The other thing about scoring on the basis of show design, such as "creativity" or "appropriateness to music", is that this is a fixed category. The score shouldn't change from daytime to evening, its not like the show gets less creative the second time you see it. I've seen a lot of judges score categories like this up or down from day to evening, and it needn't be touched.
But that is one of those things that the first time around you don't notice as much, or they're not necessarily looking at the WHOLE package, just vocals and choreography. I can't speak for judges, but I know when I see a choir for a first time I miss soo much, and then see them during the finals I notice a lot that is in the show. So they can find that after seeing them this second time, that "Oh, I only saw this uncreative stuff the first time, but I missed this part while I was jotting a note down".
For a good example, it would be like breaking down a novelty, for most novelties you have to watch two or more times to find everything you missed, and sometimes it takes a DVD of the show to notice it too. There can be a lot going on, on a stage and you don't have eyes to look at it all.
The other thing about scoring on the basis of show design, such as "creativity" or "appropriateness to music", is that this is a fixed category. The score shouldn't change from daytime to evening, its not like the show gets less creative the second time you see it. I've seen a lot of judges score categories like this up or down from day to evening, and it needn't be touched.
...an ever-growing majority of powerhouse groups are increasing the number of costumes & props and the size of sets. I mean, look at Totino. Obviously a well-known and respected powerhouse group, and the example that is set by CoS is that powerhouse groups have big sets and props. Now that is not saying that they don't also have great choreo and vocals; it just sends the message that those other things are also needed to be great. And we have seen that change occur. If you watch show choir from 10-15 years ago, you will see fewer sets, costumes, and props.
A. We are NOT a powerhouse. We've been very lucky in the success we've had since the 2003 season, but we are not at the level of true powerhouses (Clinton, Burroughs, North Central, etc.). I truly appreciate the compliment, but can't accept it. We are certainly working towards that, but have no misconceptions about not being there yet.
B. Is that REALLY the example you see us as setting?
I think our group has sung and danced well at a high level pretty consistently- and we've also had shows that are very different from year to year, exposing our performers and our audiences to different genres of music and dance. We've also taken some fairly big risks. We have a strong band who has takes on difficult music and works hard to truly enhance the show. We also have a talented crew each season- and again, they handle some very difficult things at a consistently high level. Several of our crew members and singer/dancers, are interested in going into careers behind the scenes- they are receiving an excellent education by working with our props, backdrops, costuming, and show design. How is that a negative thing?
Yes, we use staging and props and costume changes, but we use them for reasons that don't include "we need them to win"- or even simply that we "need" them. They are another challenge for our students, they can add to our show, and they're fun. I'm fairly certain other directors who choose to use show elements like these would agree with that sentiment. I can assure you that when we as a staff sit down and plan our shows, not a single sentence ends with "because it will help us win."
C. Again, I cannot accept that the majority of directors and choreographers out there ever say something like, "Oh hey, this group placed higher than us, and they had hats. So we need hats." Do you really think that lowly of the people running show choir today?
Perhaps that kind of logic comes from people who are single-mindedly focused on winning, but I don't believe the majority thinks that way. We certainly didn't look at Ankeny this year (who beat us) and say, 'we need to do a show just like that next year.' They do their thing, and they're very successful with it. We'll do our thing and be as successful as we can be. Hopefully everyone else will do the same.
D. I can assure you that it is more than possible for a group to have show elements present, but still focus on vocals and choreography. Trust me, our rehearsals were spent improving our students as musicians and performers, not spent in front of mirrors, examining our costumes.
E. If you compare our show this year from past years, you would see quite easily that we have less costumes AND props. Not sure how that adds to the trend of increasing number of costumes and props... care to enlighten me?
Oh no, I'm not saying any groups are succeeding because of these things. What I'm saying is that an ever-growing majority of powerhouse groups are increasing the number of costumes & props and the size of sets. I mean, look at Totino. Obviously a well-known and respected powerhouse group, and the example that is set by CoS is that powerhouse groups have big sets and props. Now that is not saying that they don't also have great choreo and vocals; it just sends the message that those other things are also needed to be great. And we have seen that change occur. If you watch show choir from 10-15 years ago, you will see fewer sets, costumes, and props.
