Open discussion: The two-year chorus rotation proposal
Posted by Ed Watson | Posted in Contests & Judging, Harmonizer, Leadership, Uncategorized | Posted on September 29, 2010, 9:51 AM
260
By now, you may have seen the 2-year proposal article in the July-Aug 2010 issue of The Harmonizer concerning the proposal to change the International Chorus Contest to a two-year rotation. If you haven’t read up on the plan, everything is at www.barbershop.org/2year. Perhaps you’ve even taken the poll, where you had a chance to leave anonymous comments.
Here’s the place to make your comments in public. What are your thoughts on the proposed plan? What do you like, what do you not like? Do you like the plan, but you would have tweaked it differently? Or do you see a whole different route to achieve the objectives outlined in The Harmonizer article?
Any and all comments are welcome!
Ed Watson,
CEO, Barbershop Harmony Society
buy cheap viagra no prescription
Here is a letter I wrote today to Ed Watson and Bill Biffle on this subject:
Dear Bill and Ed,
I write to you to object to the 2 year cycle proposal. Under the two year contest cycle proposal, it seems to me that you are going to guarantee less participation, or at best, an extremely watered down competition every other year for a significant period of time. If that rule was in place in Philly, none of the top 30 choruses, with the exception of Westminster, would be going to Kansas City. I guess the Masters would not need to prepare very hard in order to win. Further, the proposal would ensure that the 2011 competitors would not be there because they earned it, but because we decided to lower the bar. Have you considered that while trying to open the door for some, you are shutting the door for others?
The convention quality will certainly be watered down, and the incentives to work hard to qualify for contest will be less. The top non-winner choruses are now going to be told that they cant come back the following year because they didn’t win? That is crazy- Plus, you lose an amazing amount of contest registrations. Can we really afford that?
This society is built on a number of things, some working, some not. One thing that is working is the elite choruses. The VM, the Ambassadors, Westminster and Masters of Harmony do not have problems getting members. Denver, San Francisco, Nashville and other top 20 choruses are working hard at knocking on the door. Why mess with that? The fight between the VM and Westminster this year was real drama of the contest- both were doing their best to be the best in the world. Why artificially take that away? If a chorus wants to win, put in the work. That’s all there is to it. The men who are making the society viable are the competitors, not those who complain constantly about how they would participate “if only” things were made easier for them. Competition is not the be all and end all- but its the striving for excellence that makes being in this hobby musically relevant and enjoyable, and attracts the young talented people who are getting involved. The 2 year cycle proposal seems to oppose that principle.
Let the big dogs fight it out, and let the little dogs work to become big dogs. A chorus can always sit out a contest cycle, if they choose to. The champ has to sit out two years, which seems about right. The escalating scores show that the contests are getting better, not worse- as the groups all try to improve. If you want more participation, allow more wild cards. If you want to rig the contest so that a “different” champion or competitors participate, that is wrong.
In my opinion, this proposal will ensure that the loss of convention registrations and reduction of competition quality. I can’t think of a worse proposal.
Best,
Lars Isaacson
Lead, Sound of Tennessee Chorus
Emeritus, Vocal Majority
I answered Lars in a separate e-mail, and only want to make the point here that we welcome all comments and suggestions, for, against, or neutral. Remember, the two “flights” of competitors would be slotted by SCJC so as to not have a weak and a strong year, but who could know over the years how this would evolve? Thanks to Lars for being the first to comment.
Has anyone considered this “proposed” rotation for 4 years, then hold an “olympics” on the 5th year where everyone who medaled (1st-5th) meets in a heads up competition.
This would pit the top 20 finalist from the previous 4 years against each other. That gives everyone time to prepare, time to rest and provides a “Society” champion. Quartets competition would remain as is.
Ed – I have many years of experience competing at the International level, both in the Chorus and Quartet contests – I even have complete sets of tickets NEVER USED, as I was always on stage as a competitor, and never sat in my seat! I understand the reasons why the BHS is considering the 2 years cycle – but honestly, trying to increase attendance at the International Convention can’t be accomplished by prohibiting competitors from participating because they are slotted as an “A” or “B” competitor (who would want to be the “B” Champion anyway?). The SAI reasons for waiting a year before going to International was purely economic – as it took the ladies more time to generate the funds to finance the trip – not to get more participation. We already have several measures in place to increase participation: Champs lay out two years, the Wild Card ensures more Choruses and Quartets can compete based on scores. (One Voice competed in Philly as Wild Card).
My recommendation? Forget the A/B Schedule, and sanction “One Voice ASSOCIATION” Choruses, one from each District. This Classification of Choruses would ensure additional participation (100+ men & families x 17 Districts) who only meet once a month to learn two songs for International – made up of dedicated men from Chapters all over each District. You know, as I, that many Chapters stay away from competition for various reasons – One Voice offers a way for barbershoppers who want the challenge of high-level choral singing – without quitting his own Chapter! One Voice would only compete at the Fall District Convention, and the International Convention the following year, under the Charter of one of the many Chapters willing to accept 100 dual-members at $10 ea. Let me know if this idea has merit – if only to perpetuate the “encouragement” part of SPEBSQSA!
Yours in Harmony,
Steve Thacker
Former Marketing Director, Southern Gateway Chorus
Bass, Cincinnati Kids
One Voice Steering Committee, Sunshine District
Lars, you are “right on the money”. As a 29 year member without a chorus gold medal, I fully accept that I may never get one. If this change results in my getting one in a “B” level competition, it will feel like I am back in kindergarten where the teacher tried to ensure that everyone “played nicely” and got a “fair chance”. It’s condescending and childish. I never liked kindergarten!!
Very well said. I too disagree with the proposal in all aspects. Remember however, that this is a hobby albeit a very intense one that requires a lot of time and work to become proficient. Dig in and become a championship chorus or lay back as fodder for those who do. If you cannot find a chorus within your area, then get into a quartet and go for it. So much fun to be had – so little time. Don’t mess it up with this crazy scheme.
“Dig in and become a championship chorus”!
I couldn’t agree more. If I recall correctly Westminster won their first district with only 17- SEVENTEEN-
“Dig in and become a championship chorus”!
I couldn’t agree more! If I recall correctly, Westminster won their first divisional contest with only 17- SEVENTEEN- members on the risers. (Even though they were disqualified for one member not having completed the required paperwork! But that’s another issue). The point is, they were a SMALL CHORUS who did exactly what Jim suggests.
I think this proposal is a result of the new school of pc thinking which is based on being afraid of hurting anyone’s “feelings”; afraid of having someone “feel” “left out”. HOGWASH! Can you imagine watching a couple of top notch professional sports teams competing, but not keeping score because the losing team might go home “feeling depressed”!? Ludicrous!
So is this proposal! (In my humble opinion).
There is a similar hot debate happening on my chorus email list. Here is what I sent them. It applies to this ‘best of the best’ rhetoric.
Gentlemen,
We belong to an amateur singing organization, promoted by BHS as available to every man.
The goal of the BHS is to “keep the whole world singing”.
Nowhere does it say in either groups vision statement ‘create and promote and preserve the most stressful and competitive singing contest on the planet’.
Any change to the contest structure that makes it possible for the perennial 2nd place group to have a shot at 1st is worthwhile.
It is my opinion that our contests suffer when the same Gold medal talent is simply recycled year to year. We need to find more ways to include men, not the other way around.
Sean Huston
EVG
I have been a Society Member for 40 years.This “Hobby” 0f ours is my passion and allows me to fulfill my love for music and entertainment with my friends and colleagues every week and endure the trials and tribulations of “working every day” to support my family and lifestyle.
Regretably,I have performed on The International Stage 1X as Mike Testers.
Our Chorus is privileged and honored to have a Great Director and Music Team and we place among The “Top Choruses in our District every year.I have competed in 82 contests!
Over the last many years,the Society has seen a reduction in attendance and membership.The Large Choruses is our District and probably The Society, have virtually “absorbed” and nearly gobbled up” the weaker choruses.Why-For The sake of competeting on The International Stage!!
So many people hate The NY Yankees because “They win consistently and are always competitive”,even when it is at The expense of “The Smaller Market Teams,who cannot Bankroll The “Super Stars”.(I am a Yankee Fan)
Our Chorus members-70 Strong would love to appear and perform on The International Stage.We were told at our RECENT District competition that we were “The Most Entertaining Performance,from The 23 Choruses which COMPETETED.(From The Judges as well as The Audience-The only Standing “O” in the contest)
Oh Yes-WE didn’t win the District BUT probably would have WON,in a different District.
The International Barbershop Community may never see our Performance,but we know that we had a great time and were appreciated.
Sooooo-Give some other Great Choruses a Chance and they too could become The Vm’s,The Westminsters,etc,etc and delight a new audience with renewed Excitement.
This Change is Critical if our Society is to survive and flourish.This Experience is not a Sprint-Its a Marathon.
Well what if instead of Barbershop we were talkng about Baseball and if a team played in the World Series then they could not the following year or football with the same for the Super Bowl or the World Cup. This just wouldn’t feel right.
There were some chrouses that competed that had lower District scores than others. Perhaps it should be based solely on score, or maybe that is the way most competitions are where a team of lesser quality gets to the finals because they were the best of their bracket.
I believe that when it come to competing men and women are fundamentally different, It is ingrained in us from the moment we are born. Now I know individually there are exceptions but as a group Men want to know who is best. I know that there are men out there that would compare the scores from the two cycles and say well these guys really came in 7th or those guys would not have won if the So-In-So chorus was in the same cycle.
I believe that the driving force behind this change is Money. But I don’t see how having 2 alternating cycles would generate any additional money. What if you had both cycles every year kinda like a Major and Minor leagues. That could potentially double your revenue each year. I’m sure we could fit in another chorus competition somewhere in the week.
This way you could have all the A level choruses compete against each other in one cycle and the B level choruses in the other. If a B level chorus does well enough they would move to the A cycle. This would give the cusp choruses an opportunity to compete on the International stage and with potentially twice as many choruses competing every year the $$$ would have go up also.
Your position is easy to take as a member of a consistently top 3 chorus. Your position, and attitude, might be different if your were in a smaller chorus.
The Music City Chorus wouldn’t be competing internatioanlly if the society headquarters hadn’t moved there, infused it with phenominal (and maybe some professional) singers, and created a groundswell of singers going there from all over the Dixie District.
Using the term “watered down” comes from an air of entitlement or elitism in my opinion. Perhaps you could consider that choruses on the cusp of, or at, qualifying scores would work harder because of the added incentive. The bar would be raised all the way across the society, not just for a few choruses that are always there. The reward for working toward a qualifying score should be the opportunity to compete internationally.
Frankly, you shouldn’t be so concerned about the appearance of so many “lower quality” chorus’ appearing at international. Alot of them may not even be able to afford it.
Terry,
Maybe to build attendance, we add more wild-cards for those on the cusp, 4-5 more choruses. BUT we don’t adopt the 2 year rotation. A chorus in my area had been close to International for a number of years, finally going as a “wild-card” last summer, and improving further this year to qualify again. This was achieved after a blueprint for success was drawn up almost 10 years ago. The feeling of pride and accomplishment has been incredible, and the goal of improvement is burning even greater today. Would that be the same if the standards were simply lowered and a 60 something scoring chorus were to get in??? Doubt it! I love the high standards…
Terry,
I am curious about this mystical “incentive” that you and so many other posters have discussed as being necessary for choruses to desire to work hard and improve. In speaking of this, there is an insinuation that there is no current incentive in spite of the fact that the society has the wild card system, accessible to every single chorus in the society regardless of size, and it allows for choruses in very strong districts the opportunity to qualify for international on merit by singing well.
Your deduction about the Music City chorus is alarming, and to date, a lot of people have been throwing a lot of generalities around about all of the elite choruses. I think for the purpose of this proposal, it is best to get away from generalities and look at specific examples. I propose we study a specific example of one of those on the cusp choruses.
So, let’s take a look at the Pathfinder Chorus. They are from Fremont, NE. Population 25,000. A look at the seven contest cycles from 2002-2008 show a chorus that put between 54-69 men on the risers at every contest. They were a good chorus, scoring between 71.5 – 77.4 for each of those seven years, with their score jumping up, leveling off in the 76 range for about 5 years, and then in 2009 they showed up at contest with 85 men on the risers, scored 80.3, and qualified for their first ever international. They went to international this summer and scored 81.3. Then, they won the CSD district contest this fall by scoring 82.1.
This chorus sat firmly on the frequently mentioned cusp of qualifying for international for seven years. I guess my question would be, if there is currently no incentive for a cusp chorus to work hard to improve, how did this chorus find its way to international?
I would be interested to hear yours and other people’s theories on this? I will be happy to come back and give insight if anyone is interested, as I am a member of that chapter. Apparently, in the eyes of many we have overcome insurmountable barriers stacked against the little guy (i.e. choruses on the verge of qualifying). However, somehow we have added over 20 members in the last couple of years and improved the total quality of our singing.
For disclosure purposes, I would like to share the following information for people to absorb.
1. Of the 83 men who competed at international, 76 of them had never competed on the international stage. Four with a quartet and three with a chorus (none in the last five years, and most at least ten years ago). So, no professional or nearly professional singers in this group.
2. During the last 9 years, the chorus had zero society or district level officers.
3. During the last 9 years, the chorus had zero members who are certified judges in the society.
4. In the last 9 years, the chorus has not disqualified a single member of the chorus from competing on the risers at a contest. In other words, they have never told a member of the chorus that they could not compete with the chorus at a contest due to not meeting singing/performance requirements.
5. In the past 9 years, not a single member of the chorus has been re-auditioned in order to meet a set standard of quality.
6. In the past 9 years, new members of the chorus in the past 9 years, have submitted to an audition prior to joining.
I would be interested in hearing some people’s thoughts. No flames or insults please. Just honest thoughts. Every piece of information listed above is factual, and nearly all would seem to run contrary to many of the assumptions people have about the advantages that international level choruses have.
Hint: The answer to how we did it is one of the most simple truths in life, yet often most inconvenient.
Andy
The list of potential advantages include some questionable and contradictory information. I will address each one briefly point by point below:
Increases district participation at in international qualifying contests: How does anyone arrive at this conclusion? Are there really top-flight choruses out there choosing to not compete because one or two other choruses in their district will outscore them? We have the wild card system to address that now to some degree. I would be interested in knowing which, if any, choruses actually sit out because they do not have a chance at qualifying and have them explain the real reasons why they choose not to compete. On the other hand, choruses who are forced to sit out will very likely not attend the district contest, so at best it’s a status quu situations; more likely we will see a drop in district convention attendance.
Relieves financial burden on chapters and individuals: Granted, until you go to the next item…
Boosts international attendance and revenues: The thrust of the argument seems to be if guys come one year as a competitor, they will enjoy the convention so much that they will go the next year when they aren’t competing. But in the preceding argument, it says that members would be relived of the financial burden of going to convention every year. The two arguments are in direct contradiction to one another. On the other hand, someone like me who is a non-competing convention goer who only goes some years, might decide to not go to a convention because my favorites are not competing that year. I do not see a compelling argument for increased convention attendance and revenues. Yes, it MAY happen, but it is far from a sure thing.
Increases member enjoyment at international conventions: Again, this assumes someone attends the convention during a year they are not competing. I know that at our district conventions, the number of non-competing members who attend continues to decline every year. Although this probably does not extrapolate 100% to internationals, I expect that a lot of men who go to international as competitors would take the year off to take their family on a non-barbershop vacation. THAT might be an advantage for the members, but it does not increase attendance or revenues.
All of the potential advantages listed sound like wishful thinking and hopeful supposition. Nowhere have I seen hard data like surveys of members of the international competitors and the “almost” competitors to support the claims of the advantages.
We know of several choruses who voluntarily sit out from time to time. Are we not better off coaching our chapter administrators and musical leaders to listen to the needs of their members? If the members say they want to sit out, then the administration should abide by those wishes. Conversely, if the chapter administration decides to sit out, they should make sure they have explained the decision fully to the members and get their buy in. Encouraging and nurturing well-rounded chapter experiences through education and coaching would be far less drastic than implementing hard and fast rules that forced chapters/choruses to only compete every other year.
Steve Sammonds
Music Director, Palo Alto-Mountain View Chapter
Board Member, Far Western District
Thanks, Steve. I believe the thought process on greater attendance was that more choruses would be involved and therefore new, fresh faces and attendees would experience the wonders of International. I. like you, think it’s a stretch to expect competitors to turn out in off-years, but you never know. In fact, predicting what people will or won’t do is a dangerous game. I do know this: they adapt to whatever the rules may be, and find ways to push the envelope. That’s why they’re competitiors. Thank you for taking time to give us your ideas.
Hey, thanks for the “action” shot of the Spirit of Phoenix chorus from a couple of years ago! I can tell you I’m excited to be competing in Bakersfield, CA. @ the FWD contest next month w/ an opportunity to qualify for K.C. It’ll be a great barometer of where we are under our new director. I really wouldn’t want to wait a year or two if it “wasn’t our turn”!
You’re welcome, Terry. I hear you about your “momentum”. Though you might not like it, would you wait, or quit? That’s the question.
At 62, and as a 17-year-member of the Masters Of Harmony, I can’t express my objection to this plan any stronger than Mr. Isaacson so articulately did in his post.
For those of us who attend the international chorus contest every year, the appeal comes from watching and listening to the finest performance a group has to offer. I am here to tell you that it is a marvelous feeling to work hard to be the very best you can be and an appropriate award is due for that effort. Every chorus should be allowed to choose to participate annually and should know that their efforts will be acknowledged as they progress. The current system allows that option while the 2-year plan would not. Their momentum would, indeed, be affected.
I hope the SCJC will not settle for only a FEW responses from directors and district leaders. The serious nature of this issue demands a proactive approach to contact ALL directors and chorus administrations to get a complete
view of all opinions.
Bruce Oldham, Bass
Masters Of Harmony
Bruce, the reason no decision has been made is that the Board and SCJC want to hear all sides. Now you’ve been heard, and I thank you for your points. Remember, there are over 800 choruses to choose from. Don’t you think that at least 50 are worth hearing? Whatever the time frame of the contest (annual, bi-annual, why not semi-annual?) choruses will adapt, I believe. You believe differently, and it’s good that you let us know. Whatever the final decision, please know your opinion was considered.
The two conventions listed, Portland and Toronto, are fairly split east v west, as were Philly and Anaheim. I don’t know how many of the cities for upcoming conventions have been settled, but presumably with at least a vague east-west alternation, some choruses could get stuck in a flight that is geographically inconvenient (i.e., a NY chorus competes in Portland, is ineligible for Toronto, and competes the year after somewhere out west. Rinse, repeat).
Will the selection of venues continue to follow a pattern of alternating east/west, and if so, has any thought been given to how this will affect choruses? We don’t want to see the society split into two different convention groups based on location, but at the same time we don’t want to increase the financial burden on any one set of choruses vis-a-vis the others.
Exceptions are considered. Also, here’s the list of convention cities for the future, all published in every Harmonizer: 2011 Kansas City, 2012 Portland, 2013 Toronto, 2014 Las Vegas, 2015 Pittsburgh, 2016 Nashville, 2017 Minneapolis, 2018 Orlando, 2019 Salt Lake City. No matter where you go, you are near some and far from others. That’s the way it is.
So an East Coast chapter in the first flight would compete in Portland, be forced to skip Toronto, compete in Vegas, be forced to skip Pittsburgh . . . this proves my point. A combination of alternating east/west locations and forcing choruses to skip years will dramatically increase the average cost of an international convention, by forcing a significant portion of choruses to attend only conventions that are across the country, rather than those that are in their backyards. If the society does adopt a 2 year cycle, which I am against in general, I strongly urge you to abandon the practice of alternating coasts for convention sites (and to delay implementing a 2 year cycle until a more equitable system of picking cities is in place).
This is a good point. It would stink to be in your forced “bye” year when the convention was a few hours away, yet the last year and next year the siting was thousands of miles away.
A thought exercise: A smart chorus maybe would choose to stay out of a first far away venue, so that they would fall into the cycle for a closer venue next year. And if that behavior continued across top choruses, it would eventually have the effect of the most capable choruses being able to sync up with the nearby Internationals and skipping contests to arrange to have their ‘bye’ years when the convention is on the distant coast (which forces the next best chorus who is probably not as adept at fund-raising to go).
Sounds good to me
Also, the poll is a joke – it leads with arguments in favor of the switch, and the bulk of the poll is asking respondents to rate the probability of all the good things that will come of the switch (with no opportunity to rate the possibility of negative consequences, or challenge the assertion that all these good things will happen). It’s a push-poll, plain and simple.
That’s why we ask for coments throughout, and on the Blog. Thank you for yours.
It is easy for me to understand the perceived advantages and disadvantages of moving to a 2 year system. There may be room for compromise. If I may so boldly propose the following suggestions:
Competing choruses that place 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th are invited to the following convention assuming they qualify at their District convention in the fall. The Gold Medal rules remain unchanged. If any non medaling chorus scores 90% or better, they also will be invited to the following convention. This will allow the highest level choruses to be enjoyed at all the conventions, give added incentive to those striving to achieve that level of success and still allow for more competitors to match themselves at the international level.
Another thing to consider, all Choruses from the district where the International Convention is being hosted should be invited to qualify for that contest regardless of which cycle they are on. We all want chance to entertain the home crowd.
And the last suggestion, create some new service project that chapters can work on in the out years, like running a state High School Chorus competition, or forming and Honor Choir and putting on a feature show. Something like this could help keep chapters busy, involved and hone their edge for the next year.
I hope this helps fuel the discussions and possibly spawns new and better ideas. Thanks for the opportunity to add my 2 cents worth.
Kevin Roth
Alexandria Harmonizers
Beltway Blues
Atlantic Harmony Brigade
Kevin, thanks, we are considering many different concepts. Yours will be, as you say, fuel for discussion.
Ed
Hi Ed!
I agree with Kevin’s suggestion, at least in major part, and offer the following as a minor modification of his proposal:
1. Starting with the 2011 International Competition, the medalist choruses and any chorus scoring 90% or better are offered a “bye” into the following year’s competition without having to qualify in their respective districts.
2. Choruses 6 thru 10 are invited to re-qualify in their respective districts for the following year’s competition (assuming none have qualified via the 90% rule as stated above). This provides an incentive to finish in the top ten each year.
3. Choruses 11 thru XX will not be eligible for the next year’s International.
4. Home district choruses (or any other chorus within a 200-mile radius of the convention city, if out-of-district) are free to qualify regardless of prior year’s results.
5. Affiliates, regardless of placement, will be invited to compete in the following year’s qualifying competition. Should and affiliate chorus score in the top 5, they will be granted a “bye” into the following year’s International competition and a second chorus from that affiliate will be chosen as its champion for the following year.
This proposal has several advantages. One, you avoid splitting the Society into two competing halves. Two, you virtually assure that the winner of the competition is the best chorus in the world, and not the best of half the choruses in the world, and that the audience gets to hear the best in the world doing their thing. Three, you provide a meaningful reason and reward to win a medal. Four, choruses 6 through 10 earn the right to return via District competition if they so desire. Five, the lower-finishing choruses get a chance to gracefully sit out for a year and plan their assault on the following year’s competition. Six, the “lesser” choruses (i.e. those who didn’t qualify to compete at international that year) have a better shot to make the Big Show due to the 15-ish available slots that this proposal would yield each year. There are probably more advantages to this proposal, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind.
Disadvantages? Well, you might hurt attendance at the District conventions where the medalist choruses don’t have to compete for their District championship. Perhaps it could be required (or strongly suggested?) that the four medalist qualifiers for the following year’s International appear on their District’s Jamboree at District competition. I’ll leave it to others to come up with more disadvantages, I’m having a hard time thinking of them.
Paul Santino
Five Towns College Chapter, Dix Hills NY
I like this proposal. Seems to keep the heavy hitters coming. Gives more of an opportunity for lesser choruses to have a shot. Considerations for geography are good.
Can I vote on this one?
Jeff Porter
Baritone (complete newbee to BHS)
Bryn Mawr Chapter, The Mainliners (Philadelphia, PA)
Host Chapter for 2010 Convention
(who didn’t make the cut…good thing since we had a LOT of work to do to be the host chapter…I can’t imagine needing to be the host chapter AND competing the same year BTW)
“the audience gets to hear the best in the world doing their thing”
Not true. The best chorus in the world is probably sitting out for 2 years… In other words, the system we all know and love is already doing this to some extent.
I’d be in favor of a modified version of this. At some point in time I thought it was a consideration, and maybe it still is, but here it goes, anyhow…
Since some chapters THRIVE on competing yearly, perhaps the alternating could be set based on acheivement. For example, if you make the Top 10, you get the option of coming back the next year. Several reasons for this:
- “Big dogs” can stay in if they want to and if they feel it is in the best interests of their members.
- “Watering down” of overall quality, perceived or real, is minimized by swapping choruses of a more condensed and crowded scoring range.
- Chapters who make the 10 but still choose to skip (like a GNU or Toronto) have the flexibility to skip in a manner of their choosing (like Toronto making sure they get to compete in… well… Toronto.).
- It creates additional reward for more choruses without watering down the value of earning a medal.
- It allows for some more people to experience, and perhaps get hooked on, the International experience, keeping some of the benefit of the current proposed change.
Alan
I ahdn’t seen Kevin’s note pop up, yet, but he seems to share a similar idea.
Alan, this idea has been proposed, and is one we are considering. The proposal we’re looking at is the top 5 (actually 4, since #1 is out for 2 years). They would have to re-qualify at the district, but they could return year over year. It’s not in the model on the table, but it’s certainly being looked at. Here’s my own, personal, feeling on it: if we do that, aren’t we defeating the purpose? If we want to allow more up and coming choruses to be enter the international competition ranks, and yet we keep the same (or close to the same) top 10 (or 5) choruses coming back year after year, doesn’t that present a barrier? Remember, as you well know, the utlimate winner can’t come back for two years. That seems to work okay, why wouldn’t the proposal as written?
I don’t think it would defeat the purpose.
If you made it top 5, you’d still have 25 new choruses per year. If you made it top 10, you’d still have 20 new choruses per year.
Right now, the ones closest to medaling are already brought in via the wild card, so keeping medalists isn’t really keeping those choruses out of the circuit. It just maintains the value of earning a chorus medal. Kicking out the medalists and allowing a new batch in via attrition simply lowers the bar for placing. I wouldn’t mind that in lower placements, but lowering the bar for medaling helps no one, IMO.
