to describe a twist that happened at our chorus.
We knew that Nashua crumbled under the weight of many years in a row of International Competition. It had happened to NBC when they were always winning and I was a part of that also way back when.
NBC floated the idea of skipping a year and many of us were for it. The outcome of the chapter vote was to NOT take a year off.
Had NBC won the district in 09, for me that would have been tough, because I can’t afford to go to Philly this year. My credit card is too high from last year’s trip, so I wouldn’t go even if NBC had won.
There are lots of guys whose finances struggle to support this hobby, even though they love it as much as I do. I think this plan will help in that area.
As a member of a chorus that has competed the last 12 years, I’m torn. I recognize the potential upsides, but wondering if members of B+ level choruses want to get to international? And if they do, can’t they do it the old-fashioned way? Earn it? Under this proposal, they wouldn’t necessarily have to get better – just maintain their current level – and they qualify. I’m going to have to think about this some more…
I think the biggest thing is the idea of motivation, in order to get better. Growing into the next level. If you look at the chorus competition as a whole right now, there are B+ choruses that get to compete simply because of their District’s strength. I think if this was brought up as an opportunity for choruses in stronger Districts, it would be a motivation for them vs maintainance of the group thing. If this is put into place there should still be a definate score that needs to be acheived in order to be invited. If your District champ doesn’t reach that score, then the next highest eligable score from which ever District becomes the wildcard. It is a neat idea, yet could certainly take a few years to get it right….. There is alot to think about..now that I think about it…..
Bob, I think the data (though I haven’t looked that closely) shows that a lot of choruses are scoring high enough to do a great job at International, but are not making it because there is no room in the Inn so to speak.
Although the argument is that choruses have the option to opt out, they do not have the option to opt in when they are sitting at that 22nd or 23rd best score in the Society level. This also helps where a District has a chorus that is a perennial champion. There should be motivation from within the chapters to try to beat them, but in some cases, it is easier to take the route of throwing in the towel and ignoring competition.
I am a believer this will help all the way down the line!
That was what I was most surprised about. The difference between the choruses that make it and the choruses that don’t is not that big. So, by and large, it doesn’t “dumb” down the competition.
On the topic of “choice”, for 20+ years, I believed in choice and would have been against this proposal. However, it is the rare chorus that actually exerts that choice. The common belief is when you get off the hamster wheel, you will never get back on. Meanwhile, when you listen to chapters that habitually come back to International year after year, you hear stories (and see the impact) of lost membership due to finances and lack of variety in the rehearsal. Consider a chorus that competes in the fall, wins (or qualifies), small break for Christmas and then begins preparation for contest in July. Because there isn’t time to develop two new songs with vacations and summer in general, they practice those same two songs for the fall. Then Christmas and here we go again.
Yes, I hear the same stories about strong and weak flights in SAI. Maybe, although last year’s contest (which is supposed to be the “weak” flight) was pretty dog-gone strong.
SAI and BHS judging scales are slightly different as to what describes an A-level group. However, being a judge, I would estimate that in watching the SAI chorus contest, SAI has approximately 15+ choruses each year that we would state were A-level choruses. Two years in a row. Our statistics indicate that we have approximately 15 A-level choruses in a contest. That’s it. Both groups have the same number of past champs sitting out so that’s a wash. How much better would be if we could develop two flights of 15+ A-level choruses? I think it not only could happen for BHS, it will happen under that model in time.
Finally, the statistic that I think should cause us the most into looking more seriously at this model is the number of members competing on stage. Look at the number of singers on stage in our Int’l contest and look at SAI’s. Then remember that they have two flights of contests that have similar numbers. When I joined many moons ago, we had many century chapters competing with 100+ members. Now we have very few choruses competing with more than 80-90 and only a handful that are 100+.
The definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect different results. We have fewer choruses in general competing, and we have lower membership in our choruses at the International level. This proposal is not the only answer, but it is a model that we see working.
Kevin Keller
Data from 2009 Contest Summary:
http://www.harmonize.ws/HarmonetReporter/scores/2009/Fall/Chorus/SUM09DCH.HTM
Lowest WC: 79.2 (22 seed)
seed #28: 78.1
seed #56: 72.0
lowest DC: 69.8 (72 seed)
Just facts.
Some more facts:
In SAI, an A score is considered anything above, and including an 80%. BHS has (to my knowledge) sometimes used 80% and sometimes used 81%. For consistency’s sake, these figures assume an 80% is indeed an A score. In SAI’s contest, this would equal a score of 2624 at Int’l and in the BHS, this would equal a score of 2400. I looked at each International score sheet for the past decade, and the number of A-level choruses in each contest are as follows (scores taken from officially published score sheets):
Sweet Adelines International
2009- 9
2008- 8
2007- 6
2006- 10
2005- 5
2004- 6
2003- 5
2002- 7
2001- 4
2000- 7
Barbershop Harmony Society
2009- 20
2008- 16
2007- 21
2006- 16
2005- 18
2004- 15
2003- 15
2002- 16
2001- 16
2000- 18
So there are roughly twice as many A choruses in an average BHS Int’l chorus contest than SAI has. Which means that, putting any two SAI contests together would produce a score sheet remarkably similar to an average BHS year (at all placements, from 1st all the way down to 20th). SAI has done the two-year rotation since before I was born, and they still have almost exactly the same number of A-level choruses that we do. Granted, their scoring criteria are slightly different than ours (our older 4-category system is more similar to what they use at the present time), but the distribution of levels is shockingly similar: there are typically between 16-20 A choruses in both societies. One does the two-year cycle, and one does not. It doesn’t seem to make any difference in the level of choruses. The two-year cycle for SAI did not result in a doubling of the number of A choruses, as is predicted will happen to us. The only tangible difference was that it results in the doubling of the number of medals given out every year (actually a quadrupling, because SAI gives medals to placements 6-10 as well).
Now at this point my educator’s mind turns on. We’ve all been made aware of the concept of grade inflation, and some of us are aware that the achievement of students (often called a “bell curve”) doesn’t significantly change when rewards and grades are raised across the board. Handing out 10 (or 20) medals in a two-year period as opposed to 5 doesn’t seem (by the numbers) to make much of a difference in the performance level of choruses. The only difference that occurs is that an 81-82% is often enough to win a 5th place chorus medal in SAI, whereas to win a BHS chorus medal, a group has to score consistently in the upper 80s. This is the main reason I think that choruses placing 2-5 should be allowed to return to District the following fall and compete every year if they remain eligible to. I understand the temptation to move toward the modern concept of “everyone’s a winner” that has taken such a strong hold in contemporary America, but it is a temptation best resisted, IMO.
I’ll just leave this post with one more thought:
I attended BHS conventions only for my first 12 years in barbershop. I recently have begun attending SAI conventions as well, and I marvel at how different the cultures of the two organizations are in many ways, most delightful to behold. I like that the cultures are different, and the women seem to as well. One of the biggest differences I noticed is that in the BHS, we tend to treat medalists and medals as more of an honored status. My Sweet Adeline friends seemed to be a bit more jaded and less excited about winning medals. Could this be the result of handing out so many more medals than we do? When you walk down the hall of a convention and more than half of the people you see are wearing medals, it does make them seem like less of a big deal. After all, if gold were as common inside the earth’s surface as coal, would it be as valuable? Rarity is what makes our medals special. I say let’s keep medalist ranking rare and difficult to achieve!
What’s the problem? If you’re in an A+ level chorus, you’ll beat the socks off them and they’ll have bragging rights in their home town that they got to compete in a far away locale.
I am not convinced that this would be a good thing overall. Just from the example from 2009, in the MAD while this does serve to separate the top 2 choruses, the next 5 in a row were all placed in the same pool, which I think would pretty much devastate the other year’s District convention. I think this could impact our division conventions, as well. By eliminating half of the chorus pool each year, it could make them unsustainable.
The way I see it: I know in the SAI everyone competes each year except the chorus that is sitting our preparing for international. So at district and division contests it would be the way it is today, after the first year. Everyone would be there except for the group that is getting ready for thier international. Incentive for the groups that finish just below the top. Here in MAD, it would mean a lot since there are many choruses at that level, (counting the mike test this year we are sending five) So in future years we may send two one year, and three the next, so only three choruses will not be there. These choruses would be encouraged to attend and perform even sing for score at the beginning, or at the end of the cycle. Works for me.
I’ve got a sister, mother, and fiance in a Sweet Adeline’s chorus. There are two choruses from their region that repetitively win every other year. I can’t say how the system plays out in every region, but in theirs it seems to have only brought 1 more chorus to internationals. As other people have said, many district winning choruses would sit out 1 year anyway, so I’m not sure how much things would change. I also kinda worry that VM will win internationals one year and MoH will win the next, and they’ll both swap to the opposite rotation so we’ll never see them compete against each other again unless one of them decides to take another year off (but that’s 3 total years without competing). It could result in less exciting internationals.
Having said that, I do believe that this would increase competition and result in better, more determined choruses (how much it will do so is the question). I think it COULD result in helping to bring more people into Barbershop… this is where I think the plan shines. Overall, I’m undecided.
Once they win, the current rules would still apply. So after say VM wins, then St Charles wins, Next time back they have to compete in the opther bracket. But it’s a moot point since there are now 4 choruses that can each sing at a level to beat each other. VM, Masters, St Charles, and Westminster. I bet there are a few others that with this situation may mange to get a little better. Toronto is right close, so are Denver, and….
I think you might get it.
Zack,
Welcome to the club (undecided.) You raise some good points, but think through this – this OPENS the competition to more choruses. There will always be choruses jockeying for the right place to compete, but is that bad? I don’t think so. If my chorus was competing and I could choose between the VM and waiting a year and going against the Masters, I wouldn’t bother waiting. But if the second choice was against somebody not as good, I’d probably wait. But if I wait, someone else will step in and get the experience. That’s why this might be a win-win! I’m not sure yet either, but it’s fun to read the thoughts of others on this, so thanks.
As a director of a small chorus getting back into District competition the decision on this would not directly affect my chorus, nor would it affect the majority of choruses in the Society. It would, however make the International Chorus competition open to more choruses and that’s a healthy thing. Perhaps this is a topic that should be kicked around for a year or so before it is voted upon by the International Board. I’m on record as being in favor of it.
There are so many aspects to this idea that we should consider a study group to actually contact everyone involved including perennial competitors, potential competitors and the general membership. Once we have everyone’s opinion, this should be presented to the IBOD to make the final decision.
Having said that and having read Ed’s comments and those of the folks who have responded, I would just posit this for consideration: This is the International Chorus contest. Only the best of the best should be invited to this level of competition. Anything less than that diminishes the significance of the event.
As Steve Nester comments any chorus who wants a year off can take it. Two choruses in M-AD recently did just exactly that. I don’t think many folks noticed.
If choruses can improve AFTER they are invited to the International competition (because someone better than them could not compete), why don’t they improve BEFORE they are inivited—enough to qualify for an invite?
Blessings,
Montana Jack
Jack,
But if the system gives them 20 MONTHS until they hit the International, instead of 9 months, they would have much more time to improve. And, they might have time to go into their schools and volunteer, right?
Also, I agree that we want the best of the best, but isn’t that a relative thing? The VM was the best in Anaheim until the AOH hit the stage. We have an abundance of great choruses. Let’s get them all exposure.
“We have an abundance of great choruses. Let’s get them all exposure.”
Requiring choruses to sit out every other year helps this…how? It tells half of the top-level choruses that we don’t want them there half of the time.
Lots of good points so far, both for and against. Great discussion!
I’m wondering (aloud) whether or not the setup is a little more complicated than it needs to be. While I understand the benefits of the 20-month interval between qualification and International Competition, I’ve never been a big fan of that (as the son of a Sweet Adeline). I can see a lot of excitement and momentum within the chorus possibly being lost during that layoff. I’d prefer to keep the 8-month interval, if possible.
Proposal: Throw everyone back into the pool in Year 1. Let District Champs (DCs) and Wild Card Reps (WCs) go per today’s process. In Year 2, the Year 1 DC sits out their District Contest, but all WCs can compete. Year 2 DCs and WCs qualify for the next year’s International. In Year 3, the Year 1 DCs are again eligible for their District crown, as are any WCs, while Year 2 DCs relax. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Keep the 3-year layoff rule for International Champs. Of course, choruses still have the freedom to sit out whenever they choose. And this still gives any competitively-focused chorus an even shot to improve themselves and earn a District Championship or Wild Card berth that may have been just out of their reach before.