But the "fact" that these things are needed is, of course, not the case. One need not look beyond arguably the best in the Midwest, Ankeny "Visual Adrenaline", to see that a great group doesn't need these things. In the end, when choirs are focusing on sets and costumes instead of vocals and choreo, it will hurt the quality of their end product. All I'm trying to do is stop that from happening, that's all.
I'm sorry, but I do need to defend Totino on this one a little bit. Totino NEVER set the the example for other groups that other things besides good vocals and choroegraphy is needed to be a powerhouse group. In fact, Totino and MANY groups probably picked up the idea of having backdrops from the Indiana / Ohio region. In the late 90s (97 on) to the early 2000s... (like 2003 / 2004) one would RARELY see a backdrop in the "west" midwest. In Indiana, however, they were becoming more and more prominent. I don't think it's a "powerhouse" deal at all...I think it's just a trend just starting to catch on.
Backdrops and sets ADD to the show design elements. If backdrops were important in winning, groups like North Central wouldn't win like they do. If a group thinks "oh, Center Grove has a backdrop, we need one to be good too." they are highly mistaken.
Why does Xavier use a backdrop? Is it because the "pillars" add to the show? or is it because Totino had a set last year? (for only one of their songs- they are the only group, beside Center Grove, and GCS that I saw with a set last year).
"In the end, when choirs are focusing on sets and costumes instead of vocals and choreo, it will hurt the quality of their end product."
I again bring up Xavier, they have "flashy" opening costumes, and have a set....any choir with a set knows that it doesn't take much focus or concentration to have a set. I just don't understand how a set - unless COMPLETELY irrelevant to the show - can hurt the quality of an end product.
Oh no, I'm not saying any groups are succeeding because of these things. What I'm saying is that an ever-growing majority of powerhouse groups are increasing the number of costumes & props and the size of sets. I mean, look at Totino. Obviously a well-known and respected powerhouse group, and the example that is set by CoS is that powerhouse groups have big sets and props. Now that is not saying that they don't also have great choreo and vocals; it just sends the message that those other things are also needed to be great. And we have seen that change occur. If you watch show choir from 10-15 years ago, you will see fewer sets, costumes, and props.
But the "fact" that these things are needed is, of course, not the case. One need not look beyond arguably the best in the Midwest, Ankeny "Visual Adrenaline", to see that a great group doesn't need these things. In the end, when choirs are focusing on sets and costumes instead of vocals and choreo, it will hurt the quality of their end product. All I'm trying to do is stop that from happening, that's all.
Well, I suppose I am slightly outnumbered ;) but I stand behind what I've said here before. Just some general comments regarding Mr. Scoville's post:
I see we agree that, in a perfect world, the performer's actual performance would be the only aspect judged and the direction would not be involved. Obviously, this is impossible. This is why I am attempting to have the smallest (practical) level of direction factor into the score.
Your second paragraph is, in my opinion, your strongest argument. There's nothing quite like a technically solid, clean show that's entertaining to boot. Thing is, I'd definitely rather watch a solid, clean show from the talented group, than an entertainingly designed show from a group with a talented director. I do however have no problem with "show design" as a tiebreaker category. I would hate to see a group that has higher vocal and choreographical scores lose to another group because that group had a better designed show.
I know what you mean about groups doing what succeeds - which is exactly my argument. Groups are seeing that large, flashy costumes, sets, and props are succeeding - and that is the direction that they are starting to head. Is this where we want show choir to head? My humble opinion is no. More focus needs to be on exceptional singing, clean choreography and challenging situations, instead of larger sets and more costume changes.
This has been a fascinating thread to read. I kinda agree with Ana and Scott, (not to gang up or anything), but I understand the basic idea that there's an inherent unfairness in show choir, and it is this: It's not possible to judge the skills of a group of performers independently of the whole directorial apparatus that is responsible for the show in every aspect. As much as it might seem preferrable to just try to judge the actual students, and what they themselves bring to the performance, that's just not possible. Examples have been cited, such as a director teaching kids to sing out of tune or with bad vocal tone. They could be doing a PERFECT job of performing the way they were taught, but the TEACHING will get judged nevertheless.
