A Cappella Blog Event Review: ICCA Mid-Atlantic Semifinals at Rutgers
By Mike Chin on Mar 25, 2007 in Event Reviews
Event: International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella Mid-Atlantic Semifinal
Date: March 24, 2007
Location: New Brunswick, NJ
Rutgers University
Student Center Multi-Purpose Room
Official Results: See end of article
Mike C checking in here after one heck of an ICCA Semifinal at Rutgers last night. It was a very competitive show, and 24 hours later, I still find myself second guessing my own picks for ranking and awards, because of just how close things were. Regardless, some of the judges’ decisions left me more than a little confused. I’m getting ahead of myself, though. Let’s start at the beginning.
After some unexpected delays and some wrong turns on the way to Rutgers, I didn’t arrive at the show until 7:30 p.m. I was glad I preordered my tickets, as word on the street was that the 500 seats in the Multi-Purpose Room had sold out an hour before. After seeing a couple poorly attended quarterfinals this year, it was awesome to head into the Rutgers Student Center and feel the electricity in the air. There was a sold out crowd, with well over a dozen people on the waiting list to try to come in. There were friends and family parading around with poster board signs to cheer on their favorite groups. My favorite fans may have been those who came to support Penn State’s Shades of Blue, wearing t-shirts that read “Just Doo It,” with the Nike swoosh symbol. All in all, it was really neat to feel the “big show” vibe going on.
I’m not remotely familiar with the facilities at Rutgers, but I really wish I could have transported this awesome crowd to a more suitable venue. The Multi-Purpose Room was flat land with folding chairs all throughout, meaning a lot of the crowd had trouble seeing the stage (and, man, were those chairs uncomfortable by the second hour in). In addition, the acoustics weren’t great from where I was sitting. A lot of people ended up standing in the back or off to the sides.
Rutgers’ own Casual Harmony hosted the night’s event, opening it with a cover of John Legend’s “Used To Love U.” These guys are truly impressive, especially for a group with as short of a history as they have (just three or four years, if I’m not mistaken). ICCA Mid-Atlantic Producer Hayley Cammarata took the mic for the standard announcements. In a neat twist that I cannot recall seeing at other ICCA shows I’ve been to, different members of Casual Harmony introduced each of the evenin’s competing groups.
As we get into the competing groups, a reminder of my completely subjective scoring model. The basic breakdown:
* = Not so good.
** = Okay
*** = Good
**** = Stellar
***** = Simply Outstanding
First out of the chute was Ithaca College’s all-male group, Ithacappella. The guys wore their usual matching blue blazers and khakis, with assorted shirts and ties. The look is a little formal for my tastes, but it’s classy, and works just fine in the semifinal setting.
The set opened with Sam & Dave’s “Hold On, I’m Coming.” The group looked a tad nervous in the early going, but settled into its groove soon enough, and the soloist and vocal percussionist proved unflappable throughout. Second to the out of this world antics from the Binghamton Crosbys, I’ll credit this song with the best choreography I’ve seen this year. There was some really fun stuff including a moment when a number of guys, including the percussionist bent at the waist and stood still, before coming back to life as robots moments later. The robots proceeded to do an innovative slide move, as the song went on. Whereas most groups would close with this song, it’s a testament to the level of energy Ithacappella brings to the table that they were only getting started. Up next was a cover of Sarah McLachlan’s “When She Loved Me.” I’d like to think this soloist read my review of his performance last month, and took some pointers. In reality, he probably found constructive criticism elsewhere (maybe the judges’ sheets). In any case, I was really impressed by the enhanced emotion he brought to this ballad, selling it many times more than he did the last time around. I was a little upset with the Rutgers personnel for letting a large number of people walk into the auditorium during this song. I know it was distracting for me. Fortunately, it didn’t seem to faze the group. In any case, a good and improved middle song. Last up was “School of Rock.” Just as it was at Lafayette, this song was raucous fun, featuring choreography right out of the Jack Black movie by the same name, and an ultra-animated soloist. At Lafayette, I speculated that the soloist improvised in moving off of the tiny stage, into the crowd, to make room for the choreography. He did it again here, to lackluster results. Unfortunately, there was no light in the Multi-Purpose Room outside of the spotlights on stage, meaning he jumped into the darkness , rendering whatever theatrics he might have put on invisible to the bulk of the crowd. Someone opened some fire doors during this song, letting out a brief second of an alarm, which was another disservice to the group. For appearing unfazed by the distractions, and making some moves on their middle song, I’m going to bump up my subjective score for Ithacappella this time around, awarding them 3.75/5 stars.
Set Summary:
“Hold On, I’m Coming” by Sam & Dave
“When She Loved Me” by Sarah McLachlan
“School of Rock” from School of Rock
Next up were the all-male Buffalo Chips. They came out in jeans and baseball tees, each with a different letter of “BUFFALO CHIPS” on the back (this will come into play later). Not a bad outfit by any means, but a little informal for competition, and especially semifinals.
I’ve seen The Chips perform a few times in recent years, and they’ve always struck me about the same way–good, respectable a cappella, but nothing to write home about. To their credit, the group started strong here with Rob Thomas’s “This Is How A Heart Breaks.” Good energy and a good soloist here, but there wasn’t a lot for the background guys to do. I wasn’t wild about the comical expressions the group threw in in stop time at one point, taking away the from the intensity that I felt was more appropriate for the song. The guys ended the song chorally, which I liked the idea of it, but it didn’t sound quite right to me. Second up was “Over My Head” by The Fray. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t like this as an a cappella song, and especially don’t care for it in a competition set. It’s just too in-between–not really a ballad, not a high energy song. The soloist was good. Unfortunately, there wasn’t any movement from the background, and the group just didn’t get loud when it needed to, leaving the whole thing pretty boring. Last up was a medley of at least two Muse songs–”Time Is Running Out” and “Hysteria” (there may have been another song as well). The dynamics weren’t as polished as I would have liked on this one either, but the guys did some creative things with choreography here. I was especially impressed when the group enclosed the soloist in their arms going into one chorus, only for him to throw them off, breaking free. The trend of charismatic soloists went on. The transitions between songs in the medley wasn’t as smooth as I would have liked. At first, I really appreciated the tempo changes the guys worked in, but the transitions went on far too long, blurring the lines between songs, and ultimately losing my interest. Still, a fun end to the set, as the guys spun around in unison on their last note, letting their shirts spell out “BUFFALO CHIPS” to the crowd, as a final image. All in all, a good set, but not one that’s going to make a lot of noise in semifinals. 3.25/5 stars.
Set Summary:
“This Is How A Heart Breaks” by Rob Thomas
“Over My Head” by The Fray
“Time Is Running Out/Hysteria” by Muse
Third up was Syracuse University’s all-male Orange Appeal. As I wrote in February, Orange Appeal boasts one of my favorite uniforms in collegiate a cappella. Black collared shirts and blue jeans for solidarity. Ties and chucks to add to the uniform, but different colors and designs all around for individuality. It’s semi-formal, it’s hip, it’s distinctive.