Just a thought for further discussion.
I’m not a fan of the idea. My reasons:
1) What Steve said.
2) As an audience member, 2009 was the best competition ever. That would be greatly diminished under the new system.
3) As a competitor, I feel that if my chorus ever achieved either a top ten finish or a medal, that accomplishment would not mean as much under the new system.
4) The idea that attendance will improve seems a little speculative. The average size of the competition chorus will likely go down, and this would tend to decrease attendance, while other factors may tend to increase it.
If we do implement this change, I like the selection process. I think it has been very well thought out. A couple things that in my opinion would improve this new system:
A) Any chorus who medals (2nd – 5th) should be exempt from having to sit out a year. They deserve the opportunity to shoot for the gold. This would also help with my comments 2 and 3 above.
B) Set some sort of minimum score, say 76 for example. Setting a certain standard would encourage competitors to improve rather than just lowering the bar. It would also help comment 2 above.
Jimmy,
thanks for your comments. It’s the kind of perspective we’re lookiing for to make an informed decision.
The problem with the exemption from sitting out for 2-5 is the 20 month gap. In order to repeat a year, you would have had to already qualify for the next years competition. But with the gap, you wouldn’t know if you were able to qualify.
Tim,
If that’s the only problem with Jimmy’s proposal, it’s easily solved. Paul Wolf makes an excellent suggestion about keeping the current 8-9 month period between prelims and International, even if we go to the new every other year schedule. I favor that idea.
There seems to be an unfounded assumption running through this thread that more time to prepare will result in better performances at International. Montana Jack makes the point well – why not improve before you get the invite to International?
More time is not a panacea – what you do with that time is critical. The genius of Hilltop’s plan to sit out for a couple years is not that they took the time off – it’s what they did IN PLACE OF competition to force themselves to improve. Without a clear goal that’s closer than 20 months away, it may be difficult for a chorus to maintain the focus that is necessary to improve.
This would not be a good idea IMO, and for a number of reasons:
1. Would winning a gold medal at an Olympics where 70 countries boycotted be as valuable as one won at a fully-attended Olympics? Of course not. Especially not if it was in a year that all the big countries weren’t there. Medals are only precious when they are rare, and won while competing against the very best competitors possible. A 4th place SAI medal could mean that the chorus is feasibly the 8th or 9th best chorus in the world based on the pool of everybody, all things considered.
2. Many of us sing in choruses that look toward the summer’s International convention with much excitement and anticipation. Being forced to sit out half of the summers from here on out would certainly be a disappointment for those of us who enjoy competing every year. Where’s the “encouragement” in that?
3. Some members in those choruses (myself included) would still attend to International every year, but the majority would not. If they weren’t competing and vested in the competition itself, they won’t spend the money to go just to be a spectator.
4. The top tier of choruses (the 22 district champs and wildcards for 2010) averaged 68.4 members on stage in the 2010 district contests. The next 22 choruses below them (who would likely comprise the “second cycle” if we go to SAI’s system) average 40.6 members on stage in districts. It’s quite clear that one cycle would see (at least for some years to come) a drastic reduction in the number of men competing on stage. The majority of men who are forced to sit out would not go to International, so this doughnut hole would not be filled up to the level it would be if all choruses were free to compete every year they wish to.
5. Most choruses that compete at International every year already DO balance competition with other chapter goals quite well. Forcing these chapters to sit on the bleachers for 50% of future internationals would, at any rate, upset the balance they’ve created for themselves. Chapters that don’t have a great balance can be encouraged to create it their own way, and if this includes sitting out some years from contest, they already have that choice. Does it need to be forced onto everybody in a “one size fits all” policy?
6. It would prove hurtful to District competitions, because choruses not allowed t vie for a seat at the International stage aren’t all going to perform at District for “evaluation only.” Many just won’t go and we will have lower attendance at District conventions. This also throws our concept of divisions into a tailspin. SAI doesn’t have this problem because they have one regional per year, no divisions.
7. If we’re going to do this, why don’t we do the same with quartets? I’m sure the 50 or so quartets down the list that score below a 76 would LOVE to have the opportunity to compete against each other at Internationals! It would motivate them to improve, right?
Matt,
You raise many good, valid points. It’s valuable to get your views because you are a vested player already. Thank you for your input. there are no right or wrong answers, just ideas.
I’m fairly confident that whatever happens, status quo or radical change, we’ll find a way to make it the best. I want to offer a few “counterpoints” for you to consider. They are not contradictions, because I do think you make good points, they’re just additional thoughts.
#1 is the gold medal as good when lesser players are involved? Ask Mary Lou Retton. (Her gold medal was in a year the Russia boycotted the games.) My chorus won 5th international 1 year. I don’t know who we beat, or who beat us. I just know we were 5th.
#s 2 & 3 are valid, but there will be other choruses involved to take up the attendance slack, and they may be people who have never been to international before. + you!
#4 maybe their averages will go up, no, I KNOW their averages will go up because qualifying choruses grow as they approach their debut on the big show. Success attracts.
#5 you are correct, I, like you, don’t like to dictate behavior. But the report from Sweet Adelines that I have gotten is that they love having the time to prepare. If I were in charge of a chorus under this system, I would stress to the members that we have 20 months to grow together. A trip to Australia (together) and a summer retreat (together) and a fall district appearance (together) and a concerted funraising effort would really position us to do well.
#6 is the most troubling to me, but I haven’t worked it through yet, so I’m undecided.
#7 sounds the same, but is it really? What’s the cost for a quartet versus the cost for a chorus? How hard to move a quartet along vs a chorus? We would still have a minimum qualifying score as we do now, so maybe it would work for quartets too, who knows.
At any rate, these are not arguments, I hope you see, except in the debate sense. I like your points and will try to cogitate on them until my brain shuts down, or I get a headache. Thanks, Matt.
Thanks Ed for your timely and thoughtful response.
I can absolutely see where some folks are coming from when it comes to a “building more good choruses” perspective. SAI has done it this way for longer than I’ve been alive, and there are still mixed opinions about the matter (it’s great we’re having a good debate about all sides of it). They do have about the same number of A choruses as we do. We currently have a contest system that virtually guarantees a spot on the International stage for a chorus that scores above an 81 in District. Perhaps opening Internationals up to choruses that score in the 70s will help them get up into the A level. Perhaps it won’t. We really can’t know now.
The gold medal Mary Lou Retton won was indeed a triumph for both her and America. I just find it a bit unfortunate that her gold medal will forever be followed by an asterisk, as will Elena Davydova, the champion from the 1980 Olympics, when the Western countries boycotted.
I love Jimmy’s idea that if we move to a dual cycle system, the medalists each year should get a bye and be given the opportunity to compete at District the following fall for next year’s International. This will encourage those (usually) big choruses to go to their District every year, helping maintain attendance in the fall. And it means that the top half of the contest will remain relatively intact, and still be a serious shoot-out between the very best our society has to offer as far as choruses. And the medalists choruses, who nearly always opt to go as much as possible, will be given that choice. And a chorus medal will retain the status and rarity that it enjoys now and, frankly, that it deserves.
Your point on #4 is well taken. We all know that choruses who are going to the big dance, especially if they haven;t gone a lot in the past, improve and work very hard. It happened this year with Music City Chorus. I hadn’t considered that.
The lead-in time is a double-edged sword. SAI gives their choruses a lot more time, but they also are preparing two contest songs for the semifinals as well as a 4-5 song finals package. And, despite having twice as many months to prepare as the men do, SAI choruses repeat the same songs at International a lot more than the men do. Gem City performed “Roll On, Mississippi” at Internationals in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006, and this is quite commonplace, even among the very top echelon of SAI choruses. I’m not sure what factors into why this is the case, or if it has anything to do with lead time. Thoughts? I guess my only point on this one is that, as an educator, I have found that (of course) members love having more time to prepare. But that doesn’t always mean that it’s what is good for them in the long run. Having a limited time and creating a sense of urgency contributes greatly to a group’s eventual originality, creativity, and ultimate musical product. It’s just the way human psychology works. Even with the two-cycle system, a chorus could still compete in the fall and go to International the following summer.
I think the variety of opinions on this will be very helpful toward striking a balance between encouragement, building more good choruses (which is CRITICAL to our survival as a society), and maintaining the integrity, elite status, and competitive excitement of our International contests.
Matt,
Well founded and thoughtful comments again. Thank you.
Ed
We also need to look at how this will impact attendance at District conventions. In my district, attendance it typically smaller at the Fall convention as it is. More choruses are competing at the Spring, District Chorus Championship convention, than the Fall Intl chorus prelim convention.
Chorus participation drives convention revenue. The choruses we’re talking about are typically the larger choruses in district.
In this plan, the off year qualifiers are “encouraged to assist” and to “sing for score”, but there is no guarantee.
If a large chorus chose not to attend, convention attendance falls, fewer hotel rooms are booked, and convention revenues are lower. (Think about it… it takes 3 additional small choruses deciding to attend to make up the difference of a large chorus deciding not to attend.)
How will this affect our organization at the district level?
Great points, Dave. This is one of the areas that would have to be addressed before we could proceed with a change.
Here’s a few ideas: If they were the district champs (as reps usually are) wouldn’t they be required to come back the next year for a “swan song”? And couldn’t that be a requirement, with maybe a “go for the gold” show some time in that year? And couldn’t the district plan it a get a cut? And, as more choruses get healthy since there’s more opportunity to succeed, wouldn’t that make the district and the Society healthier?
You’re right in what you suggest, so let’s think about it some more.
Just make the rule that “off year choruses” must show up and compete for score or be disqualified to compete. Any shenanigans would also disqualify them, like sending only 4 guys to represent their 160 man chorus in that off-year.
Well, Ed. District Champs are crowned at Spring conventions, and sing their swan song at the following Spring convention. So that would have no effect on the Fall prelim contest/convention.
There seems to be an assumption that qualifying more choruses for the big dance creates healthier choruses. Or as you put it, choruses would “get healthy”, implying that bad choruses would become un-bad. We’re really only talking about the top 7% of our 800 chapters.
When it comes to finances, our districts need those resources to help the bottom 50% get healthy, so they can represent our Society positively in public.
Not every District crowns a District Champion Chorus at their spring convention. For most Districts, actually, the spring convention is a quartet prelims only. Most Districts crown their district chorus champion at the fall convention, which is also the International Chorus Preliminary contest. The vast majority of districts WOULD be affected, Dave.
I for one feel this could be just what the doctor ordered for the chapters that compete every year at the international level. They lose members every year because of the time commitment and financial stress it puts on them. Yes, if I’m really “gun oh” and want to compete every year, I might be able to do it. But what about the member who has a young family and just can’t handle it year after year. The other reason is that I really believe it will not diminish the quality overall but improve it. Oh, it might in the beginning cause a drop in the overall quality in the second year of this new concept, but not for long. The strength and quality of the competitions will only improve and allow for a much stronger chorus competition overall. Look at what Hilltop Minnesota is doing and realize it is the right thing to do. You can finish higher than you ever have before (3rd); increase your membership doing it; have a ball; and still don’t have to go to international every year. What a deal!
Ed: Thank you for allowing some open dialogue on the subject… This is really great. There have been several very solid points for and against. Being a barbershop and SAI brat since birth and an annual Int. chorus competitor and past Int. quartet competitor for the past 8 years, I can honestly say I’m undecided and feel like there are a lot of benefits and costs. This will be a BIG shift for our society, and I’ve got a couple of personal viewpoints to bring to the table:
1. BENEFITS (to me): From the perspective of a guy with a young family as Jim D. brings up, I think it would be incredible to have a year off every other year to focus on my family. Growing up (from age 3 until 13), my parents had to find me a babysitter or I had to get shipped off to camp or something while they went to International. Not only was it expensive for my parents, but it kind of sucked not being able to be with my parents for 4th of July every single year, to miss all of the fun back home every year when I started coming to international, etc. Now being in the parent role with a 10 year old and a 3 year old it’s getting tough for me. Not only financially, (because of the extra expenses in my life), but also having to figure something out for that week every year is a burden and I do sometimes wish I could take a year off… A lot of the single guys, like Matt, and a lot of older guys with older kids who don’t really get this, which is why I wanted it said.