As far as show design, I agree that it's already being judged, and rightly so. The judges are judging the overall entertainment impact of a show, not just the technical questions of singing and dancing, and if all other things are equal, a more entertaining show should win. Otherwise we're going to be like professional figure skaters, sacrificing art for technique. This means that the kids are not the only ones being judged, but as I said before, that's already impossible anyway. Most judging sheets still give HEAVY weight to good vocal execution and clean choreography, and all of the OTHER elements end up functioning more as tie breakers for groups that are very close in the basic areas. Isn't that fair?
The practical effect of this is that if schools truly wish to compete successfully, they have to pay attention to what succeeds: Good vocal coaching, good dance coaching, good arrangements, entertaining choreography, a good band, etc. The beauty of show choir is that successful groups bring all of these elements together as if by magic to make something that's much bigger than the sum of its parts.
I often see a choir performing and think, "those poor kids; I WISH they had a good show" or "I WISH their director would teach them to sing properly." It's not their fault, but what can one do? They can read the judge's comments, see what's lacking, and hound their parents/teachers/administrators to find ways to provide it. I know that's not always easy, but as I said before, to try to deconstruct a performance down and judge only what the kids are responsible for is not possible in any case.
But if a choir can't execute the show designed for them- that ISN'T very good design. Plus, you didn't answer my question- if a choir is given a show with little or no difficulty in it, why should they be punished? Doesn't that fall squarely on the shoulders of the director? As does a show that is too difficult for the choir it's given to. I don't understand how in some cases, it's okay to score things that are the responsibility of the director, and in other cases, it isn't.
To answer your question - it's like I said before. Where do we stop? Difficulty and show design are both things that are chosen at the beginning by the director of the group. Why I think difficulty should count and show design should not, however, is because difficulty can only be pushed to the maximum talent levels of the group members. Show design has absolutely nothing to do with the choir. It is solely up to the director. Difficulty involves the entire group, which is why it should be scored.
QUOTE(ana @ Apr 12 2007, 11:15 PM) 399660
I think these are the points that I'm trying to get at- First, a LOT of what we do as show choirs IS out of the control of the students. Second, show choir is more complex than the definition of "singing and dancing" gives it credit for. This is the reality of what we're doing.
Show choirs do do more than sing and dance, but for what purpose? Why does a show choir think it needs five costume changes? Why does it need a set, or props? My answer to these questions is that it does not. A show should be built around the best possible way to showcase the singing and dancing talents of the members in the choir. Isn't that the best way to entertain an audience? I'd rather watch an amazing singing and dancing group with one costume and no set, than a group with huge, flashy sets, six costumes, multiple props, and can't sing or dance to save their lives. Wouldn't you?
QUOTE(ana @ Apr 12 2007, 11:15 PM) 399660
To expand on the first part... Successful show choirs are that way in part to the team that assembles them. How many SUCCESSFUL show choirs are out there with bad directors that can't teach them to sing? Or choreographers that can't stage and choreograph a show? Those things are not in the hands of the students. You don't get to decide whether or not your director is good at what he or she does. Sure, a lot of the execution is in the hands of the performers. But what if you aren't taught how to execute? What if your director teaches you to sing out of tune- and you execute that perfectly?? Should the judges give you high scores?
I see what you mean. Obviously the direction and choreography play a large role in this, but how can this realistically be eliminated? Choreography also goes along the same lines as difficulty - it can only be taken as far as the choir can handle, so it's in everybody's hands. As for your last question: No, the scores should be low, because an aspect of singing (as we all know) is pitch, so of course that should be scored.
QUOTE(ana @ Apr 12 2007, 11:15 PM) 399660
As for budgets... it's another reality we just need to face. Firstly, budgets affect way more than just what a choir wears- what about choirs who say they can't afford a professional choreographer? Or choirs that can't afford good arrangements? Should those things be off of the scoresheet? Secondly, costuming is NOT just about money spent, or how many costumes each group has- great costumes can cost next to nothing. Plus, I think it's silly to assume that directors automatically think they have to have costume changes simply because costuming is on the scoresheet. Don't they deserve a bit more credit than that?
If a group cannot afford a professional, then it comes down to the director. Does s/he know an amazing amateur dancer? Can s/he arrange music well? And before you ask "Then it's out of the group's hands" - like I said before, the choreography is scored along with how well a group can dance, and the arranging is scored along with how well a group can sing, so these aspects would still be scored.