Orange Appeal opened with Death Cab For Cutie’s “Steadier Footing.” The soloist’s voice seemed a little less controlled in this outing than it was in the quarterfinals, but he showed more emotion here. It’s an unconventional, but smart opener for the set. It’s short and grabbing, and the emo ballad does a good job of priming the crowd for the raw power of Muse’s “Time Is Running Out.” It’s tough to use basically the same song as another group in the same competition, and all the more so when the previous rendition came immediately before your set. Nonetheless, the Orange Appeal rendition outshined Buffalo’s in just about every respect, with a fantastic soloist and well-chosen movement. The energy level seemed a little lower here than it was in February, but it was still a good rendering all around. Third up was my least favorite song of the set, a cover of The Beatles’ “Because.” While I’m still not entertained with the song itself, I have to admit that there’s a certain aesthetic appeal to it, with some nice harmonies and a complex arrangement. Last up, the guys took on a spiritual called “The Battle.” The group opted to slow this one down a good bit, a call that I wasn’t wild with, as it seemed to strip the song of some of its energy. Still, it was musically impressive, and the choreography was still exceptionally involved and funny. Orange Appeal’s set was a really interesting one, if for no other reason than the diversity the guys put into play. The set ranged from emo ballad, to hard rock, to obscure Beatles, to spiritual, and they did a fine job with each style. While I couldn’t advocate giving Orange Appeal an award for any one song, looking at the set as a whole, they were certainly worthy of recognition. It’s a small touch, but I also appreciated the professionalism the guys showed in leaving the stage, with a well synchronized bow, an their measured, well organized walk to the back. 4/5 stars.
Set Summary
“Steadier Footing” by Death Cab for Cutie
“Time Is Running Out” by Muse
“Because” by The Beatles
“The Battle”
Syracuse’s Groovestand competed next, and were our first mixed group of the night. The group was more dressed up than they were for their last outing, with many of the guys in sports coats, and a number of women putting on skirts, while they all maintained their black and white theme from quarterfinals. While I agree with the idea of sprucing for the second round of competition, I thought the dress clothes actually hindered the group here, limiting the movement and energy I consider to be this ensemble’s signatures.
The set started with Joan Osborne’s “St. Teresa.” I felt this soloist was robbed of Outstanding Soloist honors in February, and tonight’s outing was every bit as good, and, if it’s possible, several times more intense, actually earning her applause from the crowd midway through the song. I wish we could have gotten more movement from the group, especially given the length of the song. While I appreciate the subtle increase in movement throughout the piece, there was certainly room for more. Next up was “The Gulf War Song” by Moxy Fruvous. This was musically sound enough, the group changed up it’s stance here, standing in a V formation, rather than the cluster they used last month. It seemed to me that the rationale was to put every member’s full body on greater display, as the group really played up the dramatic qualities of the song, putting far less emphasis on the comedic bits. As I stated last month, I would strongly prefer a straight ballad to this ‘in-between’ song. While the effort was there to make this more serious, it’s hard to make the recurring line, “Don’t tell me I can’t fight, or I’ll punch out your lights,” really resonate. Last up was Boyz II Men’s “Thank You,” sampling “Motownphilly.” It’s still a good song for this group, finally letting the group move around the stage. However, here’s where attire can really affect a set. Perhaps the most memorable image from Groovestand’s set in quarterfinals, was watching the soloist jumping, criss-crossing her legs, and dancing while she powered through the song. I can’t be sure if it was the skirt, or if she actually was more subdued, but I just couldn’t see the same level of activity this time around. It was a strong set, but not enough to thrive at this level of competition. 3.5/5 stars.
Set Summary:
“St. Teresa” by Joan Osborne
“Gulf War Song” by Moxy Fruvous
“Thank You” by Boyz II Men
Intermission time, and we got a warning from the emcees that everyone standing in the back would have to find a seat before the second half of the show started. This proved to be an empty threat. I’m not positive there even were enough seats to fit everyone.
While we’re at the break, I’d might as well acknowledge Casual Harmony’s plugs for their new CD, Score Some Harmony. I picked up my copy and listened to it a couple times on the ride home from Rutgers. It really is a strong compilation, though some tracks are a little overproduced for my tastes. I’ll likely have a more detailed review posted in the weeks to come.
Back from intermission, Drew University’s 36 Madison Avenue opened the second half. The guys wore black collared shirts and jeans, classing it up a little for the semifinals. They still don’t look like the most imposing group, but this time around, I knew what to expect from this all-male powerhouse.
The group opened with Seal’s “Future Love Paradise,” featuring one of the evening’s top soloists. Awesome voice, and good body language from the guy. I loved Mad Ave’s movement on this one, with little real choreography to speak of, but with every one of the guys selling every motion full tilt. Next up was Bruce Springsteen’s “The Rising.” Another awesome soloist, and, watching through the zoom on my camera, I was able to catch a glimpse of the awesome facials from this guy that I’m afraid were lost on a lot of the audience. The guys elected to sample not only “Born In The USA” this time, but also “Dancing In The Dark.” I wasn’t wild about that choice, using a song with less thematic connection, as if they were just trying to drive home that they were singing Bruce Springtseen. Of course, the competition was in Jersey, so I suppose it wasn’t the worst strategy. The guys rounded out their set with a fun rendition of Tim McGraw’s “Real Good Man.” Another fine soloist. The choreography seemed a little less pronounced to me here than it was at Lafayette, but it was still a good, rousing piece, and the finish with the soloist falling back into his crouched compadres remained a neat visual. Though the guys did a good job of crossing genres in the set, the pieces still sounded a bit too much alike for my tastes, and I would have liked to have heard more diversity throughout. Still the crowd was impressed, and a large contingent of Mad Ave fans gave them a standing ovation. 3.75/5 stars.
Set Summary:
“Future Love Paradise” by Seal
“The Rising” by Bruce Springsteen
“Real Good Man” by Tim McGraw
Five groups down, and up sixth was Penn State’s mixed group, Shades of Blue. They had outfits to match the name with varying shades and styles of blue tops, and black bottoms. I suppose they can get away with the inconsistency in attire based on their name, but I’m still not a fan of it.
Shades of Blue started with “Seasons of Love” from Rent. Though the girls behind me whispered that they loved the song, I couldn’t help turning to Mike S. next to me, and giving the song choice the big thumbs down. However, much to my surprise, the group had won me over by the end of the piece. There was a lot of movement, and many members of the group had the opportunity to shine, belting stand alone lines from the song. It was powerful and beautiful, and Shades of Blue was just getting started. Next up was Annie Lennox’s “Into The West.” Great soloist, great sound, and good movement on this one too. Again, these aren’t songs I would have picked, but hearing and seeing this group was an *experience*. Continuing with the off beat song choices, next up was “Mary Had A Little Lamb” into “Row, Row, Row Your Boat” into “Three Blind Mice.” Innovative arrangement here, with some red hot soloists. The group managed to work in a fourth song, turning to a cappella standard “Lean on Me.” The start was an absolutely beautiful ballad, the end was a rousing spiritual, which got away from the group a little bit, but still accomplished what it needed to. Powerful stuff. 4/5 stars.