2. COSTS (to me): From the perspective of a competitor and a leader in one of the current top 5 choruses, I really think this could be hurtful, especially in our chorus’ case. All of the statements that have been brought up are totally valid and I agree with most everything that has been said…. Even with Matt….. =) However, I think the idea of MOMENTUM being slowed in a situation like ours would be the biggest cost. .
3. Now for the self serving question…. =) and I apologize for being so all over the place…. Can we bring into the conversation Youth Choruses and how this may benefit choruses like 52eighty, who are linked with a big brother chapter like S.O.t.R? I know this may not be the forum for it, but Ed, have you given any more thought to the proposal to allow youth choruses to compete (under the terms of the Youth Chorus Contest member guidelines) and can you speak to the point of how the new proposed rules might play into this? Could a Youth Chorus that represents a chapter maybe go to the competition on the big brother chapter’s year off if they qualify? Maybe this might be a cool twist, to not only drive growth for the reasons already mentioned, but could also be a good idea to build into your plan to foster the youth initiative at the same time??? Thoughts?
Thanks again for giving us a vote.
Mike,
To your #3 thought; I took it to the Board when proposed originally and there was no enthusiasm to make a change right now. The Board did not like the idea of two competing choruses from the same chapter, whether a youth comnponent or not. Maybe as we change the competition format (if we change the competition format) this could be brought up again, but for now it’s moribund.
If I understand the current rules, a chapter can have as many choruses as it wants, but only one can compete in a given contest. It would not be against those rules if the youth chorus competed in a different contest, as long as they were society members.
As a selfish spectator I am not excited by the prospect of seeing only 9 A level choruses out of 28 or so at International every year. (At least that’s what the spreadsheet tells us). Would there be a few more – sure.
It wouldn’t exactly ruin the chorus contest for me but my excitement over it would certainly be significantly diminished.
And while I may have no skin in the game as a competitor, I should add that I have attended 30 Internationals including the last 28 in a row. B+ level choruses sound great in the context of a district contest but at International, not so much. Anyone remember Louisville in 1991 and the 65 quartets? This would be the chorus contest, more or less, every year, from a quality standpoint.
Jim DeBusman makes a good point about competition burnout – but OTOH, can’t guys who don’t want to go in a given year just take a 3 month vacation from chorus rehearsal?
Steve,
The quality of the responses to this post are amazing, yours included. Thanks for the thoughts, and thanks for the loyalty. We will consider all inputs, I guarantee it.
It’s a fantastic idea.
Anyone who has attended an SAI International knows that there is no drop-off year to year, and the constant “shake-up” provides plenty of incentive for choruses to strive to do their best.
Early in my barbershop life one chorus effectively blocked out several other very fine choruses from competition year after year. They did nothing wrong, and were simply following the rules.
When they won International and sat out 2 years the chorus that was “blocked” competed in the big show — and medaled.
For all the reasons stated in the hq blog it’s a great idea and one of the best ideas the women use that we should steal as quickly as possible.
Mentioned in a different post was the “performance package” prepared by SAI choruses.
As far as I’m concerned this is another fantastic idea that we should steal ASAP.
I’ve noticed that folks are also concerned about the drop-off in quality. My suspicion is that any drop-off would be extremely temporary as the choruses qualifying would start working harder than ever when given a shot on the big stage, and overall quality would improve.
Now for my most controversial opinion: I believe that while both men and women’s champs are unbelievable, the women’s chorus have *deeper* quality — meaning that there are more choruses of International caliber in SAI. And the double cycle is a major reason for this.
Thanks David. Your service to the Society (and your Gold Medal) inform your perspective.
Great discussion going here… thanks for bringing it up!
Personally, I’m conflicted. I’m much more for educating chapter leadership about the benefits of sitting out every so often (if that meshes with their goals) than I am with imposing that restriction on them.
I think the decisions the society makes should be based on what it is the society would like to achieve…
Are we trying to encourage/force chapters to have a more relaxed atmosphere with more time between competitions for “chapter” activities to take place? If so, then this is probably a good idea… but it might mean that we don’t get the same top-heavy quality we currently get.
It might also mean that the phenomenal quality of the highest echelon organizations are not going to be as high as they would be if the competition was as strong as possible. AoH knew they’d be facing the VM, so I imagine that (and coming in second a few years in a row) drove them to higher highs. The highest highs we’ve ever seen, in fact.
Are we trying to encourage higher highs of quality? Something we can show off more readily to the rest of the world? Then maybe we should drop the “win once, sit twice” rule, and bring only the top 10 choruses based on score to international every year even if they won last year, create a fantastic show that can be sold to external audiences more readily.
Or maybe we should have two rounds of competition as we do now, and then have a “medalists” show as the highlight of the week? Top 5 (2? 3?) choruses and quartets each get 15-20 minutes to put their package in front of a guaranteed huge crowd?
Are we trying to get as many people to international conventions as possible? Then maybe the highest highs don’t matter so much, and even being top-heavy may not matter so much. In this case we might want to have more competitors? Cheaper venues? Dunno…
Are we trying to encourage chapters to have a deeper wealth of excellence throughout their repertoire? Maybe the two-song set isn’t the best motivator of that? How about we invite less choruses and give each one a 15-20 minute package? Prove that you can put on a good show set, and it’ll even guarantee you get some great marketing material out of it. I know that as a competitor I’d love to spend more time on stage, and I’d love to sing more than just two songs to show off what my chorus can really do.
This would also make the months of preparation more likely to be dynamic… instead of working two songs up to the best possible level, we’d have to work a whole set, as a performance package, if we wanted to be competitive. But this gets harder to judge, and harder to do preliminary work. That said, it still rests on chapter leadership to be smart about how to spend their time, regardless of the restrictions imposed by the society. Good education for chapter leadership can only help this!
It also means some of the crazy high quality we’ve seen from past champions may not be as good if there’s much more to work on… The quality that results from a two-song set for those two songs is really quite stunning. I might miss that level of performance, but I’d be getting something else instead…
This is a really tough topic! I hope the society is taking it on for the right reasons!
I think your assumption of lesser quality is valid in the short run, but not the long run. It’s like static versus dynamic scoring in politics. You (we) must assume that the change will affect the choruses too, and that they will get better with the challenge. That would be great!
Thanks for chiming in.
It is good to try and improve whatever we do so thanks for trying.
I’m afraid that many men would plan to belong to many choruses that they think would give them a chance to compete at International each year which would promote “spreading themselves so thin” that their choruses would become only International Competition choruses.
Many of our choruses already sit out some years for many of the reasons stated even though they have qualified.
There are some good reasons for the change but I am a little skeptical about what the result will be. Bottom line for me is If we try the change I will support the effort.
And, bottom line, I really appreciate that support. Please know that we are considering every input here.
Having been involved with the hobby since before chorus contests started and having been involved professionally with SAI (I was their recording engineer for a while) as well as having a wife and daughter in a medalist chorus, I have had an opportunity to observe both systems.
One of the advantages of the ‘sit out’ system is that the non-competing chorus gets to host the regional (district) convention the following year. This gives the competing choruses the opportunity to compete without the strain of also hosting the convention.
It gives the ‘sit out’ chorus an opportunity to perform for the convention and judges one year into their preparation time.
It would not affect district convention attendance because all the choruses would be there. I think there would be a little disruption in the scoring level for a year or two, but it would eventually work out.
I think that BHS should also have a two level International chorus contest where the top ten would have a performance package. This really sorts out the choruses that are capable of entertaining and audience instead of just singing two songs.
That being said, I think that the AOH performance in Anaheim was one of the most exciting things I ever saw in a BSQ convention.
There would have to be one other caveat, as someone else mentioned: Members should not be allowed to “chorus-shop” just to go to contest every year.
This is a really good discussion and I’m glad so many people are weighing in. Nothing but good can come from this.
Shelley, my friend,
It’s good to hear the thoughts of a Barbershopper who has been around since “Who laid the rails” as Mayor Shinn would say. That gives your opinion weight with me. (Incidentally, I knew who it was you before I saw your name – it was eerie!) Thanks.
I’m curious… what’s the reasoning behind requiring singers to sit out from all competition for a year? Some people are competitive, why prevent them from getting what they want? If they can commit to multiple chapters, why disallow that?
Gentlemen, I am a 25 year barbershoper. I really enjoy contests, especially International. I worry that, with so many choruses competing at an every other year foremat, it might muddy the water. In other words, the judging panels would seem to have so much more to deal with that it could muddy or dilute the scroring. In my 25 years (all with the same chorus), I have never sung on the international stage and that is okay. I love the high caliber of these singers. But it also seems as though it might be like having too much icecream at one sitting. How much is too much?……Tom Wallis
I never had a bad doughnut, and there’s no such thing as too much ice cream! Just ask the boys and girls at Harmony University! Thanks for your ideas, and remember, we have 810 chapters, and we’re talking about 28 in any given year.
Good idea from a cost point. Not sure about the changes that could occur from qualification time to contest..20 months is a long time.
Lyle, if I was the director or the Music VP, I’d find plenty of things for the chorus to do in that period to sharpen their craft skills and polish those contest songs, without dull repetitions. thanks for your thought.
I don’t think it would make much difference. What would be real smart is to release the districts from two conventions a year and allow them to hold only one per year. That will save the overburdened districts and make for larger, better, and better attended district conventions. It’s gotten to the point that most Barbershoppers can’t afford two conventions per year.
With this change people can better afford to go to the International conventions..
Lee – Sunshine has two conventions – a reason that a north and south divisions have been suggested. Mid-Atlantic has divisions ONLY in the Spring and ONE District competition in the Fall. Quartet qualifying is separate from the District competition.
If International alternates, The qualifiers from the previous year would have to sit out District competition – almost like winning the International, even though they only won District. It could be done without too much upset. It just has to be made “the rule!”
Maybe the cycle needs to be examined and maybe standardized.
Having quartet prelims in the fall would give them a longer time to get better for International. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Having International chorus prelims in the spring and waiting until the following year to compete at International would allow 16 months to prepare the International package, a compromise between the 9 and 20 months of this current consideration.
District chorus and quartet competitions could be at the same or opposite conventions.
I do not think it is a good idea for the reason stated of momentum. I belong to a chorus who is an international competitor for the last 5 years and this will be our 6th in a row I think. We went another time with a break in between. It will be my 3rd time going this year. We have been the smallest chorus as well, but we make it. This last year we weighed heavily the idea of sitting out as it was in Anaheim, all the way across the country for us. We decided to go on the idea of momentum and losing it if we did not. We decided to only qualify with those who were going which meant about half the chorus so we would not fool ourselves. We qual’d with I think only 17 on stage? We also felt it is a hobby and that it was a choice whether to spend the money or not. I also do not like the minimum score idea as we are in a district that constantly gets scored low for quartets and choruses so I do not agree with either idea. I feel it would hurt the district attendance as well. You should always be striving to do your best, so I do not feel taking the year off would help everyone.
Okay, thanks for your thoughts. I hope you voted.
As a 34 year barbershopper I have been a member of several sizes and styles of chapters, and have competed at international in a chorus as well as a quartet. Both were great experiences. In addition I am a Contest Administrator. I also believe that you can’t call yourself a real barbershopper until you have attended an international contest, either as a competitor or as a spectator only (more fun). I owe the society a tremendous debt for all the blessings it has given me.
Having said that, I firmly believe that way too many chapters put way too much empahsis on competition and consequently drive away many members who don’t have the time or the resources to travel to a contest every year (or don’t have the interest in only singing two songs for months on end). Will this be positive or negative to overall growth?? In my mind this will give more choruses an “opportunity” to spend 20 months beating two songs into the ground instead of 8 months. I think that’s a bad thing.
My local chorus has grown and improved over the last 5 years, not because of an emphasis on contests, but by an emphasis on becoming a valid player in our local arts community, and a huge emphasis on putting on quality shows. That is why we are on the verge of qualifying for international, and if we do, great. If not, that’s great too.
Does anyone know what percentage of our mambership has attended at least one international as a competitor?
Please don’t overlook how this plan might affect membership growth (or decline).
i dont like it. my main reason is that choruses go through peaks and valleys. watching the sweet adelines system, there are frequently competitors that are no way near as good as they were when they qualified to go to international. There are different reasons for this, i.e, director change, membership turnover, but i want to see the chorus representative of that chorus that qualified to go in the first place.