QUOTE(ana @ Apr 12 2007, 11:15 PM) 399660
Of the 11 competitions I attended this year, I strongly disagreed with only ONE Best Vocals award (at Eau Claire). Sure, there are judges that I disagree with- not only on vocals, but on choreography, and show. It's ALL subjective... another reality. I think the correction of that particular situation lies more in the judges that are hired than in the scoresheets they work off of.
I know what you mean about subjectivity and it's something that causes us all irritation and is also the reason for why we do what we do. We walk a fine line, and if show design is placed in a more prominent role, the subjectivity factor will rise - too much. It's a common sentiment around SCC and from many show choir'ers that best vocals have come to mean (generally) loudest vocals. While it's true that, more often than not, the group with the best fff will also have the best mf and p, but that isn't always the case, and judges seem to miss this more often than they should. Volume is the easiest way to score vocals, and when deciphering between some very, very close groups, it seems to be the de facto tiebreaker, weighted more heavily than the others.
QUOTE(ana @ Apr 12 2007, 11:15 PM) 399660
I'm confused by the things you listed- the instrumentalists are vital to a show- of course they should be factored in. Why even have costumes if they don't matter? If a group uses props, those become an extension of the choreography- and in most cases, add difficulty- isn't choreography relevant? I don't see how any of those things even compare to the name of a group.
What if the band is a professional band? The band is a part of the group in that it keeps the group along the right track. The group stays on the right track vocally and choreographically because of the band. But what if a group wins because they get a higher band score than another group that beat them in vocals and in choreo? That to me just wouldn't seem right, and the same can be said of props and costuming, especially when costumes and props are things that cost money, which, as I said before, means very different things to different groups.
QUOTE(ana @ Apr 12 2007, 11:15 PM) 399660
First, with the costuming thing- I feel like I'm missing something. Who feels like they need to have more? Who is making them feel this way? What groups are doing well simply because they have a lot of costumes? Second, I don't think subjectivity is reason enough to ignore something as major as show design. How do you define difficulty of choreography well enough to take out subjectivity? Or difficulty of vocals for that matter? Subjectivity is a part of this whole thing.
First: The trend in show choir over recent years has been more costumes, sets, props, etc. It's just the way things have been moving. Is this because they are factored into the score? I believe that that is possible. I do not think that these things, which are so insignificant in the grand scheme of things, should be scored - as they have nothing to do with the talent level of the performers.
Second - as I said earlier in this post, show choir toes quite the tightrope when it comes to subjectivity, and I think we've got it just about right, right now. Adding in such a large quotient of subjectivity, as would happen if show design became a major section in scoring, could possibly take all the fun out of this event. Too little of this "randomness" will lead to identical results everytime, but too much of it will make each competition seem like a crapshoot, with results not based on the performances of the groups, but solely upon the personal tastes of the judges.
And I agree with you, ana - the offseason does get quite boring, this is a nice time-filler ;)
Show design has been on thorough scoresheets since the earliest competitions; pace of show, effective opening, effective closing, choice of material, appearance, accompaniment, choreography, staging - all are elements of show design.
Rather than difficult or easy, traditional or modern, I judge whether or not the show is "effective." ef-fec-tive- adjective: producing the intended or expected result; producing a deep or vivid impression.
And done well, at the right moment, even simple can be effective, traditional can be effective, unison can be effective.
I'll be the first to admit I went against myself with the difficulty comment, what I was meaning was there were some people commenting that if two groups do a "modern" show and a "traditional" show the same the modern show should always be scored higher...I was commenting that I didn't agree with that statement...that's what I meant.
Also some groups get attacked for doing reused songs/choreography...I know TG has done it. I know people that think that should automatically cut that group points....what I meant was just because someone had done it before, it doesn't make it any less difficult for the students doing it now.
I agree with you in part. The difficulty level of a show is primarily in the director's hands. BUT - if a director selects a well-designed show, then that show will be well-designed, and if he or she does not, then it won't. But in the case of difficulty, if a director chooses an extremely difficult show and the group doesn't have the talent to match it, it'll show. Know what I mean? Difficulty also can show in the choir's execution, whereas show design really cannot.