“Seasons of Love” from Rent
“Into the West” by Annie Lennox
“Mary Had a Little Lamb” Medley
“Lean on Me”
Our penultimate group was the home team, and boy did the crowd let us know it with their cheers, chants, and numerous signs springing up throughout the crowd. Deep Treble looked sharp in red and black. The group started strong with a powerful rendering of Aerosmith’s “Janie’s Got a Gun.” It’s a really different song choice, and the group played it well, building the anticipation with their quiet intro, before launching into the first verse. The soloist’s voice reminded me of Tina Turner, and I really dug her on this song. Strong vocal percussion here as well, though I wouldn’t have had the girl doing it stand as far off to the side as she was. Unfortunately, this tune dragged on a little too long. I would have cut a verse, or sampled something in to lessen that effect, as the song would have been that much more potent were it a minute shorter, or mixed up. Cool visual at the finish though, as the group took a collective puff on their air cigarettes to end it. Next up was The Fray’s “How To Save a Life.” Like “Over My Head,” this is too much of a ‘tweener for me. To his credit, the soloist sold it really well, putting in the proper vocal and facial emotion where he needed it. The song was kind of boring to me, and the choreography was a big turn off. First of all, much of it seemed right out of the unwritten playbook of a cappella choreography. You sway. You crouch and rise with a crescendo. The group also used a turn and slide move here that was straight out of the Casual Harmony move set. I know that, in good conscious, you really can’t blame a group for stealing choreography, because, when you get down to it, everyone derives from everyone else, and Casual Harmony quite possibly took the move from someone else before that. Besides that, the judges probably aren’t going to recognize a particular move as “stolen.” Nonetheless, this distracted me, and the movement didn’t really seem to fit the song. Lastly, this one went on a little long, especially in the outro. Deep Treble launched into a military count off and march next, leading into “Rhythm Nation” by Janet Jackson. The soloist didn’t wow me here, and I found it a little off-putting that the left strap of her shirt fell and stayed down seconds into the song. Good percussion here, with a sunglassed, leather jacketed dude taking the reins. Good energy level, but there was just too much choreography for my tastes, with a hand drive or step to more lines than not. Then, as if to add some more insult to my personal injury, we got the turn and slide move again. At least it fit this song better. 3.5/5 stars.
Set Summary:
“Janie’s Got a Gun” by Aerosmith
“How To Save A Life” by The Fray
“Rhythm Nation” by Janet Jackson
Our final group for the night was The Westminster Choir College Deaftones. Interesting outfit choices here, with everyone in black with neon green highlights (headbands, necklaces, collars, suspenders, etc.). I would have liked some more consistency in the style of dress here, as it ranged from dress shirts to one guy in a muscle tee.
The Deaftones opened with a strangely weak rendering of Starship’s “We Built This City.” It was kind of strange to hear a group sound this thin after all of the fuller performances of the evening. I expected something comical or self-deprecating to make this song work, but all we got were hand drives upon hand drives. Next came Kelly Clarkson’s “Addicted.” The soloist showed some good emotion here, but just didn’t have a lot of fire power. This one seemed pretty over-choreographed to me, and I would have rather seen less movement, and more intensity from the group. Again, the group sounded pretty thin. The Deaftones saved their strongest song for last, finally presenting a soloist with some charisma for The Killers’ “Mr. Brightside.” Good sound, and I liked that the movements were less choreographed, and more natural on this one, with the group mostly just dancing in an arc around the soloist. All in all, not a horrible set, but it seemed kind of out of place at a semifinal. I am, of course, not very well-versed in the most technical elements of musicality, so I would expect that the group from Westminster Choir College was probably more impressive from a technical standpoint than I’m giving them credit for. In any case, I’ve got to go on what I know, and my score is a 2.5/5.
On to the deliberations. Plenty for the judges to discuss, and Casual Harmony was more than up to the task of keeping the crowd entertained. The group did a good job of selling its CD by performing most of the songs from it. Highlights included “Aerials,” “Through With You,” “Karma Police” and “Champagne High.” The guys performed “Time Is Running Out” with a new soloist, whose voice was a little clean cut for my tastes on the song, but he did a good job of hitting the notes, and the choreography was still killer. There was an amusing moment when the group sang “Over My Head,” and the soloist acknowledged in verse, “I never knew, I never knew that every group would sing this song.” They wrapped up their set with a really fun rendition of their alumni song, Cake’s “Short Skirt, Long Jacket.”
On to the announcement of awards and placement (all of which you can watch on YouTube by searching for ICCA Rutgers). Despite my self-professed lack of formal musical training and knowledge, I typically find that my picks match up really well with those of the judges. Sure, we’ll flip-flop a first and second place finish sometimes, or one of my runners up won’t place. Never before have I been this floored with the results of a show. In my mind, four groups were a cut above the rest: Orange Appeal, Shades of Blue, 36 Madison Avenue and Ithacappella (as you may have noticed, I have bumped Ithacapella up in my estimation since my results posting this morning. Replaying their set in my mind as I wrote this review, I have to admit that I’d place them above Groovestand, and right on par with Mad Ave). I could see any combination of these four groups placing, and was wholeheartedly expecting for Orange Appeal and Shades of Blue to duke it out over first place. Imagine my surprise when The Deaftones were announced as second runners up. Ithacappella’s second place finishing didn’t seem quite right to me, but I won’t argue it. But then Deep Treble took first place, and earned a trip to the International Finals, not to mention taking home the only two awards given. I’m still scratching my head over this.
I focus much more on the elements of a cappella that revolve around entertainment, and appeal to the “common man,” so I suppose this show must have had a major divide between what I value, and what works musically. Everyone has a right to their opinion. In the world of The A Cappella Blog, mine reigns supreme. In terms of what happens on stage, and who goes to the finals, that’s up to a very different batch of people to decide.
Looking at the comments board to my previous post, some debate has come up about home field advantage in ICCA, and biased judging. I’ve never known this to be the case, and, quite frankly have the faith and trust in the ICCA adjudicators that they would rise above these sorts of personal interests. I do find myself pretty curious about just how these results came about, though. The ICCA scoring system is much more scientific than my own, combining the judges’ subjective rankings with their more objective numerical point totals. Given the low overall scores posted at varsityvocals.com (346, 323 and 311, respectively, for the top three finishers) I can only assume the subjective placements were scattered across the field pretty well. Nonetheless, a strange finish to the show that left more than a few people in the audience confused.
While I disagree with Deep Treble’s first place finish, I was a little disappointed with the way in which so much of the crowd emptied out before or during their encore, Jason Mraz’s “The Remedy (I Won’t Worry).” Gotta lend your respect the champs, like them or not. Pretty good song to finish the night, and it’s too bad there weren’t more people listening.
All in all, it was an entertaining and very competitive show. Props to the folks at Rutgers for doing their best with a huge crowd, and my hat’s off to Casual Harmony for doing a fine job as hosts.
To check out photos from this and previous ICCA shows, you can friend me on Facebook here.
A Cappella Blog Picks:
Overall Placement:
8. The Westminster Choir College Deaftones
7. The University at Buffalo Buffalo Chips
6. Rutgers University Deep Treble
5. Syracuse University Groovestand
4. Ithaca College Ithacapella
3. Drew University 36 Madison Avenue
2. Penn State Shades of Blue
1. Syracuse University Orange Appeal
Best Choreography:
3. 36 Madison Avenue, “Real Good Man”
2. Orange Appeal, “The Battle”
1. Ithacappella, “Hold On, I’m Coming”
Best Soloist:
3. Tie: Shades of Blue, “Into the West” / Deep Treble, “Janie’s Got a Gun”
2. 36 Madison Avenue, “Future Love Paradise”
1. Groovestand, “St. Teresa”
Best Vocal Percussion:
3. Orange Appeal, “Time Is Running Out”
2. Groovestand, “Thank You”
1. Ithacappella, “Hold On, I’m Coming”
Best Overall Song:
2. Madison Avenue, “Future Love Paradise”
1. Ithacappella, “Hold On, I’m Coming”
Best Attire:
3. Tie: Ithacappella / Buffalo Chips (polar opposites–Chips get the nod for making attire a meaningful part of the set)
2. Deep Treble
1. Orange Appeal
ICCA Official Results:
Overall Placement:
2nd Runner Up: The Westminster Choir College Deaftones
1st Runner Up: Ithaca College Ithacappella
1st Place: Rutgers University Deep Treble
Outstanding Soloist: Deep Treble, Yaa Acheampong, “Janie’s Got a Gun”
Outstanding Vocal Percussion: Deep Treble, Jessica Totaro
RSS
I wish that the ICCA judges shared more of your feelings. To say that I was shocked by the results would be an understatement. For instance, I felt that in the quarter-finals, Ithacappella performed amazingly, while on Saturday night their performance was more lackluster. I had many other qualms as well.
