Teresa, In your excellent reply to the judging thread, you mentioned the SING list. How do I sign up? Rob __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!?Message 1 of 12 , Oct 1, 2003View SourceTeresa,
In your excellent reply to the judging thread, you mentioned the SING
list. How do I sign up?
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
... SING list. How do I sign up? ... It shows up in my Yahoo Groups as: SweetAdelinesIntl If you can t find it to add to your groups that way, Marty LovejoyMessage 1 of 12 , Oct 1, 2003View Source
> Teresa,SING list. How do I sign up?
> In your excellent reply to the judging thread, you mentioned the
> RobIt shows up in my Yahoo Groups as: SweetAdelinesIntl
If you can't find it to add to your groups that way, Marty Lovejoy
can help. She is the very proud owner and moderator of the SING List.
It's primarily SAI, but there are many SPEBSQSA and HI members on as
In a message dated 10/1/03 4:53:07 PM, email@example.com writes:Message 1 of 12 , Oct 1, 2003View SourceIn a message dated 10/1/03 4:53:07 PM, teresa@... writes:
<< I've always wondered, in a contest with 30 quartets, unless
a group really stuck out in some way, how do you as a judge remember
exactly what each particular group in that 30 did when it comes time
to do their evaluation. Seems to me that the middle of the pack might
all run together. Do you have written notes that you can refer to for
the evaluations? How do you keep it all straight?
>>SPEBS and HI judges take notes on their score sheet. Most of us have a way to
both make the performance memorable to ourselves, and to note a few key
concepts we want to deal with in the evaluation. For the middle of the pack in
particular, our concept is that we're not trying to justify our score, but rather
to help fulfill the point of the contest, which is to help each group enjoy
the hobby more and generate general improvement across the repertoire. We feel
that for most groups trying to fix every detail of a specific song (we shor
thand that as the "laundry list" approach) is not the key to overall improvement
across the repertoire.
And while many of the characteristics are similar from group to group in the
middle of the pack, we try to make sure that the comments are personalized in
terms of their performance, so that the group understands that we were there
fully present and accounted for when they performed. That -- or the occasional
absence of that -- makes a big difference in the group's acceptance of the
comments and their happiness at the experience. I know it makes a big difference
to me, on either side of the eval.
>>I don't know if it's the same society wide, but why there is a need for an
emcee to go on endlessly from contestant to contestant, has never been clear to
>>Good question. The answer is, the best ones don't. At quartet contests, where
there's often not much more than a minute between contestants, they just
introduce each group and get out of the way, except for necessary housekeeping. At
chorus contests, where the intervening time is longer, the best ones leave
plenty of time for debriefing, then come out and fill the excess, ideally with
high-quality material. But as with any other endeavor where there are the best
and the rest, not everybody is a Doran McTaggart or a Carl Hancuff or a Rick
Taylor or Dave LaBar.
>>Would you rather have once score sheet say "need more dynamics" or
would you rather have four sheets say "vocal product inconsistent".
>>I'd rather have four blank sheets and four 100s!
Actually, one of the issues is -- and this isn't a criticism, it's to fuel
discussion -- I'm not sure I'd know how to apply either of those. "Need more
dynamics" would feel very artificial to me, because to me the dynamic plan flows
from what the music tells me it requires. "Vocal product inconsistent" --
well, how so and to what degree? What, specifically, was inconsistent? Where,
exactly, did it manifest? How, specifically, could I fix that?
In fact, those comments would probably just enrage me, because they're in
that annoying category of unsupported generic comments you hear from observers at
the convention like, "They didn't sing in tune." (You saw recently how
annoying a comment that was in this very forum.)
Well, guess what, as my good friend David Wright once said at Category
School, neither does anybody; it's just a question of degree, how out of tune the
group is. That's why it always fries my beans when people are discussing a
performance and one goes knowingly, with a bit of a superior air, "And did you hear
all that out-of-tune singing", and everybody needs sagely. What barbertrash!
That usually comes down to, nobody wants to be the one with the crappy ears
who didn't hear the out of tuneness.
The answer for me is usually, yeah, I heard it, but I'm not going to let it
ruin my enjoyment of a great event like the performances at an International of
any of the societies. I always want to say, get up there and sing flawlessly
in tune on every note yourself, smarty pants, and then good luck finding three
others who can do the same every second of YOUR performance!
(END OF CRANKY DIGRESSION)
OK, I've never actually said that, but I think it often enough, because I
watch barbershop and I judge from the perspective of a fan, not a critic. As a
performer, conversely, let's say I think I brought the best I had to the stage;
that was certainly my goal. And come on, whose vocal product isn't
inconsistent to some degree, including mine? So I want the judge to tell me, why did you
choose to focus on that rather than something else? What about my particular
brand of inconsistency caught your attention? How does mine compare unfavorably
to the general trends of inconsistency in this particular contest?