As far as top 5 or top 10, I like top 10 because it gives good choruses who don’t medal something else to shoot for. “Well, we were close to medaling this year, but at least we earned the right to come back and try again!”
I absolutely agree with this method more than anything I’ve ever heard. I value the chance for people to do something they’ve not been able to do in the past for the reasoning of that one chorus that always beats them, but now they have something to shoot for, a reason to work, other than a possible medal and a subsequent mandated sit-out. I want to see the top 10 clash every single year (as a competitor and as an audience member), even if it changes (and it will) a little bit, we haven’t watered down that high-level competition, but will still be able to get the 11th place and down a chance to rotate and foster better singing.
Imagine what it would feel like to be one of the choruses that gets the chance to go that never did before and THEN make the top ten that year and have the ability to feel what it’s like to do it every year. The performances will be huge for that chorus, as well as morale and motion. This still leaves a drive in those choruses.
Ed, I like where Alan is going here. Personally I am mildly against the proposed model, but I like the underlying thinking. SCJC could develop some kind of revised version, with the top 5 or top 10 having the option of coming back the next year. Since everyone already has the option of sitting out a year, things really don’t change at all for the top groups. And for some groups the annual contest cycle is part of their culture and a strong motivational factor for them. Meanwhile the basic appeal of the 2-year rotation, and how it affects the many other good choruses, remains intact.
I’m in favor of the 2-cycle competition setup. Year after year it’s the same choruses showing up; it’s time to make room for the little guys who have been busting their buns to qualify and end up getting bumped because the 160 man chorus in their district gets it every year.
Look, the name of the game right now should be membership; not competition. If we’re going to grow the Society, then we need to spread the “bragging rights” around the Society. If the “on the cusp” choruses qualify for International, they’ll be able to talk it up at home and perhaps get new men interested in joining them.
Right now, when the perineal competition choruses win a chance for competition, does the local paper write them up or is it old news? I can tell you, if my chorus got the chance to go, it would be mentioned in our local paper and lots of publicity generated locally. Publicity, good publicity = new members.
I support the 2-cycle format and encourage the Board of Directors to pass it – yesterday! Everyone, please refer to the latest LiveWire for a link to the poll that allows your voice to be heard. Right now, I think the only voices being heard are the current International competitors who want to keep their lock on who goes and who doesn’t.
Dave, contests are about talent. If anyone wants to go they just have to achieve. It is very similar with quartets too.
17th place soccer medals do not have any value…should we do the same with our international talent competition?
I agree with you on membership — but remember the majority of our chapters do not compete. We need to find a way other than a contest to bolster our ranks and do it fast!!!
David Calland
Interesting thoughts…
First of all, there are few 160-man choruses remaining. And of those that are left, they often win and sit out the full 3 years, so this rule wouldn’t even affect them one bit.
Secondly, if the game is membership, shouldn’t we be APPLUADING the 160-man chorus for their ability to attract such members? Typically, their membership is increased because those guys like competiiton. If the game is membership, why would we cut off a lifeblood of what makes their members happy?
I thought I would share what I wrote in the open answer section at the end of the survey:
1. If a chorus wants to compete at International each year as part of their vision, the Society will effectively be legislating to take that vision away from chapters.
2. Since there would be two sets of competing choruses, one on year ‘A’ and one on year ‘B’ the medals will be severely devalued. It will no longer be the best five choruses in the world. It will be the best five from pool A and the best five from pool B which will inevitably create a line jumping scenario where a chorus will sit out to increase their chances to medal in the “weak” year.
3. Financial strain on the districts’ fall convention. On the year that a chorus is in the ‘B’ rotation they do not have to compete in the fall contest when the ‘A’ choruses qualify. That will put a financial drain on the convention. In JAD’s case if The Alliance and Southern Gateway end up on the same cycle at some point it would be a financial disaster for JAD and would probably eliminate some member benefits or at the very least increase pricing for member participation in events.
4. If chapters are burnt out they can already sit out without legislation. We do not need a whole new structure for those chapters that cannot help themselves. AoH, TNL, AVP, KVU, GNU, MVE, etc….have all made the conscientious decision to lay out – because they can. This plan will force them to lay out every other year. Would you like to be the Ambassadors of Harmony and tie for gold and lose by the tiebreaker like they did a couple of years ago and then have to wait two years to compete again? Yeah – me neither.
5. Another claim is this change will boost International Convention attendance and revenue. The next pool of 25 choruses is considerably smaller in size than those that attend today.
2009 – Current 25 BHS chorus competitors average men = 64.52
2009 – 26-50 BHS Choruses average men = 39.76
The numbers do not show that there would be an increase in attendance if the average chorus size for the 2nd half of the pool is 25 men less per chorus than the current Internationally competing choruses.
6. It would relieve financial burdens on chapters and individuals. This statement does not support increasing attendance if all of the current competitors stay at home on the off years. The members really cannot participate in the convention on an off year and save money, right?
In closing, I do feel strongly that C&J and the SBOD should not do anything that would interfere with the successful chapters’ vision, program and fun. Additionally, action by C&J and the SBoD will hurt districts if their best conventions are suddenly in a position of having the largest chapter or largest two chapters not participate. Medals will be watered down because it is no longer the best five choruses in the world…it is the best five that were allowed to compete that year. Contests are about talent and this proposal does not keep the pool concentrated.
Wouldn’t it be great if all the effort and resources surrounding this proposal were put to use increasing our Society’s membership?
David Calland
President – JAD
Director – The Alliance
Lead – The Allies
David, thanks once again for very well thought out counter arguments. The only objection I have is to the last sentence. This IS about membership. The expense to this point is minimal. Our JOB is to think of the best ways to serve our members. You don’t like this new proposal, but others do. I believe in putting it out there and gathering opinions. We all have one. At least one. Thank you again for yours.
Ed, I thought of another issue that might not be in our best interest regarding this change. This proposal will probably spike our dual memberships and have lots of men jumping from Chorus A to Chorus B in their district to continue to compete each year if it is geographically possible. It would be great for the chorus that is “on cycle” and horrible for those that are “off cycle” in a given year.
My saying it would be great if this energy was spent on increasing membership needs clarification for sure. The large majority of our chapters do not have a competing chorus. In 2009 we had 6,645 men compete in fall conventions with a chorus. If this change were to go through it would only reach out to 1/26 of our membership. 986 men in the 26-50 ordinal competing choruses would potentially gain from this. Half of 1575 of the 1-25 choruses or 788 men would be told they cannot participate annually anymore.
We need a much broader reaching membership program/tool. Putting a different 986 BHS members on the international stage in 2012 and 2013 does not really address the membership decline we face right now and have been for two decades. We need new men getting hooked on this great art form. We need to reach out and gain lots of new members. With each new member comes an entire subset of people we can reach if the new members get hooked and invites the people they know.
I wish I had the magic bullet or could win Power Ball and buy us 20,000 members. Until then, we need to be pouring resources into something that can bring new members into the hobby by the busload.
Sorry to tangent so heavily on membership but in the end isn’t everything about membership?
David Calland
I’m against this change for the same reasons Mr. Calland just listed, and one additional one as well.
This feels like a solution looking for problems rather than a problem looking for solutions. It’s wonderful that the members’ voices are being heard, but it feels like it’s too late already.
What are the problems with the existing convention that were identified which prompted this proposal? I see a lot of (unsupported) ideas of effects this proposal may have, but why are we talking about this solution instead of the issues themselves?
If convention attendance decline is the issue, then prompt us as members for ideas on how to resolve that.
- Offer “local” non-competing chapters more to benefit them from the convention… discounted rates, more coaching sessions (from the best in the society!), performance spots as mic testers / warm-up acts during competitions, etc.
- Offer local Frank Thorne members more to benefit them…
- Offer more discounts for group or large family registrations.
- Organize more events that are international / highest caliber focused, such as a Harmony Brigade for all attendees.
If lack of representation of smaller/weaker choruses at international is the core issue, then prompt us for solutions to that issue.
If district attendance is declining, prompt us for solutions to that issue.
- Offer more coaching to chapters during the district convention. 30 minutes of coaching (lecturing, really) from judges following the contest is nice, but what if each chorus got access to a rotation of judges for an hour each on the competition day while they were warming up? I’d pay more for that…
- Organize more events specialized toward large groups of singers – mass choruses, flash mobs, brigades, master classes, public performances, afterglow hotspots. These are the things that are tough to pull together with smaller numbers…
If the issue is that chapters are getting burnt out, then ask for solutions to that issue.
- Educate chapter leadership on the ups/downs of sitting out voluntarily.
- Mandate better chapter visions or regular reviews of chapter vision by society specialists.
- Offer tools to help connect singers with local chapters that may better fit their desires than whoever they currently sing with. Help me search through chapters within 100 miles of my house for chapters that have set goals for competition performance, # songs learned per year, attendance requirements, regularity of outside coaching, quality/location/frequency of afterglows, organized quartetting, average age, etc.
- Get local chapters talking to each other more, help us help each other
- Get local chapter leaders talking to society specialists more
- Get uber chapters producing more learning material and inspirational material for fledgling chapters
This type of proposal seems like a backwards way of solving problems to me. Let’s get more ideas flowing and come up with solutions to identified problems. Let’s not just come up with ways to debunk a proposed solution to an unsupported set of problems…
Jamie Bedford
Bay Area, CA
Jamie, this is a terrific post. While some of your solutions sound better than (I believe) they would work out in practice, you still did a terrific job of proposing positive solutions and I am going to respond to you privately in order to speak frankly about some of your ideas. If you wish to post my e-mail after you read it, you may. In any event, thank you for your thoughtful post.
I believe an important component to such a change would be an opportunity for non-competing choruses to perform from repertoire while at international. Perhaps at an open air venue open to the public, if available. Perhaps multiple times during the week. We are a participatory hobby. I may not attend the convention if my Chorus is not competing. But if my chorus was performing once or twice, I’d be there. CHoruses could perform at different locations at the same time around the venue. Heck, my wife and I go to chorus rehearsals to hear the top choruses sing. And if we opened it to the general public, we might expose our craft to people who wouldn’t ordinarily get to see us. Obviously this could create conflict with other events, and that would have to be avoided. And who knows how many choruses would be willing to perform just for the fun of it, anyway?
An excellent idea, David. I have had several members suggest in the past that they would like to perform more than just the one time on the contest stage during our district convention weekends. For example, last year our convention was in Sacramento. How great would it have been to have a chorus (and quartet) festival on the capitol mall?
We may find more choruses, and more members within those choruses, willing to go to a weekend district convention (or weeklong international) if there were more opportunities to perform.
Steve Sammonds
Music Director, Palo Alto-Mountain View Chapter
Board Member, Far Western District
I like it, too, but don’t you mean “Bob” not “David”?
Why yes, Ed, I did.
Sorry Bob.
Personally, I am not in favor of the mandatory 2-year hiatus. But if it comes down to it that this is going to happen (which from my perspective seems likely at this point), could something be done to the preliminary process that a chorus has to go through in order to reach International that would ease the financial burdens for the Districts each year at their conventions? For instance, I was thinking, what if a chorus has to compete at District during their on and off years? If they won the competition both years they would go. If they won one year and came in second the next, then they would be allowed to go if their overall score between the two years averaged a certain amount, like a 78.0 or something to that regard. And if they didn’t win either year, but still averaged a 78.0 (or some other predetermined score) than they would be allowed to go (similar to a quartet score of 76.0). This might not be the best specific solution, but something along these lines to keep the Districts in a better financial spot year in and year out. For instance, a District such as the FWD that has 3+ choruses in the top 10-15 (including 2 gold medalists) would still have a high level of competition each year.
I understand that putting in a mandatory 2 year cycle is financially beneficial to the society members, but in all reality, the level of competition would take a hit. There are many choruses who enjoy going year in and year out and have a blast while doing it. The reason that choruses such as TNL and my chorus, the GNU, have sat out is because we desire to reach that next level and we feel that it is beneficial for our chapters to do this. Other chapters may feel that they can reach that next level by competing each year and there is no problem with that. Why force them then to sit out a year? Maybe, a lot of their fun as a chorus is going to International each year with each other and enjoying the brotherhood, so why take that away from them. Yes, they still have the option of attending, but that, by no means, means they will attend. Financially, it is difficult to go each year, and if you don’t have a reason to go, then more than likely you won’t attend because you don’t need to. That is what happened to many in my chorus this past year, we sat out a year, but did not attend the competition because, financially, it didn’t make sense. It can cost up to $1000 or more for a 5 day trip to a competition, and if I am not competing in some form or another I won’t go. Its just not affordable if I don’t need to be there. If you force choruses to sit out, then many will decide not to attend. Attendance will drop each year, I guarantee that, and even more than it already is.
I understand the reasoning behind why it should happen, but I, personally, think it is a bad idea. Just leave the option out there for choruses to sit out if they so choose. I may be a little naive, but I don’t really see the problem at hand with the International Competition as it stands right now. A hiatus does not sold the attendance issue. I detracts away from what has become the highest level of competition the society has ever seen. Think of the last 2 years, especially Philadelphia. If the VM, SoR, and the Harmonizers were all on a different contest cycle from Westminster, TNL and the Alliance, the contest would not have been nearly as good. That is not saying anything bad about the rest of the choruses, but the competition this past year was amazing. A 2 year hiatus, arguably makes the level of competition, half as good. Yes, one could argue that a year off would allow for those choruses in the 6-10 slot more time to prepare themselves for a higher level of achievement, bu there is no guaranteeing that that would happen.
Hope what I have said has made some sense and will be taken into some consideration at least.
Alex, you make lots of sense. Thanks. Concerning district conventions, the competitors could come every year to vie for the district crown. If they won, but had already gone to International the year before, then the next chorus would represent the district, but the winning chorus would still be the district champion.
Nothing is decided yet, so thank you for your input.
Put yourself in that contest hall when the announcement is made. “Chorus A is better than you, but you get the consolation prize of International.”
Wouldn’t that be a bit anti-climatic? I agree with Dave Calland… I think choruses would opt to simply not show up in off years unless something was built in to force that.
Winning District is still something choruses seem to boast about if you look at the websites. If not, then maybe we should allow a Chapter chorus to win District Champ only once.
As a 36 year member who has attended 23+ Internationals, both as an observer and competitor, I would not be so apt to schedule my family vacations around an International where about half of the choruses who could be (and should be) competing are told to stay out of the competition, tells me that we really aren’t interested in staging the best possible quality on the International stage every year. I’m definitely not convinced that this is a good idea. Even now we have choruses ranking 60th plus qualifying as their district representative competing and twenty some others staying home because of where they are located. We could end up with choruses in the 90+ ranking competing because it is “their turn”.
If convention attendance is a concern and quality of the barbershop presented to the general public is even a thought in anyone’s mind, make it mandatory that everyone competes every chapter has to compete every so often and earn a minimum score to even be allowed to perform in public. There is nothing worse (and detrimental to the perception that the public has toward barbershop) is “bad” barbershop. What can we do to help the local choruses/chapters to improve? Competition can be an indicator of how much of improvement and progress when compared to scores in the near past.
Maybe we need to be fixing that happens on the lower performing chorus level rather than trying to penalize the higher performing choruses because they do what they do well!
David, with over 800 choruses, I think there’s plenty of talent to go around. Since, as you say, the 60th best competes now, that wouldn’t change under the new plan. Your main proposal, of a quality check before choruses perform in public, is a bit harder to do at the International level. We’ll have to do some more thinking on that, but right now my head’s full with this proposal. Thanks for your ideas.
I’m concerned that some choruses will pass on international contests that are distant and expensive to get to in order to qualify for a closer convention the following year. This might result in a third tier contestant getting the invitation. Hypothetical situation:
Let’s say the Cardinal District chorus, Kentucky Vocal Union, (an A level chorus) competes at Int’l in Year One of the new system, leaving Indianapolis (an A level chorus) to qualify in Year Two. But the Year Two contest is in Seattle, which is quite expensive compared to the Year Three contest in St. Louis. So Indianapolis passes, hoping to qualify the next year, leaving the Year Two chorus slot to the next best chorus, who is only a mid-B level chorus. The rule that permits this is:
“Any chorus that didn’t compete at international on a given year–no matter what the reason–will be eligible to qualify for the next year’s international contest.”
Hey, Trep, can’t that happen now? Any chorus can skip anytime they want to. We’re hoping that SCJC can entertain requests at the start of the contest cycle to make these kinds of allowances – such as a chorus wanting to compete in Toronto because that’s their home town. I think your concern comes from the thinner talent base in any particular year based on the slotting, but we’re thinking the competing choruses will rise to the occasion. B+ is not far from A-!
This was a comment written by Stan Wooley of Atlanta, who could not post it with his computer setup so he asked me to do so. Here goes:
Not sure how to proceed but here are my comments.If you could post them, or direct me to some help, that would be most appreciated! Thanks!
Name – Stan Wooley
e-mail- Stan@TenorofOz.com
“Thank you!” to Ed Watson and other Society Administrators who have made this open forum possible.
I am in agreement with Dave Knapp, and seemingly in the minority in this discussion, being in favor of the two cycles.
The practice of Gold Metal Quartets no longer competing has not seemed to dilute the value of a Gold Metal or degrade the scoring from year to year. Most of us who have been involved in this hobby for twenty years or more can testify that the quality of our top Quartets and Choruses has improved steadily and in all categories.
I can’t imagine that a top ranked Chorus would ever feel that “We can take it a little easy this year because we don’t have to worry about the XYZ Chorus.” There will always be another Chorus snapping at the heels of whoever would be expected to win.
When a Chorus can improve their score over the previous year but drop in placement it is a strong indication of how focused the top competitors are. To me that is also a reassurance that allowing more Choruses to place in the top ten would encourage that focus and allow more men to share in the achievement and in no way degrade the rankings. We can only speculate as to how this might impact attendance at District and International events but when the Choruses I have sung with have qualified for international, the membership has always increased.
Perhaps the concern of being in an Eastern Chorus and getting stuck traveling West every “competition” year could be solved by simply having the alternating East West Cycle on a two year rotation as well (two years East, next two years West). This and other concerns can usually be overcome with some brainstorming and creative thinking. Naturally there would have to be some exception allowing qualifying Choruses to compete in their own town!
Regardless of the ultimate decision, we are all winning because we are involved in an organization that explores new ideas and encourages this kind of open and civil discussion.
Thank you for reading my comments.
Sincerely,
Stan Wooley
Tenor of Oz
Atlanta Vocal Project
It’s a fair thought, but I’m not sure quartet situations line up with choruses.
Quartets are obviously fewer guys with fewer variables, and end up as a snapshot of something they did once. Choruses have a constant turnover, power shifts, etc., which can dictate overall health that translates over to their musical health.
I think the proof may just be in the fact that while we have improved over time, the relative rankings remain fairly consistent with some exceptions.
A few thoughts:
The linchpin of this concept is that the choruses ranked 26-50, who would now be competing at International, would have a new incentive to improve. But getting better isn’t just a matter of incentive, it’s a matter of resources and ability. Second-tier choruses already have significant incentives to improve, but they don’t get better solely for wanting it. Improvement requires coaching, leadership, creativity, and support — and without that additional support, they won’t magically get better. That would leave us with a much-diluted International pool each year, potentially DECREASING convention attendance.
Also, while I obviously don’t have any hard data on this, I suspect that the pool of International attendees has been shrinking because membership has been declining (and over the past few years, because the economy has been lousy). The rotation plan COULD help boost membership in some ways — for example, it would give our top choruses more time to do more public performance and outreach in their off-years, and better choruses in the #26-50 slots might bring in more members. But making 25 choruses better in contest is pretty narrowly focused for a membership drive.
I like the idea of having a year off between contests. It would give us more time to work on repertoire and help stave off “two-song syndrome.” However, it would also weaken the currently strong incentive of competition by spreading it around to other choruses in alternate years. That’s a trade-off, for sure.
Whether this plan is ultimately a good or bad idea, I think it’s a good sign that we’re considering new things. Too many sacred cows can cause stagnation. Whatever we decide, I like that we’re deciding on the merits, rather than simply rejecting it out of hand because it’s a new idea.
However, I also have to say that I’m troubled by the muttering I’ve heard from many people that the change seems to be a fait accompli. Ed, can you give us some idea about exactly how our responses will be used, weighed and considered?
Noah asks: Ed, can you give us some idea about exactly how our responses will be used, weighed and considered?
Sure. Remember a few months ago when we started this process, polling and posting on the blog? We had a different idea in mind at that time, modeled after the SAI model, with 20 months between qualification and contest. We found through member interaction that that was the greatest objection, the killing of momentum between qualifying and competing. Therefore we went back to the drawing board and reshaped the proposal. The current proposal is identical to our qualifying/competing timeline now, but then you may not compete in the next cycle. This is one example of how we’re listening to our membership concerning this issue.
Obviously, those reading this are already bloggers, but we are urging everybody to give us their thoughts, through the LiveWire, the Harmonizer, the blog, and the Harmonet. NOTHING IS DECIDED YET. I will report to the Board a summary of thoughts, and results of our polling, and the Board will consider this change at each meeting until it makes a decision.
One last thing: whether you are for or against this idea, and whether it becomes our new system or not, keep an open mind – and please read my answers to bloggers questions. Some people are making bad assumptions, and some are making good observations, but all are trying to think it through, and that’s a great thing!
I am 100% against this motion. Dave Calland expresses my feelings very well so I won’t waste space by repeating them – I hope our leadership will listen to the people on this decision. I certainly don’t hear the clamoring from the general membership to change the chorus contest. The last few years have given us some of the best contests in memory (and not just the battle for the top spot).
Speaking as a chorus director that would likely benefit from this change and probably get an International bid for my chorus because of it, I am 100% against it.
Chad Guyton
I agree with Chad. I was going to write a list of points, but David Calland expresses my exact feelings as well.
I am against this motion and strongly believe that we should keep the chorus contest as is (for the many reasons listed above).
Tim Waurick
Tenor – Vocal Spectrum
Tenor Section Leader – Ambassadors Of Harmony
Owner – TimTracks.com Learning Tracks
My chief concern with this proposal is the knock-on effect of this change on District conventions. I strongly believe that the net result will be a further decrease in participation in District contests, since every year, one of the two best choruses in a District will not be allowed to qualify for the upcoming International. This concern is addressed in the Harmonizer article, but the suggestions given to alleviate it (“host the fall contest, give a headliner performance, sing away the trophy…” etc etc) are all activities that are available to these choruses at District SPRING conventions. In my experience, these activities are not enough of an incentive to keep those District spring conventions well attended. It does appear to be the case that people who are not competing at a convention (any convention) are less likely to attend. In fact, isn’t that one of the principal reasons for discussing this change to International conventions? It seems like the proponents of this plan are striving for a fundamental structural change to solve a problem at the International level, but in doing so are simply wishing the identical problem away at the District level.
Fundamentally, there needs to be more participation from non-competitors in our conventions (District and International). I believe that tweaking the convention program to include more non-contest attractions will go farther to accomplishing this goal than will any changes to the contest itself. Indeed, spreading the competitive talent thinner will quite likely make a convention LESS attractive to a non-competitor. Combine that with the already acknowledged propensity of non-competitors to stay home, and the relative smaller size of the (say) 25th-50th ranked choruses who will now be competitors in the mix, and you’ll have the worst of all worlds!
If it’s about membership, then it’s about grassroots. Grassroots issues of any kind are always better addressed at a local level, so I believe that Society decision makers must take a long hard look at how their proposed changes would impact individual Districts. Improving International convention attendance in the short term might appear to represent modernization and progress, but if it comes at the expense of Districts, it’ll also create the factory sludge that poisons the water supply of the Golden Goose (apologies for the tortured metaphor).
Healthier and higher-attended District contests might even spur membership growth, which will create more potential International attendees!
Gentlemen: I’m as impressed with some of the responses & suggestions offered in this forum as I am lukewarm with the original two-year proposal. However, I can’t shake from the back of my mind the thought that although chorus activity (including, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, competition!) has become a very important part of our Society, aren’t we doing a disservice to our members & to our founders’ vision by short-changing quartet activities as a means of encouraging participation & membership growth? I’d like to see some ideas offered on quartet formation, coaching, performance, & competition opportunities that can attract members & prospects to our district & international conventions (& NOT just to the contests!).
I believe the change would be in the best interest of the society, both in terms of able competitors, and in terms of choruses being able to fund the trip every other year.
With a society must come change, no matter how old the tradition. It is time that The Barbershop Harmony Society continues on with the time, remembering its traditions, and embracing new ones. Let us branch the competition into two.
As I think about this, I think about it from the prospective of someone who was in a fun comedy chorus, a seriously competitive chorus, an Internationally-bound chorus, and currently an improving c-level chorus. This two-year proposal would have no effect on two of those choruses and would negatively impact the other two.
In those two competitive choruses, what I predict would happen is vacillation of talent within the district to the “hot potato” chorus that is most probably International-bound. This is not just members, but top directors and coaches, too. To prevent this, the society would have to prohibit it, and that would be awful for someone (or some group) who lives for International every year.
What I like about the hobby is that it is different things to different people: it’s a weekly hobby to some, it’s a constant endeavor to others. Ultimately this tries to paint more members with the “International” brush.
Finally, you don’t create excellence by limiting the excellent.
Let the choruses define themselves and solve their own problems and share their best solutions. That’s the best kind of innovation.
I say NO. It’s not a strong NO, but I’m not on the fence, either. It’s NO for me.
Seems like in the end it only waters down the quality of the International competition. If thats the case, simply lower the standards to qualify
There is one more idea that some will hate, some will love, and many will say, “what?”
We could go to a playoff type structure and add a couple of days to the schedule at international. Divide the districts into 4 conferences and invite the best 15 choruses from each to the international convention. Have each conference duke it out earlier in the week and the best 2 choruses from each conference move on to the finals. The Finals would consist of the 8 choruses from the conference finals and each representative from the affiliates. They duke it out for the medals.
Now, does this idea address financial questions? No. It would create new ones, but I believe this would be a plus in the long run. Does this idea address membership? I say yes. It gives more organizations a reason to grow and excel. It would not exclude, but include more people and give more incentive to achieve. I believe this kind of contest address most of the concerns already voiced. Admittedly, it creates new problems, but I’m sure that it can be smoothed out if others believe this is a worthy idea.
Kevin Roth
Alexandria Harmonizers
Beltway Blues
Atlantic Harmony Brigade
I still think this will not resolve the main concern within the society. You should have two classes of competition. One class for more traditional arrangements (keep the KIBBERS happy) and one class for the more modern arrangements. The low morale concerning competition among so many choruses will not be assuaged by this plan.