Since this is only the second ICCA event I’ve attended, I feel like there must be some ICCA standard that I don’t know about. As someone who came to support 36 Madison Avenue, I didn’t understand why they didn’t place, or what they did wrong, because as far as I could see their performance was very solid. And I’m not sure if you mentioned this, but what happened to the awards for “Best Choreography” and “Best Arrangement”?
The point is that I was very disgruntled by the ICCAs this time around. I just don’t get it.
Carolyn | Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
Regarding the choreography and arrangement awards–from my understanding, it’s up to the judges to give out any awards they deem appropriate, and if they do not feel that any performances were worthy of recognition in a particular area, or feel that an area was too competitive to fairly assign an award, they do not have to give them.
On an unrelated note, our content management system is doing some really funky things with the formatting of this post, so I apologize for any difficulties in reading it. I hope to get it fixed up later today.
Mike C | Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
I was a judge for this competition, and I can assure you that there was not a home-field advantage for Rutgers. If the numbers continue to come out that the home-school is winning future ICCA events, it is purely coincidence.
All of the best soloists, arrangements, VPs, etc,.. that you discuss in your review were ALL discussed in the judges room. With five judges, it’s difficult to come to a group decision for each individual award, as each person has different ears, stylistic preferences and backgrounds. We were able to give out awards in places that we all felt the individual was exemplary, however, it was very clear that there were many others in each category that were also deserving.
Finally, it is important to remember that with five judges scoring the show, the highest and lowest score for each group gets thrown-out. This helps to balance any bias that may exist and assures that the collective average-opinion of the judges is maintained.
I can’t get into the specifics of my personal judging sheets, but I did rank two of the groups that finished in the top three on my subjective rankings. This tells me that, while I might not personally agree with the final rankings, the results are fair and accurate.
anonymous | Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
Hey guys, my sister goes to Rutgers and I am in high school and love acappella. I figured id check this out and boy was I amazed. In my opinion I feel a decent amount of the rankings were o.k. even though i personally had the most fun watching ithacappellas set with the robot stuff, and feel that maybe they should have been the top group. Why wasn’t a choreogrpahy award given… is there a choreography award? Other than that Vocal Perc, is a tough decision but i do recall hold on im coming and the vocal percussionist end it with rediculous amounts of speed, it was awesome. It was great but im not really the one to judge anything in that aspect. Lastly, i totally disagree with best soloist award. The girl was pretty good but a lot of the groups had AMAZIng soloists, i recall groovestand and drew university with stellar soloists.
-Rob
Rob T | Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
As far as the home field advantage is concerned, I don’t think that anyone is suggesting a judging bias so much as groups simply getting a leg up from being in front of their home crowd in a space they’re more familiar with. At the quarterfinal level it probably doesn’t matter quite as much - there’s often a bigger gap in group talent and the winner is easier to spot. However at the semifinal level where groups are more evenly matched, I don’t think it’s difficult to believe that seemingly insignificant things like a big cheering section or a familiarity with the performance space could give the home group enough of an edge to outshine the others.
Also whether or not you think it’s significant, the fact remains that there is evidence to suggest this home field edge. I’m sure Ithacappella must have felt some serious deja vu when they came in second place again to a Rutgers group on the Rutgers campus, the two groups to advance from the Syracuse quarter this year were from Syracuse, etc… Again, you might not think these things are relevant (to be honest, I’m not totally sure they are either), I’m just holding them up as examples of why groups out there might feel a bias. I know that Varsity Vocals is aware of it, and I hope it’s something they continue to keep an eye on in future years.
D | Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
I also attend UR and I was blown away by the judges scores. Ithacappella, along with almost every comment on here, had THE strongest set. I think they were screwed over by the fact that they had to go first. Their choreography was phenomenal and energy of their performers does not begin to compare to the other 7 groups at the competition.
Of course, I went to support all the groups and am un biased, but when I hear the history of this particular round in the competition with three years in a row of Rutgers group’s winning…and the crowd wondering how the heck it turned out like this…I begin to question the ethics of the judging as well.
Ithacappella, you guys were awesome…please don’t let this discourage you from competing in the future…you guys rocked that round and trust me, everyone knows it.
anonymous | Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
I’m going to have to heavily disagree with everyone here. I really believe Deep Treble deserved this win. As reflected in the overall scores, Deep Treble ended 23 points ahead of the second place group, which isn’t insanely close.
I don’t agree with any sort of pattern in judging or there being a history of Syracuse vs. Rutgers with Rutgers on top. The fact that Deep Treble may have had a “home” advantage is out of their control, they could have been sent to a semi-final anywhere. They actually received a better score at quarter finals, than performing at home at semi’s (so did the Deftones).
For you to place them and the Deftones so low in your judging, two of the top groups, is a little odd.
How could there be bias in the judges when none of them are from Rutgers or have any affiliation there. In fact, if anything, I think one judge was from Westminster, home of the Deftones.
Also, you never mention in any of your reviews musicality or blend. There is something to be said for a group that has a blanaced and full sound, especially in a co-ed group–which has different vocal qualities (high and low voices), so it is harder.
Visual aspects, which are almost all of the elements everyone is discussing here, and they are only half (in actuality, much less than that) of the competition.
As far as “Orange Appeal” having the best costumes, I think this is way off the mark. There is nothing original about black collared shirts and blue jeans in the a cappella scene, and honestly I think blue jeans look unprofessional. While I loved the look of their multi-colored chucks, maybe they were a little to dressed-down to be sent to Lincoln Center.
You mention that Deep Treble has a lot of choreography, but don’t say that it takes away from their vocal sound. I think this is a testament to a talented group. It’s innovative and exciting to watch.
Deep Treble is an original, fun and professional looking group. I’m going to have to agree with the judges on this one and I’m glad to hear from “anonymous”, that this judge feels the same.
Results Supporter | Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
Results Supporter, I respect your opinion. As I stated quite openly in my review, I base my judgments much more on entertainment value, and much less on technical musicality than the judges. We’re looking for different things, and the judges are, without any question, better fit to judge the musical aspects that make up most of the official scoring.
We can argue all day about attire. It’s an aesthetic thing, and I’ve already stated (and probably overstated) my case.