Colin, that would certainly be a challenge to the winning chorus.
If you want to get new blood to the conventions, why is our largest Chapter demographic ignored when it comes to International competition: those who are not part of the mega choruses with 160 singers or consisting of ONLY 30 and younger singers? Why is there no international competition for the Class A (39 members and under) or mid-size Class AA chapters who compete for top honors for their class in the Spring? The Mid-winter Convention could have been a great place for that competition, but now you’ve filled it up with high school kids who [sarcasm] I’m sure bring lots of $$$ for registration fees and the Harmony Marketplace. [/sarcasm] I’m all for the kids competing, but how many choruses come? 10? How would the bottom line look if 25 medium and small choruses were qualified to attend and compete for their gold medal award?
Let the mega choruses, the invitation only young choruses, the Class A & AA choruses who qualify for the BIG SHOW compete and sweat it out in the Summer and give the rest of us something to shoot for in the Winter in a comfortably warm venue.
Dave, I do see your point, but (personal preference here) I like winning because you’re the best, not because you’re the best for a certain size. We’ve found places where choruses eliminate members from their roles, who were dues paying members, but not singers, because they wanted to stay under a certain limit. There is nothing but inertia stopping an A chorus from becoming a AAA chorus. Now, if you’re a small chorus and still win the district, then you’ve REALLY shown the world something. That’s just my viewpoint, and I see yours. Thanks.
Name me an A level chorus in large metropolitan area that will be in the Big Show who doesn’t have an invitation only policy and is also the District Champ. There are some areas of the country where you can’t grow bigger than an A level chorus no matter how good you are.
I’m not suggesting that the AA and A Chorus Champions “trophy” “medals” would be equivalent to the one awarded in the Summer. But there are some good AA and A choruses out here that will never qualify for your two-year chorus rotation. Why not give them a way to compete in the Winter?
Maybe I’m missing something here; I certainly don’t believe in the idea that everyone who competes should get a ribbon, but a bone or something needs to be thrown to the average Joe Barbershopper chapter, because, quite frankly, BHS policty seems to be set up to favor celebrating the mega choruses and young men select choruses.
Just my opinion to throw out there.
Dave,
Sound of The Rockies (Denver, CO)
Does not have an invitation only policy. We do have a small audition requirement of “did you learn your notes, and can you hold your part”
We have had many members throughout my years singing with SotR that did not do as well on their first audition as they had wanted. They came back the next week, better prepared and passed. This past fall we even gave free voice lessons to anyone who showed up. Almost half have now joined the chorus, but everyone who came and learned would have easily passed our “audition” had they wanted to.
Would you consider that “invitation only”?
“There is nothing but inertia stopping an A chorus from becoming a AAA chorus.”
The low population density in many areas of the country doesn’t factor in at all? I’m thinking specifically of the Dakotas, northern Minnesota, and northern Wisconsin, where I have been a member of various chapter choruses.
Good luck getting enough men to take a chapter in, say, Milbank, SD from A to AAA!
Are you saying that in a city the with, say, 20000 residents, you can’t find 75 singers? How about 10000 residents?
In those same cities, how many people are singing in church choirs or community choruses? I bet it’s a lot bigger number than in the local barbershop chapter. If you make your chapter a more compelling experience than the local church choirs, you will pick up some of those people (probably a lot more than 50).
I don’t buy the “there aren’t enough singer in the area to have a chapter bigger than 15 guys” argument. That’s a copout.
I can’t answer for Orchie, but I can point a few things out.
First, you throw the number of 20,000 out there. Notice the areas Orchie is mentioning. There aren’t many communities of 20,000 in Northern Wisconsin.
Even in communities of 20,000, I think you underestimate the difficulties of forming a chorus may be.
Those church choir guys you mention aren’t all potential targets. How many are singing for religious purposes and wouldn’t come over for the secular music of barbershop? Northern Wisconsin is highly religious.
There are other huge challenges with attracting members in Wisconsin, like:
- The arts aren’t looked at in the same way as other, more densely populated areas. They are often approached with a “look, don’t touch” attitude.
- The barbershop schedule can conflict with things like hunting, fishing, and local events that have a huge significance here.
There are other examples, but I’ll hold off for the sake of brevity. I’m sure there are challenges to forming a chorus anywhere, but I can only speak to the challenges in my home state. To trivialize those challenges is damaging.
On top of the challenges to finding members, consider the difficulty we often have of getting 25+ guys on the same page. Do we focus on competition or shows? Singing or presentation? To bring guys together can be hard.
Then consider that 25 guys may not satisfy the desires of a chorus. Throw in the likelihood you’re lacking in voice parts, talent, or leadership experience. Add in the rough economy and travel that can be required for some types of chorus.
Starting to see the picture? When you spread the population out, including spreading the contests, add in conflict with attitudes and other activities, and include the difficulties of getting the right pieces together, maybe a AAA chorus in Northern Wisconsin takes a lot more than inertia or the right attitude.
Consider such challenges before calling a particular point of view a “cop out.” Sure, a group in Northern WI or SD could pull 15 guys together and force something to work short-term, but making it meaningful may not be so cut and dry.
This rotation has been working for us…
(BTW–I’d watch Jamie Bedford as being a young man on his way UP–!)
Marty, that’s a very strong argument in favor of the change.
And thank you for being an Associate. We appreciate it.
“The big show” in quotation marks suggests that the international competition is way outside the scope of local chorus activities. The suggestion of a need for balance twixt competition and local activities is the core of the problem. The central office has no way of noting the accomplishments of hard working choruses as they go about serving in their communities. There is no way the central office takes note of the “shows” that a local, non-competeing chorus produces. The bulk of Society membership is in such choruses. Too much time and energy goes into the “big show”! That’s not where the heart of barbershop singing is!
We’re working on a Chapter Achievement Program (CAP) so that we can know, and will reward, chapters who do good things outside of competition. Thanks for your thoughts.
GREAT idea!
Just take a look at the LOL District. We have had a Chapter Achievement Award program since the 70′s. There is a form that is filled out by the chapter secretary that details all of the activities that the chapter has taken part in for the past year. There are point values for each activity and awards for each chorus plateau, A, AA, & AAA. The list of award winners is listed on the LOL website, loldistrict.org, under the Directory link. I am in favor of the 2 year rotation, just think of the packages we might be able to prepare with the extra time…
If we are going to change the system, why not reward talent and get rid of the district reps.. it should be the top choruses, period. As a member of a chorus that for two year just missed Intl, I am frustrated by a system that rewards lower talent based on geography.
If a chorus scores in the top 28… send them. That would make a much more exciting show, rather than having to sit through some “not ready for prime time” choruses… If you want more attendance, you need to raise the quality and excitement, not lower it.
There’s a lot to be said for district pride and cohesiveness. I see your point, thanks for making it.
The point being made elsewhere that choruses would get better if the rotation was implemented also implies that choruses in, say, SLD or NED, would become better if placed in a district with other higher level choruses.
If anyone agrees with the first premise I think they need to accept the second one.
To your exact point – does it sound like fun to have no announcement as to who is going to International until after the contest season is over, which is what would happen (though obviously some choruses would know their score would be good enough)? I think that is worse than denying what would probably be the 25th place chorus a chance to compete.
NED would have been in this state of limbo for years when Nashua was consistently scoring 78-81, which is right on the cusp of qualifying by score (or not).
I think that the best way to increase the competition and not lock people into a rotation where the same chorus’ compete each year would be to keep the present format but give out a championship at each level, just as we compete at Districts. Three Championships each year A, AA, AAA. They could compete on different days of the convention to increase activites for the convention and more men would be able to sing in the competition with more chorus’ attending. If you wanted to then have the top three compete for a grand championship fine, but I don’t think its needed. This system gives everyone a chance to compete and be given a reasonable chance at a championship even if in a small 25 man chorus.
See my response above.
What the proposal would do is eliminate chorus competitions at the international level every other year. On the off years, what effect do you suppose that will do to district competitions? Most of our members who like to compete will feel a bit deflated. The up side to this is that district contests can become opportunities for choruses to focus on improvement for the love of the music and not for competition.
I think you are misunderstanding the proposal – it is NOT eliminating a competition — just moving it to a two year pattern similar to what Sweet Adelines are already doing. There will still be a competition every year – just not the same choruses.
Explain how choruses competing every other year is NOT eliminating a competition. Every other year there won’t be choruses competing. Sounds like elimination to me.
Choruses A, B C D compete in 2010 at district level, Chorus A wins and goes on to compete at International level in 2012.
Choruses B, C D, compete again at District level in 2011. Chorus B wins and is representing District at International contest in year 2013.
Chorus A becomes eligible to compete at the district level again in 2012.
There will still be an international contest EVERY year but with different competitors than the previous year.
Thanks Cassandra, you saved me from thinking too hard. You’re absolutely correct!
You’re quite welcome Ed…. I wouldn’t want you to lose any brain cells! GREAT discussion on this – even if it doesn’t come to fruition, I applauded the Society for thinking outside the box of ways to solve problems. Change is hard, more for some, less for others. But why not try something and see how it works? Ya never know how things will turn out – can’t play the “what-if” game forever – that gets us nowhere!
I think that is what already happens in SWD and the FWD.
Maybe Jeff meant that every year there will be choruses who are not competing; so to them there is no competition opportunity for them every other year.
GREAT discussion! We’re hitting on all kinds of other points not intended in the original question, but boy oh boy are they good points!
Just a few thoughts:
#1: Midwinter
The idea of a midsize and/or small chorus contest at Midwinter is something I advocated back in 2000-2001. However, I completely disagree with the snub of the Youth Chorus Contest. It’s going to prove to be one of the smartest decisions we’ve ever made because it brings NEW barbershoppers in, young men who are interested in singing at a high level and elevating our art form.
#2: Show Packages
A very tempting option, but we tried this in 1998 and it was supremely unsuccessful and unpopular. I think a big part of it is that a package with talking, jokes, and a relaxed atmosphere destroys the wonderful tension and anticipation we get from seeing a quartet just come out, explode their songs onto the stage, and then leave the audience wanting more. Having watched the SAI contests with show packages, the addition of talking, over-acting, scripts, props, and gimmicks often produces a lot of golf applause, and it’s nearly impossible to get an audience back into the excited anticipation once you’ve broken that plane that exists between making art and doing schtick.
#3: Balance
Once again, people who do not belong to a “super chorus” are making assumptions about our focus. Sound of the Rockies has always seen contest as only a part of what our overall chapter mission is. Just as important are our annual shows, supporting our quartets in their various endeavors, our “Ready, Set, Sing” series of vocal lessons, Rocky Mountain Harmony College (on which I have served as faculty), and the dozen or so paid singouts we do in the Denver Metro community, as well as in outlying areas of the Front Range area. SOR’s music leadership has pondered taking a break from International in the past, but our membership vetoed us. They want to go every year. We may decide to sit out at some time in the future (if we don’t win!), and we always have that option. That’s how I like it……being an OPTION and not a REQUIREMENT.
Thanks Matt, good response as always. I will point out that you like it (OPTION not REQUIREMENT) because that’s what you know. If we change, in 5 years you may like the new way, because it affects choruses OTHER than yours and changes the battlefield. Just a thought…
I don’t want to spend a lot of time over-analyzing this proposal so I’ll give my gut reaction. I go to convention or watch it on my computer because I want to see the best choruses perform. A score of 80 puts a chorus in the top twenty. Below 80 the quality of performance starts to drop off fairly quick. I can go to most any chapter show and see that. Think of another way to make money.
Tom, a bit of a cheap shot at the end, because it isn’t all about the money. I admit that we’d love 10,000 people at each convention, but this is also about member satisfaction, and getting MORE men into the big show. I respect your opinion, but not the hip shot. Thanks.
Where do you live where you can see a B+ chorus on every chapter show?
And sorry but I believe your hypothesis is incorrect – under 80 it does not drop off fairly quickly, it drops off more slowly, because contest scores follow what appears to be a normal distribution (bell curve) – not many 95s, not many 35s either.
I think it’s a good idea – SAI has done it for years and it seems to give those competing choruses extra time to raise funds. The downside is – a lot of change can happen between the time a chorus qualifies and when they actually compete – but that can happen in a short time as well.