I could type up 50 sheets ahead of time that said: Inconsistent vocal
production; some out-of-tune singing; could use more dynamics over a larger range;
faces inconsistent. I could then quickly check off any or all of the following
boxes: baritone too loud/too soft/harsh, tenor flat, not enough/too much/harsh
bass; strident/unemotional lead. That'd do it, generically, but in my view it
wouldn't constitute encouragement and true communication with the competitor.
It would cost me my chance, not just to educate effectively, but to inspire.
This is one major reason why I haven't been able to envision how I could
adequately provide a written evaluation that I would expect to have any
significant impact, and part of why i am so interested in how the SAI judges do it. I'm
always eager to find more and better ways to inspire through my judging, and
if the SAI judges can do that in writing, I want to hear about it!
We have to keep our notes for 90 days post contest. When I start throwing them out, I will pick up one or two at random and see if I could give an evaluationMessage 1 of 12 , Oct 1, 2003View SourceWe have to keep our notes for 90 days post contest. When I start
throwing them out, I will pick up one or two at random and see if I
could give an evaluation on that just to make sure my shorthand is
thorough. I might not be able to place the guys, or remember what
they wore or what they looked like, but I could tell you where in the
song they had issues with the main points I wanted to make with
them. I could also point out if they did it well so that they could
listen on the video for that moment so they knew when they did it
well. It looks like jibberish, but I map out the performance and can
speak to a performance from 5 years ago and tell the quartet how to
I don't think I'm special, although my wife will disagree! I think
most judges could. You learn a shorthand that captures a lot of
For example, in my shorthand,
means through the first A section of the chorus, the group had
constant dynamics and failed to take advantage of the melodic shape
that was offered them. I'd then show them how the melody and lyrics
can provide answers to developing a dynamic plan.
is my acronym for Stephen Covey's "Have the End in Mind" (or Begin
with or Start with). Many groups sing a song straight through
without having any real understanding of how a song is constructed
and how to navigate between verse to chorus and other transitional
moments. Notes and words is what comes across the footlights.
I have a bunch, but using I (intro), V (verse), C (chorus), C2 1/2
(second chorus - 1/2 chorus), B (Bridge or AABA), T (tag), and little
symbols and abbr's, with some knowledge of the song (and the quartet
helps when I don't know it), I can evaluate a performance whether it
was 2 hours ago or 2 years ago. Now when I talk to the competitor,
it is personalized to their performance and we can identify major
opportunities for improvement. And yes, we do remember them through
the notes. The brain is amazing with a little memory jog.
MUS Judge, BOR
... This question confuses me. From the SPEBSQSA competitions I ve been to, I gather that we (the audience) are waiting between contestants for the judges toMessage 1 of 12 , Oct 2, 2003View SourceRoger keeps asking:
>4) what audience members think about waiting for the writing to be overThis question confuses me. From the SPEBSQSA competitions I've been to, I
>before the next performance
gather that we (the audience) are waiting between contestants for the judges
to finish scoring. Is the distinction that SPEBSQSA frequently uses MCs
between contestants to tell jokes and stories where SAI typically doesn't?
If that's the case, I'd rather not be told jokes between contestants. Let
me head to the restroom or talk to my friends about the most recent
Several people have also asked how we can be content with written
evaluations only. As far as I'm concerned, the written evaluations are fine
for two reasons:
1) I don't think I've ever read a comment on a scoresheet that wasn't
information I already knew. You find out what your weak and strong points
are from good coaches, directors, and music team members. Your competition
performance is just that--one performance. Yes, you hope it's good enough
to win/beat last year's score/advance in placement/etc. But does that mean
that Pride of Baltimore *always* performs 1 point better than the Rich
Tones? I imagine it fluctuates. They're both good choruses who ought to be
proud of themselves. Judges make comments and coaches can help you to stop
hearing the same ones over and over.
2) What one judge tells you may not be the same as what the next judge
thinks at the next competition. Yes, there are standards, but they're human
beings--not scoring machines. What Judge A thinks your biggest problem is
may not bother Judge B as much as some other problem your chorus has in the
I think the "A & R" sessions (Is that the right term?) is probably a great
opportunity for up-and-coming quartets and choruses to get some free
coaching, but those sessions don't take place at the International level, do
they? I'm sure Alan or Chris or someone can answer that question.
So if you look at those as free coaching sessions, I'm all for them!
High-speed Internet access as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local
service providers in your area). Click here. https://broadband.msn.com
Correct, there are no review sessions at International for SPEBS. The judges keep their scoresheets and do e-mail after that. Sine we use the smae panel forMessage 1 of 12 , Oct 2, 2003View SourceCorrect, there are no review sessions at International for SPEBS.
The judges keep their scoresheets and do e-mail after that. Sine we
use the smae panel for quartet and chorus, it just gets long.
As far as waiting goes, during chorus it is for loading/unloading.
Same time as SAI contests. THe main difference is quartet, where
there isn't enough time to head to the facilities between contestants
at men's. (Heck, we're backstage to hear the tag of te preceding
quartet. Made it fun to follow Power Play twice in Montreal.)
So it becomes a matter of preference as to whether or not you like
the time to talk or are more into just hearing the next group.