Although Jeff’s point is going in a different direction than the proposal on the table, it may be a good time to air it while SCJC and Nashville staff are on the topic.
I have long believed that “we are what we sing” and we sing lots of non-contest material. I advocate for a system that, without threatening the traditional contest barbershop style in any way, would give groups an opportunity to sing some of the other material they know and enjoy in their local chapters: Broadway, gospel, jazzy, modern, tenor or bass solo, novelty, instrumental accompaniment etc. This could be done in several ways if the initial idea can be agreed upon (and I have some ideas about how best to do it).
Having divisions is nothing new in choral music contests, and if done right it might help us bring BHS to a wider audience.
We are still thinking about this from a barbershop perspective, all of us as insiders, but to really grow the society we might want to consider the whole topic from a different and wider viewpoint. We have always sung quite a lot of music that is non-contest, and it might be a great idea to showcase our multi-faceted talents on the International stage.
I can see both sides of the fence. I think the top five should be exempt from this rule. Period. However, being a member of a chorus who HAS outscored some of the qualifiers from other districts but has the unfortunate disadvantage of having two 80+ choruses in our district, I think it IS fair for some of us to have the two year rotation. My chapter has been working their tails off over the last few years and have improved by about 13 percentage points over the last 5 or so years. Several choruses who continually qualify for International have done so with scores in the 70′s. (One district this year had a chorus qualify with a 67.5.) Those who say that the 26-50 choruses aren’t worthy of competing may want to check the score list again. What I am reading from these comments is that, even though we scored higher than some of the competitors on the stage in Philly did (in their own district contests), we still shouldn’t be allowed to have the same chance to experience an International contest. Am I reading some of these comments correctly, because that is what they seem to be saying. We score in the 70′s as well. However, we’re usually shy of being able to wild card. My chapter has been working our tails off, getting coaching and working towards a common goal. If we had the opportunity to go to International, I know for a fact that it would have a GREAT impact on the overall improvement of our chorus. That is why we go to contest: to find out what to work on so we CAN get to International. There are many other chapters out there in the same situation as us, and it gets frustrating knowing that we actually scored better than some of the qualifiers, but just happen to be in the wrong district to do the same ourselves. This would give a lot of chapters the opportunity to improve ourselves AND show why we belong on the stage.
I have been reading the posts this morning, and I just could not let this one go. Having two 80+ choruses in your District is NOT preventing you from qualifying for International. Not scoring 80 yourself is preventing you from qualifying. I can appreciate that your chorus is working hard, and scoring in the 70′s shows that, but let me use my home District (MAD) as an example. For many years, now, the Alexandria Harmonizers have been the top chorus in the District, having won 14 straight District championships. Following them, for many years was the Manhattan chorus. But in just the last 5 years, we have seen several other choruses driving toward the top. Dundalk and Hamilton Square, NJ both have qualified for International in the last several years, including having all four compete in Philly. To top it off, a relatively new chorus, in Hell’s Kitchen, scored high enough to be asked to Mic Test this year. I have no doubt that they will soon qualify to compete on the big stage in their own right. But this did not happen because someone asked Alexandria or Manhattan to step aside. These choruses put in the work to raise their own level, and perhaps that is answer. Establish a minimum qualifying score and any chorus that hits it qualifies for International. If in some years that means a couple of extra choruses, adjust the scheduling to accommodate it. If not enough qualify, wild card in the next several choruses. Encourage choruses to qualify on merit, and give them a number to strive for. That’s when our quality will improve, not by diluting the competition. If the best aren’t competing, what have you really won. Just give everyone a pat on the head and a ribbon for showing up.
This makes sense. Why not implement a qualifying score for choruses, like the 76% for quartets?
I have a different model to suggest for consideration. Instead of a locked in place 2-year cycle, how about this:
No chorus can compete on the international stage three consecutive years.
Now, reread that and let it sink in…. Okay, continue.
Does this idea say that no chorus can compete every single year? Yes. Does this allow choruses to lay out a year and then compete two years in a row after that off-year? Yes. Would this allow some choruses the ability to achieve an international competition berth who under the current structure might never do so? Quite possibly, depends on the district.
While I understand that there may be some choruses who love having the ability (and possibly chorus goal) to compete on the international stage every single year due to whatever situation it is that gets them there year in and year out, to them I say, would it REALLY kill your chorus and/or district to sit out every third year? I doubt it. To anyone who feels that a chorus would completely sit out of a district contest in a year they are not eligible to compete at the international level I say, why would you want to rob yourself of the opportunity to perform our blessed hobby for an audience primarily made up of people who love barbershop harmony just as much as you do? If you and/or your chorus currently attend every district convention in hopes of qualifying for international, why would the implementation of a new rule structure make you change that practice?
I don’t know. Maybe it’s a crazy idea that shares too many implications with the currently projected plan for enough people to give it serious thought, but it IS a different idea that may not have already been suggested. If it has already been suggested and/or discussed elsewhere, I was not a part of that discussion and chalk discovering this self-proclaimed epiphany up to “great minds think alike.” Unless you don’t like this idea either. To you then I guess I’m just another nutcase.
Either way, I’m almost glad I’m not on the SCJC or the SBoD as this decision will quite possibly ruffle the feathers of various people through action OR inaction. All I ask is that they take their time, consider every viewpoint (including this one) and make the decision they feel is best and will benefit the society as a whole for the long run. I’m only 30 and my membership card may only say 12 years, but barbershopping has been a part of my life for the past 25 years (thanks Dad) and I have every intention of doing it until the day I die regardless of what the rule structure is for the international chorus competition.
Philip Owen
Lead, Central Standard
Central States District
We have been to the last 4 Internationals as a chorus member contestant. During those conventions VIH took 6th, 3rd, 8th and 7th. Under the proposed plan that may have been 3rd, 2nd, 4th and 3rd, but the medals would not have meant as much as the 3rd place chorus medal that I currently possess. I can honestly say that my 3rd place medal made me 3rd for that year and if you take into account the 2 choruses that sat out, 5th in the world, that means a lot. If you say you came in 3rd when half of the world sat out, that’s a different story. I’d rather be disappointed by being 6th and not getting a medal, than being third and knowing that was really sixth but at least I have a medal. How about missing the medal by 1 place, knowing you really would have been 12th???
It doesn’t matter what you scored in the preliminary contest; that is no guarantee what your score or placement will be at International. When you place 3rd at International, you are 3rd place in the world and not sixth because half the competition doesn’t show up. That’s the same thing as thinking: “my 3rd place finish is really only 4th place because perennial silver medalist TNL sat out this year.
I’ve been following the debate closely and have given quite a bit of thought to the subject.
I’m in a chorus that for more than a decade has finished just slightly behind our District champions. For a number of years we placed in either second or third place. When the perennial District champion took a self imposed leave from International competition, there was a lot of buzz form within the chorus about it being our “shot at the big time”.
So what happened? A little good and a little bad.
On the good side, more District choruses stepped up their game. We now find ourselves in a dog fight with as many as four other choruses for the title of District champs. And there are at least a half a dozen choruses who feel they have a legit shot at making the International stage. So will it increase activity among the second and third tier choruses? It probably will.
On the negative side, we really miss having the “perennial favorites” around. Their initial absence and then gradual rebuilding process has taken something away from the far reaching and positive influence they had on the District as a whole.
But even more noticeable has been the drop in the threshold to make International. The “perennial favorites” commonly scored in the high 70′s and low 80′s. They would then go on to International to finish outside the top 20.
But now the gap is even larger. Scores in the low to mid 70′s would give you a shot at International in our District right now. While it’s admirable that choruses who before were in the 60′s are now in the 70′s, is this the level we truly want to showcase on our biggest and brightest stage?
We’ve had some members disappointed in the last few years that we haven’t found a way to get over the hump and land in first in the District. There are some very competitive guys in our group, and some that have an intense focus on making each higher rung. For me, I am as competitive as the next guy and I want to get there too. But I want to earn it. I want to go in knowing that we consistently make audiences take notice of us. I don’t want polite golf claps in front of our audiences. I want people standing up and shouting for more!
So my opinion at this point is to leave things the way they are and let top choruses voluntarily remove themselves when they feel they need a break. But focus on what tools are resources will improve the B and C level choruses to give them a better shot. What coaching can be provided? What recruiting help can be given to locate good local talent who would be willing to participate? Let’s not lower the bar toward entry to International. Instead let’s increase the quality of competition among all choruses eligible.
One more note. If this proposal does happen, I would suggest that the Society look at ways to increase quartet formation among the “off year choruses”. This would increase the number of high quality quartets working toward contest entry as well as the number of quartets singing in chapter shows, local events. etc. It also gives a way for individual members to keep improving their craft at a high level for those driven by the possibility of competing at International levels.
Here is the way I see things…..It almost seems as though we are trying to accomodate the B chorus’s who are on the cusp of breaking through.. It’s a competition where the best of the best get to the international stage whether you are 80 members strong or 200 members strong you are scored on how well you sing. To me the whole thing is a bit odd because I never did see a problem with the way things are set up now.
I only see this as lowering the standards that are set to qualify for the international stage. I know I live for the competition aspect I would like to knock off one of the “Bid Dogs” in a competition like VM. If I were in a group that made it to the international competition and thought we had a chance to win, nothing would be greater than knocking off one of the “A” Groups.
This thought may be a bit extreme but if the NFL were to tell teams that if they made it to the playoffs this year they would not be eligible to compete in the playoffs the following year thus giving a team that finished 8 and 8 (and average team) would have a shot at winning the Super Bowl, don’t you think that would tarnish the level of quality of the NFL?
I only see this as a fix to help other chapters out which I am all for to an extent, but if these chapters that do want to compete on the international, well to me it’s simple. Step it up.
Thanks, Charlie. Many agree with you, many don’t. I think the replacement year in the NFL was great. They didn’t play as well, but they ALL didn’t play as well and it caused a competition that was just fine. SCJC has analyzed this, and they recommend it. Since they work scores and averages and such all the time, their opinion counts, but the Borad is still listening. thanks for your input.
Instead of making a radical change, why not, as an experiment, make the international chorus pool bigger say by 10? There will be scheduling implications but it is probably well worth it in additional registrations and “first-time” participants.
If the chorus contest gets too long, split it over 2 days – first day is the bottom half in terms of qualifying score, second day is the top half.
I think this would be a relatively safe way to test if having fresh faces at international truly yields the advantages outlined in the proposal.
Nick,
This could cost the society more money and has already been done. The venues we use bill the BHS for lights, air conditioning, staff, seats, and probably some other ridiculous things like rat prevention. having the facilities open for another contest session could cost thousands of dollars, not to mention the Judging panel would get another days pay-not too bad, if you’re a judge!
A couple years ago when there were choruses added to the contest it just made for a really long day. The people that could afford to go were there and the ones that couldn’t didn’t. Choruses that are not top 20 just aren’t there yet. The top 10 is getting to be a real exciting contest. More to come later…
Nick, Chelsea stole my answer. Good for you, Chelsea, I agree with your response.
I am not in favor of the proposed change.
As a 39-year Society member, I’m familiar with the many programs that have been proposed (or implemented) to address the Society’s need for improving our financial solvency. For most of that time, I’ve been intimately involved with both rank & file members and leaders of our organization. I have experienced great successes and great failures as a quartet singer, chorus singer, chorus director, coach, show producer, script writer, arranger and administrator.
Those experiences have produced vast perspective, but the relationships with others create a reluctance to speak the truth requiring political courage. While the constructive criticism I offer will sting the egos of some readers, I am sincere when I say that I have never met a barbershopper with bad intentions where the Society is concerned. We all want the Society to grow more than we want to be “right” in our predictions of the future.
The single cause of our financial difficulties stems from the negative acceleration of the number of members. The change that caused that decline has mirrored my term of membership in the Society.
When I joined in 1971, a quartet was an exclusive ensemble with 4 singers having agreed to discriminate according to talent and/or, age, personality, etc.. That discrimination was appropriate, and led to better performances than any chorus could ever muster. In those days, choruses were not exclusive, and they allowed participation by all “men of good character who like to sing.”
That changed in 1972 when the Vocal Majority was formed. They enjoyed quick success, winning their first championship in 1975. The VM’s high standard for the performance skills of its individual members violated an unwritten ethic, and other chapters followed the VM’s example, resulting in a plethora of new and existing chapters who discriminate against prospective members with performing skills they consider inadequate.
As a result, their performances typically exceed the quality of that displayed by others, allowing choruses with higher individual talent standards to be the “big fish” in our “small pond.” That was really the only benefit realized by the change, and that benefit applies only to those choruses. Meanwhile, the negative impact has been to severely reduce the size of the pond, and it is continuing to grow smaller.
The Society’s response has been to misjudge the reasons for the decline in membership over the years, resulting in programs and International Convention events like:
College Quartet Contest
Seniors Quartet Contest
World Harmony Council Jamboree
Mixed Quartet Contest
Harmony Foundation Donations
Harmony Foundation Show
Youth Chorus Contest
Harmony Explosion
Standing Ovation Program
Two Chorus Contest Rounds
Motorcycle Raffle
Operation Harold Hill
Those programs and events (and others) reflect noble intentions, and have produced levels of success ranging from good to dismal. While some have addressed the symptom, (money), none of them have addressed the real cause of the problem (discrimination).
As if the rejection of applicants (who don’t sing as well as you think they should) wasn’t sad enough, in recent years, the Society has encouraged the formation choruses who discriminate based on age (“Youth Choruses”). The addition of yet another reason to reject a major segment of the population is helping certain quartets and choruses (Westminster, Northwest Vocal Union, etc.) to be even bigger fish in our small pond. Based on history, we can expect the negative acceleration to pick up speed.
It just gets terribler and terribler. Now, the Society introduces a program/event/change that is designed to gather even more money from its existing members. Yet another administration lacks the political courage to solve the real problem with a bylaws change that would disallow chapters from discriminating against men of good character who like to sing.
While the 2-year chorus rotation would not do any damage, and might even (slightly) delay the eventual death of the Society, it will waste (even more) of the energies of our human resources by adding distractions from the real issue; discrimination.
To make an effective change will require the kind of political courage demonstrated here. I would certainly like to continue receiving invitations to contribute in high-profile positions (MC, Chorus Director, Quartet Competitor, Arranger Committee Member, etc.), and I recognize that my criticism of the judgment of those in power may affect the frequency of those invitations. However, one must be willing to risk one’s own self-interest for the good of the whole if we are to survive as an organization.
On the part of International and district leadership, the proposed bylaws change would make you unpopular with those who value their status (as members of quality choruses who discriminate) more than they value the continuance and good health of the Society in perpetuity. Those folks are in the majority, and might ride you out on a rail, but your attitude must be the same as Harry Truman’s. You were elected/appointed to do what you know is right, not necessarily what is popular.
Chapter leaders, have an obligation to recognize that your chorus’s comparative status is not as important as the continuance and noble purposes of the Society.
And now, the chorus singer! You must develop the maturity to enjoy sharing your hobby with (all) others. There is a greater sense of accomplishment to be earned from helping a fellow-singer improve from a C to a C+ than there is from beating other choruses in a competition, the main purpose of which can be described as ignoble. But if you’re just a taker, and not a giver, you won’t get it.
Where certain other opinion-leaders are concerned, it is presumptuous and inappropriate on your part to discourage “mediocre” quartets and choruses from performing in public because they don’t meet your standards. Whether it attends a church picnic, a chapter show or a Kennedy Center Honors program, the public has a way of deciding for itself whether or not it appreciates the entertainment of the day. The barbershop ensembles who appear receive recognition from audiences that is commensurate with the quality of their performances. The audiences’ opinions are sufficient to “cull” public performances, and they don’t need any help from you.
My late mother was a Sweet Adeline chorus director and contest judge. She served as the Bluegrass Student Union’s first coach. One of her greatest quotes was “Barbershop chorus singing is comparatively bad music, even when it’s done well.” If she wasn’t right about that, television and radio would be flooded with performances of our top choruses. Your chorus is not going to become a TV star, even when you discriminate based on talent, age, height, weight and physical infirmity. Yet you might be one of those who would damage the Society for the sake of your onw status.
We have lost our perspective about the real value of the hobby in our lives. It’s not about winning medals, making money, justifying the positions of our paid staff, maintaining bigger services for a declining membership, becoming TV stars or shoving our religion down their throats. It’s about a wholesome activity that provides emotional therapy for the participants and the observers.
The tens of thousands of prospective members who have been turned away from chapters who discriminate do not have a vote. They are gone and forgotten, and have lost the opportunity to enjoy and contribute to our hobby. I’m sorry for them and for us. Their lives would have been more fulfilling if only we had let them sing. And the dues they would have paid, the tickets they would have sold, the recordings and contest registrations they would have bought are sorely missed, as evidenced by the suggestion that inspires this writing.
As usual, this dissertation can be copied and shared with others, as long as it is forwarded in its entirety.
Ken Hatton
Lead, Bluegrass Student Union
Associate Director, Louisville Thoroughbred Chorus
Hi Ken,
You’re claiming that discrimination is the cause of the decline in general membership of the society, but I don’t see any citation of a study which proves this. I’d love to see that, though, because I think you’re right that being rejected from a group can cause a person to think negatively of that group or the organization to which that group belongs. That said, I think that it’s a mistake to force chapters which would like to have a youth chorus or a chorus which requires an audition / candidacy process to eliminate those types of policies.
The reason I believe that is this: the existence of that type of chapter does not prevent the existence of other types of chapters. If I want to start a chapter with a focus on pick-up quartetting and tagging, the chapter down the road with a chorus that scores 90′s in every competition by requiring a certain performance level to compete with them does not prevent me from having my own chapter.
There are (at least) three things that could be done to reduce the impact of the types of discrimination you describe on the change in membership levels, though:
- Make it easier for singers to find chapters whose goals align with their goals. (# members, cost, audition requirements, amount of quartetting, amount of time spent standing, number of new pieces sung each year, types of learning materials provided, type of afterglow, etc.) How about a web application that allows chapters to supply this information about themselves, and which allows people to search on this?
- Make it easier to start a new chapter if none exists which suits your desires. The point above would help with this. Perhaps part of the search function could say “Didn’t find what you were looking for? Here’s how to start your own chapter!”. Help new chapters identify their vision and set goals (even if the goal is to get together at a bar once per month to sing tags all night). Help new chapters advertise to find potential members (I don’t know if there’s a web site yet called http://www.IWantToSing.com, but there should be, and we should partner with them). Help new chapters partner with existing chapters to build in strength. Which leads to my last thought…
- Train existing chapter leadership on how to tactfully redirect guests that walk in the door to other chapters that might suit them better than yours. Turn a potential singer into a happy barbershopper by introducing them to the little slice of barbershop which will suit them rather than turning them into an unhappy non-barbershopper by rejecting them thoughtlessly.
I would rather the society mandate that chapters do their due dilligence in helping a potential member find an appropriate chapter than mandate that the chapter integrate someone who doesn’t align with their goals.
The former requires some extra overhead to handle people who walk in off the street, but doesn’t negatively dilute the product the chapter offers. That’s a little more initial work per guest with a likely positive result.
The latter forces the chapter to modify its own goals to meet those of anyone who walks in demanding membership. That’s a lot more work per guest with likely stressful, negative result.
Aside from all that, I think it would be difficult to find a better model for attracting new members to barbershop than the Westminster Chorus. How many new members did they have this year when they won? People who probably didn’t know barbershop until they saw Westminster? How many young people were drawn to barbershop by the Llangolen (sp?) videos of W from last year? If W wasn’t allowed to exist, how many of the multi-trackers on YouTube would not have ever found barbershop? That’s a study I would love to read…
Cheers,
Jamie Bedford
Well said. Thank you for the food for thought.
Ken, I respect your position and will digest this, slowly, but carefully.
Ken has made a lot of sense with his remarks.
I did not join the Society to win a contest. In 1959 I joined a bunch of guys who liked to sing.
In the past 50 years a few of the men I introduced to Barbershopping have left our local Chapter to sing with ‘the greats’ in our District.
This same problem in other Ontario Chapters has resulted, in some part, to the surrender of their Charters.
What to do, what to do????
An additional perspective on the effect of the proposal on the attraction of international:
One of the things that makes me want to go to international every year, even when I’m not competing, is that I can be assured that the barbershoppers that will be there are interested in being surrounded by the best in the society. These are folk who want to see, hear and sing with the best. These are folk who ARE the best.
I go because it’s incredibly exciting to know that I can walk down the street and be surrounded by the best singers in the BHS. I know I can stay in the headquarters hotel every night until 4am singing tags with medalists. I know I’ll be able to see, hear, sing with and learn from the absolute best the society has to offer.
If the statements above would have to replace “the best” with “half of the best”, I might not look at international the same way. Some of the thrill and excitement probably will not be there. That’s a lot of value to me that I’d be missing out on.
Just a thought,
Jamie Bedford
Jamie, see my answer to Chelsea below. Dynamic, not static.
Jamie uses (only) rational analysis to support his recommendation that we should offer a different chapter to fit every kind of barbershopper. I agree that in a magic-wand world, one should be able to hang with others who are like one’s self in ability and philosophy. But in the barbershop world, there isn’t enough paper to issue that many charters.
The middle-ground of course, is to offer only a woodshedding chapter, a quartet-organizing chapter, a performing chorus chapter, a competition chapter and one who likes to do both. Then, perhaps we can add a chapter who likes to compete every other year and one who likes to compete every year. That’s seven chapters in one area, so far, and we haven’t even discussed age, religion or sexual orientation. Surely, you see my point.
Even though one can envision such a cornucopia of choices, such a vision is not realistic. In reality, “extra” chapters that exist in a common area often spring up so that some can follow one director and others can follow another, an outcome that again results from immature perspective on the part of some of the participants.
Jamie questions the lack of a “study” cited to prove my point that discrimination is the cause of our decline and so-called “death spiral.” But you see, in the Barbershop Harmony Society, we have this thing; it’s called “history.” During the first 35 years of the life of the Society, membership grew exponentially, and began to slow and reverse only after the arrival of discrimination by choruses. That’s better proof than any study, because it really happened. It kinda-sorta-just-a-little-bit trumps the bald-headed heck out of rational analysis.
There were controversial issues in those days (woodshedders versus performers, purists versus progressives, quartets versus choruses), but most chapters included members from either side of every issue, along with those of us who valued both sides.
Chapter goals were clear and fairly uniform, always guided by the Code of Conduct on the back of one’s membership card, with little room for “interpretation.” We simply encouraged (rather than discouraged) men of good character who like to sing. That was our mission, and it guided every action. We learned from mentors, taught new members how to perform better, and we enjoyed the company of fellow-singers, regardless of whether they happened to be “the best.”
I’ve seen my reflection in the stars in the eyes of quartet fans and chorus fans, and I understand that such hero-worship is unavoidable and (perhaps) necessary, albeit embarrassing. But if your only reason for attending a convention is the hope of brushing up against a medal-winner, you prove my point yet again. We have lost our sense of the real value and noble purpose of the hobby.
Short-timers would do well to do a little more listening, a little more research, a little more aging and a little more quartetting before advising the rest of us about our future. That’s the same advice I received from my mentors many years ago. I’m glad I had the good sense to take it, and I am pleased to pass it on down the line.
Still, I don’t expect the Jamies of the world to be persuaded. They are the reason we’re in the fix we’re in. The discriminatory policy (or lack of policy) that feeds their motivation to participate caters to the least noble of applicable motivations; to draw short-lived self-image from being accepted by those they consider to be “the best.” They are bored with the rest of us, as evidenced by the lessening of their desire to attend a convention where they might be subjected to our company.
That perspective warps our music and “circles the wagons” to keep the rest of the world out. During the first barbershop Society generation, people didn’t join our chapters so they could feel better about themselves by making others feel small. They joined in order to belong to something worthwhile. As long as they tried their best, they earned the respect they were seeking. Well, that doesn’t seem to be “the way it works” anymore.
Our healthy Louisville KY #1 Chapter has a mature perspective. We encourage all men of good character who like to sing, and we welcome them into the fold. We have one non-singing member, and he is one of our most enthusiastic attendees; loved by all. We pursue excellence to the best of our ability (within reason), and we perform at a C to a B+ level in public by today’s judging standards.
No, I am not satisfied with that, but then I was never satisfied with a single Bluegrass Student Union performance. The answer was never to kick somebody out, but to do the best we could with the fellow-singers we had grown to love.
That’s what we’re doing within the rank & file and within the leadership of the Thoroughbreds these days, and I’m really proud of our chapter. We have an organization that is immune to any “death spiral” of the larger Society.
No, we are no longer the best barbershop chorus in the world, but we continue to earn acclaim as a musical and charitable organization in our community to the extent that we will survive even if the Society does not. And we are not bored with each other’s company. It is my sincere hope that our example will inspire other chapters in the future.
Back to the subject that inspired the discussion – Whether the Society adopts a two-year rotation makes little difference to the outcome of our chapter goals. But having made it through International competition at a high level in both chorus and quartet, I detest the right of others to exclude quartets or choruses from any competition.
That goes for the Senior Quartet Contest, the College Quartet Contest, the Youth Chorus Contest, and the small chorus awards. They diminish the quality and prestige of the International Quartet and Chorus competitions, just so lesser ensembles can be bigger fish in the ever- shrinking pond.
The Society hurts itself in the long run by continuing to cater to the idea that every barbershopper deserves to win a contest, just to enjoy an ever-so-slight boost in attendance of District, International and Mid-Winter conventions, while the number of men attending chapter meetings continues to fall. It’s almost like selling the medals.
To limit the right of eligible choruses to participate in International competition is an example of a common, yet unsustainable financial policy. When a private company suffers a slump in income, it must replace that income and/or bring its overhead in line with its sales to remain profitable/solvent. Such a company sometimes makes a decision to cheapen the quality of its product so as to increase its sales. We’ve already tried too much of that, and now it’s time to bring our overhead in line with our sales.
The explanation of my answers to the survey was not simple. Just as science class is just one part of a well-rounded education, the proposed contest-rotation is connected to all aspects of the Society. It cannot be adequately discussed without consideration for those other aspects that make up the whole.
Looking Forward,
Ken Hatton
While I agree that you can’t have TOO many chapters that appeal to finite preferences (like religion, etc.), we can’t discount the many successes of having at least two chapters that fall into the categories of “Fun” and “Competitive” at the very least. Many success stories exist, even in areas that aren’t necessarily huge in means of population.