I really wish Harmony, Inc. would adopt a two-year cycle as well – having a certain chorus win the championship every other year seems a little out of whack, in my opinion. Not to mention a little disheartening for all the other choruses. Granted, choruses should win a contest based on scores but it also leads to believe that this chorus might be just winning based on reputation, if you know what I mean. I want to trust the judging systems in all 3 barbershop organizations but it still comes down to those are REAL people serving as judges with personal opinions!
Thanks, Carol, your opinion is valued.
This is a very interesting topic and Hilltop certainly seems to be a great example of what can happen. I’d like to know what the 6th place and 2nd place choruses think of this idea. If you were “THAT CLOSE” – how upsetting would it be to be forced to sit out? If the chorus is just building momentum – would they keep it or loose it? How would the VM feel if they could not come back this year after winning a silver that was (I believe) their highest score in history (and I also believe the highest chorus score in history for about 9 hours)?
I realize the chorus contest is LONG… but have we considered setting a qualifying score just like the quartet contest? Let the choruses who want to sit out have that choice and give everyone else a specific bar to reach. Has the wild card approach improved the level of choruses to the point where we can see a two year rotation helping our choruses get over the next “hump”?
Mid-winter is another great idea… since we no longer have the Buckeye Invitational. If mid-winter took over that concept the mid-winter convention would explode!! And I think it would have a very powerful positive impact on teachers and students.
I don’t have answers for any of these… just a lot of food for thought! I do think making it more possible for more choruses to get to international is a good idea. As a quartet man in the 90s my quartet got better when the system changed. We were never good enough to win the prelims… but we still got to sing on the big stage because the system gave us a chance to realize our full potential. Change can be good! I think we need to hear from the choruses who do compete every year… how would they feel about a forced sit out?
Keith
Thanks, Keith. Yes change can be good, as long as it’s well thought out and much needed change. Change just to change is not so important, I think. We’re always seeking better ways, but sometimes we forget that todays status quo was yesterday’s change. Thanks for the ideas.
What I like about this conversation is that it is based on – how do we give everybody a bigger piece of the pie and get everybody singing better! It worked for the quartet contest and I am sure we will find a way to make the same impact on the chorus contest. The wild card might have just been a great start to something even better. I also wonder how much of this discussion would be influenced if the Buckeye Invitational (or like competition) was part of the plan??
Hi Keith, buddy!
I don’t know whether it has been said (Mt Jack also made a comment about a study). The Top 50 choruses were contacted about their opinions (those at Int’l + those close). The decisions to move forward with the proposal were based upon that study and additional committee studies that had a representation from those different interests.
Kevin
Kevin
Lots of games to be played———Dual chorus memberships, or just switch choruses every other year. 30 or 40 guys doing this could sure make a difference. Just a thought.
And if that’s how they want to enjoy themselves, isn’t that alright? We charge a very minimum ($10.00) fee to be a dual member, and many people take advantage of that. I think that’s good. Thanks.
Ed, I would support this change and applaud it for all the reasons stated in your original post. I’ll let the others here debate thr pro’s and con’s but overall I believe it will work. I sing in a internationally competitive chorus and speaking only for myself, it would give us the opportunity plan more effectively for other BBS activities and still maintain our level of singing. I also believe that the more competitive choruses would help their district representatives in alternating years to raise their level of singing if needed with support and coaching. Everybody wins and more barbershoppers get to taste the excitement of singing before thousands on the International stage. IT also gives those choruses another tool to attract new members. BRAVO
Both this and the last blog started with a solution rather than stating a goal, or outlining a problem we wish to solve.
Is there a definable problem with the current competition schedule. If not, are there a set of outcomes or goals we would like to reach that enhance the barbershop experience for a significant number of members. Give us these and let use discuss the goals and when there is agreement about WHAT is to be accomplished, HOW becomes easier.
Same with the membership card. What was is the problem with the current card or the cost and use of the card. These discussions all cover the map with suggestions and anecdotes because don’t have a well focused issue to solve or to comment on. I don’t mean that they are useless, just that they could be of greater benefit. The same comments relate to surveys. If you don’t begin the survey stating the issue and what is to be accomplished how can anyone answer yes or no questions.
While I’m making suggestions, how about creating a method of numbering responses. It would be much easier for folks to remember that they left off reading a number 88 than our current system.
Bruce,
We’re not asking you to solve a problem. That’s why we were hired. We’re just soliciting opinions.
I’ll talk to Lorin about numbering the comments.
Bruce makes a good point. If there is energy being expended to effect a change, it should be instigated by a need to solve a problem. If you want our opinion about the change, it would be good to know what problem YOU are trying to solve. Thanks for working for us.
Paul and Bruce,
Declining attendance at International, repetition at the highest levels, lower level choruses not getting the chance to “grow” into competition by being there. Can’t you see the choruses that would be let into competition bring their families, experience other aspects of the International and maybe come back in the off years. The sameness of the convention schedule is another problem. Just some of the things we’re looking to change.
Yes, I see that. Just thought Bruce wanted to get that point out on the table. Thanks for the statement of the problem.
It’s great to have you interacting, as usual.
Ed,
1) Declining attendance at International
Isn’t Philly already past the 2009 registration totals? Amazing what happens when the competition is in a city people actually Want to go to. This is something we could defiantly learn from SAI.
2) repetition at the highest levels
So, watching the same top 5 is boring?
3) “lower level choruses not getting the chance to ‘grow’ into competition by being there. ”
Who is stopping them? That’s why they call it a competition and not “super-happy everyone-gets-a-medal time”
4) Can’t you see the choruses that would be let into competition bring their families, experience other aspects of the International and maybe come back in the off years. The sameness of the convention schedule is another problem.
Is the motivation to involve more people at international strictly a goodwill concept, or is it financial?
I don’t think of this as an “everyone-gets-a-medal” thing. There are choruses from certain districts that do not qualify, even though they scored higher than choruses (from other districts) who DID qualify. How is that fair? Just because a chorus hasn’t made it to International doesn’t mean it’s because they weren’t good enough to do it. It means that 1.) they scored a 79, but still didn’t have enough points to wild card and 2.) have to beat one of the big guns to qualify. (Meanwhile, some district’s choruses are qualifying with less than a 75. One of the qualifiers for Philly made it with a 69!)
I will admit that I am selfish when it comes to this proposal. My chorus is one that would directly benefit from the two year rotation. However, we ARE a chapter worthy of competition at the International level, and I KNOW that it would only improve the great strides my chapter has made. We have grown (through our own work and dedication) approximately 10-12% (score-wise) over the last five or so years. I also know that it would have a positive affect on our chapter’s growth. I believe that the other chapters who would now qualify under this system would achieve the same results. If we can improve the quality of 28 MORE chapters, why not do it? I think this could eventually have a trickle down effect through the rest of the society. More guys who know how to get to the big show means more guys who may be able to help other choruses achieve the same results. I keep hearing people say that we need to increase the quality of our performances. I think this is one heck of a good way to make that happen.
I have mixed opinions on this. On the one hand, the downside is that for roughly ten years, there could be some minor financial issues at the Int’l contest, until the level of competition evens out. In addition, I can see the best way to do this would be to move divisional contests to the fall, and districts to spring. (That way, instead of a 20 month layoff, you’d only have 14-16 months.)
The upside is that more choruses would have a shot at competing. Having been a chorus competitor in the 1990′s, there were a few times when it would have been nice to have to go every year (not that I minded, mind you!). It gets expensive, and when you have two family members in competing BHS and SAI choruses, you have to start picking and choosing.
Still, an interesting concept. If executed properly, there might be some minor short term issues…but longer term benefits might outweigh that.
First, an observation: how is making it *easier* to get to International a motivator to get better? I believe the opposite it true. I’m in complete agreement with those who have suggested having the top 25 (or whatever number) choruses be the Int’l competitors every year, regardless of district representation.
If that means SLD doesn’t get represented, *that* will be motivation for SLD choruses to sing better.
If all you have to do is beat everybody else in your district to get to Int’l, and you know everybody else is singing a 75, then you know you only need to sing a 76 to get there. There is no motivation to do better than that.
Second, as a spectator spending around $1500 to attend the convention, I’d better be seeing the best of the best on stage (both chorus and quartet). Anything else is a waste of my money and my time. I can see the lesser performances from local groups at home for a lot less money.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that’s what it comes down to.
I think this is a valuable and very healthy discussion.
Alan – just a thought – in your scenario, taking it out to its logical conclusion – it would mean that you would prefer if quartet champs are not forced to retire and chorus champs can come back every year, since you are only paying to see the “best of the best” compete? And if a very top group like AOH or VM (or in the real world this year, GNU) – decides to sit out, do you then opt not to attend because of it?
Don’t you think that some of those same top echelon groups, given a longer artistic and financial ramp up might actually develop even more amazing performances? Could you allow that this might in fact improve the top of the contest artistically?
It seems like SAI has not had problems getting people to attend with their 2 year formula – and in fact I believe the chorus contest is the absolute jewel of their convention. This change would certainly require some cultural shifts ( I think this is the REAL challenge), but the thinking (hope) is that the dynamics of competition and availability would serve to create 2 strong brackets (this has happened in SAI) where today we have one.
In this case I do not believe this is primarily about Convention attendance – its about the health and development of more high-end performing choruses and keeping chapters healthy. And exposing more folks/groups to the International experience.
I get to see the quartet champs on the AIC show at Int’l. I’m getting my money’s worth in that respect, without them being in the contest.
On the chorus side, yes, I don’t think chorus champs should be forced to sit out at all. Everybody needs a rabbit to chase, and the faster the rabbit, the better. I firmly believe that the quality of the AoH performance this year was, in part, precipitated by the fact that they were competing against the VM.
If a chorus or two decides to sit out for their own reasons, fine. That’s a small number. Changing to a two year rotation is a completely different animal.
If we’re going to make predictions based on what happened in SAI, we had better also be talking about the *major* cultural differences between the organizations. Just because the two year rotation works for SAI doesn’t mean it will work for BHS. The organizational mindsets are completely different.
Okay Allan, thanks for your thoughts.
I sing with a high B chorus that has come close, but no cigar, to wild card status in the past, but would likely qualify every other year under the original proposal.
I think, however, it is clear that forbidding all 27 unsuccessful choruses from competing the next year is too extreme. (I note that the PDF example reduces the number of wild cards from 12 to 10, so it would be all 25.) Picking up on previous suggestions about exempting the medalists, and on wanting to hear A choruses for sure, you could exempt the four medalists; or the other nine in the Top 10; or every chorus that achieved A level at the competition, to reward all of them for being high achievers. The problem with the A-level example, of course, is that that would significantly limit the possibility of turnover. So you could limit all choruses to competing three years in a row, say, and require them to sit out the fourth year — or you could still exempt Top 5 choruses in some way to maintain a high level of competition. I don’t think it is unfair to expect high-achieving, but not top-tier, choruses to take a break occasionally for the sake of other good-quality choruses.
And given there will be a 17th BHS district next year, would it be possible to provide a second set of Excel worksheets to show how the new system would work with 17 districts (and 9? or 10? wild cards). You would just use the 2009 scores and identify the 17th district champ, whether from the new CAR or the new DIX, and the new runnerup. It may not change things at all, which itself is a statement, or it may change things a bit, but at least we are dealing with the reality we would be facing if the change happened.
And off topic here, but what are you going to do with two CAR districts?
Doug,
Thanks for your ideas. I think they’re a bit complex, but we’ll sure look at it. The Carolinas District acronym will be NSC (their choice) which is North South Carolina, not CAR, which as you know is the Cardinal District.
Has anyone thought of limiting the number of people that can compete on stage with a chorus? If every chorus wasonly allowed to have 65 men on stage, that might even o u the playing field for those of us who do no have 150 guys on the rises.
I’ll take this for for you Ed.
Bad idea, Ron.
It seems to me that this survey is a veiled attempt for the yearly International Competition to become fiscally solvent, or maybe even make money. The choruses and quartets will come regardless of where the competition is, each and every year. Those who come for the barbershop experience only will not when it becomes a financial or travel burden. Anaheim was too far away for many with this economy. Look at the numbers for Philly already. Most bbshoppers are located in the eastern half of the U.S. and therefore are much more likely to attend conventions.