The one point where I do feel compelled to disagree with you is at the suggestion that 23 points is a wide margin of victory. Looking at the South Region semifinals, All Night Yahtzee won by over 60 points, and in New England The Zumbyes took home first by a margin of 45. Also, while there have been closer competitions, in no other semi to date this year has the winner had a score lower than 388. I don’t say this to diminish Deep Treble’s accomplishment, but rather to further illustrate just how close this competition seems to have been, and how spread out the subjective rankings likely were (you can read comments to this and my previous post from actual judges and producers who explain the scoring much more clearly than I could).
mikec | Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
In response to comments above…23 points actually IS insanely close. In addition to all of the vocal and visual rankings, each judge has the opportunity to assign a subjective ranking to the groups they feel should be placed 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. A group ranked 1st in this category gets an extra 30 points, 2nd place gets 20 points, and 3rd place gets 10 points.
The competition is always tougher at a semifinal (as it should be). With five judges and eight groups…do the math. There are any number of combinations that could have come up as the result of the subjective rankings. While 20 points seems like a lot, it’s really just the difference of Judge A placing Deep Treble 1st and Judge B placing them 3rd.
Melissa | Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
Hi. I came out to watch the ICCA’s this year and I can’t tell you what a great show it was. All of the groups competing did an excellent job and each had their own flaws and fine points.
However, I feel I need to jump on the band wagon and commend Ithacappella on their performance. They looked disappointed walking off the stage, and that is acceptable…I would be too. (I would have given them first, as well)
The thing here that we all need to realize is that the ICCAs, and any competition for that matter, boils down to opinion. Judges adjudicate on opinions, we rank on opinions…and the beauty of this world is that as humans, we all have our own opinions. What seems questionable to me is that some of these judges have returned year after year at the same quarter finals and semi-finals…and therefore their opinions matter MORE than other judges who are fresh to the scene.
Opinions are what judge this competition..and in this instance…it looks like our opinions differ than those from the judges, but you gotta live with what ‘the man’ puts up. That’s life.
Great job to everyone…and Ithacappella…I’ll be watchin for ya!!
Jan | Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
I have to say, your continued support of Groovestand’s soloist for “St. Theresa” is really calling your reliability as a judge into question. Intensity she may have had, but vocal technique or control she most certainly did not. When she got to the more energetic parts of the song, i was actually wincing in sympathetic pain for her poor vocal chords, which were surely taking a beating due to all her screaming. And that was not a pleasant sound she was producing either. I just hope the girl doesn’t develop nodes before she’s out of college. The Groovestand girl who sang the BoysIIMen solo had much better tone quality and control overall.
But Yaa Acheampong of Deep Treble still wins my vote for sheer vocal prowess and creativity of interpretation. I’ve never heard Aerosmith sound quite like that before!
Rebecca | Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
“maybe they were a little to dressed-down to be sent to Lincoln Center.”
You should see what some groups have worn to the finals.
Alex of OA | Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
Just want to weigh in here to straighten a couple of things out…
1. “I’m going to have to heavily disagree with everyone here. I really believe Deep Treble deserved this win. As reflected in the overall scores, Deep Treble ended 23 points ahead of the second place group, which isn’t insanely close.”
As Melissa said, 23 points is (arguably) fairly close…but even if they were 100 points ahead of the second place group, that doesn’t prove that they deserved the win. The argument here is that there is some kind of bias; if that were in fact true, then the amount by which Deep Treble won is related only to the amount of bias, not to whether it in fact exists or not.
2. “How could there be bias in the judges when none of them are from Rutgers or have any affiliation there. In fact, if anything, I think one judge was from Westminster, home of the Deaftones.”
I don’t recall if one judge was from Westminster, but I am…let’s say 93% sure that there was in fact one judge from Rutgers. However, even if there was a bias there, the top score gets thrown out, so it doesn’t matter. There was also a judge at this semifinal that was present at one of the quarterfinals, so that judge was able to mark two of the groups twice.
3. I just want to point out that EVERYONE received lower scores at this semifinal than they did at quarterfinal. The subjective scores were a little more scattered, but not enough to account for the fact that the judges were MUCH more discriminating (or ‘harsh,’ to use the non-P.C. term) this time around. Most groups seem to have scored between 50-100 _raw score_ (before subjective) points lower at semifinal than they did at quarterfinal.
Johns | Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
Having been in the judging room, I can confirm that, to my knowledge, none of the judges had a public affiliation with Rutgers University. One of the Judges did have an affiliation with Rider University which is somehow (I believe) linked to the Westminster Choir College.
In addition, it was my perception that all of the judges adjudicated at least one of the mid-atlantic quarterfinals this season, so all of the judges had previously viewed at least two of the groups. Speaking for myself, I was asked to judge both a quarterfinal and the semifinal, and I can assure you that my previous exposure to the groups had no impact on my overall opinion of the same groups at the semifinal.
I agree the the judging was probably “harsher” at the semifinal, but at this level, the groups should be held to a higher standard. It’s easy to pick the best groups in the quarterfinal rounds, but when judging a semifinal, the margin of separation between groups is minimized tremendously. Remember, the overall score does not matter as much as the fact that the judge was consistent for all groups. It is my belief that some judges will score between 4 and 10 with 7 as the median. Others will score between 1 and 10 with 5 as the median. Either approach is fine, including variations on what I described, provided that the judge is consistent. Because of this, comparing your scores between rounds (and judges) is not a good benchmark for your group.
Anonymous | Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
I think that overall, Deep Treble took it. In every category they had strength, all around–visually, musically, choreo, vocal percussion, solos, interpretation, etc.
Their music touched me emotionally–they were all extremely honed into the mood of the set as a complete package, they flowed so nicely. They all seemed like performers and each emoted a ton, they really each seemed like they “wanted it” up there.
To have a complete package, what more could you ask for?
Deep Treble | Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
Sorry to put “Deep Treble” as my name, if that was confusing. I meant that purely as my topic, not meaning I have any affiliation with the group. Just showing support.
Deep Treble (again) | Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
Rebecca,
I have to agree with you 100% on the St. Theresa soloist comment. The girls I came with were completely won over by her intensity and emotion, and would agree with Mike C here…but though she began with stunning beauty, the later parts of the song were downright ugly. Had she not allowed the song to get away from her, it would have been an easy Outstanding Solo win. She has a beautiful instrument when used appropriately.
On another note, I’ve previously completely agreed with Mike on his commentary, and found it to be truthful (even if the group he was referring to felt slighted)…but in this case, Mike, I have to say that I think your Syracuse colors are flying a bit too high. You’ve got a good thing going here, and I’d hate to see it discredited by a seeming lack of objectivity. (I know this is your own thing and you’re entitled to publish your personal opinions, but I think you’re on the verge of something a little bigger than that). I can’t claim full objectivity myself, and we all know that placing was very difficult for this particular semifinal, but I have to say that just as you find Deep Treble’s win to be disagreeable, I find your support of Orange Appeal’s Time is Running Out over the Buffalo Chips’ to be, bluntly, shocking. I will say with confidence (though, of course, this is nothing more than my own educated opinion) that the Chips’ arrangement was more complex, the percussion superior, and though I strongly dislike making strictly negative comments in a public forum, the Orange Appeal soloist clearly went over the top in trying to mimic the sound of Matthew Bellamy (lead singer of Muse), creating the most piercingly nasal tone I think I’ve ever heard (save perhaps that of Fran Drescher). This was undoubtedly a large contributing factor in his difficulty maintaining pitch throughout the song; even the most casual of listeners must have winced when he flatted the top note at the end of the first chorus by almost a full half step.