I would also disagree that following a director is the primary factor. While it has famously happened over time, and perhaps some happening close to home, it doesn’t appear to be the norm. Whenever I see multiple choruses from the same area competing, a very local chapter coming to the show or their fellow nearby chapter, or simply following discussions like this, it seems that more and more are built on knowing who they are and (more importantly), knowing who they AREN’T. The ability of those two chapters to work together sending members to each other who fit the proper needs and wishes of the member creates the most success.
I’ve seen it so often that I am very much on board with Prez Bill in his inclusions of that kind of expansion as part of his ideas for growth.
We can’t go crazy with 7 chapters in one area as you mention, but the germ of the idea isn’t worth throwing out with the bathwater.
Alan
Without going into details or being too testy, there are examples where the discrimination Ken talks about has very much occurred at the detriment to the Society. Chapters with a drive towards a lofty goal should never lose sight that they are part of a larger organization, and that they not only represent the BHS musically but also administratively and in the way they treat their members and guests with respect. This includes cooperating with other chapters in the area and working to ensure that any member who does not, cannot, or will not fit into the competitive chapter’s program find a suitable chapter to call home.
I won’t go into any further detail, but I have seen it.
Kenny –
Thanks for the dissertation. Huge fan. Love your stuff. My BSU CDs are among the first Barbershop music I ever purchased.
That said, I’m the kind of guy who would likely never have joined the society had your recommendations been the rule twenty years ago.
I was a singer long before joining the society, and I already knew the joy of performing at a high level. I had a bad experience with the first society chapter I considered joining. Frankly, the singing was mediocre at best. Because I really had no interest in spending my time and money singing with a bunch of guys who were not willing to put in the effort to improve the unit sound, I left after a couple of months, and did not darken the door of a society rehearsal for a long time.
…until years later, when my father-in-law’s (non-top-tier) chorus was competing in an international competition near where I lived. I went to the contest that year to watch him sing, and in the process discovered that there was a top-tier chorus (the winner that year, in fact) right in my own backyard.
I was drawn to the musical excellence of that group — not the camaraderie (though that obviously developed over time.) The picnics and bar-hopping and social gatherings I observed in other choruses hold very little appeal for me. I’m not looking for a new set of friends to hang out with… I have a young family and my time is at a premium. I’m looking for a musical outlet where I can work hard with a like-minded crew to create transcendent musical experiences, and I personally have only found that mindset in the top-tier society choruses that you propose to dismantle.
To be very clear, I have no desire to prevent anyone from participating in this hobby in the way they see fit. A lot of guys seem to live for the social interactions and peripheral activities that a chapter provides, and couldn’t care less about ever getting a medal. More power to them. Some guys live and die by their quartet. That’s awesome. (Someday I hope to be in a position where I can dedicate sufficient effort toward creating a really good quartet.)
“The tens of thousands [if only this number were anywhere near accurate, our society would be growing by leaps and bounds] of prospective members who have been turned away from chapters who discriminate” invariably have other options available to them. Top-tier choruses are never the only game in the towns where they exist. In fact, most of those top-tier markets *do* have six or seven or even fifteen chapters available, including most of the permutations you’ve described. At the very least, there are multiple avenues by which men of good character can choose to appreciate this art form. As you yourself stated above, this is “of course” the correct middle road.
There are a bunch of us out here who would lose all interest in the society if it becomes the refuge of the mediocre. Feel free to accuse me of the worst kind of self-centered short-sighted elitist motives, as you’ve certainly done to Jamie. But as you do so, understand that even though job and family responsibilities currently prevent me from singing with the chorus that I love, I continue as an active dues-paying member of both the society and my beloved chapter, I continue to invest a lot of time and energy in my chapter job (albeit remotely now), and I continue to promote the society amongst my friends and business associates.
It’s really sad to realize that despite my enthusiasm, I’m really not welcome in the society my hero envisions.
I think the society has made up its mind which is a darn shame. The 2 year rotation won’t bring more people to international or their money. Those people-instead of coming every year-will be every other year bringing in a big chunk o’change for the society. Attendance at contest will drop because, honestly, who wants to see the B level choruses compete every other year as the “Big Dogs” I know we are hearing a lot about raising the bar over time so that there is no strong and weak year but finances to bring in better coaches and directors will have to happen first-insert ploy for Harmony U here.
Even if choruses qualify that wouldn’t normally, that still doesn’t mean that they will attend International. For a lot of the “B-team” choruses finance is a problem and even qualifying won’t be enough for them to go. Please note that choruses have the option to sit out now and allow others in their district to go. Again, just because a chorus qualifies, doesn’t mean they will go to international.
I love this hobby, society and more than anyone International. I will stand firmly behind the BHS no matter what decision they make but this is my two cents. If I have offended anyone I do apologize and please know that my true goals for the society are to better it as a whole; whether that be at the district, division or international level.
Yeow! Chelsea, a bit suspicious aren’t we? I guarantee that if we had already made up our minds we wouldn’t be taking so much time to solicit and review all these tremendous suggestions. I admit, I have an opinion, but it’s still open. I do like your last paragraph, however, and I take all these comments from all these friends as an expression that they love Barbershop, too. My only comment on the substance of your post is that I think there are WAY more than 60 great choruses in our Society. And we could grow many, many, more. I’ll leave it at that.
I think we all need to remember why we began singing barbershop- to preserve the hobby and have a fun time with a group of friends! Now I might be fairly new to it, but I still believe most barbershoppers just want to hop on the international stage to get the experience just once in their life. Some might be interested in getting Gold, but for the most part, at least from what I’ve seen, it’s about having fun with your buddies up there. With this new 2 year system it will give people, like my self, an opportunity to get on the stage without having to join VM or Westminster! I also think it will ENCOURAGE competition in that choruses will realize it will be their only opportunity for 2 years to get up there and will only work that much harder on their set!!
I could be very wrong in my opinion, but that’s just how I feel.
Also, it might draw in NEW MEMBERS with the realization that the international stage might not be as hard to reach as it was previously!
Isn’t the point to strive to be the best and get a high enough score to qualify, and not be given a pass just because a high quality chorus is “out of the cycle”
I agree 100% with all of David Calland’s points, and am really concerned on the impact this change might have on my District’s annual Fall Conventions, both in overall attendance as well the enjoyment level of a watered-down chorus contest at the District level (let alone International). It has been proven that when any of our top choruses don’t compete in the Fall, the majority of their members don’t attend the convention unless they are competing in a quartet that hasn’t already won the District Championship. That will severely affect District revenues. Personally, I want to see our best choruses compete each year for the title, not half of our best. There’s a huge difference between an A-level performance, and a B-level performance. I don’t buy most of the “pro” arguments, and my feeling would be “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
I think catering to mediocrity is a bad decision. If you’re in a tough District, we have a WildCard group already established.
I understand and appreciate what you’re trying to do however I have a couple of thoughts I’d like to share. As we have senior quartet competition I’d like to see the society take a hard look at building a case for “Senior Chorus Competition”.
I guarentee it will energize our current membership and without a doubt encourage new membership and new membership means increased financial support.
I was originally for this proposal but now I’m against it. My main concern is that this sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
Only about 20 choruses score higher than 81% at internationals or district. Maybe that was the reason for the cutoff at 81%. So unless my math is wrong, only 10 of those choruses will be sitting out the following year and 1 or 2 of them already take a year off from time to time anyway.
This will not double the number of choruses that come to international, it will only add at most 10 new choruses to replace the choruses sitting out. If those 10 new choruses don’t score over 81, and they likely wouldn’t, then they will eligible to come again the following year.
So essentially this new plan only adds 10 new choruses to the list of eligible choruses, and they will be able to come to international every year and won’t have to skip a year.
Well that’s not bad, but at what cost. The loss of a district’s best chorus from their fall convention has already shown to be a serious problem in loss of district revenue.
When I took the survey I was neutral and felt ‘why not’, so I agreed with the proposal. I now believe that there is too much at risk for the Districts and for International. I now do not agree with this proposal.
What we hope to achieve is unproven and risky and any increase in attendance, revenue or new choruses at fall contest or at international is questionable.
If you really want to do something different, then split the districts up like baseball with 2 divisions, and then have a championship between the 2 divisions.
David Wiener
Bass MegaCity Chorus (Toronto, Canada)
Webmaster, QuartetMatchup.com
David, you can retake the survey and I hope you do. People want accurate survey data.
Hopefully the survey data collectors will only use the most recent survey information from a given member/associate number. In addition I hope that the stats will be shared with all of our members.
David Calland
Regarding membership, I would like to speak on behalf of the average male singer. We seam to have lost him, They are’nt going to be or aspire to be international champs. We need more of them in order to boost membership. Contest has little to do with membership. Look at the past membership booms that we’ve had. They were during the depressions. Right now we need to create a place where men can go and forget about their job, or lack of, their house payments and marital problems. It needs to be a place of fun and friendship. If we are looking only for men who can help get us to international contest then we are leaving alot of average singers standing on the sidelines.
Hi all -
I agree with Dave Calland and his well-thought-out points. However, I have another point to make.
Have you ever sat in the convention competition venue and watched what happens when a chorus which scored 85 plus at their District chorus leaves the stage and the next chorus is ranked 52nd — attending International only because they were the top-scoring chorus in their district with a 72.3 average score? The hall all but empties.
I recognize that only the judges in the pit, some die-hard fans (and first-timers) and some staff people are the only ones who actually see every competitor. The reality is that the restrooms could not process 8,000 attendees in a 15-minute intermission anyway. So people choose when to leave and rarely is that before a top-ranked chorus appears.
I have missed only one International since 1992. And I attend most of the contest sessions. But, I assure you if the two-year rotation is put in, I will still attend — and I will be seeing the top competitors, but I will also be spending more time away from the hall. I suspect I won’t be alone.
Exactly how pleasant will it be for a chorus (and its family and friends) to perform to a mostly empty house?
I’m in favor of anything that brings the best of the best — not more of the mediocre.
When there are 60 A level choruses available, then I’ll be happy to see a two-year rotation. We currently see three or four new chorus competitors a year, so new groups ARE getting a chance. And it is through their own improvement, not changing circumstances that get them there.
Just another item for consideration …
The poll, as written, is inherently biased. The questions are leading, the content is presumptuous, and it is grossly apparent which way the author of the polls wants the questions to be answered.
This poll, and all of the data it has generated, needs to be discarded. A new poll needs to be written without bias.
As with the show-package finals idea and the hand-held microphone idea, we are overlooking the real problem. Membership. This will not solve our membership woes. Hiding behind the two-year cycle for contests doesn’t remove the membership problem.
Where is the director-level position at the BHS in Nashville for Membership? Let’s get to the root of the real problem and let the two-year cycle idea fall by the wayside.
I have not yet decided one way or another on this matter, but I do agree with Kirk that the phrasing on the survey and on the proposal itself are incredibly leading and biased in presentation (I suspect that is why Chelsea said she felt the society had already made up its mind). If you are trying to provide a fair pro and con list, for example, and care to be taken seriously as a bipartisan, don’t phrase all the pros as statements and all the cons as questions.
Kirk,
I agree with you that the wording of the survey appears bias. Many of the questions were presumptuous and appear to be written in a way that can easily skew the answers. I felt like the survey was trying to tell me my opinion instead of asking me for it.
I agree that a new survey is needed.
Tim Waurick
Tenor – Vocal Spectrum
On September 16 Chelsea Asmus wrote “I think the society has made up its mind which is a darn shame,” to which Ed Watson responded, “Yeow! Chelsea, a bit suspicious aren’t we?”
Ed, with all due respect I think your response to Chelsea is both rude and deflective. From what I am witnessing, Chelsea has every reason to be suspicious. First I read the article you wrote in the Harmonizer. Under the guise of merely presenting the idea and “weighing the pros and cons” you embed all sorts of statements that show your leaning toward the 2-year rotation, culminating in your list of pros and cons. You list the advantages in all their glory and without obfuscation. But for every opposing argument you include a statement that neutralizes it.
Then I take the survey. As several others have already pointed out, this survey is shameless in its bias. I literally was angry after spending twenty minutes of my life on it. The tone is set at the very beginning before the actual survey even begins. The first sentence of the Overview reads: “The Barbershop Harmony Society has been investigating an idea that would nearly double the number of choruses able to compete on the international stage.” What?!? The “overview” is an argument in favor of the idea! I don’t write survey questions for a living but may I suggest the following alternative as a more objective (and descriptive) way to introduce the survey: “The BHS is investigating the notion of a two-year rotation for chorus competitors.” The rest of the survey continues down the same skewed path.
Finally I go to this blog. Ed, you rebut nearly every person who speaks out against the proposal, but so far have not played devil’s advocate against any who favor the idea. Indeed, you even act as a third party to submit someone else’s statement of advocacy.
As the administrative face of the Society you have been blatant in your attempts to steer public opinion toward accepting this policy. Yet you’ve done it in the form of surveys, articles, and blogs presumably so that when it’s all said and done you can claim that you took the argument to the people. The final blow is the fact that you have appointed yourself as the one to report the results to the board. I’m not trying to insult you, Ed, but a biased person reporting the results of a biased survey about a proposal that most have learned about via a biased Harmonizer article doesn’t do much to instill confidence that this is going to be a fair fight. So forgive Chelsea (and me) for being suspicious. At least bring David Calland along as a counterbalance.
As usual, I represent only myself. Not my quartet, chorus, university, family, friends, pets, etc.
Thank you, Jim, for stating so eloquently what I began in my posting. You finished thoughts and brought up even more to be discussed.
I’m sure that the SBoD can see that this poll, as written, cannot be taken seriously.
I agree. It seems as though at this point our mind has been made for us. This survey and blog seem to feel like things are very much skewed towards this is happening, but feel free to express your opinion. I would hope that the society would see that the overall opinion of the masses is about 2 people for the proposal versus the 97 who have openly expressed their dissatisfaction with the proposal. The survey did feel quite bias towards passing this thing through. It really wasn’t a survey, it was more of a sales pitch in many aspects. I understand that the society HQ seems to want this thing to happen, but personally I see ZERO need for this to happen.
I won’t go on too much because I would just repeating, in much less eloquent terms, what Dr. Henry and Mr. Calland have previously stated. I am completely with them in their statements and stance on this whole ordeal. I just hope that the society really takes a look at the public response and decides that this proposal must be withdrawn. The public outcry should right away be a sign that this proposal is not worth the time of the SoBD.
Alex
This forum needs a LIKE button.
Jim, Kirk, et. al,
Let’s clear the air, here. For the record, I wrote most of the questions in the survey (with input from others), and everyone in Nashville and on the Society Board already knows that I’m personally ambivalent about the plan on its overall merits. Everyone in Nashville also knows that I’m a skeptic regarding the present political expediency of the plan, regardless of its actual merits.
If you’re against the plan and you see bias in the poll, I’m not going to tell you that you’re wrong. I don’t write polls for a living, and in hindsight it would have been good to get someone on the outside involved in crafting the answers. But if I were going to bias the poll, which I think would be a terrible thing to do, it would have been in the other direction. Like the poll or not, it was a good-faith effort to get details on what the members think.
Speaking of good faith, I think the folks who don’t like the plan need to send some of that good faith Ed Watson’s way. Ed has no vote as to whether this plan is ever implemented. (Y’all knew that, right?) Ed is not a sneaky person. He’s been very open about his own biases, and invited folks to engage him, debate him, and throw stones at him. It appears Ed is being attacked precisely for his conscious decision to be honest about where he stands. Would you rather that he pretend he has no opinion on the matter? You don’t get this kind of transparency from most folks in most leadership position, so please give him credit for sticking his neck out and letting you engage with him.
As to those who do decide whether this plan goes forward (the Society Board), I won’t claim to have special insight into their thinking, but I will tell you that I have engaged in some critical discussion of this plan with members of the board. If you think they’ve already made their decision, that this is just a dog and pony show, YOU’RE WRONG. I tell you this as a fellow skeptic. This discussion is far from over.
The article and the poll are a good faith effort to learn what the members think. The leaders are taking this seriously. I don’t think this set of men has done anything to merit the mistrust
and name-callinghere.Hate the poll? It’s my fault
, so send all of that name-calling my way. And please remember that they knew I was a skeptic when they handed me the job.Bottom line: There’s no conspiracy afoot. When Ed says Society leaders wants to know what you think, it’s because they do. When he says this is by no means decided, it’s because it isn’t.
May we please continue this discussion under the premise that EVERYONE actually means what they’re saying? These conspiratorial accusations are groundless and they poison the discussion.
Lorin May
Editor, The Harmonizer
Dr. Henry,
Thank you for your thoughts. Your post has helped me consider a different perspective. I do not agree that your accusations are correct, but I see how you could arrive at them. As in our (yours and my) earlier discussions on a different topic, I ask questions to seek other viewpoints, not because my mind is closed.
If I didn’t think the 2 year cycle was a good idea, it wouldn’t have gotten this far; but I’m far from convinced – that’s why we have spent so much time on it. This is the third poll conducted, one sent to top choruses, (of course yours included) and two to general membership.
You are a great Barbershopper, a celebrity for the history books, so I would have preferred my dressing down in private, (ewatson@barbershop.org) but I thank you for your impressions.
Aside from the process, what do you think of the idea?
Sorry to disagree about the “dressing down.” For starters, I didn’t think it was personal, so didn’t require privacy.
Beyond that, since the article, survey, and responses to the blog have been in public, the questioning of the presentation of at least two of those needed to be public so we could have balance.
The only reason it looked so brutal was that the survey was kind of “easy pickins.” But as Lorin pointed out, that was more his fault and inexperience in writing surveys.
Alan,
Ed was replying to a comment by Jim that contained this quote: “… you have been blatant in your attempts to steer public opinion toward accepting this policy. Yet you’ve done it in the form of surveys, articles, and blogs presumably so that when it’s all said and done you can claim that you took the argument to the people.”
Jim was publicly accusing Ed of being dishonest and willfully manipulating members of the Society. That’s a pretty serious charge, and one I strenuously disagree with. It’s the comment that told me this debate had gotten out of control.
I think Ed’s choice of the word “dressing down” showed restraint, all things considered.
Thanks for your thoughtful response Ed. I did actually consider sending my post to you personally, but in the end I thought of my message as more an indictment on the process as it was taking place–and therefore a point of discussion that should be presented for public consideration–than a personal attack on you. You have placed yourself at the heart of this thing so you unfortunately caught some of the shrapnel. If I crossed the line, as Lorin suggests I did, then I sincerely apologize.
Your public response to Chelsea did set me off, I must admit. The sarcasm in your tone as you summarily dismissed his entry irked me because I had just read the Harmonizer article, taken the survey, and read the blog and basically had come to the same conclusion as Chelsea. So what you said to him I felt you were saying to me. And by now you know that we aren’t the only two who feel that way. Heck, I was so busy that I hadn’t even had a chance to read the article or take the survey before several of my chorus members started coming to me incensed by these same accusations. That’s what made me check into it in the first place. I have since heard from others. Maybe you’re right and we are all just irrationally “suspicious,” but at least I hope this discussion has helped you to understand why we might be so.
Lorin has gotten after me for implying that you have been dishonest or manipulative. I admit that the entirety of the press led me to suspect that this process was simply a propaganda ploy. I should not have jumped to that conclusion and I apologize for doing so and for any accusations I might have made as a result. It is reasonable (and kinder) to assume instead that everyone is acting above board and that the process has just been handled clumsily. I am 100% certain tha, though we likely disagree on key philosophical points, you want what’s best for the Society every bit as much as I do.
You asked how I feel about the plan. The funny thing is, in light of all this commotion I’ve stirred up, I have been completely ambivalent about it. I didn’t even have a strong opinion when I wrote my first post. I can understand the arguments in favor of it and I can buy into some of them. But after reading the opinions presented in this blog I am finding myself more and more swayed by the arguments opposed to the idea. They just resonate with me better than the arguments for the other side. I am also intrigued by and drawn to Alan Gordon’s hybrid version.
On a completely personal level, the Ambassadors would have been devastated if after having already sat out two years and then coming back to compete and lose in a TIE, we would have then been forced to wait another year to try again. Man, that would have been brutal. We really NEEDED to get back on that stage and try again. And when we did we came in second again in another close contest. But those years of returning were pivotal years for us. We learned from them, became a much stronger chorus, and got really hungry. I firmly believe that the performance we gave in 2009 would not ever have happened had we been forced to lay out. We desperately needed that uninterrupted momentum.
I hope this clears things up, Ed. I am always happy to talk with you personally about any of these (or other) issues, and would be honored to do so.
Jim
Sounds reasonable to me. I suggest we give it at least a six year trial. After that we can re-evaluate and see what really happened. Incidentally I liked the expearament about 25 years back, when the choruses had to learn 4 songs and compete in a semi-final and final format.
Wally Stewart
First of all, in the interests of full disclosure, I am the director of a chorus who would likely benefit from this move. My chorus has finished between 28-43 in the last several overall rankings from all the Districts. But I’m also a district officer who tries to look at things from all perspectives. I’ve sung in everything from 12 man D-level choruses to Int’l Champions.
I see a lot (but not all) of names of people from the top choruses here. They like to compete every year. They will be probably against this proposal. That’s almost a given.
But it IS frustrating to finish as one of the best 50 choruses in the world, but never get to go to Int’l. It’s even MORE frustrating to go as a spectator and watch 3-5 choruses that your chorus would likely easily beat.
There’s one thing I haven’t seen much of in this blog. There IS a model we can examine to see the effectiveness of the rotation process. And when we look at SAI, we see few if any of the supposed problems that many here assert would occur. When we look at SAI, we do NOT see gold medalists who feel their medals are “tarnished”. But we do see two VERY strong rotations of over 50 excellent choruses.
While I understand the concerns of those who feel that laying out should be a choice and not mandated, Alan Gordon lays out a very viable alternative. Why not TRY it? We gripe and moan about how people are unwilling to try new things, and then when someone DOES, all we can do is slam the idea. Try it for some set period of time, and if it doesn’t work (like the Int’l Chorus Semi-Finals idea of 1988-89) then change it back. At least we will have done SOMETHING. I doubt the BHS would collapse in the meantime.
Well said, Mark.
While I am okay with the alternative (top 10), I would disagree with one of the elements of the SAI model used in example here.
I feel strongly that after the top 5 (and sometimes even within it), the curve of score drop steepens quite a bit in an SAI Intl contest vs. BHS. 20th vs. 20th is quite a difference, and the existence of the rotation hasn’t caused an increase in the number of A-level or B-level choruses.
That doesn’t make their set-up bad, and it works for them, but examining their model allows us to see if some of the things we proclaim would happen actually transpire, and I’m not sure I see evidence that they do.
Repeated for the sake of those who read from the bottom:
Jim, Kirk, et. al,
Let’s clear the air, here. For the record, I wrote most of the questions in the survey (with input from others), and everyone in Nashville and on the Society Board already knows that I’m personally ambivalent about the plan on its overall merits. Everyone in Nashville also knows that I’m a skeptic regarding the present political expediency of the plan, regardless of its actual merits.
If you’re against the plan and you see bias in the poll, I’m not going to tell you that you’re wrong. I don’t write polls for a living, and in hindsight it would have been good to get someone on the outside involved in crafting the answers. But if I were going to bias the poll, which I think would be a terrible thing to do, it would have been in the other direction. Like the poll or not, it was a good-faith effort to get details on what the members think.
Speaking of good faith, I think the folks who don’t like the plan need to send some of that good faith Ed Watson’s way. Ed has no vote as to whether this plan is ever implemented. (Y’all knew that, right?) Ed is not a sneaky person. He’s been very open about his own biases, and invited folks to engage him, debate him, and throw stones at him. It appears Ed is being attacked precisely for his conscious decision to be honest about where he stands. Would you rather that he pretend he has no opinion on the matter? You don’t get this kind of transparency from most folks in most leadership position, so please give him credit for sticking his neck out and letting you engage with him.
As to those who do decide whether this plan goes forward (the Society Board), I won’t claim to have special insight into their thinking, but I will tell you that I have engaged in some critical discussion of this plan with members of the board. If you think they’ve already made their decision, that this is just a dog and pony show, YOU’RE WRONG. I tell you this as a fellow skeptic. This discussion is far from over.
The article and the poll are a good faith effort to learn what the members think. The leaders are taking this seriously. I don’t think this set of men has done anything to merit the mistrust
and name callinghere.Hate the poll? It’s my fault
, so send all of that name-calling my way. And please remember that they knew I was a skeptic when they handed me the job.Bottom line: There’s no conspiracy afoot. When Ed says Society leaders wants to know what you think, it’s because they do. When he says this is by no means decided, it’s because it isn’t.
May we please continue this discussion under the premise that EVERYONE actually means what they’re saying? These conspiratorial accusations are groundless and they poison the discussion.
Lorin May
Editor, The Harmonizer
Lorin, you might notice that nowhere in my previous post do I state whether or not I am in favor of the idea. I also did not accuse Ed of writing the poll. I simply said it was biased, which it clearly is. You may not have intended it to be, but it is skewed in one direction. I appreciate your efforts, but even you admit that you are not skilled at writing polls. and that “in hindsight it would have been good to get someone on the outside involved in crafting the answers.” Writing solid poll questions is a precise science. It isn’t easy to do. I sure wouldn’t try it. There are companies and individuals who do this for a living. If the Society truly wants an accurate assessment of public opinion they should ensure that they have a solid poll written by an experienced pollster. Otherwise it is a colossal waste of time and energy for all involved, leading to false results and bad feelings. I guess I’m surprised that Ed and the staff wouldn’t do this as a matter of course whenever they want to take a poll. Does it really require hindsight to realize that a poll should be written by someone who knows how to write one? This poll is not going to provide an accurate assessment, and it shouldn’t be used.
As you have also stated, Ed has been “very open about his own biases.” This is clear from his blog entries. It is also quite clear in the Harmonizer article, and the evidence for that is in black and white. I’d be happy to take you through it point by point to illustrate that fact. I can accept his posturing in the context of this blog. But when he skews an article that purports, at least by implication, to be a balanced discussion of the proposal, then I am concerned. Either he meant to do it, which would be “sneaky,” to use your words, or he didn’t mean to do it, which would illustrate that he isn’t adept at hiding his hand when it comes to presenting the issue. Either scenario raises the question, is Ed the most appropriate person to write the report and present it to the board? Wouldn’t a more unbiased party be a better, less controversial choice? Or at least let Ed write and present the issue in partnership with someone such as Dave Calland who has presented cogent arguments for the other side.