The awful truth is that only a very few have the chance to compete. Expanding the number of choruses will only bring down the quality of the competition in favor of bigger returns (more attending). One way is to adopt a rotation system for each level, keeping the qualifying attributes the same, only scaled accordingly. Have an A and B chorus competition with quartets on odd years and a C chorus and quartets competition on even years with 2010 being the last as we have done in the past. Let the huge choruses hire their arrangers, consultants, coaches and choreographers. Let THEM put on the spectacles we have all come to expect. The A and B chorus – for the most part – cannot afford those luxuries and don’t have the talent – due to population and economic constraints – to draw upon to compete with the biggies. Make the A & B competition a return to costume and choreo and forget the sets and spectacle. Let the B chorus decide whether or not to compete with the big boys as Toronto and Westminster have proven they certainly can. Change the requirements for A and B choruses to 35 and 65 and allow those choruses to not count those card carrying members who no longer participate, but want to support their old chapter.
While I’m at it, I attended Denver and was not pleased to sit through an 11 hour ordeal of chorus competition. 20-30 minutes between each chorus was awful. All the tearing down and preparation for each chorus was intermittable. Since then I subscribe to the webcast so that I can at least read a book or watch a sitcom between performances. It was certainly cheaper and I had a much better seat. You are gearing the competitions to the big boys and the big boys deserve the praise, but the rank and file are not big boy chorus singers and keep the society afloat with their membership and their money. Think hard, guys !!
John,
The International Conventions/Competitions make money now. They pay for many of the programs Joe Barbershopper enjoys throughout the year. No veiled attempt at anything. Our cards are on the table.
And we are thinking hard. Thank you for your contribution to that thought process.
From 1997 to 2008 I sang in every chorus contest but one, now I am retired. I won a few medals, one that I happen to consider platinum
I think my opinion is most like Ed’s, torn down the middle. A few thoughts and questions:
1. I think it was two (?) years ago that SAI had a content with 4 or 5 choruses that had won their International Contest in the previous 10 years battling it out. How amazing would it be to see the VM, AOH, and MOH competing against each other in one contest? Yes, many guys in my own chorus will want to kill me for suggesting it, but COME ON! That would just be insane!!! (No question that I would be out of my “retirement” working my butt off to be in that contest)
2. That does not mean that the next year would be a down year. If I am correct the highest international champ contest score in SAI history was put up the next year. (Or close to it)
3. On the other hand, I absolutely loved competing every year, period. I had a blast and I don’t know if I would have been bummed not competing, actually yes I do, I would have been seriously bummed. (Although my wife and bank accounts would have been MUCH happier)
4. Just my opinion, I like the idea of an 8 month layoff, not 20 month. I think 20 months would seriously drag….let me wait after I compete.
5. Do the “small chorus” contests some are suggesting find success at the District level, and if they don’t why would they succeed at the International level? I know FWD had run one for a few years at the Spring Convention, and I think the attendance was pretty dismal, thus they shut it down. I think they even tried one again last year with the combined RMD/FWD contest and I don’t recall hearing it was a success.
6. Just curious where all the anger is coming from about “chorus hopping”? I have seen several posts above and on the Harmonet about this. Does this happen a lot out there and if so, I would love some examples? I would only hope no one is trying to limit the fun our brothers can find. If guys can find completely different “experiences” at different choruses that are in the same area and that both happen to be at the International level, I would hope no one is suggesting that this is a wrong thing! Are there places where people are really doing this “chorus hopping”, where two choruses comprised of essentially the exact same people limit other choruses from succeeding? (Sorry, I don’t mean to distract on other subjects that perhaps should have their own threads.) Maybe I have been out to pasture too long….
I don’t fully understand what happens at District in 2013 (hypothetical year in hypothetical process). Who are the “eligible” choruses? Does it include choruses in group B? If so, they could conceivably compete at international in successive years (2014 and 2015). If not, then there could be some serious consequences. In the example, there were three choruses from FWD in group A, which could just as well have been group B. If they are not eligible for district 2013, and the fourth FWD chorus wins in 2013, there would be four choruses sitting out district 2013. So a chorus below them would become district rep, with any score.
I think the example needs to be iterated at least twice, with a few hypothetical assumptions about international winners.
FYI, I did an analysis of 2006 International scores and how they tracked with number of men and district scores. There was very little change in scores except for Westminster and MVE, who improved by over 5 points each. The trend line, even including them, suggested little improvement, and was very tight, scatter-wise. The average improvement was 0.185 points. More than half the chorus’ scores dropped. The comparison of placement vs. seed was also telling in that there was little change, except, again, MVE (up considerably) and another chorus down considerably.
There was a strong upward trend line for score vs. size, but the scatter was very wide, with a significant outlier in Westminster (the youth factor?).
I’ve done other years, with similar results.
Just the facts, Ma’am.
Ever since I found out the SAI uses the 2 year cycle, I’ve wondered why we don’t adopt it.
Having been with NBC for a long time and been burned by the ‘go every year-I ain’t got no money’ syndrome I would have no problem making it part of the contest rules.
Since BHS has done the right thing and loosened up on the rules of who can sing with what chorus, it makes it easy for singer A (who is both rabid about barbershop and has the funds to do so) go to every international convention as a spectator or a member of chorus A or chorus B, which ever one happens to be going that year.
Some people may not look kindly to chapter hopping, but my experience in dealing with that ( I once was opposed to it ) was that every barbershopper should be able to get what he or she wants out of this great hobby. If that involves multiple choruses or moving to a chorus that provides what they want, either more or less challenging, then more power to them.
Belong to 2 or 3 choruses. It only makes you a better singer, more experienced, and more happy.
After all, “Singing is Live. All the rest is just details.”
Taking that to the extreme, if everyone in chorus A was also in chorus B, what has been gained by the two-year rule? Where do you draw the line? 10%? 20%? In for a penny, in for a pound.
My 15th consecutive year of International Competition chorus will have to sit out one year.
Oh boohoo!
Jim Jorgensen here.
My Chorus, the Minneapolis Commodore Chorus competed yearly for several years in the late 1970′s and early 1980′s coming in 12th, 10th, 9th (a couple of times, I believe) 6th, 5th, 4th, and 3rd. I had a big family and finances were tough. The Chorus at that time had a system whereby it helped guys like me with the costs of attending contests, and so I went year after year. Still, I longed for an occasional year off. Bottom line: I think sitting out a year after being the District Chorus representative at the International Contest is a great — long overdue – concept. However, letting the 2nd thru 5th place finishers be automatic qualifiers for the next contest (if they so desire) is also a good idea.
Jim Jorgensen
(Baritone and proud of it)
Hi, Jim, thanks for your comments backed by experience. The mandatory layoff ensures that the other choruses in your bracket will be taking a layoff as well, removing the strain of keeping up. Of course, if we exempt 2-5, then we expect they won’t lay off, to keep their competitive advantage. Then where will 6-28 be when they come back in, assuming they do? We don’t want to create a mini-bracket for 2-5 and a maxi-bracket for the rest, I don’t think, do we?
I don’t get why this needs to be mandated by the society. Why can’t chapters come to this conclusion on their own? Do they not have the tools necessary to determine whether their membership supports an off-year? If not, then I’d like to see the society help to provide those tools.
If it’s individual members who are unable to manage their own expenses by sitting out every other year, then that’s another problem. Either the chapter should adjust its goals to match the members, or the members should adjust their membership and find chapters that better support their goals. Why does the society need to get involved to solve this problem?
Hi, Jamie,
Well, we’re not sure if it should be mandated or not, that’s why we’re discussing it. We’re already involved, because we hold the competitions. As I hinted at earlier in this string, if a chapter wants to sit out now, they can. And of course, if a chapter wins, they are forced out for two years. But if a chapter voluntarily sits out, let’s say, a chapter in the top 10, then they are giving up a slot next year because then 8 of the top 10 (minus the winners and this hypothetical chapter) can still compete next year. This makes it MUCH more difficult for a chapter to decide to sit out, even if they feel they should, and most do not. Some might really want to, but feel they can’t get off the hamster wheel.
If the 2 year rotation were adopted, they wouldn’t have a choice, BUT NEITHER WOULD THEIR CLOSEST COMPETITORS. Thanks for asking.
I’m not sure I understand, Ed. Referring to this:
“But if a chapter voluntarily sits out, let’s say, a chapter in the top 10, then they are giving up a slot next year because then 8 of the top 10 (minus the winners and this hypothetical chapter) can still compete next year. This makes it MUCH more difficult for a chapter to decide to sit out, even if they feel they should, and most do not.”
In the current system, does a chapter volunteering to sit out one year prevent them from competing the next? That’s not my understanding. I think I must be mis-reading your comment, because I don’t understand the point you’re making about how the current system makes it hard for chapters to sit out a year. Can you elaborate? If a chapter decides it is best for them to sit out, then they sit out and can come back any time they want, right?
I don’t think your point of “they wouldn’t have a choice, but neither would their closest competitors” is a good argument. Why should my chapter care why its competitors do?
Ideally, in my mind, each chapter is out to put on the best show possible (restricted only by their own goals), not to beat out other chapters. If my chapter puts on a spectacular show, why should I care if someone else does better? Hurray for them, and hurray for me, and hurray for barbershop. I don’t want my competitors to have to sit out if they don’t want to.
If they sit out voluntarily, under either system, they can come back when they want to come back. My point was that forcing the whole bracket to sit out means that there is one less factor for the leadership team of a chapter to consider. No other group that they’re competing with will have the advantage of competing the next year. Look again, I said “This makes it MUCH more difficult for a chapter to decide to sit out,” because one of the factors looked at is the competition. Sure, we all want everyone to do their best and it’s not about smashing the other guy, but healthy competition is a good thing. As someone else noted, the AoH was certainly aware of the VM, and vice versa. That’s my point – some chapters factor in what their competition is doing, and find it more difficult to drop out if the competition is still in there competing.
I am very much in favor of the proposed alternate year scheduling of chorus eligibility for International Chorus competition, but I do have a suggestion for a possible improvement over the current proposal.
About 30 years ago I did a study of all of the choruses that had competed in International chorus competition over the Society’s history. In order to measure the influence of year-to-year appearances I eliminated from that study any one-year-only appearances leaving only those choruses that had competed in at least two and those who had competed in as many as seven consecutive competitions. In every case each chorus was evaluated on the basis of where each placed in subsequent years compared to where they placed in their first appearance. Some choruses showed an improved standing with time while other a lower standing. A least squares statistical fit of the data indicated a general downward trend with each additional year of competition, although a few choruses did show improvement in subsequent years even to the point of achieving a gold medal.
My own chorus, the Minneapolis Commodores were one of those who began to show symptoms of “burnout.” (This was before the founding of Hilltop, MN’s Great Northern Union.) Minneapolis was beginning to feel the obligation to represent the LOL District because it was the only chorus in the district that was currently singing at the International level. It lacked the self-discipline of declining the opportunity to compete and as a consequence suffered from burnout and a declining level of performance. It became increasingly difficult to raise both the money and the enthusiasm every year for the effort.
I proposed a scheme that rewarded choruses that were improving their rank and protected choruses that were not. If a chorus achieved or exceeded its previous rank it was eligible to compete the following year. If a chorus did not improve, or at least achieve, its previous rank it would be required to sit out one year. This proposal has some similarities with the current proposal but in my view has the additional advantages of not interfering with the momentum of an achieving chorus but also would provide an additional element of mixing the field so that all choruses would have a greater opportunity to compete with all other choruses on a more frequent schedule.
This idea was 30 years ahead of its time. Please consider this option in the current discussion.
Jim Richards
Thanks, Jim, for your proposal. You’ve always been ahead of your time! We will look seriously at your thoughts, as we continue to examine this change to our contest framework.
This is a pretty neat idea. Rewarding good behavior is typically a more appealing approach to me than either punishing bad behavior or preventing bad behavior through rules and restrictions.
Thanks for adding a different view!
There have been quite a few people arguing that using this kind of system will aid chapters that get caught in a rut of competing over and over. I would like to challenge this idea.
While this system would definitely aid those chapters, it also affects other chapters that don’t need or want that aid. This system would act as a crutch for chapters with weak knees. Why not work to strengthen the legs, instead?
If the problem is that chapters get into a rut, then let’s help those chapters learn how to not get into those ruts. Perhaps more importantly, let’s help chapters more easily identify when they ARE in a rut – sometimes it’s too late before we even realize it! What are tools we can use to identify slumps and weaknesses within chapters? What surveys can be done of chapter members? What analysis can be done of chapter goal-setting, progress reporting and follow-up?