But if a choir can't execute the show designed for them- that ISN'T very good design. Plus, you didn't answer my question- if a choir is given a show with little or no difficulty in it, why should they be punished? Doesn't that fall squarely on the shoulders of the director? As does a show that is too difficult for the choir it's given to. I don't understand how in some cases, it's okay to score things that are the responsibility of the director, and in other cases, it isn't.
QUOTE(E @ Apr 12 2007, 08:13 PM) 399656
Regarding the first part, I realize that that's the way things are, I'm saying that it shouldn't be. Costuming is completely out of the choir's hands, and also factors into the budget which means different things to different groups (such as a private school compared to an inner-city one), so I am strongly against that being scored. Choirs shouldn't have to think they have to change six times per show, because that's not the case. (See Ankeny for clarification.) Show choir is singing and dancing put together to form a show. It's not a show with some singing and dancing tossed in.
" border="0" alt="blink.gif" />
I think these are the points that I'm trying to get at- First, a LOT of what we do as show choirs IS out of the control of the students. Second, show choir is more complex than the definition of "singing and dancing" gives it credit for. This is the reality of what we're doing.
To expand on the first part... Successful show choirs are that way in part to the team that assembles them. How many SUCCESSFUL show choirs are out there with bad directors that can't teach them to sing? Or choreographers that can't stage and choreograph a show? Those things are not in the hands of the students. You don't get to decide whether or not your director is good at what he or she does. Sure, a lot of the execution is in the hands of the performers. But what if you aren't taught how to execute? What if your director teaches you to sing out of tune- and you execute that perfectly?? Should the judges give you high scores?
As for budgets... it's another reality we just need to face. Firstly, budgets affect way more than just what a choir wears- what about choirs who say they can't afford a professional choreographer? Or choirs that can't afford good arrangements? Should those things be off of the scoresheet?
Secondly, costuming is NOT just about money spent, or how many costumes each group has- great costumes can cost next to nothing. Plus, I think it's silly to assume that directors automatically think they have to have costume changes simply because costuming is on the scoresheet. Don't they deserve a bit more credit than that?
QUOTE(E @ Apr 12 2007, 08:13 PM) 399656
And regarding your last comment, I think we need not look further than many judges' opinions on Best Vocals (meaning, more often than not, the loudest group) to find how they would score show design. The bigger, the "louder", the better.
Obviously there can be great show design with great vocals and choreography, I'm not denying that, I'm just asking what should be scored. There are so many things a judge *could* score about a group, but how many of them are actually relevant? Should the band score be factored into the total group score? What about costuming? Use of props? Name of the group?
Of the 11 competitions I attended this year, I strongly disagreed with only ONE Best Vocals award (at Eau Claire). Sure, there are judges that I disagree with- not only on vocals, but on choreography, and show. It's ALL subjective... another reality. I think the correction of that particular situation lies more in the judges that are hired than in the scoresheets they work off of.
I'm confused by the things you listed- the instrumentalists are vital to a show- of course they should be factored in. Why even have costumes if they don't matter? If a group uses props, those become an extension of the choreography- and in most cases, add difficulty- isn't choreography relevant? I don't see how any of those things even compare to the name of a group.
QUOTE(E @ Apr 12 2007, 08:13 PM) 399656
One other problem I have with show design is that it's not well-defined enough. Show choir already has a wide range of free roam for judges and subjectivity. Adding a category titled "show design" without having a solid definition of this term could result in even more randomness in results... or worse, having these judges (as I fear) scoring the biggest and flashiest as the best, which makes groups think (as they seem to be doing now with costumes) that they need more, more, more... which in turn raises costs, sends some possible group members away due to costs, and in the end, gets show choir even further and further away from where, in my opinion, it should be: May the best singing & dancing group win.
First, with the costuming thing- I feel like I'm missing something. Who feels like they need to have more? Who is making them feel this way? What groups are doing well simply because they have a lot of costumes?
Second, I don't think subjectivity is reason enough to ignore something as major as show design. How do you define difficulty of choreography well enough to take out subjectivity? Or difficulty of vocals for that matter? Subjectivity is a part of this whole thing.
Just my thoughts!
I've needed this- the off-season gets so boring sometimes!!!
FAME New York 2007
" border="0" alt="ph34r.gif" />
" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />
" border="0" alt="blink.gif" /> 