In the end, it’s your game here, and your take on the show; you say you see things more from the entertainment perspective than from the musical, which is totally fine. Hopefully the presence of polar-opposite opinions on such a hotly contested semifinal round serves to strengthen this project rather than detract from it.
Johns | Mar 26, 2007 | Reply
Johns,
Dude, you just lost all credibility with me. Orange Appeal’s soloist was nothing short of perfect, and there were no such tuning problems as you mentioned. And nasal tone? Maybe you’re confusing Orange Appeal’s performance with Casual Harmony’s. OA’s guy sounded like Josh Groban compared to CH.
Pat | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
I would have to disagree with “Deep Treble”. While i feel they were pretty good, so many groups were just as good if not better. To say that Deep Treble took every category is rediculous. Not ONE group there had best choreogrpahy, best VP, best solos, best interpretation ect.., obviously “Deep Treble” is pretty bias.
Rob T. | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
When i say “Deep Treble”, i meant the commentor and not the group. And when i said that not ONE group had all those things i was referring to the fact that individual groups strongly had each of those things but to say Deep Treble had every single thing and thus the “whole package” is quite incorrect. I really like Deep Treble and a lot of the other groups and im not trying to put them down at all.
Rob T. | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Pat,
I can tell you 100% that I am not confusing the two. Perhaps you are? The Casual Harmony soloists all around tended to use vibrato (even when stylistically inappropriate, as in System of a Down) and have smoother, supported tone (i.e. more Josh Groban-like).
I invite you to locate a recording of the show; the second (and final time) that the Orange Appeal soloist sings the falsetto bit at the end of the chorus, it’s dead on…but the first time, the top is painfully flatted.
Johns | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
As a member of Deep Treble and a long-time ICCA competitor, I’m thrilled to have finally made it to the finals. I can say from experience having been on both sides of the judging on multiple occasions, that it’s all pretty subjective. The reality is that competing in a cappella is by nature a very subjective thing. After the show on Saturday, I encountered strongly differing opinions from a lot of great musicians who were in attendance, opinions that varied as to who should have won, who should have gotten which award, whether that soloist from Groovestand was phenomenal or ear-bleedingly offensive (that particular vote seemed split right down the middle - probably varied based on where people were sitting in the room; the acoustics are pretty lousy in there).
I wish I could have been allowed to watch the other sets, mostly just for the enjoyment of seeing great groups perform, but also to be able to place our own performance in context objectively. From what I could hear in the next room, and from what I know of our own performance, I was impressed with the whole show from top to bottom. I felt that we performed at an extremely high level and that we deserved to win. Could the same be said of almost every other group there? Probably. Experience has taught me not to get too invested in the outcomes of the judging, and to instead dedicate my energy to giving a fantastic performance. I think we accomplished that, and while I’m extremely excited to compete for a world championship at Lincoln Center, I’m much prouder of what we accomplished as performers and as a group of people than I am of our first place victory. I hope the members of the other groups can take away that same pride, because they earned it.
Matt Lafargue | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
I would also love to see a recording if anyone has one out there….? There is a lot of debating going on! I guess people are never going to be completely happy with results.
AudienceMember1 | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
No vocal control? Were you listening to the beginning of the song? Or the middle? Or the end? “St. Teresa” is a very dark, unconventional song, and therefore needs a soloist who can really convey that convincingly. The song starts and ends with a quiet intensity, which the soloist pulled off beautifully (showing both her vocal control and technique) without losing any of the emotion behind the song. As the song progresses, it can be viewed as a descent into a deep, visceral reaction, tossing technique and control to the wayside. Her job was to make you have that visceral reaction, and, whether you loved it or hated it, she did her job. Because of her vocal prowess and technique, she could have chosen to hold back and take a more controlled route, but it was a conscious decision to let it all out, making it all the more powerful.
Obviously, my opinion will do very little to change anyone’s mind, as it is clear that everyone has very strong opinions as to which individual or group should have won which award (few of which seem to match up with the judges’ assessment). It is also very important to remember that audience reaction is unreliable as a determinant for ultimate placement.
I almost think that the judges were looking for a more “conventional” a cappella sound, (if that makes any sense) and those groups that went for a more unorthodox set ultimately suffered. Thoughts?
Great job to all who performed.
Tim | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
I 100% agree with Matt. All of the groups should feel good about their performances because from what we could hear through the speakers in the “waiting room” all of the groups sounded absolutly great! Although, I disagree with what Mike has to say about most of the groups… especially about Deaftones being on the bottom, and Deep Treble and Groovestand being in the bottom 5. Of all the groups there on Saturday, in my personal opinion I thought of Deaftones as the biggest competitor out there. They’re from a music school for heavens sake!! And they sure did show it out there. Although they had all just come from a mandatory concert with their college their vowels, blend, and overall musicality was amazing, as per usual. Sure, they may not have had the choreography that other groups did, but they certianly do not deserve to be placed last! Groovestand also had a wonderful blend (from what I could hear through the crack in the doors). All the groups should be proud of just getting to the semi-finals, it’s not an easy task! And if anyone from deaftones is reading this… when are you recording a CD?! Because I want one.
marie | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Just because they are from a music school doesn’t mean a darn thing in my mind. All I witnessed was a clump of people standing on stage singing at the same time and not even close to singing together. They were a bunch of Divas trying to out perform each other and to say that they were a top competitor may have been true, but certainly not on Saturday night. Their set didn’t compare to that of other groups I’m sorry to say.
Chris R | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
From what was seen at quarters deaftones have a lot more to offer than was shown on saturday. I couldn’t see the stage, but stood near the door (inside), and was intimidated as hell during their set. Their musicality is amazing, especially under their unfortunate and stressful situation. (for thoes who don’t know… deaftones had to compete last beacuse of the concert, and they were probably worried that not all of their members were going to make it on time)… and just a question: how were they “singing at the same time”, yet “not even close to singing together” at the same time? I thought their sound was great, from where I was standing. maybe I’m wrong, or maybe I’m just partial to a blended, choral sound as opposed to something that sounds like a group of wannabe broadway chorus members, which is obviously what some people here were looking for (not saying that any of the groups sounded like that).
also, there is a difference between vocal intensity and shouting. just as there is between good and bad belting. The groovestand soloist was impresssive, but there comes a time when the shouting is just too much. it’s ok once or twice, but there was just too much of it, and she’s going to hurt herself if she continues to sing like that. She can obviously sing.. I’m not trying to offend anyone. And them being from a music school should mean something to you. They had to audition to get into Westminster, and then the individual members had to audition for deaftones. They all get private vocal training, because they’re music majors, and understand the musical aspects of performing much better than some of the groups did.
and i honestly sound like I’m from Westminster now, but I honestly just do not understand how they were rated 8th on this blog when they were obviously NOT.
marie | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
wow i jumped around alot… sorry about that. my mind obviously can’t control itself.
marie | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Matt– Of course you feel like you deserved it….you won…don’t go on preaching about how you think you deserved it because…you won. That is rude and looks un professional. You had the home field advantage, returning judges, etc…I haven’t seen anyone on here sayin that you deserved the win besides your own group members. Take your win…congratulations..and do your thing. Don’t defend yourself…it looks pompish.
fellow competitor | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
I agree wholeheartedly with “marie” with everything about the Deftones, who have a blend that is incredible.