I think we can assume that existing chapters already WANT something (or they wouldn’t exist), but assuming they know how to get it is not as good an idea! They might not even know how to express with certainty what they want… I can think of a few chapters I’ve been in that have had this problem.
Let’s do more studies on chapters that are finding success, and build a greater library of learning materials for new and struggling chapters so they can follow the right path to their own success. Let’s encourage chapter leaders to talk to each other about what works for them and what doesn’t, and make these discussions searchable so every chapter leader can learn from them. Why not encourage chapters to share rehearsal recordings so struggling chapters’ leaders can have educational materials to work with and successful chapters can have something to show off?
Whew, that was long winded… My apologies for the soap-boxing, I just get frustrated when energy is spent looking for a work-around for a symptom instead of spending it identifying the problem and attacking it at its core.
Still very much enjoying the discussion!
Jamie Bedford
Thanks, Jamie. I don’t think we’re looking for “work-arounds” but we’re looking for a system we can set up that would be enforceable within the resources we have. Who would do the research you mention? Who would then take the solutions to the chapters? What about those chapters that refuse the help, or who can’t assimilate it? Sometimes a rule change, (which we can handle with existing resources, because we enforce the rules now) is the shorthand method to get the job done. It accomplishes what we want without calling for an enormous shift in manpower and resources.
Is it perfect? Of course not, but it is do-able! thanks for thinking of us.
I love the idea! In the long-run it will most likely result in chorus improvement, broader members satisfaction, and broader International attendance. Having attended SAI International competition, I haven’t seen any great dropoff in quality from one year to the next. I think their system allows greater participation and encourages improvement.
Having the same choruses go to International year after year generally encourages the same convention attendees year after year. New chorus competitors would most likely bring new attendees to the conventions. How would that be a bad thing?
The best chorus is still going to win. More members are going to get the “International experience”. New people will likely attend the convention. Win… win…. win.
Thanks, John. Make sure you vote (at the end of the original post).
Frankly, I’m beginning to think this is way too complicated. Why not simplify this?
Hold the chorus contest every year as we do now but let every chorus that wants to raise the money, etc. go to the International convention/contest. Hold one long “prelm” round over several days if needed to get to the top 10 and then hold a final with just those choruses and crown your bi-annual champ. Then you’ll know who is really the best chorus for that year.
One of the problems I see in the present system, and in the one propsed here is the lack of judging uniformity. You have different judges in the division/district/International competitions. Since judging is a pretty subjective thing, you really can’t say that a chorus from one district who scored 2 points better in a contest than a different chorus from another district who had different judges is really better, yet we determine who goes to international each year on this basis. No disrespect to the judges. They do a great job, but they are human and it’s an imperfect system.
Let every chorus who wants to try for the “big show” go and try. Have the same judges for the “prelim” round and then you’ll know who is really the best for that year. I’d bet you won’t have all that many choruses who want to raise the money and travel so far to stay so long who will want to come so the contest won’t be flooded with inferior choruses. Only those who are truly committed (or perhaps should be!) to the competition will do what’s necessary. Isn’t that what we want at International anyway? I’d bet that out of the hundreds of choruses we have you won’t have more than 60 or so who will go to compete depending perhaps on where the contest is held. Crown an A, AA, and AAA champ from the prelim and one overall champ from the final regardless of what class they come from.
Have the district conventions be primarily for quartet competitions/international prelims and good old fashioned barbershop singing together. Take some of the contest pressure off of these events. You’d probably get better participation then.
Thanks for the innovative suggestion, Wendell. It sure is a new and original idea – and I like coming from a new angle, but this might be a bit too radical a solution. Without being too critical, I’ll tell you that people complain when we put 30 choruses in competition – that takes all day. Your solution would therefore take 3 days, 2 for the 60 choruses and then 1 day for the finals. Also, choruses mean attendees. quartets = 4 + family for a total of roughly 8. Chrouses might be 10 times that number, so districts wouldn’t be so happy to be quartet only oriented.
Thanks again, and please vote.
I don’t have time to read all the posts. Got through about half… Gotta’ hold the line at NO… Nothing that lowers the bar should be considered. If your chorus doesn’t have what it takes to get to the top, either go out and get it or stay home… Simple as that… No need to over think it. I firmly believe that this will NOT generate increased membership. Keep it the way “it” is and we will continue to see the best and brightest at the top where they belong…
Hi Ed and all
My initial impression is that switching to a 2 year cycle would be a very good thing for barbershop, for several reasons:
-It would permit international level choruses to develop all areas of chapter life without the constant yearly grind of the contest cycles.
-It would afford more choruses an opportunity to compete at the international level, which I believe will ultimately raise the bar of quality across the board for the “second-tier” choruses coming in.
-In turn this would expose more barbershoppers to international conventions, which may encourage better attendance overall (once they get a taste of international hopefully they will come even during “off” years).
I realize any chorus may choose to sit out now if it wishes. But in our current set-up, I would imagine this decision is a very tough one. With this new proposal, a year off is built into the equation.
I appreciate the concerns some have about the short-term impact this may have on the quality of the competition. But I think those chapters on the cusp of qualifying now will see international as a great motivation for improvement, and it will not be long before the quality finds equilibrium. This short term period of adjustment will be worth the long term positive effects I think this could have.
Whatever the final decision is, let’s make the best of it!
Shane Scott
Music City Chorus and Lunch Break Quartet
As I look over this proposal I can see that there is little impact on the International convention in terms of numbers of men on stage which is a way to identify the potential society wide participation. There is not a comment on the impact that this would have on District conventions in terms of attendance.
Using the figures in the spreadsheet as the basis, the RMD would see a decline of over 100 registrations sold if the first place chorus was ineligible to compete. This would be financially disastrous for the district! Add to that the probability that men who have joined the society to compete would not maintain their regimented attendance and I think it would be detrimental to the chapters.
Mandating a year off dilutes our offering to a somewhat skeptical public. Even though one of the choruses that now languishes in the 11 – 20 spots might step forward and reach the top 5 does anybody really believe that the perennial winners will not continue?
The real question is: Why change?
That having been said, I agree with Shane Scott – we’ll make the best of the decision and Keep the Whole World Singing.
Woody Woods
President
Rocky Mountain District
IPP, Denver Mile High Chapter
Director, Peak Experience Chorus
Bass, 78 RPM
Certified Contest Administrator
Recently I had a chance to read a couple of e-mails, an exchange between Woody Woods, the District President of the Rocky Mountain District, and Steve Jamison, Chairman of the Contest & Judging Committee. With their permission, I am reproducing it on the blog so you all can see their thoughts. Woody’s e-mail is virtually the same as this post, so I’m publishing Steve’s reply:
It’s true the registration for Internationals really shouldn’t change, as you described. But, the registrations for Districts don’t really need to change either if things are handled the right way. When a paradigm change takes place, it’s important to develop a new culture that supports and nurtures the paradigm as opposed to a culture that lives with the old paradigm. Trust me, I know this from judging as we have changed the categories and had to deal with culture/paradigm misfit situations. Here’s how Sweet Adelines handle it – and they have been doing this a long time, so their culture fits their contest paradigm: When a chorus wins their region (comparable to our District), they are on the schedule to go to Internationals about 18 months hence. That chorus is expected to not only host or assist or assist in hosting the next year’s regional contest, but they also sing in the contest for score and judges comments as a way of getting ready for the International contest just 6 months later. What chorus would NOT want to have a “no pressure” situation where they could try out their International package for a panel of judges and a friendly home audience? This culture has worked very well and has gone beyond just filling the beds of the hotels and selling registrations. It has developed support between the top choruses in the region instead of cutthroat competition. I don’t buy the argument that we can’t develop the same or similar culture. Do you?
“I don’t buy the argument that we can’t develop the same or similar culture. Do you?”
When it comes to comparisons between BHS and SAI, yes, I do.
SAI is a very top-down oriented organization. The individual is subservient to the group (the chorus, the international organization, etc). It’s a very different culture from the BHS, and I don’t necessarily think we want to be like SAI in that respect.
Allan
I just spent the past 3 hours (I’m a slow reader) going through every single comment on here and keeping a tally sheet of the stated opinions throughout. Nothing scientific, but gives a general look at what the prominent arguments are.
Here are the rough numbers:
REASON IN FAVOR OF CHANGE
Increase performance level of “B” choruses – 10
Allow more choruses to perform at international – 8
Increase Attendance – 9
Take strain off competitor chorus/wallet – 9
20 months would allow more time to improve – 3
More relaxed international – 1
It works for SAI – 1
REASONS FOR KEEPING CURRENT SYSTEM
Lowering overall performance level of international – 17
20 Months is too long – 9
No-one is forced to sit out (let chapters decide) – 8
Will hurt district contests and wallets – 7
Good year / Bad year cycle at international – 3
No change to number of AvsB choruses in society – 3
Medals are better when rare – 3
Would promote “Chorus hopping” – 3
No formal data to back up claims for new system – 3
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it – 1
Other Findings:
-Most of the international staff have voiced their opinions in favor of the change.
-Ed Watson claims to be undecided, but only encouraged people who are in favor of the change to “vote” :-/
-Most of Mr. Watson’s responses fell into two categories, defending the new system or thanking people who agreed with him, with a few “thank you for your opinion” posts sprinkled in.
I’ll keep my personal opinions out of this post for the sake of length. Just some numbers and trends to chew on.
-Wes Short
Future 50-year member.
Wes,
Interesting observations.
For the record, most of the international staff DIDN’T comment on the two-year cycle idea. As for me, I have a variety of opinions on the matter, but I doubt I’ll ever share them publicly.
Also note that while staff opinions (which are diverse on this and other topics, FYI) will certainly be weighed, decisions of this nature are not the staff’s call. Ed is taking the lead in communication on this and has been a key figure in the investigation of the idea so far, but the authority figures in this discussion are the Contest & Judging community, district leaders, the Society board … and YOU! As Ed says, we care what our members think!
I know there are people out there who think Society leaders have their own agenda and don’t care what members think, but if that was ever true, it isn’t anymore. I’m very grateful for the efforts at transparency, consensus building and accommodation that I’ve seen from Society leaders at all levels in recent months and years. (This blog was launched primarily for the purpose of breaking down walls and ensuring that Society members and leaders better understand each other. It’s great to see the dialog.)
Purely from a financial perspective, the best possible thing for the Society would be for the best 25 chorus who go to Int’l to all have 200+ men on the risers.
That would be 5000 guaranteed convention attendees, plus family, friends, locals, etc. You’d probably have 10k+ at every Int’l.
Maybe we should be talking about how to achieve that, instead.
Somewhat tongue in cheek, but the numbers don’t lie…
I hear you Allan. I understand both sides of this issue. BUT, that being said, I tend to think that relaxing the standards somewhat, won’t help things. A chorus in which I sing qualified for International for the first time with an 80 + score last fall, as a “wild card”. Singing excellence, a larger chorus of focused men, and much camaraderie was the result of the goal of “A” level singing and performing. The excitement in the chorus is amazing…if a mid 70′s score qualified the chorus I don’t think the excitement would be there, and the quality of the chorus would still be in the mid 70′s…where the chorus HAD been for a number of years. I think dangling the carrot is good for all involved.
The idea of giving choruses “on the verge of qualifying” the opportunity, on a rotating basis, to appear on the Int’l stage (and inspire more choruses to higher levels) has some merit, but what EVERYONE wants to see is how the top 10 from last year (minus last year’s gold medallists), and for sure the silver and bronze medallists, will fare against one another.
Who competes for 11th through 28th place is not the “main event” in the chorus competition, and which choruses are vying for those positions won’t adversely affect attendance…BUT…everyone wants to see the best against the best, at least last year’s medallists.
I would propose choruses that finish 2-5 or perhaps even 2-10 be given the opportunity to enter the contest cycle the following year, for as many years as they remain in the top ten (until they win, and then sit out two years). Rotate the bottom 18 choruses. (Of course, some of those 18 will move up into the coveted top 10, and some top 10 will slip down into the 2 year rotation.)
The current calendar of competing in the year you qualify is far superior to the 18 month cycle. Bad idea.
Tony Pranaitis
Golden, Colorado
Tony, thanks for the good thoughts. Make sure you vote, if you haven’t.