By the way I don’t think anyone has resorted to name-calling. These are legitimate concerns and I don’t think it is fair for you to marginalize them by categorizing them as name-calling. Do you desire free and open discourse or not? I would love to have confidence that this is process is being handled fairly, sensitively and dispassionately.
Jim, Thanks for your reply.
“By the way I don’t think anyone has resorted to name-calling.”
Perhaps not. I have no desire to marginalize anyone, so I’ve removed the name-calling references.
That said, my main contention was that some posts have strongly implied that those who have been communicating the details of this plan have been less than honest, less than serious, and essentially trying to sneak something under the members’ noses. Assumptions of bad faith on the part of Society leadership aren’t “name calling” per se, but they share the same zip code. I just want to be sure folks understand that everything that’s happened thus far has been above-board, and that the discussion focus on the pros and cons of the plan — not the assumed motives of the folks communicating it.
Lorin,
Thank you for your insights and for including some helpful information. I know that it can be difficult to not take this personally. I sincerely hope that you, Ed, and anyone on either side of the discussion, will not. I think some of the frustration with the process is that we are assuming that “everyone actually is meaning what they are saying” After displaying a clear bias in the largest mouth piece the Society has (the harmonizer), then reading a seemingly biased survey, and having one side constantly being championed from our leader, its difficult to draw other conclusions. In fact, it looks more from the outside like a carefully orchestrated plan. This approach would be very consistent with a marketing campaign. I’m not saying that this is an evil or bad thing, but i think if you take a step back and look at the whole picture from an outsiders perspective, you might not feel like these are “groundless conspiratorial accusations”. It appears that there is a unified message being trumpeted. Again, being completely ambivalent to the question itself, it does seem that the people most closely to the top want this, and they are our leaders. I don’t think its fair to call people suspicious, given the openness of that supposed bias. After reading your post, we can see that this isn’t totally the case. I can certainly take you at your word, but understand the concerns of the many. You should also know that by and large we don’t know the inner workings of the relationship between Nashville and the Board of Directors, so when our CEO is making such a “PRO” argument, its easy to feel like the collective “mind” is made up.
The Survey was pretty difficult for me. I took it within a day of reading the Harmonizer article. So, after reading Ed’s well reasoned, but strongly “pro” two year cycle article, straight into what felt like a heavy pro two year cycle Survey, i too felt like leadership is trying to sway the vote. I can appreciate the difficulty you must have had in writing the survey. I certainly would not have wanted to be in that position. From my perspective, here are just two examples of the questions, that when asked as they were, present a strong slant.
1.“It would reduce “two-song syndrome” and create incentives for a more balanced chapter experience among competitive choruses”
When reading this statement, if you aren’t in one of these “competitive choruses’, you now have been informed that competitive choruses are not only “two song choruses”, but also “unbalanced” in their approach. Since this has been presented as a real problem facing competitive chapters, how could strongly disagree with this idea?
Let’s assume for a second that that statement is true. If you assume that “competitive choruses” are unbalanced, the next conclusion is that “noncompetitive choruses” are balanced. Wouldn’t this proposal create more “competitive choruses”, making them unbalanced, thus defeating the very thing you hoped to cure?
This statement, for the majority of the very best choruses, is completely false. There are no more balanced choruses than the very best we have and that is something they take great pride in. I know Ambassadors thrive on executing all of the dozens of song we sing at a very high level. Can this be a problem for some choruses? Of course it can, but how will a chorus facing International for the first time, approach the contest? Would they turn into a two song chorus, as you suggest they naturally do? Ultimately, that question feel like a “shot” at the perennial international competitors.
2. It would boost international attendance and revenues by increasing the number of first-time attendees (and family and supporters) having the chance to get “hooked” on international conventions.
The addition of the “having the chance to get hooked on International conventions” pushes this question over the line in my opinion. It asks an excellent question followed by a strong sales pitch to vote in the affirmative. I’m not ashamed to say that I’ve used this on my children. “Do you guys want to go to the church service on Wednesday, night where all of your friends will be playing, right next to the ice cream shop, or stay at home? (Don’t call social services on me
Again, its not simply asking a question, but make an argument that supports a particular outcome.
The other problem is what about the people who are currently “hooked on International Conventions”? I think men, by nature can be very competitive. I also believe that there are a great many men who deeply enjoy the experience and it might be the thing that keeps them coming. The whole debate is framed around the idea that giving people more opportunity to compete at international is healthy on all levels for those chapters. Are we are also asking if the reverse is true? The reality is, you aren’t just giving more opportunity to chapters, you are also taking away opportunities from others. Men who are already “hooked on International Conventions”.
If competition can make you better, healthier, more consistent, higher quality, than would less competition make you worse, less healthy, less consistent, lower quality? Is it possible you are making one better at the expense of another?
These were just a couple of examples from the survey that made me feel like there is a clear point of view in these questions.
Despite my arguments, i am not completely against it. As many have suggested, there are options out there that seem like a good compromise, but Right or wrong the message from the top seems one sided.
Thanks Lorin,
Brandon Guyton
Brandon,
Great thoughts. Thank you for offering specifics in terms of how certain questions and certain situations are coming across. That’s very useful feedback.
Jim is right when he states that writing surveys is a difficult job. Intentionally or not, how a survey is written can grossly influence results if the writer is not experienced and educated on how to do it correctly.
FWIW, my own chapter spent the money to have a professional survey writer design a chapter survey for us. It cost about $1500, but was well worth the money as it not only involved writing the survey, but provided a detailed analysis of the results. I think for an important question like this, it may be worth the cash to have an outside unbiased non-Society person or company design such a survey.
As a proponent of rationality and arguments backed by data gathered scientifically, I’ll happily put my money where my mouth is:
I’d like to see the Society present an unbiased survey, and am willing to contribute some funds toward that end. Ed, let me know how I can be of assistance along these lines.
Mark’s message indicates cost is not extravagant, and gets return on investment. Perhaps Mark could help the Society find a quality surveying group? Though I think the Society has used someone in the past for similar purpose…?
Cheers,
Jamie
I’ll concede that certain critiques of the survey (thank you, Brandon) have brought up valid points. But I also think some of its critics may be overstating their case. Could a professional survey company create a superior survey? (They’d better!) Could it yield more useful data? (It would be nice, you should see some of the eye-opening information collected already!) Would their survey yield substantially different results from the current one? (Not so fast!)
For the sake of argument, let’s accept the assumption that it is possible to infer the QUESTIONER’s own bias in the survey. You still don’t get to stop there and say, “Throw away the survey.” The critical question remains unanswered: “Did the questions bias the ANSWERERS?”
For example:
* Were the concepts too difficult for the answerer to understand? Did they lack the context to provide an informed answer? (Did anyone who took the survey NOT understand the gist of what it means to switch from the current system to a 2-year cycle? Was anything misrepresented in the survey?)
* Was one side presented in a positive light and the other side presented in a negative light? (I read every comment from the previous barbershopHQ.com post to ensure every major pro and con argument was included in the survey. I tried to use their own words or words their proponents would find acceptable. Can anyone share examples of where this did not happen?)
* Did the question include or infer invalid assumptions of fact? (90% of the survey included NO statements of facts; instead, the major pro/con arguments were restated in the form of “what would happen?” scenarios and you were asked to rate them between “highly unlikely” to “highly likely.” If you thought some arguments were bogus, great, because THE ENTIRE POINT of that section was to learn which arguments the members considered valid or invalid. Was that point not clear?)
* Were they leading questions, forcing false choices or conclusions the respondent wouldn’t have chosen had he been given a real choice? (Every question included a “none of the above,” “Other/Explain” or “highly unlikely” option, with the exception of the main question, which was “Yes/No/Unsure.” We even asked follow-up questions to find out whether “No” meant “No way,” or “Not unless changes are made.” We followed up on the “yes” answers to learn whether they were “An enthusiastic yes” or “Yes, but with reservations.”
The implied fear seems to be that the “No” side MUST be losing, and likely because “somebody” is going to give a “yes” when he really meant “no” because the questioner’s detectable bias manipulated him into giving answers that he wouldn’t have given had he better understood the subject.
So far, everybody seems to feel that they themselves were smart enough to give accurate answers, but seem to be implying that other people were not so intellectually blessed, and are being manipulated into giving answers they wouldn’t have given had the question been phrased differently. I just don’t think the questions were confusing enough, nor the “obvious bias” powerful enough, to manipulate anybody I know. Maybe I overestimate folks’ to navigate what I consider to be more or less straight-forward questions.
Can anyone find me someone who feels he was manipulated into giving an answer he now wishes he could take back? If so, please speak up!
And for those critical of the survey, I’ve conceded some points. Of course a professional surveyor could improve on this. But may I point out that A PRIMARY TECHNIQUE for professional surveyors is to state one side’s argument and then ask whether you agree with the statement. That accounts for 90% of this survey.
And without disclosing what I have no right to disclose, let me finish with this: The survey results so far have been very revealing in terms of showing which arguments Society members are buying and which ones they think are bogus. But the assumption that this survey is giving all the ammunition to the “yes” side is simply not true. If you really believe that the survey is fatally flawed and should be discarded, that’s your prerogative, but just know that you’ll be throwing some of your own best ammunition in the garbage should you succeed in discrediting it.
Again, I’m not saying y’all are wrong about the survey. I’m just arguing that you may be a little too comfortable in your assumptions that you are right!
The problem lies in the fact that some of the questions contain more than one piece of info to which we can respond.
Using one of Brandon’s examples above regarding two-song syndrome and balance, we see the following…
For starters, when you agree or disagree, you could be responding to either one of those components (two-song or balance). Secondly, “balance” is quite an open-ended definition for the answerer. Lastly (and perhaps most importantly), one has to make the assumption that two-song syndrome exists in order to agree of disagree that this will fix it. Unless someone thought to write in their answer (and I know some did), there’s no telling how many people just took a best guess at it.
When a question is loaded, the answers are hard to decipher. And that’s just one example.
With something this large, I would think another crack at it would be worthwhile.
I understand questioning if results will really be any different with a new survey versus the current one in place. I hate to say it, but it would save the Society a little face here with this. I know that the results could very well be the same, but that does not mean the situation will be looked upon well. As Mr. Guyton stated so well, its the way the Society and SBoD are being looked upon at this moment with the seemingly bias survey (intentional or not) I think is the biggest problem at hand. I understand that neither of you (Mr. May or Mr. Watson) may have a lot of power necessarily in how this turns out. But as representatives of the Society and how the survey and article were constructed creates an overarching feeling of, “Well, the decision has obviously been made”, even if it hasn’t yet.
So, here is my request, please at least consider creating a new survey and informational article on the proposal that can be referenced and seen as an unbiased resource. Just because, at this point, to the people who may not be following this thread as closely as some of us, they do come across as quite bias.
The other thing, when looking back at the article itself, when the cons are mentioned, it is talked about how they are a concern, but then goes on to argue why that shouldn’t matter. To me, that is a sales pitch, not a presentation of a proposal. The survey felt very similar in its wording.
And, frankly, to your last statement (Mr. May’s), couldn’t the same thing be said to your side? I don’t think anyone ever claimed that the survey/article/responses gave ammunition to the “yes” side, our claim was that the survey came across as almost the “weapon” of presenting how things will soon be. Just the wording of the survey/article/responses and who they were presented by really came across as a presentation of the upcoming change. Yes, it is mentioned that it is only a proposal, but when brought to our attention, and seemingly swayed in such a manner by faces and names that are well known in Society leadership, really makes the general public feel as if we have no say, even though we are asked for our opinion.
I do not wish what I have said to be taken in a manner of offense, but simply as a matter of attempted clarification. I hope it helps, if not, it was worth a try!
Alex
Alex,
Point taken. Thank you.
Contests are about talent. Anything that regulates when and to some degree where that talent may be displayed amounts to a type of leadership interference and a sense that someone else knows more about what is good for a chorus than the chorus itselfe. Recent years have seen significant competitors opt out for a year with no adverse affects on them or the contest. Why do we need to now mandate that all chapters be affected this way. I believe leadership should be making it possible for chapters to make informed decisions for themselves, not telling them when and where they can exhibit their talent. Leave it alone, please.
Agreed! Educate chapter leadership on how and when to use sitting out a year as a tool for the betterment of their chapter.
Mandating the change, though, could potentially hurt chapters that are not ready for it, too!
Toronto Northern Lights have been very successful in the last few years with when they choose to compete and when they choose not to… there’s a wealth of information in that chapter’s leadership from which every other chapter in the society could benefit. I’d love to hear more about their decision making process!
Amen, Ev! My thoughts EXACTLY…couldn’t have been more on point if I tried.
JF
Chalk up another agreement with Ev.
While I have made arguments earlier against this proposal based on other factors, at the end of the day it comes down to allowing a bureaucracy to dictate who gets to sing on the Int’l stage in a given year, rather than the scores.
What’s the use of our judges doing all that training to get the scores right, when that is no longer the metric by which the set of choruses is chosen? Half the field would be different without the imposition of a rotation.
I really think this whole proposal is a solution looking for a problem, and I don’t see it.
Speaking for myself (I’m not the decision-maker), I’m going out on a limb and predicting that a lot of the concern about the poll and whether it is biased will eventually end up being regarded by everyone as a false alarm. Here’s why:
The survey has been producing some really intriguing results, as I said before. It’s very interesting to see what arguments the “yes” camp and “no” camp actually agree on. More important, the comments have been a rich source of arguments and concerns no one had brought up before, and several ideas worth exploring.
Bottom line is that this survey, at least to me, is showing we’re still in the thick of the “discovery” stage. I have no idea what the Board will do with all that information, but they don’t seem to be any any rush to make a decision. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them asking for another poll somewhere down the road, incorporating all the lessons learned on this one. (And not just whether to get a polling organization to write it!)
That might just be wishful thinking on my part. Again, I’m NOT speaking for anybody but myself. But whatever the case, I think the whole process has started some interesting discussions that will have a positive lasting impact in many chapters and throughout the Society, whether or not anything from this proposal ever gets implemented.
If the current survey is used as a supporting argument for the proposal in its current form, then it would be cause for alarm.
However, if what you say is true and that it will lead to another altered proposal, then I would assume we’d have a new survey for that one anyhow and wouldn’t need to redo the current one. Hopefully the discussions here can lead to an altered approach on future surveys and articles for any future proposals on this (and anything, I suppose.).
Thanks for your time and information in this discussion, Lorin. And Ed, as well.
Alan,
Your input and so many other points of view have been hugely helpful. When it’s all said and done, I think you’ll look back and be satisfied. The Board is truly seeking the best way forward, not necessarily what is proposed.
Ed, will the survey data be available in its entirety for the members to see? How many members/associates have taken the survey thus far?
David
Ed,
There seem to personal responses from you for just about every comment but this one.
Will the survey data be available in its entirety for all members to so, or not? If not, then why?
Thanks,
Mike Louque
Thank you all for your comments. This has been very insightful, albeit also appearing somewhat as position wrangling. I now look forward to taking the “survey.”
Bob Salcetti
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Bob,
Good to hear from you. Let us know what you think.
This comment is going to be slightly off topic as it is a response to an earlier comment which got somewhat side-tracked, so please forgive me, but I’d like to share some thoughts.
I responded earlier to a comment criticizing the Society for thinking about contest cycles when they should be thinking about preventing membership decline by mandating open chapters (by way of prohibiting chapters from turning away “men of good character” regardless of their personal alignment with that chapter’s stated mission).
In my response I stated that I thought it’d be a better idea to help men looking to sing to find chapters that better suited them, by way of providing tools to singers to identify local chapters aligned with their goals, and by providing tools to singers to help them start new chapters if they so desire, and by providing training to chapter leaders on how to redirect singers to other chapters that would better suit their goals if they don’t align with that chapter’s own.
A criticism was raised again my suggestion that having too many chapters would cause issues, especially in smaller markets. This is the criticism I’ve been rolling around in my head. It’s entirely valid, but I’m not settled with leaving it at that… something is still wrong with the argument.
I’d like to float a question it raised for me, and am hoping for feedback. I understand that leading a chapter is a difficult thing (I’ve been on the board and music team for my chapter for the past few years), and that simply gathering enough folks to participate meaningfully in a chapter meeting can be challenging on its own.
My question is… is there a requirement that a given chapter have only one chorus within it? Would it be possible for a chapter to have a “competition” chorus, a youth chorus, a “select” chorus, a “performance” chorus, etc., all under one roof? Are there restrictions on how many competing choruses can represent a single chapter in a single competition event?
Allowing more choruses to live within a single chapter might help push the “everyone is welcome in barbershop” attitude that would help get more folk to experience barbershop. I think it might help reduce the overhead of organizing multiple chapters that would have to compete with each other for geographical and scheduling reasons – with communication in one “house”, tracking scheduling should be easier.
Also, fostering a powerful, efficient Board is quite a challenge… fostering TWO must be even more challenging! This may allow a single, effective Board to manage more choruses at a higher quality than multiple smaller ineffective Boards.
There are chapters all over the world that are helping to bring young men together to sing with each other in Youth Choruses. Occasionally this has resulted in the creation of new chapters for the purpose of allowing these youth choruses to grow into chapters of their own, and allowing them to compete “with the big boys”, but I don’t see why having an entirely separate chapter should be necessary… is it only for the purpose of being able to compete in the same competitions?
I can definitely see the challenges of allowing multiple choruses from the same chapter. Complications in managing each chorus’ events, complications in managing rehearsal times/spaces, complications in managing “dual memberships”, complications in competing “against itself”, and I’m sure many more.
Has this ever been tried? Would this potentially allow a single chapter to help host different types of barbershop activities? Would this help make it easier for a chapter to accept more members by relieving individuals from having to form their own chapter and find new members just to do what they want to do in barbershop?
Anyone interested in discussing this? Should I take it to the Harmonet?
Thanks much for your time,
Jamie
Jamie,
Chapters may have more than one chorus, or quartet, or Very Large Quartet, or youth chorus. The rub comes because there is a rule that in any contest a chapter may field only one competitor. So, two choruses from the same chapter may not compete in the same contest.
Ed
Admittedly, on this idea is a potential to organize that ideal chorus environment. For example, I will use the story of my old chorus, the Denver Mountainaires. The Denver Mountainaires broke away from Denver Mile High a long time ago (before I was even born) because there was a division between the “competition” chorus and the “performing” chorus; and even to a point that it was the “performing” chorus and the “rehearsing” chorus.
The Mountainaires were thus made under the auspice that they would not compete (which is perfectly fine) and would welcome any and all singers who wanted to join their ranks (the “warm seat” policy, I believe it’s known as). In this way, the Mountainaires were automatically able to attract most hobbyists who weren’t necessarily musically-inclined enough to pursue a district or international competition.
However, in recent history, the Mountainaires have been given a proposal by the youth chorus 52eighty (2009 Youth Chorus Champions) because 52eighty had decided to “grow up” in a similar way to Westminster, with the eventual goal of becoming their own chapter. (This doesn’t quite go along with the point Jamie is making, but I’m getting there.)
The Mountainaires agreed to the proposal, and Elevation (the newly-named competition portion of the Denver Mountainaires) is going to compete on their charter in Layton this weekend (the convention is already in session, I believe).
The concept has been done before, and it does help to organize all of them together. As a precaution, I would suggest to keep the dividing lines very blurred, rather than starting to limit those who are good enough to compete as opposed to just rehearsing. Another logistical issue which I’m not going to tackle is securing rehearsal venues for a separate function of the same chartered chorus.
Elevation and the Mountainaires do not practice together. It would not be sensible, and so the space needs to be had or a separate rehearsal night in the same hall. Barring all logistical nightmares, the idea has large merit on getting us back to “the whole world singing” which is our ultimate goal. Being able to find the right chorus for your ability or passion will be a positive attraction for all of the retirees coming from the Baby Boomer Generation within the next few years, or even to the youth who are just getting started.
Sorry to go off-topic, but since I knew about what Jamie was referencing, I decided to give him the feedback he asked for. It is probably not enough, I’m aware, but hopefully Jamie can take this for what it’s worth.
Matthew Seivert
Thanks, Matthew, I can use all the help I can get!
Thank you both for your replies.
Ed, I think I understand now, but I’m curious… why make that restriction? Why not make a restriction in the same manner as we do with quartets? If two competition choruses have 50% of their members in common, then only one can compete in the same contest (or however it’s worded for quartets).
The restriction on having one competing chorus representing a chapter seems to lead to workarounds like the one Matthew describes. 52eighty, growing out of one chapter’s hard work, is forced to “represent” a different chapter just so they can compete. Why not allow them to represent a different segment of the chapter which fostered them?
I can certainly understand the difficulties of one chapter hosting multiple choruses related to organizing chapter meetings, but that’s really no different than the chorus belonging to a different chapter. They’d have to have their own meetings in that case, too.
However, now the Board which helps to manage that other chapter has to take on the issues of this adopted chorus until it has grown up enough to manage itself, at which point it will presumably desert the foster parent chapter.
I actually think that remaining a part of the original chapter is a better solution. There are people in the original chapter’s leadership who have ties to the new chorus, which will likely make communication work more efficiently within the organization. Also, there may be an opportunity to get discounted rates for the new chorus by renegotiating existing contracts for the original organization, but requesting additional nights.
The real trick seems to be the ability of the chapter leadership to approach the issue with maturity and fairness to both choruses.
I like the idea of a “chapter” being a simple organizational device for enabling barbershop singing to happen in whatever manner the people in that chapter desire. It essentially becomes an extension of the BHS itself, inheriting the goals of the BHS, but not imposing any restrictions on the types of activities the chapter would pursue.
The “chorus”, in that case, becomes the entity with its own identity, vision and goals. I think in many chapters these two entities are essentially the same organization. This works fine when the chapter only hosts one chorus (or ensemble, in general), but when there’s enough demand for an additional chorus, this breaks down.
Thanks again for your replies and consideration!
Jamie
Jamie,
Sorry it took so long to reply, but it is budget time and I’ve been pretty busy recently. A chapter asked me recently if they could have two competing choruses in the same contest. It didn’t sound like a bad idea to me, but the rules say no, as you said. I brought it to the board’s attention, asking the question you asked, and found that the board had no interest in changing the rule. I have always found that Barbershoppers are innovative enough to get what they need within an existing rule structure, so while I, like you, had questions about it, I dropped the issue. I will also say here that the collective wisdom of good Barbershoppers, and the board is composed of very good Barbershoppers, is usually right. Thanks for asking.
I am against this change for the same reasons that many other people have already noted. At the same time, I’d like to try and present a perspective that I don’t think has been looked at yet.
This proposal gives the impression that just making it to internationals is the ultimate goal. While it is a huge accomplishment and it is something to be extremely proud of, I hardly think that this is the goal for most of the choruses out there. I sing in a chorus that hadn’t been to internationals in 30 years. Then, we qualified for Nashville and have gone ever since. The first time may have been about getting there simply because it had been so long but after that, it was about more. Now we want to make the top 20, and the 15, and eventually the top. Had this proposal been in place then, all of the work that we put in for years and years would have culminated in one time on the international stage. The lack of momentum is just as real and potentially detrimental for the 21st chorus in the world as it is for the best chorus. There is no telling where we would have been when it came time to qualify for Philly if we weren’t able to work towards Anaheim. It’s about the continuous journey and the continued growth, not the destination.
Maybe we need, as has been suggested previously, to have a set qualifying score and every chorus that hits that or has the highest score in the district can go. Not only would this probably include a few more choruses than the current system, unless the number was 85 or something, it would also give those choruses that are on the cusp a set number to work towards.
Thank you and goodnight.
Thank you, Donovan. And good night to you as well.
For those who are reading from the bottom, I’m re-posting a question so it is not missed. A few days ago, Dave Calland asked an excellent question about the survey results being made public. Most other requests seemed to have been responded to by Ed, but perhaps he missed Dave’s question.
Ed, will the survey data be available in its entirety for all members to see? If not, then why?
Thanks,
Mike Louque
Hi, Mike and David too. The survey is not scientific, agreed. Flawed, agreed. But it meets at least one criteria – it provides everyone space to write comments. We will use it to summarize those comments to the Society board of directors. I will not ask for a decision based on just this poll, but I don’t want to throw away the comments without giving them some sunlight. Anything presented to board, except in executive session (which this will not be) is public record. I will ensure that it is available, probably posted on the web. The big “but” is that if the board wants a scientifically crafted poll done (it might) then we don’t want the un-scientific one we created to influence the next one. So the current poll results may be slow in coming out, but I will not hide them any more than I have to.
I’m not going to answer for Ed (and I haven’t discussed this with him), but I don’t think anyone has discussed what will be done with the survey results other than doing some analysis and presenting the findings and many of the most incisive comments to the Society Board. And as I said before, what we’re seeing so far (including in comments on this thread) tells me, at least, that we’re still in the discovery stage with this idea. What the Board will do from there is anybody’s guess.
I’m sure the members would love to see the results, and I suspect there’s probably plenty that can be shared with members at some point. That decision will probably have to be made in the context of what the Board decides to do with the data and comments from this survey.
I would point out that if the Board doesn’t think the results of this survey are sufficient to make a decision yet, it’s not a straight-forward question as to whether to release the results from this survey. Since a lot of members (the ones who perceived bias) wonder whether the current survey will be viewed by the Board as the “vote of the people,” I would imagine that the survey results would of necessity be released if the board were to make some kind of decision and cite the survey as part of its rationale.
If the Board views the survey in any other way, it would be a question of “how early is too early to release the results?” Would releasing the results of this one bias the results or shape the discussion for a potential future survey? Would it make a future survey seem less relevant, a foregone conclusion?
I don’t know the answers to these questions. For the time being, the survey was designed to provide a snapshot of what the members think of the 2-year proposal, and it’s providing some interesting data and comments. So far, it seems to be doing what it was designed to do, which is tell us things we couldn’t have guessed.
So, speaking for myself and not for Ed, my guess is that a decision about what to do with this data hasn’t been made yet, and may or may not be made when the Board meets again at the end of October.
Unsatisfying enough of an answer? (Again, I’m not the decision maker here, so take what I say as the speculation that it is!)
Lorin, when does the survey close?
Thanks,
David Calland
October 15 is the date published in The Harmonizer
I have 2 cents to throw into this conversation. I realize I am but a babe of 24 compared to some true titans who have turned out for this conversation. There are a number of guys here that I respect like crazy, and perhaps that’s why I’d like to include an experience I’ve had that may be applicable.