“Tim”…what are you talking about, you think the judges were looking for a “conventional” a cappella sound? I think Deep Treble’s sound is anything but that! Also, I think they had a pretty “unorthodox” set–the darkness of their Aerosmith and the Hip Hop of Janet Jackson/all that choreo are quite varied.
Results Supporter | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Just to stir up the pot a little bit…the Deftones drank water on stage, which last time I checked was an automatic disqualification. Any thoughts?
Pat | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
ummmmmmmmmmm…if you guys want to be entertained and be wowed by something…go watch Shades of Blue. They blow everyone there out of the water and I think the judges didn’t like them because they represented something different for an acapella competition. They had an amazing new sound unlike any other acapella group. They were by far the best.
whatever | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Marie, as a member of Ithacappella i commend you on your win and wish you luck in the next round. I do have a problem with you trying to hype up the deaftones (how theydid a great job) on how they are from a music school so they are obviously one of the best. What i’d like you to realize is Ithaca College is one of the top Music schools in the country and last time i checked you had to audition to get in as well. Half of our group is music majors or minors, and had 3 of our 4 basses in our bass section not had a concert that night I would have felt we could have done a lot better and stepped up our performance up a notch. But stuff like that happens because the worlds not perfect. Every group there performed amazingly and deserves to be commended. I feel that its childish of everyone to try to put down or build up groups in a blog that means nothing. I also feel it un sportsmanlike to just put down another groups soloist (groovestand). The competitions over and the winner has been decided. Just humbly take the win, because i feel there is no need to discuss this anymore. Congrats to every group there on a great competition/performance.
-Chris
Chris L | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
There is no “disqualification” at the actual show; the only possibility that comes even remotely close is if a last-place group goes over the time limit and is docked another (non-existent) place.
In my opinion, water onstage is necessary for the people doing VP but looks unprofessional if everyone does it.
Melissa | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
I would like to comment on “whatevers” coments. In my opinion you view is incredibly bias… maybe your in Shades of Blue… maybe you are from Penn STate.. i dont know but get your bias out of the way before you comment. And to show you i am not bias, i feel that as a member of Ithacappella we did not deserve to totally win that competition. If anything, i love the set of the chips and drew university. I’ve accepted the fact that although this is a competition, its also just a place to have fun and maybe even make friends with the other groups. People need to stop whining and putting down other groups.. its becoming rediculous.
Chris L | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
… I don’t know about you guys, but I love pizza. like, I really love it. And the new Ninja Turltes movie as well.
Chris R | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
OKAY. so while i would like to thank tim and mike c. for defending/appreciating my solo in st. theresa, i have to say that i agree with marie, rebecca, matt and the judges: a lack of breath support and control are not (in my opinion) synonymous with “intensity…” b/c basically, at times that sh*t can be down-right ooo-guh-lay.
on the other hand, sometimes there just isn’t enough time to be held down by technique. sometimes you just have to let loose, get into the character and perform. and even if i didn’t have the best technique throughout that song (which is a true fact, i won’t deny it,) at the very least i can say that that night i had fun! actually, i had an incredible time….
AND, i would also like to add, that my fantastic time can be greatly attributed to that fact that it is always excellent to sing as a PROUD MEMBER of GROOVESTAND!!!!!!
Oh, and of course, congrats to yaa acheampong!
(PS: Yaa, are you ghanaian? i’m asking, b/c of your last name. if you are ghanaian then we’re probebly cousins or something! and if you’re not ghanaian then you probebly won’t understand that cousin joke…which is okay too.)
Jackie (icca st.theresa girl) | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Melissa,
Thanks for the info. I was under the impression that water wasn’t allowed on stage during the competition. Glad to know I was wrong.
And Mike C,
Looks like it’s time to invest in a message board to go along with the blog?
Pat | Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
Haha, very true, Pat. A forum is planned for the site when we can, at last, work out all of our kinks and get the full-blown site up and running.
In the meantime, I appreciate everyone bringing their opinions to the table here. I know we don’t all see eye to eye, but it’s great to see how many people are passionate about these topics.
mikec | Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
hey chris l,
who the hell said i was bias!! I thought they were the best and i explained why…sorry you don’t agree but dont shout out crap before you comment
whatever | Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
hahaha alright”whatever”… all you explained was how everyone else basically sucked and shades of blue was the best… not much of an explanation. You had no musical knowledge or reasoning behind your comment only that they stood for something different and the judges didnt like that… so maybe you shouldnt shout out crap before you comment.
Chris L | Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
Seems to me that many people don’t really realize that this competition is about the judge’s opinion and not our own. They have reason to support groups that alot of people might have thought did not do very well- it is not a concert where the group with the biggest crowd reaction wins. If that were the case, Deep Treble and 36 Madison Avenue would have taken it, because according to the audience’s reaction, they were the best.
Going on the judge’s point: Although I know it seems as though the judge’s opinion really matters, but can we at least get some more legitimate judges? No offense to the competition or the judges, but I will quote another spectator who shared the same feelings, “I read over the bios of the judges and had a realization how “lite” they were … they did not have an experience level that I thought would look past superficial things. A lot of the time, if I don’t agree with the judges, I can find some common thread in their decision and can at least understand how they arrived at it. Last night, there was no thread.”
Also another point that has been made in the past is that it is really difficult to judge 3 different types of a cappella: all female, all male and mixed. Different textures in the voice relay to different arrangements, different choreography and especially different vocal percussion. The girl who won the vp award was not outstandingly better than any of the other VPers, in fact sounded quite worse with her occasional “hiccuping” in one of their songs. However, I can see how it may have been deemed appropriate to give her the award in a category that is not traditionally dominated by female a cappella. Maybe the ICCA should look into dividing it into 3 different categories?
Commenter | Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
I’d like to counter “whatever’s” comments about Shades of Blue. I felt that while individually each singer posessed an amazing voice, as an overall group they were tripping over each other trying to make themselves heard. I saw too many people trying to be divas rather than functioning together as a group. Great singers, but they could use some work on the team aspect.
Mike P | Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
I definitely agree with “Commenter” on the judges part of his reply. I am a member of Orange Appeal and am new to ICCA’s but not to other competitions like NYSSMA and such. It is true that I thought that we should have won, but that’s probably because I’m biased towards my group. Having lost, I was looking forward to see what the judges wanted us to improve on as a group. Unfortunately, their feedback was USELESS. And not on areas like whether they liked an arrangement or not, but on things that should not have multiple opinions. On one song, one judge would say great blend, but another would say intonation problems. I think that there needs to be some sort of consistency with the selection of judges because their “feedback” gave OA nothing to work with.
Now my opinions on the competition: I know that Groovestand is from SU also, but when Jackie sang the St. Teresa solo, I got the chills (good ones). I thought she and Tinuke did amazing jobs last night and, no offense to Yaa, I thought one of them should have taken home best soloist. Also, while the water thing doesn’t really penalize a group, the Deaftones looked EXTREMELY unprofessional. VP or whoever, it’s just not a good look. Finally, the fact that Deep Treble took all the awards given out at their home school was kind of a turn off.
Anyway, after all that, I think all the groups did extremely well from what I heard. Good luck to Deep Treble in the finals. Do the Mid-Atlantic proud.
Sho-Time | Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
I love that there is a place where people can go and voice their
opinions about all of these matters. Some people loved some groups,
other people hated them. The reason music is so special is because it
means something different to everyone. I am a member of Groovestand,
and for us, music is about passion and excitement. Anyone who wasn’t
moved by Jackie’s performance needs to be examined, but of course I
think that, she’s in my group.