I think I would go with the 2 year rotation as my preference for a number of reasons, those being:
- Chorus Encouragement
Working with some slightly lower level choruses than the international-caliber chorus I’m in, I see a lot of enthusiasm. It would be fantastic for them to have a chance to experience an international contest. Sure, the bar would be lowered some, but I think it would benefit the level of singing in the long run. I can’t imagine those guys being satisfied with what they do after they see the level of the top 10 choruses they’d be competing against.
- Vacation
Now that I’ve graduated and gotten a real job, even a half a week each year seems hard to come by.
- Harmony University
On a related note, going to International makes HU near impossible for me now. Imagine how many quartets would take advantage of the quartet college in their chorus’ off year!
- Variety
I get the feeling this model would lead to a whole variety of choruses competing, and I’d like to see the new approaches.
There is no doubt this would be a major shift in our operations; that’s why we’re going slowly and gathering thoughts. Thanks for yours, and please vote if you have not done so.
I really don’t care that much about two or three year rotations. What I would really like to see is a change of the three year rule from choruses to individual members. The reason should be obvious.
Really? Please explain that statement, because it’s not obvious to me at all. If you put that kind of restriction on people, the guys high level competitive singers will decide to go elsewhere, thus lowering the quality of our music.
We need more of those people, not less.
I am of the opinion this change in policy from the BHS to go to the 2 year system is not a good idea. The idea looks great on paper and in the PowerPoint that the HQ staff forwarded, but I believe that passing this measure would be a great mistake. The PowerPoint presentation shows that many choruses want this move to be made, and I am sure many do. Choruses who are currently not on the same level with groups like Vocal Majority, The Ambassadors of Harmony, Westminster, Great Northern Union, The Masters of Harmony, or even Sound of the Rockies may not ever earn a medal without the measure, and groups who never seem to score high enough to earn a wildcard may not ever get to sing on the international stage if the 2-year rotation is not implemented. I have empathy for these choruses and am very blessed to sing in a chorus that continues to grow and have success, but the perceived problem that certain groups will not have the opportunity to medal or even sing on the international stage remains both as a potential reason to pass this measure and its greatest fallacy.
In the Olympics, great competitors put everything they have into the sport that they love in order to achieve victory. In a tradition that first challenged athletes on the world stage over two thousand years ago, the best compete on the world stage and only 3 (pending ties) win a medal in each event. I believe that the gold-silver-bronze medal system was developed in the BHS and in many other contests to reward those who achieve greatness. In contrast, many present day little league sports groups have decided that, instead of rewarding trophies for success, everyone should be given a trophy for their efforts. It looks great on paper, right? Why demean those teams who don’t have success by making them seem less valuable than those who win awards? But then again, why have awards in the first place if everyone is going to get them? It makes the award itself meaningless because there isn’t a rarity or accomplishment behind it.
How does this pertain to the BHS policy change? Quite simply put, we are at a point where the society can decide whether it wants to be more like the Olympics or the Little League. We have the option to allow everyone a better chance to play, and twice as many choruses the opportunity to get a medal, and it seems like a great idea because even more choruses get to compete on the contest stage. Maybe some folks think our International contest has been too exclusive. But isn’t that what makes medals valuable? Isn’t that what makes the contest stage great? It is claimed in the PowerPoint that choruses will ALL get better, so that the competition’s value will not be dwindled, but I think you underestimate the value of having the world’s very best barbershop choruses meeting on the stage every year, rather than just half of them. A Medal is valuable because it represents the rank of top 5 in the world, not top 5 out of whoever was permitted by the powers-that-be to show up in a particular year.
This contest features the best of the best, and the BHS has never kept its choruses from the opportunity to win this competition. Every chorus can compete and win against the best of the best every year, with the exception of the 3-year champ cycle (a totally different subject), and no one is handicapped through any circumstance as determined by the BHS. It is claimed (in the PowerPoint) that choruses will not improve as effectively if they do not believe that they will sing on the international stage as they would improve if they competed against a reduced pool of choruses. As Matt Swann wrote in an earlier post on this topic, Sweet Adelines has the same number of A-level choruses as we do. They just do a 2-year cycle, so in any given year they have almost exactly half the number of A-level choruses competing at their International as we do, and we see the other half the next year. SAI’s 2-year cycle has been policy for almost 30 years and it hasn’t resulted in them having a larger number of high-scoring choruses than we have.
I believe that Choruses EARN the right to sing on the international stage and that earning this right is a far greater encouragement to improve than being handed a chance to sing at international. Yes, overall more choruses in the Barbershop Harmony Society will rank higher in contests, but the contest was not created to give every chorus a high score. Changing the policy to a two year plan is a form of academic dishonesty because we attempt to delude ourselves into thinking that EVERY chorus deserves a high score (or at least a score worthy of the contest stage). Why don’t we just give the high scores to the choruses that earn them? We can improve our society if we challenge ourselves to raise the bar so that success continues to grow as a wonderful achievement, or we can choose to lower that bar so that more groups can get above it. Bringing more groups onto the international stage is not a form of raising the bar because the competition is reduced to only half of the society’s choruses competing. In track and field, the high jump demands that every competitor stretch to their fullest length to win the competition. The competition gains nothing – and no athlete’s abilities improve – by adding a trampoline.
If we don’t believe that the current system gives everyone an equal opportunity to compete (a notion I believe is flawed) then why not add Plateau competitions alongside the main competition, rather than reducing the challenge that all choruses face to win? Or why not have a contest for small and medium-sized choruses, perhaps at Midwinter?
The two-year policy would be great for brother choruses: Westminster and The Masters of Harmony, Sound of the Rockies and 52eighty, etc. because one could compete in one rotation with one chorus while competing with another chorus the following year: members sing every year and always have a realistic shot at winning. While I would love this opportunity for 52eighty to grow in a main contest that allows for more of that and for Sound of the Rockies to have an easier shot to win, I know that the Gold medal I seek as a member of these groups – gained through a reduced competition – would produce, rather than the feeling of pride and victory, a tinge of emptiness more closely related to cheating. No singer should aim for one target with two arrows, and the two year system encourages Barbershoppers in these positions to pursue this route.
Is the best system to ensure an “equal opportunity” for all members in BHS to compete? I don’t believe so. Does the idea create a positive impact on regions blessed with more than one great chorus? Again, the proposed policy change falls short of achieving this. More than anything, however, the policy’s reduction of the competition to bring in more competitors diminishes the value of the competition itself by halving the field of choruses who work for the honor of becoming that year’s Best Barbershop Chorus in the World. The Chorus contest, though different from, is quite similar to the Quartet contest, correct? Is this something we would even think about passing in the International quartet competition?
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather be member of a Society that aims for success as Olympians challenge themselves for their titles.
Not everyone earned a medal this year. Not everyone competed on the International Stage, either. But everyone got the chance to try, though. Please don’t take that opportunity away from us.
Sincerely,
~Andrew Jaramillo
3 Year Member of BHS – Denver Mile High Chapter
Bass, Sound of the Rockies
Hey, Andrew,
Thanks for the long, thoguhtful input. I read it twice, but I still don’t understand your conclusion:
“Not everyone earned a medal this year. Not everyone competed on the International Stage, either. But everyone got the chance to try, though. Please don’t take that opportunity away from us.”
How does the two year rotation stop anyone from winning?
At any rate, be sure to vote on the survey at the beginning, so your opinion is heard.
Hey Ed! Thank you for your response.
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.
I’ll make this short.
I am for the 2-year rotation.
My personal situation has me paying for a SAI competition for 3 (wife & 2 daughters) every two years and a BHS competition for myself every year. This is only my 3rd year in this situation, but I find myself looking at every paycheck trying to find a way to save a few bucks so I can make this happen.
I also think this would give our chorus (SOR) more opportunity to place individual focus, where needed, before the big contest.
I am a very dedicated chorus member and will go to competition every year we qualify whether it be every year or every other year. However, it would be nice to breathe.
Paul,
Each and every viewpoint is welcome and solicited here. Please vote your thoughts on the survey at the beginning of this thread. Thank you.
I believe this would water-down the level of performance, and would not be good for the society. Groups can already take “a breather” voluntarily. I see no reason to mandate it.
This move would reduce the honor a gold medal represents.
There are 350 million people in the US alone. Add Canada, then divide by two (we’re males only). I believe water down is incorrect. There is much room for building up. Still, I respect your opinion. thanks for it, and vote what you believe.
Let me raise another question in relation to this: What about the judging system? How accurate is it? or is it more political that accurate? If it is accurate, a score is what chorus’s should be competing for (Ideally). So if NVP went in and scored a 91 and won just because some who is better was not there, they still got a 91. I am gravitating in my mind into something like the National and American Football leagues. The stats will strive to say and record who is the best, but give more play time to more teams because of the dual league approach.
Overall, I think it could work and I would not lose sleep over it. But I think things are cool right now too.
Ben, I think things are cool right now also, and I believe our judging is the best it can be. Jury’s still out on this one, but I think the discussion is great!
We could eliminate chorus competition altogether & go back to what “Barbershop Quartet” really means, you know, singing with three other guys. Then we might need to use BQPA insted of BHS. Just kidding, but competition Choruses just for the sake of chasing the Gold at the expense of robbing smaller groups of quality singers has always ticked me off. ‘Nuff said. As far as the two year rotation, keep it the way it is unless you want to combine our competition with the women’s groups.
Thanks, Gary. Hope you registered your vote.
Many factors come into play with this proposed plan. The two year rotation would allow people to breathe and not have annual worries about whether or not they can pay for a trip to internationals, as well as making sure they have enough vacation time saved up for a trip every year. I know a lot of people who use all their vacation time specifically for barbershop related events and have very little time for family outings.
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.
Thanks, Jimmy. I’ve followed your thoughts often on the Harmonet. I like your enthusiasm, and welcome your ideas. Thanks for being a part of the discussion, and thanks for voting.
As a member for four years on both sides of the competition coin, I have to say that overall I have a mixed bag towards this proposal.
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
Matthew, you’ve raised a lot of questions, and that’s great. Those are the kinds of arguments we’re looking to examine before we make a decision. You’re right, we’ve only uncovered a small section of the members, but at least they’re the members who care enough to give an opinion. Affiliate choruses would not be affected because they are invitation only, and seldom would they come two years in a row anyway because of cost. It seems the SoR has a lot of responses on here, and that’s a good thing. Keep thinking it over, and then vote!
I am a fairly new BHS member (less than a year) and my chorus is going to be competing in Philly. My wife has been a Sweet Adeline for 13 years, and I have attended 7 SAI internationals with her.
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.
Whatever we do, we’re going slow on purpose. Let it “percolate” out there for a while first, and see what comes up.
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!
This past year my Chorus made an 18-month commitment to work towards an International bid at Philadelphia. Fortunately we met that goal: 9 months of hard work to qualify for Philly, and another 9 months to get ready for the big convention. That being said, it seemed a VERY difficult task to keep the Chorus as a whole sufficiently motivated for the entire time. Sure, there will always be some peaks and valleys, but in hindsight, 18 months seems an awful long time to work toward one goal, however important that goal may be. With qualifying for an International competition another 12 months later than that, now we are talking about a 30-month commitment. I don’t see this as a good thing.
On the other hand, what if it wasn’t 20 months? We could have a 2 year rotation, but if you qualify in the fall, you compete the next summer. Then, you sit out the next fall and summer, and compete again the next fall. From competition summer to the second fall is 15 months, and during the first fall (where you can’t compete) you are hosting and also singing for evaluation, as you ready your next contest set. Is that more to your liking? It’s an option, anyway…
What would happen if we swapped the qualifying competitions for quartets and choruses? Chorus qualifying in the spring for the NEXT calendar year, and quartets in the fall for the NEXT calendar year? This would ease the finiancial burden on both groups by giving them more time to raise money AND improve there performances by doubling the time you get to prepare and yet it wouldn’t significantly change anything else. Then once this was done it would be easier to go to a two year cycle but adding a Fall chorus qualifier in the two year cycle. This would give the chapter MORE choices with an opportunity to change cycles depending on whether they choose to qualify in the spring or the fall?
Thanks, Doug. We are looking at many different versions of this process. It is valuable to have inputs from many folks, so I thank you for your thoughts. We’ll keep you all posted as the thought process continues.