In years past, I have been a very active member of the Kiwanis Family, serving in District leadership in both Key Club (High School) and Circle K (College), as well as serving at the Interntational level in Circle K. Both of these organizations were experiencing similar difficulties to ours; membership was decreasing, participation was lacking at times, international conventions were becoming less profitable/more costly. In both cases, something interesting happened.
The Circle K example is more appropriate, so let me expound. This organization had a similar structure to our’s, with a number of multi-state districts forming an international community. A proposal came forward, however, to combine these districts into much larger regions and dissolve the district structure. It was a complete paradigm shift.
There were many folks for and against the new plan. Tempers flared. I was part of a very strong and close district (I met my wife because of the close district) and accordingly fought the plan. We went so far as to discuss the possibility of breaking into a new, independent organization so we could have our way.
When all was said and done, both sides of the argument got what they wanted. We maintained a district structure, but districts also formed into regions to elect regional leadership instead of trustees-at-large.
The logistics are not important, but the point is that some sort of compromise is almost assuredly the best solution here. We’re so intent on making this black and white that we don’t see the important gray. I personally like both having and not having a 2 year rotation, and I really like the proposal that allows top 10 choruses to compete each year. Regardless of what the compromise is, however, I’d love to see a softening of tones from both sides and some discussion aimed at digging toward the center.
Thus far, it appears the fact finding is more of a “You pull your way, I’ll pull mine, and wherever the flag ends up skewed is fine with me.” Instead, let’s all walk to the middle and find where it’s most pleasant. A lot less wasted effort, which is good for someone as out of shape as me.
Hi Ashley,
I appreciate the call for a reality check and for civil discourse (though I don’t think there’s been much aside from that in this thread).
Beyond that, though, I don’t think the case you describe has many parallels with this particular issue.
If we were talking about reorganizing districts, then there’d be quite a few parallels. This is about a particular convention, though, which has very different types of ideas behind it than regional organization.
More importantly, though, is that this proposal does not prove how it affects the issues it proposes to fix. It’s a major change without sufficient data to prove that it will work. That’s really not a good thing to compromise with, even out of a desire for civility.
If you have something that works and has been working for 50 years, and someone comes up to you and says you should change because they think it’ll be better a different way, but they don’t offer you very solid proof that they’re right… why should you compromise with them?
Is that how things went in the Kiwanis situation?
Jamie Bedford
Jamie,
We must at least examine the alternatives, even if we later discard them. You’re right, if this is a bad idea, we would be foolish to go that way. We’re in no hurry.
Respectfully, Jamie, I disagree. I was of the view that change for change’s sake was a terrible thing. I still hold that view, but retrospect on the situation made me realize that while I didn’t see a need for change, there was a need for change. Compromise ended up creating a great solution.
And with all due respect, from an impartial view, I definitely see that there is a need for change. I see both sides to the argument, and try as some might to discredit the other side as completely baseless, I can’t see that to be true. Just looking at the expertise alone on both sides of the argument should be a smell-test indicator that there is merit to many sides of this argument. Taking a logical look at the arguments only affirms it.
But the rightness or wrongness of any side is not my point. My point is that if there is something to be said for many sides of an argument, the solution will lie in the middle almost universally.
I happen to come down closer to your line of thinking than the “other side,” but be careful not to let your “side” keep you from accepting valid arguments.
Amy,
Thanks, my job is to not let that happen. We always have the option of not taking any action. The reason for all this discussion is to seek common ground. Have no fear, we will do the right thing in the end.
Having just attended my first International as a new member of a medalling chorus, here’s how I see it.
There are two primary reasons for a chorus or an individual to attend the International: 1) to compete; 2) to experience the fellowship, education, singing, pride, history, and everything else that can occur when a large group of people of similar interest convene.
The competition aspect should truly be about providing the best competition possible. The 2-year cycle idea will clearly not only reduce the level of competition, but will tarnish the very idea of “competitiveness”, which involves not just the contest itself but the entire journey of working as a team toward a desired goal.
To keep attendance up, more focus needs to be put into making the non-competitive programs of the convention more attractive. Not to say that the offerings weren’t good, but the energy needs to go into making them even better, not into mucking with the competition itself.
Singing on the International stage may be an ego-booster, but it has its downside as well. I didn’t get to see three of the medal-winning choruses, which I would have dearly liked to do. Instead, I was confined in holding pens for warming up, making up, lining up, hurrying up and waiting. It was worth it to me, because I knew my chorus had a legitimate opportunity to medal and at least challenge the very best, if not in fact to be the very best. But if had not been in that position, I might have rather been on the other side of the stage, and had more time to experience some of the other interesting events happening around me during the week.
I think that these are the kinds of considerations that each person individually, and each chorus collectively, has to consider as it chooses its path. Imposing constraints based on assumptions of what choices would be made would be a mistake.
Mark,
Thanks for your interesting and thoughtful comments.
COMPROMISE
Ashley York brings up a great call for effective compromise to be made so that all groups are satisfied by the result, and the best proposal that I have seen for such a compromise comes in Donovan Davis’ proposal for a score that would allow for choruses that surpass that score to remain exempt from skipping years in the competition. I like how this will give developing choruses the goal of improving their contest scores, rather than just reaching the international stage. That “bar level” score should be set so that the International Contest won’t have more than, let’s say 75% of choruses that were made exempt from skipping.
ARTICLE FLAWS
One other thing I wanted to bring up that I think has been touched upon. In the BHS article and the proposal for the plan (both are very similarly written, if not the same), the writing is clearly in favor of the changes proposed. This is made clear in the speaker’s description of advantages as “this would” statements, which lead the reader to associate positive aspects of the proposal as facts, rather than supported viewpoints. It is made even clearer in the use of “they suggest,” phrases in describing disadvantages of the proposal, which lead the reader to see disadvantages as nothing more than opinions, rather than supported viewpoints.
WHY THE ARTICLE FLAWS MATTER
This criticism would be nit-picky if the article wasn’t presenting itself as a summarization of the proposal for BHS members to base their votes for and against the decision. I notice this flaw in the article because I am against the change, yes, but my biggest disagreement with this is that it presents an unbalanced and somewhat incomplete view of the proposal to a large audience of BHS members who will take surveys on the proposal. Their use of this article as a primary tool in understanding the proposal could have an effect of skewing the survey results on a large level.
A MAJOR ARGUMENT AGAINST
I assert that the article presents a somewhat incomplete view of the proposal because it leaves out one of the MAJOR disadvantages to the proposal, which is the concern that BHS Chorus Medals will be lose their worth; choruses who will win these medals will do so solely because those choruses who would have earned them will be removed from competition by this proposal.
Yes, these medals probably matter more to us than to outsiders who don’t see the hard work that choruses put in for that opportunity to appear on the International Stage, but I feel that hard work deserves an award that isn’t just handed away to a large amount of groups.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO READ THIS!
Best,
~Andy Jaramillo
Andy,
Thanks for your point of view. The current survey will be summarized and presented to the board, not as a scientific poll (we got plenty of feedback on that!) but as a vehicle to put forth comments you and others have made. The first time this question was put on the blog, we used the major criticisms to reshape the proposed change. We are learning as we go here, and every input is read and considered. Thanks for taking the time and effort to express what you think.
I am speaking as an individual singer in the Sound of the Rockies Chorus. I have been a barbershopper for 23 years and have sung with three other choruses and several quartets for fun. When I joined SOR in 2001, I had no idea what competition would be like. We have worked very hard to improve not only the chorus performance but also our own individual singing and performing skills. I am now a much better singer than I was nine years ago, and so are most of the singers in SOR.
We produce a performance now in competition and in concerts which really draws community attention to us, and we have gained quite a bit of publicity from our local performances. We also have gained quite a few new members, especially among the younger singers in our area. This has led to our championship youth chorus, 52eighty, who may even become another Westminster.
SOR has competed at international since 2002, and we have scored in the top 10 and medaled for the past four years. We believe we are moving toward gold medals with our individual efforts, our music team, and our outstanding director. I would hate to see that encumbered because of a rule change that to me does not address in any way the issues facing the society.
The big argument for this two-year proposal seems to be membership increase. We have already seen some change in the rate of decline, and the average age of new members in the society at this time is 19. Our efforts at Harmony Explosion and other musical education for youth, and the youth chorus contest have helped to recruit more younger singers. Most of all, our activities in the local area, along with those of other chapters in our area, focused on youth, are paying off. We need to keep this focus on younger singers to have a long term effect on our membership. One of the best tools we have now is the youth chorus contest. Why not have it at international rather than midwinter? That would be an excellent method of bringing new talent before the society members. I realize that midwinter needs some more attractions just as international does, but let’s publicize winning youth choruses such as 52eighty and Westminster. The gold medals no longer are “automatic” for the “Big Dogs,” such as VM and Masters. Westminster and Ambassadors of Harmony have shown that, and SOR is getting close to it. Setting up new younger choruses such as Westminster to me means far more for recruitment.
Another argument for this two-year proposal is the financial situation at international and district conventions. We are not doing a very good job of marketing barbershop singing for conventions to the general public. If we want to gain new members, let’s invite them to our competitions and let them see and hear our best. Last Saturday evening at the RMD competition was a really great experience featuring SOR and Storm Front in performance. When judges start joining a standing ovation, that really means something to me. Storm Front had a standing ovation for every song. We are the best in our district at this time, and we are encouraging other choruses in RMD to improve and challenge us. It’s not much of a challenge when your chorus wins each year at district, and no other chorus is seriously contesting you. Again, my suggestion for both finances and membership is to market the district competition to the general public and let more people see and hear what we do. Most of all, let them see our best every year, and that is including more choruses simply by showing them how the best chorus gained its skill and reputation. Two of our music team are now directing other choruses, and the smaller chorus improvement is quite evident.
Two weeks ago, we had a concert that featured not only SOR but also other area choruses, Sweet Adeline choruses, and quartets. It was not a sellout, but the audience was really alive during the performances. Our membership and finances are going to have to come from our local community, and we need to make the community more aware of who we are and how good we are.
I am not in favor of the two-year proposal because I don’t think it is needed and will encumber those choruses which are trying very hard to win the gold! I also don’t believe it will address the issues of membership and convention attendance and finances. We need to encourage our best singers to perform and make us known in our local communities. We need to continue to focus on younger singers for membership. These items will help us grow and become more successful as an organization. I don’t believe the two-year proposal will fix our current issues. Let’s focus on steps which will actually address our concerns.
John,
Marketing is a big concern of the Society, and we’re constantly looking at better ways to do it. Also, as mentioned elsewhaere, the district conventions are a major hurdle to the two year rotation idea. No one is suggesting it’s a perfect answer, or even that it’s the right answer. We’re just seeking input. Thanks for yours.
Is there anything in the proposed switch about only chapters and members competing, or is it only choruses? I see a potential issue with two choruses in the same metropolitan area or driving distance that have dual members.
Perhaps the Bay Area Metro chapter goes to International in the odd years, and all of its members have dual membership with the San Jose chapter, which competes in even years.
In areas where there is only one International level chorus, there may be a push to create a second chorus for the purpose of competing every year. While the creation of another chorus will increase the membership rolls by 12 members, I feel that it will dilute our product with the general public. They will get the opinion, rightly so, that all choruses are the same.
In some cases, a small, non-competing or high C level chorus may be “taken over” by a mass influx of the International level chorus, which will drive out the original members of the chorus.
It’s hard to say what will and what won’t happen in the future, but this is one of my concerns.
Could be, but wouldn’t then the majority of Barbershoppers being enjoying the hobby the way they want to?
But Ed, if that’s the case then what is the point in having the rule? If groups of men can so easily circumvent it by setting up a second chapter/chorus or assuming a dying chapter’s charter, then the chage the propoents wish for is essentially dissolved.
Short of tracking individual member participation in chorus contests, there is no way to prevent circumventing the rule change.
I too just took the poll but did not take time to read ALL of the comments posted.
From what I read of the comments, I agree with most of these and stated as such in the poll.
First my feeling was that you have no proof, pro or con, that any of these “sinarios” will happen if you adopt such a plan and Second, you will need many insentives to give the chapters encouragement to go along with this. (What’s in it for us little guys?) We keep very busy throughout the year putting on shows, picnics, Christmas programs, singing Stars Spangled Banner for Sports events, churches, etc. etc. Now you want to add working up 2-6 songs into international contest caliber untill those songs are coming out our ears instead of our mouths.
I don’t think so. Needs more thought.
Let me put it another way.
If you put half the teams in the Super Bowl this year and the other half in the Super Bowl next year, WHO WINS?
Hi, Gary, thanks for posting. I enjoyed the “replacement” year in the NFL, because each team was equally bad. (I’m not trying to get political here about replacements, unions, etc.) I just don’t (personally) think the quality would be lower, since we have so many good choruses. Maybe you’re right, maybe I’m right, but at least we asked the question. Thanks for your answer.
Ed et al,
As for the 2 year – rotation…I believe that it is the RIGHT concept but the WRONG time frame.
The better time frame is 15 months…not 24!
I am in favor of the 15-month plan.
This approach for choruses increases the lead time from 9 months to 15. You get all of the advantages of the rotation concept, and
you can easily sell the idea of a little more LEAD TIME in preparation. Choruses can always use another month or two to prepare musically and financially. They will see the extra time as plus … or at least NOT as negative.
There are advantages to a rotation system, primarily lead time for finance and music preparation.
If however, the time is TOO LONG, then you lose some (even all) of the advantage, particularly with established competitors.
15-Month Plan
Quartet and Chorus prelims are held in the spring. Quartets go to the international of the same year. Choruses go to the International the following year.
The questions posed in the survey may prove not all that helpful for decision-making. They are (sorry) the wrong questions to ask.
Better to outline the benefits of the rotation concept and then ask a simpler question;
1. Are there some predictable advantages to a rotation concept? ANSWER: YES
2. Do choruses benefit from a bit (operative word “bit”) more lead time for the “international experience”? ANSWER: YES
Answer to both questions is YES.
Then, ask what the negatives are… People may come up with something you haven’t thought of; you must weigh the value of the negative, how negative… Is it true, does it have impact, how much? If your hypothesis is correct, the negatives help you refine it.
I believe the rotation concept is good and the right direction, but the 15-month approach is the better approach.
Please have your team consider the 15-month plan and weigh its advantages over the 23-month plan.
FALL competitions then become completely DISTRICT competitions for Quartets and Chorus.
SPRING COMPETITIONS become completely PRELIMS to International (same year for Quartet, following year for Chorus). This IMPLIED hierarchy of competitions has a built-in structure that also breeds success and musical progression:
District is a big show.
Prelims are a bigger show (for both quartets and chorus).
International is the biggest show.
These are all the advantages of the rotation system… combined with a shorter wait.
I hope you can see it as I do. I am for the change…but the right change!
I replied to Jay, a highly respected International chorus and quartet champ, privately, the gist of which was we appreciated his input and will examine it seriously.
Jay, I have thought along these lines, too, but in a larger district such as mine (FWD), I expect only a small number of choruses would make the trip to the spring contest: those with a reasonable shot at qualifying for the international contest.
Right now we have division contests in the spring to qualify choruses and quartets for the district contest. I am not sure when we would hold those under your proposal. We could adopt the SAI model and just make that spring contest both a qualifying contest and district contest. Then those districts who need division qualifying contests could hold those in the fall.
If a two year rule is adopted, what will keep a chapter from taking over a smaller chapter and then implementing dual memberships and each competing every other year?
I personally do not agree with the two year rule for many reasons already stated by so many of my peers. Might I ask just who suggested this idea?
I can remember having an International executive visit at least twice a year to my chapter but have not seen such in more than fifteen years now. wouldn’t time be better spent in helping chapters from the International level than on this controversial idea?
Yes, I would like to do a million things to improve the Society. We are looking to put more executives on the road, and we believe that chapter visits improve morale and increase chapter health, which increases membership. But we can’t just do one thing, we must look at many. This is one of them. Maybe we’ll do nothing, but at least we examined ways to improve… or not.
I just finished the survey, in which I opined (more or less verbatim):
I strongly believe in having a ‘rotate group’ in the bottom of the qualifying range such that a chorus that was in the ‘cusp’ group range (say, 81%-82.9%) last year would be eligible to sit out this year if there were a cusp group qualifier (this year) who did not sing at the previous International and if, say 24 choruses would be picked.
If, due to lack of (voluntary) participation at the ‘top’, 24 choruses were not picked, then the ‘sitting out’ cusp chorus might be invited.
This fulfills the ‘E’ of SPEBSQSA while not watering down anything at the top (that the top didn’t chose by not showing up).
I recall an example of why including ‘cusp’ choruses is a good idea: when I was with Manhattan we were the mic testers in Montreal. People commented “Wow! how come you weren’t in the competition proper?” … well it would have been nice, but now, by giving such a chorus a chance it would be a good thing.
I don’t know statistically what the score range should be for detrmining who is a cusp chorus, but I do believe, that in principle, it will encourage and engender participation of more chapters, thus fulfilling the spirit of increased participation without watering down quality.
This also will tend to minimize the risk of decreased participation due to forced ‘off-years’ at the top.
And depending on economics, and other chapter decisions it will tend to increase the available pool.
Regards,
Harold Wein berger
Freehold NJ current
Fairfax Va current
Manhattan NY (1998-2009)
just a slight edit of what I previously wrote:
i strongly believe in having a ‘rotate group’ in the bottom of the qualifying range such that a chorus that was in the ‘cusp’ group range (say, 81%-82.9%), and sang last year would be eligible to sit out this year if there were a cusp group qualifier (this year) who did not sing at the previous International and if, say 24 choruses would be picked.
(added ‘and sang’)
Well, guys, let me first let you know my background, the basis for my comments. I am a 45 year member and have attended every International convention since Cincinnati in 1968, competing in a quartet in four of them. I am a charter member of a chapter whose chorus in the seventies and eighties placed 3rd several times in our district but never made it to the “big show”. However, I don’t feel cheated because two other chapters always qualified and we didn’t! We were not good enough. Our district needed to be represented by our best.
I now belong to another, newer chapter that was formed five years ago as a competitive chapter because my charter chapter became old and lethargic and now is a chapter with a different mission than serious competition. I have been in the front row and continue to be in both choruses and love it! I can’t wait to compete each year.
Today, I read the total listing of all these opinions for the first time and must say that the conversation drifted far afield of the main subject which was the 2 year rotation for International contest.
Thank you, EV Nau, for seeing through the smoke and bringing it back to a concise expression of the subject. I also admire the detail and factual way Dave Calland placed his points.
I have a problem with seeing the stating of the problem. There doesn’t seem to be a clear cut set of shortcomings with the present system. I agree with Ev that this is a event that is to determine the best in the Society. How can that happen when it will only represent half of the competitors! I am against changing the setup of the contest rules at this time.
More basic than that, however, is that the International is attempting to overstep their duties. All year and last year they stated that the chapter level is where we need to focus – help them get what they need and let them do what they know is best for their individual needs – now they are attempting to orchestrate whether or not they can make their own decisions about contest. This appears to be rather hypocritical to me.
Leave the system alone. It is simple, straight-forward and effective. Like Ev said, get off the bickering (it is unrelated to the subject all the personal opinions about the membership issues and financial concerns) and get on with it. Let the chapters make their own decisions and don’t mess up the district contests.
Membership issues are critical but should be discussed and solved in another venue. The point is: Is the contest procedure broken or not? If it can’t be stated in clear terms as to where it is broken, then lets drop it! Focus on getting more members. ( I have opinions on that, too, since I have been Chapter Development VP in both chapters and several times in the one).
Fred Schaefer
What I’d hate is being financially about to compete in a year we’re not allowed to compete and then not being able financially to compete in the yer in which we are allowed to compete….The pits, huh?
At the risk of getting beaten to death by the vast majority (seemingly) who oppose this rule……
The 2-year (or 18-month) rule already works quite well for Sweet Adelines International, and hasn’t seemed to dampen the quality of the competitions, either at the Regional level, or at the International level. Rich-Tone Chorus, Harborlights and Melodeers seem to be in an “off cycle” from each other, but that hasn’t seemed to take a toll on the quality of the competitors that each of these choruses appears with at International.
I, too, have quarrels with this proposal, but only where structure and implementation are concerned. In my opinion, if the goal is to encourage more competitors to compete at a higher level, then we should look to a model that works already, rather than making a somewhat arbitrary stab at dividing BHS into a “group 1″ and “group 2.”
I think it would be a good thing to have the winner of District take the following year off, host the following year’s District Convention, and then appear at International the following July.
I am sensitive to the criticism of trying to adopt things that the Sweet Adelines are already doing successfully. We are not SAI. Fair enough.
However, if we want to adopt some form of a 2-year cycle, why not implement a strategy that already works?
SAI has the longer cycle because it is more difficult for them to raise the money needed to go to International. This is not a sexist comment, just that there are many more single individuals who have a problem with cashflow so that the longer time is a blessing! My 2 sweeties, now deceased, didn’t have that problem but many of their compatriots did.
Jim Gordon
True the Sweet Adelines have a two year rotation for their champions. However, every other year they have less than the best as champions. Do we want that?
I think Headquarters is making a mistake in their approach to increasing attendance/participation at Int’l Convention. I think people that think only of the contest aspect of the “International” are missing the boat. I think they (HQ) might rather spend less time on the contest as their focus and more on the convention aspect. Trying to “tweak” the contest may actually decrease the attendance. Who wants to sit thru choruses that aren’t the very best in the world? I also think too little attention is spent on locating the conventions. When they’re held at extreme ends of the continent, you’re not going to get the best attendance. Nashville seems like the best of all worlds, as a site. In fact, wasn’t that part of the reasoning for locating in Nashville – that it was closer to the majority of the population than Wisconsin?
Lincoln, thanks for the comments. I assure you much attention is paid to the location of International. Nashville is close, and results in better net $ because staff doesn’t have to travel, BUT the hotels are costlier than some cities, the new convention center isn’t built yet, and our membership likes to visit different cities. Anyway, everything, including convention non-competition events, is under review every year. Thanks for participating in this blog.
During convention week on Wednesday and Thursday hold two Regional Chorus Contests, East Coast and West Coast. The separate days will allow either to attend the other. Quartets from the West can compete in a different auditorium from where choruses from the East are competing and vice versa. On Friday hold Quartet semifinals from the best qualifiers of East and West. On Saturday hold chorus finals followed by quartet Finals.
Rod, we’ll take a look.
Ed Watson and his team are trying turn this society
around and inject something different to draw people
to our society. I give Ed all the credit in the world for
his leadership. We have seen a “decline in membership”
for some time now. Lars Isaacson uses the word “elite”
in his comments. He apparently is satisfied to see the
same five or six chapters win top honors “until the cows
come home”. And maybe it’s this eliteist atittude that is
chasing some members away. Organizations are
succesfull “only” when the entire organization works
together as a team and we “enbrace each other” and wish them the very best in their quest to sing a song.
And that is what Ed and his team are trying to do. “To
reach out”. It’s the barbershop way!…Our founding
fathers would be in total agreement and that’s good
enough for me.
Thanks for the support, Duaine. I hope all members realize we’re only examining this concept because it MIGHT be the way to go. Nothing is in stone. I appreciate your kind words.
Ed….I understand that this is controversial. In the end
you will probably find that on one hand, you will
listen to those who have been to international and don’t want to “mess” with it and to those
who have never been there and might want to experience it someday. There is nothing wrong with
“the best” in say, “Division A” and “the best” in
Division B” or “the best as we rotate”. Why can’t we
“recogize” more people in our society?…That is what you are trying to do!
Duaine Olson
I would love to experience international some day — if and when I earn the right to be there by virtue of my score. I don’t need or want some handicap system that forces half of the top choruses from sitting out any given year just so that I or someone else might get to experience the international stage.
Don’t assume all B and C level chorus members or directors favor this proposal.
I think the proposal is too complicated to work. A contest
is a contest – may the best man win. I would like to see a rule banning the top three international winners from competing the following year. This would give the rest of the competing choruses a boost up in the ratings and a better chance to win. The top three choruses would not complain because they would benefit from an extra year to propare the songs and save the money to travel.
Okay, Ken, thanks for the suggestion.
I am responding with what I am afraid are a couple of purely selfish considerations. However, I think there may be a large number of people who might agree with me.
First – I am a 31 year member who has been in the Alexandria VA chapter for 26 years. I have seen the chorus win 4 gold medals, a large number of other medals and, lately, a period out of the medals until this year. The chapter’s chorus has worked extremely hard to become competitive again. We know what we are up against and are willing to put in the work to improve our product and our competitive position. This has taken intense effort by our leadership, our director and the members. To see this proposal implemented, would negatively impact the chorus. Much like a broken or newly formed bone must be put under stress to mature, so does the chorus. This proposal would interrupt that process and inhibit our growth both in terms of musical ability and membership.
Second, on a very personal note, I am 67 years old. I have put a lot of effort into becoming a better singer so that I can continue to participate with my chorus fully. I have a limited number of years left in my career that I can sing at this level. This proposal would cut that time in half. I feel like I am probably not alone in this situation. While we are going to a younger society, give some consideration to those who have worked long and hard to be able to do what we do. If my time to participate is artificially (not by my choice or lack of work) diminished, perhaps I should try another hobby while I still can.
Mick Stamps
Past President
Alexandria, Virginia Chapter
The Harmonizers
Mick,
I hope you continue to stay with Barbershop whatever the outcome. We’ll miss you if you go, but wish you well whatever you decide.
Ed,
It was unclear to me whether you had actually considered what I was saying or were simply responding to “blow me off.” In any case, the dismissive tone probably makes my decision for me.
Mick
Mick,
You said – “In any case, the dismissive tone probably makes my decision for me.”
No, there was no dismissive tone. That’s a limitation of the printed word – you can’t hear my tone so your read it and substitute what you think I meant. I meant no disrespect or dismissal. I read your entire message and wanted to let you know that while we desire to keep you in the hobby, we can’t make people stay. I’m sorry if you read anything else into it. We’re not “blowing off” anybody. I read you and heard you loud and clear.
Ed – this sort of dismissive comment is not going to sit well with the largest growing sector of the barbershop community — the 60+ year old baby boomers
Ken,
Again, I did not mean anything dismissive. A reading of all my responses shows repeatedly that I thanked people for their thoughts (which means I read them) and then commented as I thought appropriate. Sometimes showing my thoughts, sometimes not. What exactly prompted the idea that this response is “dismissive”? Remember, I am a 38 year Barbershopper and am a baby boomer myself. I told him that I hoped he stuck with us, but that’s up to him. Help me understand.
Hello! I am responding to your earlier comment on my post here, as I think this back-and-forth is fairly similar to some thoughts from earlier. Thank you for taking the time to read all of these posts and thank you for considering them in the decision that HQ makes. It means a lot that you are taking the time to do that, and I value hearing back from you on what I write.
That being said, many of your responses ask barbershoppers to remain in the hobby, “no matter what happens.” While you are sincerely pointing your hope that making this change won’t chase members away, the fact that you are now, while “only examining” the idea of this proposal, commenting on this proposal as if it will be soon taking effect, scares members like myself who would like to believe that this proposal is still up for debate.
The challenge is that our responses are so detailed that responding to each aspect of every individual post is impossible. I am glad that you took the time to let Mick know that you do want him singing, and ultimately that encouragement does matter. When all is said and done, I think we all just want the CONVENTION (of which the Chorus Contest is one part) to be something we enjoy and can be proud of.
Let’s not overthink this. International is where I go to see the best of the best. An international champion should be the best in the world – not the best in their bracket. I don’t believe the 10th best chourus has earned a medal. I would be much less likely to attend an international with this format.
Hi, Craig – as a competitor, your thoughts are welcomed and I thank you for commenting.
I am currently a member of Music Central (16 men competing). We won District in 1998, and haven’t won since. I was a member of Ambassadors of Harmony when we placed 3rd in 1995. I was a member of the OK Chorale when we won District in 1989, and went to International in 1990.
This year will be the 3rd district where we will compete against the Vocal Majority, and I would guess that most choruses in our district are hoping and striving to come in second to the Vocal Majority. I doubt that any of them think they will beat them.
I say that to say that I have been in choruses that are at different levels, and definitely sizes. I want to go back to International contest, and I would love to medal and win, but I don’t want to win because someone else wasn’t there that year.
International contest in 2009 and 2010 was very exciting and very amazing. The results, which are what made it exciting, would not have happened if the 2 year system had been in place.
Thank you for your consideration, and I do not expect or require a response to this post.
To all who have taken their precious time to think about this and write something here – thank you. Nothing has been decided. I will be updating the board at the fall meeting (Oct 30th) about our lively discussions and the results of the poll (yes, I will be sure to let them know it is not a perfect unbiased vehicle). We are currently sifting through the replies for common themes and potential outcomes, from “no change” to “plateaus” to a “2 year cycle” and many things in between. You should all be commended for lending time and thought power to this hobby we all love. Thanks, and keep it coming.
On 9/23, Ev Nau concisely hit the nail on the head. The real issue behind this idea is how to increase attendance at District & International conventions. Tough job, as we know, but let’s focus on adding some “fun” activities for us & our families at these weekends to help achieve that. And leave the unbroken – unbroken. Let’s let those who want to see (& compete for) the “best in the world” continue to do just that. International Convention is our “Super Bowl” of competition, not “Conference Championships”. If we want to crown our champions each year as the “best in the world”, we need to provide those striving for that, the opportunity.
Agreed!
It seems like there’s bunches of people on here with well above average intelligence and creativity… how about we use this space to discuss and share and brainstorm ideas on how to increase attendance at the division/district/international level? With so many folk tossing out ideas, that’d give the Board something to really think about on October 30!
I’ve said a few ideas above… but here’s a few more:
- Have District leadership talk to government officials and local business leaders to look for more performance opportunities in the local area for ALL ensembles? Make every convention a “barbershop weekend” in that area! Feature roaming quartets in downtown areas. Talk to restaurant owners about getting performance opportunities to serenade their diners.
- Find and invite other singing ensembles (nonbarbershop or otherwise) to see how our contests work, and how our adjudication works. Offer coaching with locally-based coaches (to encourage new work for our awesome coaches), and offer coaching with our certified judges to show off the very talented folk we have in the judging communities. Offer discounted tickets for ensembles on the condition that they’ll sing in our lobbies for us, or around town as part of the festivities
- Video record and make available evaluation sessions (assuming permissions from the ensembles and judges). Maybe post some sample on YouTube? Make the rest available as a DVD or as downloadable content for a small fee? This could bring in some money, or at the very least if quartets that don’t compete get to see what the evals are like, that might make them compete down the road.
- Include a few pieces of music and learning tapes with every registration sold so that all convention attendees can be singing some of the same songs. Maybe some of our fine learning material creators would be willing to donate materials to this cause as a way of getting some free marketing for their service. Hundreds or thousands of barbershoppers and singing enthusiasts get to hear your stuff! Also, this may help convince people to register early so they have time to learn the music!
What other ideas do people have to make our conventions more unmissable?? How do we get more outsiders involved? How do we get more non-competitors involved?
As an alternative: in my experience at international conventions I have been awed by the theatrical productions put on by many of the choruses. I also know that many of the choruses ‘sang’ well, but did not ‘perform’ as well. I think it is time to separate the choruses into two groups, the ‘theatrical group’ and the ‘singing group’, that would compete each year. Give them a choice of which medal they are competing for. We are supposed to be a ‘singing’ Society, not a ‘performing’ Society. As the pres’ said in his Harmonizer article, most of us join to ‘sing’. Then we are told we have to learn moves, and buy special costumes, and help make props, and dance! Most go along with the performing, but some only half-heartedly. Some just want to sing! Make the theatrical performance illegal in the singing chorus category, and see where the past champ choruses go! Of course, the singing chorus would do riser moves, e.g. with hands and faces and such, but they wouldn’t need special costumes and front line dancers. Sure we’re talking another contest, but we’re also talking about getting more attendance at conventions. This way we keep everyone coming every year! What do you think about this proposal?
I would be interested in knowing how you would define and draw the line between the singing division and the performing division. If it is not well-defined, it will become subjective judgment which could create a big mess.
I tell my chorus every chance I get that you always perform a song. That doesn’t require gymanstics, Broadway level choreography, or costuming. In my opinion, the problem is that C&J sometimes gets wowed by the glitz factor, failing to take into account whether or not all that showmanship adds or detracts from the song. Let’s see if we can’t address the “problem” within the current system before creating a separate chorus contest.
The Society is becomng a spectator activity. I like any idea that will promote participation over perfection of the few. If a 2 year rotation, or some varience thereof, will get more barbershoppers participating and singing, then we’ve fulfilled the purpose of the Society. The Sweet Ads do it, and they’re bigger than us, and they’re no slouches! We have some fantastic choruses, but my bet is, if we go to a 2 or 1 1/2 year rotation, we will soon have twice as many fantastic choruses.
Presently, with the two year system, the A-level groups between the two organizatons are roughly equal. So the rotation creating more top level choruses hasn’t seemed to pan out with the model we see in SAI.
Also, the sub-20th place drops into the 60s, so it wouldn’t appear to improve the bottom end either.
They enjoy it and it works for them, but if we are going to use improvement as an argument for rotation, we must look at these facts.
If you want to get more interest set up 3 divisions of Chorus competition based on size of competing chorus (16 -30,31-59, 60 and above) Have an international champion in each category. first level of competition would be District competition, 2nd Spring Pre-lems, and 3rd the International convention. Large chorus winners at the district level would not have to go to 2nd round. At Regionals, one east and one west of the Mississippi river. the top 3 would qualify for the International competition. After regional eliminations there would be 6 choruses in each category left or a total of 12 more choruses to the fit into the International convention…6 in each of the smaller chorus categories.
The plan would give smaller choruses a chance to compete for an international championship.
That is assuming the size makes a difference. I am sure Westminster, Northern Lights, and Alliance would beg to differ.
In the FWD we used to base our plateaus on chapter size. That made no sense especially when one of the small choruses (Westminster) won the district championship and went to international. Let’s not create solutions for problems that don’t really exist.
For me, the issues are 1.membership growth 2. membership retention 3.membership participation 4. membership time commitment 5.membership satisfaction
Have we ever surveyed to see what pecetage really want to compete. We have 4 levels & times of the year to compete.
Is this what we want? Three of those four levels it is said need to turn a large profit to fund things we need.
Are we so busy, competing at all levels that we burn out members? Do we have a chance to sell barbershop to the guy who can sing , but has enough competition in the workplace or his small business.
Are we on the competition wheel [ funds vs. programs] & don’t know how to get off?
IS the real danger in the society, competition or how we run them? Why don’t we ask the members [all of them] to find out? Could we be getting the cart before the horse?
Pesonaly, I enjoy a SMALL amount of competition, but many of my felow barbershopers dispise it. Everyone likes to put on a show, then the audience can be the judge.
Does the society put so much importance on winning or plaseing well that we have forgotten to just enjoy the show?
I wonder if putting on a great show would be enough carrot to improve with less competition, and less stress & more retention. Final Questions
We are one of the worlds best recruiters, why is our membership going down in spite of it? Could the true answers to some of the above questions give some insight .
Dare we take a secret survey of the entire membership?
I hope any spelling errors do not alter my integrity!
As a division vice president, I have tracked membership of all the chapters for the past five years. Occasionally, I look at the same data across my entire district.
Interestingly enough, in the past five years, while the dstrict has shown a decline in membership, there has actually been GROWTH among the smaller, non-competitive chapters combined versus a DECLINE in the larger, more competitive chapters.
So WHY do we continue to concentrate on contests and competition (which I fully support, by the way) when our growth is occurring in the other chapters? These are not, by the way, chapters that are close to the cusp and would therefore find themselves going to International. Many of them don’t even compete in the local contests.
Interesting stuff. I have no opinion on the rotation issue. However, I do have an opinion on another matter and will take this opportunity to voice it. I would like to see another category added to the judging in District competitions. We now have singing, music and performance. As a 501(c)(3) organization, the BHS ought to be doing some good deeds. Not just putting on shows where admission is charged and competing on stage but doing what real charities do and that is giving back to the community. Shouldn’t a chorus which does that get a additional bump up in the ratings? Wouldn’t it be a good thing if competing choruses wanted to score high in that category?
Steve, we had for many years, and are rolling out just now, again, a chapter achievement program that measures exactly that. The new version is highly computerized for ease of use. Chapters can achieve recognition for community service, for charitable work, and for other non-singing things. Watch for it.
I just finished the poll and have a couple of comments. Sorry in advance for the repetition. I oppose the two-year rotation plan, at least for the time being. I’m concerned as to what problem it is attempting to solve. It doesn’t appear that the contest component is broken, so I’m a bit confused as to why a fix is needed. Other issues raised in justifying the proposal, including costs and convention attendance, deserve their own attention, rather than all being lumped together in a “one solution fits all” manner. The contests are great, and those who enjoy the competition, and all the work they entail, are to be commended. I just don’t see a need to fix something that ain’t broke.
Okay, Bob, no need to be sorry for repetition. We appreciate your input.
I am opposed to the two-year plan. In fact, I don’t really care for the current three-year cycle for the chorus winner or the mandatory retirement from competition for the quartet winner. Why are we restricting participation in these competitions at all?
I would allow every chorus and every quartet to compete to their members’ hearts’ content. Personally, I want to see the best go at it every year. I want prospective members and fans to see the best go at it. If I win, I want to beat the best, or at least the best of those ambitious enough to compete. If I place in the top 10, I want it to mean that I’m in the top 10, not the top 20.
I imagine the rationale for the current format (winning choruses must sit out two years and winning quartets must retire from competition) is a concern that without such a restriction, a chorus or quartet might win year-after-year and demoralize others. I don’t see it.
If an ensemble wins in consecutive years, more power to it! It enhances the ensemble’s reputation, as it should, and it would exciting to see. If a winner decides not to compete the next year, that’s fine too. It takes an incredible amount of energy and effort to win, and I suspect many would choose not to do it again, or maybe come back in after a few years. I actually have a hard time imagining a quartet putting in the effort required to win for, say, three consecutive years. It would happen occasionally, but so what? It’s a great story. It would be rare, because there are just too many good quartets out there, and some that don’t win use it as motivation for the next year.
In summary, I think regulating participation in the international competition is a bad idea all the way around. I prefer the current format over a two-year cycle, but I would prefer no constraint at all on the ability of choruses and quartets to compete. The winner of the NCAA basketball tournament doesn’t sit out the next year to give others a better chance to win. The winner of Virginia State High School Tennis Championship doesn’t sit out the next year. Why should our winners have to do this? I honestly think we would be better off with fewer restrictions rather than more restrictions on participation in our competitions.
Respectfully,
Dan O’Brien
Dan,
Very consistent thought process. I appreciate your clear thinking on this. Thank you for it.
I responded to the survey a month ago, but I have thought about it alot since. My gut feeling is that the more I think about the proposed change, the less I like it. I have the feeling that the change to the parallel competitions would not increase competition or interest. When I joined the society (SPEBSQSA) the total membership was “sung” to be 43,000 members. I remember international contests where attendance was reported at nearly 15,000. Now that the society membership has fallen to less than half as compared to when I joined. I don’t see the need to split the society in two pieces to increase the competition. If the society membership had grown to 100,000 maybe we would be interested in increasing the percentage of membership in the competition process. And if we were exceeding the size of the venues that could house an international competition, maybe dividing the competitors would make logical sense. But the current growth of the society doesn’t warrant the split up at this time. And currently there are more members competing – percentage wise – than when I joined the society 35 years ago.
As a chorus competitor who has won 4 gold medals, I worry about maintaining the momentum necessary to be truly competitive. This is an expensive hobby and when we compete every year it takes alot of effort to keep the competitors in our chapter motivated and committed. We also have a turn over of membership because of family and job commitments. Keeping the momentum going in a large chorus takes a lot of effort because you have to train new members. I’m afraid that if we built in an extra mandatory year – every other year – when the chorus could not compete we would lose momentum. Currently any chorus can voluntarily sit out at any time for as long as they choose. But if the sit out is mandatory the impact might be destructive as measured by membership and participation.
I also wonder if the decision to change has already been made and the survey process is just an attempt to gain support for the idea. If the survey response is positive the survey results will be widely published. If the survey response is negative the results will be barely mentioned.
As you can tell, I am not in favor of the change. But thanks for asking.
Howard Nestlerode
Howard,
Some good comments and thinking here. Just want to be sure some of the stats you had heard are clarified. I believe the Society’s peak in membership was 38,000 (back in the mid-1980s) and convention attendance peaked in the early 1990s. It’s been a while since I looked at the numbers, but I believe we had at least one convention with 11,000 and possibly one that was in the 12,000 range, but we’ve actually had very few with attendance that was more than 10,000.
Thanks!
The current number of conventions may have been appropriate for a society of 36,000 members. That many conventions cannot be supported by the current 26,000 members. The business model needs to get in line with reality. I recommend “Reengineering the Corporation” by Hammer and Champy.
Thanks, Phil. That’s why we’re looking at everything.
Hey, everyone, I’m going out of the country from 8 to 18 October, so will not be able to respond to your posts. Lorin and others will, and you will yourselves, I see, so you’ll hardly know I’m gone. I will check in when I get back.
As a non-competing chorus member and fan, I would prefer the format to remain as it stands.
This assures that every year’s competition is the best it can be, and that choruses who want to compete every single year have the opportunity to do so.
In my opinion, qualifications for International should remain as exclusive as they’ve been, and the field should not be diluted by the additional number of choruses that would qualify under the new format.
Here is a letter I recently wrote to my Dixie and Southwestern Districts Board Members concerning the proposed change. Later, I followed up with the observation that the top SAI chapters must perform 4 songs in a contest, (twice as many as the BHS competitiors) which might be a factor in their implementation of a two year cycle:
Dear Mr. Parker and Mr. Sams,
I am a member of both the Southwestern and Dixie Districts, and thought I would share with you my thoughts on the current 2-year contest cycle proposal, and some alternatives to this proposal.
A two-year rotation would be a serious mistake for the following non-exclusive reasons:
1. In this era of declining membership and convention attendance, it seems suicidal to tell half of the competitors in Kansas City (who will have shown they will pay for registrations and attend our convention) that they can’t compete the following year.
2. It is not fair in a number of ways. I pay Society dues that pay for the conventions and our staff. Will I get a dues rebate on the years I am prohibiting from competing? Further, men like to participate in competition that is not “fixed” in order that everyone can participate. Can you imagine the NFL or NBA changing its playoff format so the previous years’ competitors are not allowed to participate? Singing on the International stage is a privilege that should be earned- while a 2-year cycle might open the door for some to compete at a given contest; it closes the door for more deserving others.
3. It takes away the momentum a chorus gains in working hard to qualify for International, especially those who are incorporating younger singers/companion youth choruses. Competing every other year might not be that big a deal to older chorus members, but it is an eternity to a high schooler/college student. What will be the effect on Westminster-like choruses we are encouraging to form?
4. It is an extremely cavalier proposal. Big brother is telling us that it will take away half of my opportunities to fairly compete over my lifetime for the purposes of a social experiment. It’s funny how it is always easier to give away the rights of others.
5. There is a paradigm apparently all ready to determine who will or will not be invited to compete the first two years of this system. Who wrote it? Who will it favor?
6. What will it take to get a wild card under the new system? Will the qualifying scores be drastically reduced? Won’t a two-year cycle provide choruses in the lesser scoring districts with less incentive to improve in order to get to the big show?
7. While those in support of the 2-year cycle cite to the success the Sweet Adeline’s have had with their system, I am not sure that this requires us to copy them. Further, I don’t know enough about the Sweet Adeline districts/automatic bids to say that their system is so similar that we should adopt their system.
Thoughts/Possible solutions:
a. We have not exhausted the potential ideas to increase convention attendance/participation before implementing such a dramatic change. If we added 5 wildcards, we would reward those choruses on the cusp, without affecting the rights of the rest of the competitors and without decreasing attendance. Heck, I would be in favor of adding ten wildcards. Or, do a Buckeye-type second convention? Or, moving the youth chorus contest to International?
b. The two-year cycle proposal seeks to allow those choruses that can’t win their district and can’t qualify for a wildcard an opportunity to compete at International. To solve this, individual districts should be able to pass a rule that their own chorus champions cannot represent the district in consecutive International conventions. This would allow individual districts to address and correct this problem, without taking away the rights of other choruses perhaps a continent away.
c. I suggest we try these and other less drastic ideas to increase chorus participation for at least a few years. After this time, if our leaders decide we should have a contest cycle, it would be wiser to implement a three-year instead of a two-year cycle. It could work as follows:
- A future International chorus contest would be deemed “year one,” and all choruses would start with a clean slate. Prior to this contest, choruses would be informed that after two years of International competition, they would be required to sit out a year. There would be no paradigm or selection, the choruses would simply be informed of the new requirement.
The advantages of this three-year cycle are:
-It would allow those who wish to be in a competition chorus to be able to compete two out of every three years.
-It would allow up and coming competitors to not lose all of the momentum that they have gained in qualifying for International.
-It would allow choruses to determine their own destiny and timing, without being told by some algorithm when they can and can’t compete. Some choruses might chose to sit out the first year, some the next year, and some to compete these first two years, knowing then they would have to sit out. But the decisions when to sit out would be with the choruses, not some electronic coin flip.
-A three-year cycle would result in the same amount of new competitors. Assuming that currently, the same competitors compete every year (which I don’t think has been proven), roughly 30 choruses compete. Over three years, since these competitors remain constant, that number would hypothetically remain the same.
The two year cycle proposal would double that amount over the same three year period: Year one: 30 competitors, Year two: a different 30, Year three: the first 30 come back again, for a total of 60 choruses competing.
A three-year cycle also would result in 60 participants. Assuming that the 30 top choruses take all the available spots for the first two years, another 30 would take their place for the third year. A three-year cycle would not result in an equal amount of appearances for the 60 choruses, but it would allow many new choruses the chance to participate. If we add some wildcards and give the youth chorus champ an automatic berth, we could add even more.
Just to be clear, I am not advocating for a three-year cycle to be implemented at this time, nor do I think it is not without considerable risk. However, I do believe that a three-year cycle is more likely to avoid some of the severe problems the two-year cycle would bring.
Best,
Lars Isaacson
Lead, Sound of Tennessee Chorus
Emeritus, Vocal Majority
Ed,
Small changes in organizational structure are always easier to gain acceptance than severe changes. The new proposal is severe. Almost everyone of the positive aspects of the new proposal could be satisfied by simply keeping the present Convention schedule intact and then add a small chorus contest on Tuesday.
It has been my observation that attendance at the initial quartet contest on Wednesday is not attended as well as the last two quartet contest sessions.
It seems to me that it might even be worthwhile to run off the initial quartet contest and the small chorus contest on the same day in different venues, and hold both on Wednesday.
The rules could be tailored so that any small chorus who scored at a high level in District (which BHS would determine) could qualify to compete in the large chorus contest.
Yes, if the small chorus contest were to be held on Tuesday it would require that the attendees arrive on Monday, but would greatly increase attendance and revenues – which seems to be the primary reason for considering a change.
In any event, although arriving on Monday to view the small chorus contest would cost the attendees, that increase isn’t too large a deterrant to avid barbershoppers.
David Ewing
Houston Tidelanders
AISQC Past President
My vote for a two year plan as suggested is no.
However, I pretty much agree with Lars Isaacson and most all of what he suggests. The idea of having a three year competition has merits indeed.
However, my personal opinion on repetitive competion is this: That chorus winners should be ineligible to compete for five years! The same should be adopted for the quartet contestants. Why? Because it gets tiresome to hear of the same winners year after year. eg. Vocal Majority, Keepsake, etc. Choruses and quartets, I’ve noticed, after winning the gold, just recruit from other choruses and quartets to continue winning the gold the following years. Let’s be fair…….If you become a chorus or quartet champion, sit it out for five years, and ALLOW others of less ability to win once in a while. Then I think that I would attend more conventions.
The proposal of having the hosts cities in Portland and Toronto creates a hardship for travelers at both of these venues. Why not select permanant convention sites located in the geographical center of the Eastern States, (East of the Mississippi, (Nashville?)) and the geographical center of the Western States (West of the Mississippi (Denver?)) Travel distances would be fair to all.
Bob Biallas
Denver, CO
I wish everyone spending so much time handwringing about this issue would spend that time coming up with innovative ideas to increase membership.
I’ve gone on record 200+ posts ago as being against the 2-year process.
Since then it seems like some advocate some sort of small chorus contest. Why? You do realize that some choruses will try to avoid growing because of this? How is that compatible with the only goal that matters, which is increasing membership?
Several people have mentioned the idea of changing convention location as a means to solve some problems – moving towards population centers, creating permanent convention sites, etc.
Personally I enjoy seeing the contest move around. Rather than hosting the convention in a static location, I think it would be a better to have the International convention “hosted” by different Districts, ensuring that each district has the opportunity to host the convention before a district is repeated again.
Districts hosting the event could be permitted to showcase their local talents – even those that don’t qualify for International – giving more Barbershoppers the opportunity to sing for convention attendees. This would increase participation without interfering with the main competition structure.
Just some thoughts. If International is already hosted by a District, then ignore me – I’m new and still trying to get a sense of how things are run. Whatever happens I hope we do not decide to host conventions near population centers or in the same location year after year. Doing so would only serve to be consistently unfair to those who live farther away.
Thanks for the lively discussion – I’ve come away with several ideas I’ll be passing along to my chapter.
I personally would not want to participate in a competition under the proposed 2 year system. It is not a real contest, it’s bogus. A house divided can not stand. It would lead to disasterous results IMO. Splitting the society in an attempt to save it, is a bad idea.
I would rather see a ranking system like boxing, and have similar weight class choruses competing against other choruses of similar size and scoring brackets. That way every chorus can compete for a title from among similarly ranked choruses. i.e. feather weight(10-25 men), Welter weight(25-60) Middleweight (60-90) to the heavy weight champions (90+)..that way the big and small choruses can all go to international every year. Scoring Brackets could be factored like 90% or greater in a class, 80-89% in another, and so on. Champions in each category are truly champions in their class. The momentum continues through out the competition day until the heavyweights battle it out in the end…sounds like a pretty good convention draw to me.
Hi Rob,
While I agree with your larger point about the proposal leading to a “bogus” competition result, I suggest we should avoid any assumptions/proposals which equate size of chorus with quality. While I would agree that larger choruses still tend to score better even today, there are still too many excellent exceptions over time, from Louisville Times (or Research Triangle Park?) to Winchester. I suggest there are just choruses which are currently stronger or weaker in terms of their competition scoring, which does not imply anything about their value to the Society or their own membership.
In harmony,
Charles
I have just read this post after responding to the poll. I have been Barbershopping for 20+ years and have been fortunate to be part of several groups which have managed to reach Int’l, including a number of chorus medals.
I will also say that for many of us it is the involvement in the process of preparing a great performance and the people you do it with which is the main reward, not the final placement or score. Nevertheless, it is a competitive artistic hobby, not a kindergarten show-and-tell, and I like that. To support that competitive aspect, I see no viable alternative to a top-quality contest process for independently assessing performance quality. To that end, in general I agree with Ev & Lars & Dave Calland that the proposal as outlined is severely flawed, although Kevin Roth’s ideas are interesting.
I also feel the process (article, poll, etc) presents the appearance of bias, which is unfortunate although unintentional. Meaning no disrespect to Lorin and his excellent work for the Society, I will use that poor much-maligned poll as a way to present my views as well as a possible alternative poll structure.
The poll focuses on what I expect the consequences to be at the Society level. Instead, ask me what I personally would do or believe. For example, if the proposal is implemented…
– I will attend fewer District and Int’l conventions (estimate 50% fewer with 90% probability)
– I will attend fewer events at the conventions I do attend (i.e. shows, sessions, performances)
– I may drop my BHS membership in “off-years”
– Alternatively, I may use dual-membership to bypass the rules if enough talented friends are doing it too, e.g. the hypothetical W1, W2 & W3. Look out world!
– I will rely less on Society events/ programs for my musical “fix”. This means more reliance on my Chorus leadership; less focus on or control by BHS.
– My perception of the quality of BHS Int’l Chorus competitors will be lower (deserved or not; including medalists).
– I will buy fewer Chorus CDs/DVDs
– I will have a lower regard for the Society as a whole (for apparently not trying to improve musical/ performance quality)
– I will support my Chorus in doing more non-BHS activities, i.e. going further away from the BHS
Some ideas to improve quality (likely none new):
– Make recordings of all competition performances available to all members (not just judges) via online archive for education & transparency purposes. Require my Membership# to lower copyright issues (a bit). Ideally, add full score-sheets and commentary by judges. Enable web-based discussions to explore the performance and discuss the scores received. We have a good judging system and talented dedicated judges: we can add some transparency as long as people understand that even Barbershop judges are (mostly?) human.
– Reduce opportunity for medal hogging with parallel “strong” choruses where significant talent migrates from Chorus to Chorus to bypass the rules. Perhaps if I win a Gold medal then I cannot compete for 2 years. This might need to be balanced in some way so I can help out a “weaker” group while on furlough. Conflicts a bit with Ed’s point but may still be needed…
– Support (Promote/Organize/Subsidize) visits to “strong” Chorus rehearsals by other groups. Learn from them: they don’t mind! I am not dissing Society educational talent _at all_ here but in many situations just attending a top-level Chorus rehearsal or two can be a real eye-opener either in terms of saying “this is what we need to do” or “we really don’t want to do this”.
– Continue to support the idea of different Chapters meeting different Membership styles / goals. With deep respect to my BSU idol: Ken, I do think there is room in the tent for different approaches.
– Support the evolution of the judged style to minimize “halo effect” and support innovative approaches in terms of interpreted performance (e.g. risk/reward, degree of difficulty). Do we really need yet another out-of-context ripple move (Oooh! Aaaah!) or artificial non-musical final-post crescendo to demonstrate how LOUD we can sing? Wouldn’t we rather have more WOW fish or robot sets? If you are going to do a “classic” marching band set, it had better be AoH perfect.
– As said by others, make the overall convention an absolute must-attend for all Barbershoppers (not just competitors) and get the general public more involved. The final round should be the best of the best and a huge marketing opportunity for the host District, etc. A Massed Sing is good for a quick spot on the local news but a top-quality generally accessible musical performance will get you more and better new members. Put the top 5 on YouTube.
Thanks!
After reading the entirety of this blog, it seems there are at least two flawed arguments that many people in this debate are repeating in support of the two year rotation. The first is through the use of completely unsupportable claims both logically and mathematically, and the second is through unfactual generalizations that currently, the same 20-25 choruses dominate the society year after year.
First, in regards to the faulty math and logic issue. I was hoping a math teacher would chime in and refute the ridiculous claims that doubling opportunity equates to doubling quality. This claim requires a person to accept a direct correlation between the two items, and that increasing one automatically increases the other proportionately. In other words, they argue that 1 X 20 = 20, therefore 2 X 20 = 40. This is where the logic completely falls apart. In simple math terms, to accept this, one would also have to believe that moving to a 5 year rotation would result in 100 A level choruses, after 5 X 20 =100. If that correlation were even remotely accurate, then we should really be talking about a much longer rotation. For the life of me, I can not see how anyone could either believe or defend such logic. I am not a mathematician, but surely someone on here is. I do know that you can’t multiply 5 Oranges and 4 Apples and end up with 20 of anything.
Second, in regards to the generalizations being reported about how our society is being unfairly dominated by only 20-25 choruses leaving no hope for the choruses on cusp on qualifying. Please look at the following:
The last two years at international
-42 different choruses competed
-14 competed both years
The last three years at international
-49 different choruses competed
-10 choruses competed all three years
-15 competed two of three years
The last four years at international
-54 different choruses competed
-8 competed all four years
-12 competed three of four years
-13 competed two of four years
The last five years at international
-61 different choruses competed
-6 competed all five years
-7 competed four of five years
-14 competed three of five years
-11 competed two of five years
The last six years at international
-66 different choruses competed
-5 competed all six years
-6 competed five of six year
-7 competed four of six years
-11 competed three of six years
-11 competed two of six years
During the most recent six years of the wild card, our society has welcomed 66 different choruses to the contest stage at international. Of those 66, 48 of them already meet the terms the society has laid out in the two year proposal which is that no chorus would compete more frequently than every other year. True, some of them may have competed two years in a row in that time, but a full 70% of international competing choruses the past six year already are in line with the new proposal. Additionally, 66 choruses is a stark contrast to the claim that more choruses need the opportunity to qualify for international.
With all due respect, Mr. Watson. You state on this blog that you believe the society has at least 50 choruses who are worthy of international competition. Given that 42 different choruses walked on the international stage the last two years, and 66 over the last six years, I’d have to say we have already achieved that. On that basis alone, the extreme divisiveness of this proposal will not be worth its affect on the society. You’d be doing it for what? To add 8 choruses over a two year period.
For zero research dollars you can make this whole proposal debate die and find a solution that it would seem should appease both sides.
1. Increase the number of wildcards to 12 or 14.
2. Close the book on this terribly unnecessary idea.
3. Start having meaningful conversations with the chapters who actually are SUSTAINING growth while IMPROVING their singing.
Singing is our only product. The gorilla in the room is the unwillingness of our leaders to admit this and start pushing programs that will result in better singing in the society. We don’t have a membership problem. Declining membership is a lagging indicator of our real problem, which is a bad public image resulting from a lack of quality singing. We have 800 chapters, but less than 3% sing at the A-level? Now you are pushing a proposal that could potentially do great damage to that arleady ridiculously small number. If we want to fix our membership problems, we need to stop talking about membership, and start talking seriously about making sure all of our chapters are producing quality singing. When we do that, membership will follow.
Don’t believe me? Lee Iacoca didn’t save Chrysler by selling more cars. He saved Chrysler by building better quality cars. It’s simple, Ed. You want save the BHS by recruiting more members. You’ll save the BHS by building better singing choruses.
I’m generally against “Me, Too” style responses, but, damn, I love Andy’s post.
This whole debate really is focusing on the wrong thing.
It’s not the choruses on the cusp of reaching International that need help.
It’s not the choruses who have 50+ members that need help.
It’s not even the choruses who can sing better than a 60-65 that need help.
It’s the choruses who are currently singing (in public) at a “below 60″ level that need help. Help them musically, and you will see the membership problem reverse itself.
Treat the cause, not the symptom.
According to the 2009 District Chorus Scoring Summary maintained by Steve Tremper, 158 choruses scored a 60 average or better. That means that approximately 640 chapters in our Society didn’t.
Yes, I’m assuming that 99% of the choruses that don’t compete are singing under a 60. I have never seen evidence to the contrary.
Focus on improving the musical level of *those* groups. Get them into the 60s, and we won’t have to worry about guys who can sing either not coming through the door at all or leaving as soon as they hear the quality level.
Since I’m big on measurable metrics, here’s what I call “success” at the chapter level:
1. At least 50 men on the books.
2. At least 70% participation in performances and contest (35 men on stage).
3. At least 60% as a scoring average, whether adjudicated in a contest, singing for eval only in a contest, or by submitting a recording to a judge for private evaluation.
If you can do #3 with the guys you have (and you can), then number 1 and number 2 will take care of themselves.
Just getting to 50 members per chapter would put us at 40,000 members (assuming 800 chapters).
Why don’t we focus on that instead of wasting time and effort on the A-level choruses who don’t need the help?
The more I think and inform myself, the more I am against a “2 year rotation” system. The negatives definitely outweigh the speculative positives. Though it is wise to consider valid options of change as a means to keep things vital.
I don’t see the need to repeat some ideas, but I wish to add or underscored a few points. 1) What attracted me to the BHS was the primary emphasis being on quartets – more than chorus. And 2) If emphasis is not first in striving for the attributes of what makes for the best MUSIC, and instead is on numbers for purely numbers’ sake – then the value is greatly diminished.
I can meet my needs for fraternity, associations, service and “to be involved in something bigger than myself” in many, MANY other places. I also say that I joined the BHS for the music – and stay for those other things. (When there aren’t those that are quarreling over things that can only be validated by emotional sentiment and personal opinions, or would hope turn back the clock to another era and culture, etc.) I know of no other organization that can offer as much as the BHS does!
A few years ago there was ALREADY a change to include more choruses at International (which I was for, once it was decided to not supersede the quartet finals as the climax). However, my concern with this much broader change proposal, is that it seems to me to push for the BHS to become a chorus oriented organization (like SAI is), and is more concerned with numbers for numbers’ sake rather than the merit and quality of the music – and quartet singing as the foundation.
Where are the examples where lowering standards increases quality??
It can be somewhere between challenging to impossible for a chorus to meet all individual’s needs and desires. And not all Districts are equal in geographic advantages to have different kinds of choruses, nor are they equal in talent and leadership.
My experience is that lack of personal challenges or musical satisfaction is a main reason why so many quartet level men stop supporting chorus – or leave the BHS if they are not in a quartet.
Choruses that thrive in quality tend to have a good numbers of experienced quartet men – and it’s the International level quartet members that mentor individual chorus members. There are things that can ONLY be learned by experience within the quartet environment. That is where and how talent is best “grown.”
Again, I suggest that individual satisfaction is best served by a quartet, and they should be the flagships for the BHS. The question I would ask is – HOW CAN THE BHS LEADERSHIP BETTER HELP A CHORUS HELP MEMBERS CREATE QUARTETS? Chorus models that mentor and teach with quartet activity as a part of regular chorus rehearsals are as scarce as hen’s teeth!
And, given the stated complaints of the so called “competitive choruses”, using quartet activity can be highly effective as a means to assist in things like improving member satisfaction, variety as a part of regular chorus rehearsals, improved personal singing levels of individual singers, etc. etc. To me this is “win, win” and I would like to hear more on this matter to increase quality and membership.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Roger Motzkus
I want to thank Steve Sammonds for his 10-4 post responding to my 10-2 post. I would draw the line between the singing division and what he called the “performing division”, which I would call the “theatrical division”, with some of the descriptions he used in his post.
I agree that “you always perform a song”. I further agree that to be appreciated by an audience it doesn’t “require gymanstics, Broadway level choreography, or costuming”. But I will say that I think those differences are part of the problem of feeling like you may never get a chance to sing at International.
I also attend many other concerts in my area, and am amazed at how many successful musical performing groups there are that don’t memorize their music, don’t do gymnastics, don’t do choreography, and don’t wear theatrical costumes. Don’t get me wrong, I loved the fish chorus, and ‘Go Down Moses’ by the Masters of Harmony, but is all they do necessary to entertain our audiences? i.e. should we all have to do it that way?
With the proposed two divisions, the “singing division” would have rules against the gymanstics, Broadway level choreography, or theatrical costuming, while the “theatrical division” would be given extra credit for those things!
I think for membership growing we should also consider the growth of Harmony Brigades and what they respresent. The men who attend these weekends love to sing, and that is why they do it. They don’t have to learn any of that other stuff. They just have to be able to sing their songs in a quartet! If they can do the quartet thing, then they are allowed to sing with the other quarteters in a brigade chorus. And let me tell you that’s all you need for a great weekend! The only things to compare to this at International are the tag singing sessions, and the convention audience singing “Keep The Whole World Singing”! Let’s learn some lessons from the Harmony Brigade experience! Maybe each barbershopper attending International could be asked to perform a few songs with everyone from his district in a district chorus performance (not competition). Is there a day of the week where something like this could be squeezed in? Now that might draw some new attendees!
Thanks for your time and consideration!
Let’s see, does the USA field less than the best athletes to compete in the Olympics? Does a professional sports team play its second and third string athletes just so they can experience the thrill of being on national V?
Our Society needs all the quality exposure it can get. That a quality small chorus cannot compete with a larger one of the same quality is not unfair, just a musical fact. To insist that our passion be represented by less than the very best , every time, will doom our unique style of music.
This whole discution has brought many revelations to the forfront which are only partly related to the two year rotation. There have been many opinions for the decline in membership. It is a sobering thought as to how many are directly asciated with contest.
Untill Leadership starts to actually try something hugly diferent , nothing will change in membership decline.Recruitment will not solve the problem. High quality singing choruses and quatets will not increase membership.
Contests do not increase membership.
It is all about singing for the fun of it ,the best you can , with encouragement, and with some improvement.
THE AVERAGE MAN DOES NOT JOIN TO COMPETE, THEY JOIN TO PARTICIPATE AND HAVE SOME FUN & be part of a show . BARBERSHOP RELIGION WON’T SAVE IT.
WHO HAS THE GUTS FOR SOME REAL CHANGE?
IT IS OBVIOUS TO ME THAT THE TOP 20%, WHO ARE IN CONTROL, HAVE NO INTENTIONS.
The 2 year rotation discution is a waist of energy , it will make no improvement to our membership problem.
I chalenge those in leadership to come up with something to make a real diference , You might try asking & listening.
This thread is a way for leadership to share new ideas and to review membership’s opinions. This thread represents leadership “asking and listening.” This is a fine place to make recommendations.
I’ve done so a number of times in previous comments.
What are your ideas?
I thougt I gave my ideas Jamie . Less contests means more retention. This two year rotationis is based on more contest.
Prove to me that it will increase membership & retention.It is all about marketing & repeat customers.
I’d never make a claim that more or less contests would increase or decrease membership. That’s a large change with difficult to predict results.
What I meant by “what are your ideas?” was that your post seemed to negate some ideas that have already been discussed without giving specific new ideas.
A statement like “Contests do not increase membership,” while a valid opinion that is likely more true than not, is not a new idea to help increase membership. It’s a shooting-down of an idea. It’s not actionable, it’s non-actionable. That’s useful, but it’s not leading by example along the lines of your complaint that leadership should “come up with something to make a real difference.”
A statement like “A program should be developed to enable chapter leadership in a local geographical area to more easily collaborate on marketing efforts (organizing mass-sings or flash mob choruses?), exchanging guests who do not mesh with chapter goals (some guys want casual singing, some guys want competition – how can we get them in the right door?), and other activities. A way of accomplishing this might be to set up an internet forum accessible from the ebiz site which is divided into districts, and then subdivided into geographical areas, with different forum topics like ‘marketing ideas’, ‘new singers found’, ‘quartet gigs available’, ‘scheduling shows’, etc. Chapter leaders should be encouraged to participate on a quarterly basis to generate community through the site.”
For what it’s worth, I’m against the idea of the two-year plan for reasons I’ve already stated.
I’m also against attacking leadership for not asking for feedback or coming up with new ideas in a thread which is provably designed to get feedback on new ideas.
Cheers,
Jamie
Another semi-unrelated thought. I thought our membership decline was leveling off. We are certainly getting younger.
Wouldn’t it be great to post these numbers, updated monthly, on our Members Only site, so we, the members, can see them and be either scared into working on the problems or encouraged by the results?
I’d like to see Total Membership, Average Age, and Average Age of New Members, updated monthly.
(Btw, if anyone is interested, my chorus improved its scores from 61 to 75 in a year, and increased the size of our performing chorus by around 50%.)
Wow! That’s a great increase Steve. See! I’ve been reading all of these blogs about not going to International because someone else always wins district. Seems to me a “wild-card” is getting possible for your chorus.
A couple of things seem to happen with better singing. Growth, and a younger membership. One of my chorus members, famous blogger Andy Pinkall, was just noting the other night that our chorus’ average age had dropped substantially. Our membership is getting to be around 90 gents, and our scores have gotten us to International the last few years!
I am a former member of the society (leaving a few years ago for reasons of my own, though directly driven through the actions of the society). What I find interesting about all the opinions being shown on this board (which has a potential to greatly skew the opinions of the full BHS memebership) is that most of y’all on here are 20+ year members. Seems to me that,
a) this is absolutely not the right forum to get any kind of unbiased opinion
b) the effort to get the opinion of the younger members (of which I was) seems to be lacking
Times are changing and from reading the multitude of posts here, I would agree that a 2 year cycle would not be in the best interest of the society, if the main drivers are attendance/membership. However, changing the cycle pattern isn’t going to hurt the society anymore than what’s already being done. Sure, choruses like Westminster are somewhat rejuvenating the society and showing that there is more to barbershop singing than the standards…but that isn’t enough. How long can the society “lean” on them before this cycle ends? Here are my idea (as posting complaints means nothing)
1. Uniformity/clarification with the judges…how can two judges give a spread of 15 points in a category and have two completely different interpretations of what a chorus is “supposed” to do during their time with the judge. Who does the chorus please? Do they conform to the -15pt judge, or be happy with the +15 judge?
2. The chorus draw for int’l is completely flawed. Yes, it is unfortunate that MOST people know who the top 5 choruses are going to be in any given year. However, that’s how talent is recognized. With that said, the draw system needs to be modified in some form. I understand that there is the worry with the early choruses not having an audience. Completely understood, and singing to a light audience (for lack of a better word), sucks. Stagger the top 5 seeded choruses (by draw, singing 5-10-15-20 as an example) and draw the remaining slots.
3. The arranging rules. Look at the groups like Straight No Chaser. Yes, they are a completely different style, and that is NOT barbershop. However, I believe (after have arranged multiple pieces for both barbershop and contemporary a cappella) that we can push the musicality of arrangements even further. I’m not talking about 5 part chords, or singing something that sounds like John Cage or Arvo Part, but let the arrangers expand! That Straight No Chaser sound/style is what’s gettin’ the younger audience interested in a cappella…BHS needs to realize that and start contouring and evolving.
4. Develop a system for members of ALL membership lengths to post their ideas…this board is not the right place. There needs to be essentially a “think-tank” for the society in which all can contribute. But this cannot be controlled by your standard leadership…you need people from the smallest chorus to the largest, youngest to oldest, hobbiest to professional.
5. Get rid of the cycle….if a chorus can earn the right to compete, let em. So much emphasis and time is spent during the year for 8 minutes on-stage competing for a symbol of excellence…so why limit a group? If they have the ability to keep winning, let em. Would it have been fair to the Bulls had the NBA said “nope, sorry, gotta give someone else a chance!”? Absolutely not…and now, propbably one of the best head-to-head competitions this society hasn’t seen isn’t going to happen.
These are just my opinions, and being a former member, they may get overlooked, which is understandingly so. However, wouldn’t the first step in rebuilding this society to find out WHY those like me left in the first place?
I actually like the idea of playing with the draw. A “stacking” has happened in the past accidentally a few times and it didn’t seem to affect when people went to get their hot dogs. Maybe even a modification would work… Draw the order for groupings (1-5, 6-10, etc.), then draw within each grouping. That way, similar groups are close to each other, but it doesn’t have be flat out in order.
I can’t say the scoring variances don’t happen, but if you saw the stats you may be amazed at how often it doesn’t happen. I want to say the last time I heard a number it was something like 98 or 99% of all performances were within a tight deviation. Between an inconsistent performance and human error, that’s amazingly tight.
You may also be surprised at the arrangements coming around. Some have been wedged in and not as exciting and the results have gone along with that, but nothing ventured, nothing gained. My own quartet does a SNC adapted song on our show (Hi-De-Ho) and it’s fun.
I’ve seen a lot of feedback on this blog from younger members, and it seems to be a form of communication we’re used to (I’m only 33, so probably closer to young than old!). I haven’t seen it as much on this subject, but that could simply be because it isn’t as important to them as those of us steeped more in contest. I have seen this discussion linked many times and carried out on facebook by younger members who have taken interest, so it’s a least being seen and discussed. Just maybe not here.
I hope you’re keeping in touch with some of the latest developments and can find your way back when time and circumstances allow.
Alan,
The way the blog is constructed, I get every comment as an e-mail, so I have been keeping an eye on things. I have concluded my travels for a while, and expect in the next few days to write a summary of where we are on thie 2 year rotation idea, and where we would like to go from here. I will post it for all to see. Let me stress that we are still rolling it around, in many different forms, and no decisions have been asked of the Board. SCJC has their fall meeting soon and they will be asked to review some of the ideas and some of the changes considered (not proposed, just considered.) The Districts (at least some of them) are asking us to look at how we require International contests (senior, college, and prelims, both chorus and quartet) so we are also adding those factors to our considerations. I am glad for all the comments, both pro and con, and will say that even though the poll was considered biased by some, it gave us a lot of good comments and was taken by well over 3000 members.
Not sure if this topic is OBE at this point, but here is my two cents.
The classic debate about whether you are hooked (i.e. what is the best strategy to grow the Society) by the fraternity with good guys who like to sing, or the quality of the music being produced by top tier groups is ultimately behind this idea. As a military man, I move about a great deal, and I have been in both small and large groups, including two gold runs with MOH, but multiple international contests with HOA, and Alexandria, and district contests with little groups like Shrine of Democracy Chorus in Rapid City, SD. I don’t think I would ever not go to contest because we didn’t expect to beat the best choruses. Those years were always about doing our best, and were enjoyable.
That isn’t the crux of the problem we are trying to fix. We have identified the wrong root cause to our membership malidy. The way to get people hooked on internationals is to get them their once and make sure the experience, whether competitor or non-competitor is MEGA-HARMONIOUS! Spend more time getting people to SING at contests. More AHSOW. More tag-singing with Champs. More fraternity. More coaching opportunities for individuals, quartets, and choruses. More hospitality suites where the cops don’t get called. More ways to sink the hook a little deeper. The contest will show what the small and large groups can attain, and motivates a desire to sing better. Any member who never hears a quartet quarterfinal at the international level is missing the boat–missing a chance to think “Wow, I could do that!” SPEBSQSA needs to focus more on quartets, and the fun in singing in quartets. That should remain a central theme of ALL contests.
I think we should hold off any changes to the contest rules until we see how the “cycle of victories” changes. The old assumptions are no longer valid. Westminster has upset the apple cart, and will motivate a lot of competitors to excel and compete. I believe a contest needs to be about the best competition, and should crown the best competitor. No artificial leveling please.
I’ve been a barbershopper for 15 years, 12 of them in a non-audition chorus that gradually went from 18th to 2nd at the District level several times. But I and quite a few of my chorus buddies are losing our enthusiasm for making it to International.
We’re known for putting on the best Annual Show in the District, and we work hard to accomplish that. However, working on “the two songs” for Division and District Competitions not only reduces the time we can spend on new songs for the show, it increases stress and reduces fun. I hear this from many guys.
However, I do believe competition “sets the bar.” My daughter is in a Sweet Adeline chorus that has gone to their International three times in the past six years with their every second year system. They are at a high level but managed to get there while still having a lot of fun. I believe the fact that they can only compete at the international level every other year is part of the reason.
I’d like to see a score of 80 or so at Division level one year qualify a chorus for the District the following year, so we need compete only once a year until we qualify for International.
the two year rotation would allow some new choruses to be a part of the competition. right now we see/hear the same choruses year after year after year – boring!
so I don’t even go to international because it is the same old thing over and over and over …ad nausium
Hasn’t this argument been debunked a few times in this thread (as well as on the Harmonet) by statistical analysis? This data should really be presented somewhere in a FAQ.
Please see Andy Pinkall’s post on 10/14/2010 @ 5:20pm, about 25 posts prior to this one.
Here’s the text of it:
“After reading the entirety of this blog, it seems there are at least two flawed arguments that many people in this debate are repeating in support of the two year rotation. The first is through the use of completely unsupportable claims both logically and mathematically, and the second is through unfactual generalizations that currently, the same 20-25 choruses dominate the society year after year.
First, in regards to the faulty math and logic issue. I was hoping a math teacher would chime in and refute the ridiculous claims that doubling opportunity equates to doubling quality. This claim requires a person to accept a direct correlation between the two items, and that increasing one automatically increases the other proportionately. In other words, they argue that 1 X 20 = 20, therefore 2 X 20 = 40. This is where the logic completely falls apart. In simple math terms, to accept this, one would also have to believe that moving to a 5 year rotation would result in 100 A level choruses, after 5 X 20 =100. If that correlation were even remotely accurate, then we should really be talking about a much longer rotation. For the life of me, I can not see how anyone could either believe or defend such logic. I am not a mathematician, but surely someone on here is. I do know that you can’t multiply 5 Oranges and 4 Apples and end up with 20 of anything.
Second, in regards to the generalizations being reported about how our society is being unfairly dominated by only 20-25 choruses leaving no hope for the choruses on cusp on qualifying. Please look at the following:
The last two years at international
-42 different choruses competed
-14 competed both years
The last three years at international
-49 different choruses competed
-10 choruses competed all three years
-15 competed two of three years
The last four years at international
-54 different choruses competed
-8 competed all four years
-12 competed three of four years
-13 competed two of four years
The last five years at international
-61 different choruses competed
-6 competed all five years
-7 competed four of five years
-14 competed three of five years
-11 competed two of five years
The last six years at international
-66 different choruses competed
-5 competed all six years
-6 competed five of six year
-7 competed four of six years
-11 competed three of six years
-11 competed two of six years
During the most recent six years of the wild card, our society has welcomed 66 different choruses to the contest stage at international. Of those 66, 48 of them already meet the terms the society has laid out in the two year proposal which is that no chorus would compete more frequently than every other year. True, some of them may have competed two years in a row in that time, but a full 70% of international competing choruses the past six year already are in line with the new proposal. Additionally, 66 choruses is a stark contrast to the claim that more choruses need the opportunity to qualify for international.
With all due respect, Mr. Watson. You state on this blog that you believe the society has at least 50 choruses who are worthy of international competition. Given that 42 different choruses walked on the international stage the last two years, and 66 over the last six years, I’d have to say we have already achieved that. On that basis alone, the extreme divisiveness of this proposal will not be worth its affect on the society. You’d be doing it for what? To add 8 choruses over a two year period.
For zero research dollars you can make this whole proposal debate die and find a solution that it would seem should appease both sides.
1. Increase the number of wildcards to 12 or 14.
2. Close the book on this terribly unnecessary idea.
3. Start having meaningful conversations with the chapters who actually are SUSTAINING growth while IMPROVING their singing.
Singing is our only product. The gorilla in the room is the unwillingness of our leaders to admit this and start pushing programs that will result in better singing in the society. We don’t have a membership problem. Declining membership is a lagging indicator of our real problem, which is a bad public image resulting from a lack of quality singing. We have 800 chapters, but less than 3% sing at the A-level? Now you are pushing a proposal that could potentially do great damage to that arleady ridiculously small number. If we want to fix our membership problems, we need to stop talking about membership, and start talking seriously about making sure all of our chapters are producing quality singing. When we do that, membership will follow.
Don’t believe me? Lee Iacoca didn’t save Chrysler by selling more cars. He saved Chrysler by building better quality cars. It’s simple, Ed. You want save the BHS by recruiting more members. You’ll save the BHS by building better singing choruses.”
You have to consume a specific and so healthy diet want to maintain both of the
technique then flowing hair balanced. hair regrowth
earlier it is possible to stick to a reasonable nutrition.
A lot of sample assorted cosmetics which can repair their hair hardships even so your things less than favours the outcome but instead worsens the impact a
growing number of
This paragraph is in fact a good one it helps new internet viewers,
who are wishing in favor of blogging.
WOW just what I was looking for. Came here by searching for best affordable sports car
Get free pop beats and win cash prizes at http:
//demoxpress.net, they have a unlimited beat download membership for $1
a month, and they add new beats every month.