I will not mention any names, but there were groups who, while
musically solid, lacked any sort of cohesion of emotion on stage, and
completely missed the point of music. There was no passion, no
feeling. I wanted to like every group that performed, that is the
honest truth. But I didn’t feel moved. Many of the groups that did not
place, had moving pieces, that is the nature of a competition like
this. Perhaps the judges felt moved when the winning groups performed
(I am not saying they should not have, so don’t jump down my throat
any of you groups). Whether or not anyone else did is irrelevant, only
the judges had a say. However, what I do find interesting is that ICCA
judges are reading the garbage people are posting, Mike C being the
biggest culprit. I cannot take seriously a ruling of any judge who
reads the blog of a person completely without musical training or
knowledge, and with a number of propensity to be extremely bias to his
own predilections. I agree with the aforementioned comments about the
ineffective nature of their comments and rulings. Mike, I appreciate
you giving everyone a place to voice his or her own opinion, and your
reviews and interviews are certainly entertaining. However, I do
believe you should stop ‘rating’ people’s performances however. A
professional publication is not going to send someone with unrefined
tastes to review a restaurant, or someone with no knowledge of opera
to review La Boheme.
I’d like to thank all the groups we performed with, it was a pleasure
to share the stage with all you, and everyone deserved to be there.
Deep Treble, go win some Mid-Atlantic love in NYC. I love you
Groovestand, regardless, I’ll never forget this performance.
CCT for Life!!
Peter | Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
Peter, you have your right to an opinion regarding the performances, and the quality of everyone’s comments, including my own. However, I have to maintain that this site’s raison d’etre is that we present collegiate a cappella for everyday people. Would most professional publications have non-experts review restaurants? No, in many cases they would not. But if the very essence of your publication is ‘dining for the layperson’ it affords you a lot more leeway to break away from the technicalities of what you’re reviewing. Can the layperson provide a meaningful review of a restaurant’s cuisine? Maybe, maybe not. Can that layperson give meaningful comments on the quality of customer service or the aesthetics of the establishment? I’d say that’s more likely, and if I’m trying to decide on whether I want to eat someplace, I would rather read that layperson’s review than no review at all.
Enough with the restaurant comparison. I agree that some of this site’s best functions are allowing others to share their opinions, and that my personal capacity for sharing event summaries may be more powerful than my capacity for reviewing. Nonetheless, I would maintain that my views are representative of and useful to a lot people who lack expert knowledge. As written in our description of the site: “most of the people who listen to a cappella music are not musicians—or at least they shouldn’t be. Think about it. What good is an art form when only the artists themselves can enjoy it?” And, Peter, like you said, “the reason music is so special is because it means something different to everyone.” I shared what the music at Rutgers means to me, others shared what the music meant to them, and to make the blanket claim that the opinions of the readers and myself are “garbage” is pretty close-minded, if not offensive.
Likewise, I find the claim that judges or Varsity Vocals staff should be discredited for reading this blog ludicrous. I appreciate that these individuals with greater professional insight into the nature of the competition and the music have taken the time to help elucidate their views, and that they have chosen to do so on one of the more public forums about the topic (as this blog had the honor of being for this particular competition). Would you extend your claims further to say that you “cannot take seriously a ruling of any judge” who reads or replies to non-expert posts on the RARB or other sites? Because I’m afraid your pool of ‘legitimate’ judges is going to be awfully thin if this is your criteria.
Wrapping this up, there are countless blogs on the web about countless topics. Would anyone honestly suggest people without Political Science degrees shouldn’t express their opinions in political blogs? That non-professional athletes shouldn’t write about sports, or that people from outside the entertainment industry don’t have a place in commenting on TV shows or music? As long as you don’t misrepresent your qualifications, I say that if you want to share your thoughts, more power to you. The beautiful thing about blogs and forums, and the self-publication opportunities that they present, are that they allow anyone with a computer the chance to put their views out there for the world. To Peter, and other readers, I appreciate that you took the time to visit our site, and share your own opinions. With that being said, I am by no means going to stop sharing mine.
mikec | Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
sounds like somebody’s angry…once again chris l….if you reread my comment i never said anyone there sucked, i simply said that they were by far the best. If you want a musical explanation here it is…
there harmonies were right on, they had amazing voices throughout the group that were all shown throughout the set, they had choreography unlike anything seen that night, they took on a broadway type of style which is not seen in acapella, their set included songs that were all musically different and it didn;t sound like one long note of the same thing, they weren’t boring at all, they kept focus on themselves but most importatnly in every song they told a story. They weren;t there to impress people with their sound but to draw the audience in to a
whatever | Apr 1, 2007 | Reply
continued…
magical place, and they weren’t there to perform. They all showed a distinct passion for what they do, had a humble attitude, and were there to share with the audience their art of music. Other acapella groups might have this, but sorry to say it’s not seen on stage at all.
Shades of Blue showed all of this and more in 12 minutes and to them even though they didn’t even place, I say congratulations.
whatever | Apr 1, 2007 | Reply
Essentially the point I was making was there is a difference between understanding something and being entertained by something. Any audience member could say “I loved the show” but any performer will tell you that not everyone’s opinion holds the same weight. Music is particularly strange in that way. Jackie is perfect evidence. Many people loved Jackie’s solo(I did, it gave me chills) but others did not. To her, when someone said “Oh you did a great job” she maintained her own criticism because she felt her breath and support could have been better. Typically, those people who understand the subject, will take those things into account. However, details such as blend and pitch can be superseded by entertainment value. Even the most intellectual literature scholar may be amused by a cartoon on the funny pages. I am not saying don’t read them, I read your blog to be amused. But just because you have an official looking URL and web site does not make you anything more than a guy with a computer. As long as you understand that, then that’s fine, but my issue is that you don’t seem to understand that. When one’s words outreach the boundaries of his own intellectual capacity then he has entered the realm of ignorance. Any judge who reads this should quickly understand that your demographic is, as you say not musically educated. That should lead any judge to appreciate the comments at face value and not take them seriously enough to need to defend his position. THAT is ludicrious.
Peter | Apr 1, 2007 | Reply
Amen, Peter. 100 % on the money.
Results Supporter | Apr 4, 2007 | Reply
Peter, are you saying that because you’re a reader of this blog, that you’re not musically educated?
Pat | Apr 4, 2007 | Reply
No, Pat I apologize if things were unclear, but it seems that my intentions have been misperceived multiple times now. Anyone can say whatever he or she would like, that is why I told Mike I appreciated this forum for discussion. What I dislike is the idea that someone who SHOULD know something about music takes someone seriously who simply doesn’t know. That is where the example a performer comes in, perhaps a review of that example will help elucidate my meaning.
Peter | Apr 4, 2007 | Reply
Wow. This is a long-ass thread.
Five-year ten-time ICCA/ICHSA judge here. Some clarification might be in order, so here it is. (And yes, the ICCA is OK with judges reading blogs and posting responses if it involves clarifying minutae. Fellow judges, come out from your cloaks of anonymity!) Apologies if any of this was already resolved and I didn’t I didn’t catch on the incredibly long scroll-down.
The special awards, as mentioned early in the thread, are given at the judges’ collective discretion. They’re called “Outstanding” so-and-so, as opposed the “Best”, for that reason; if the judges don’t believe that a performance in a particular category was particularly “outstanding”, they don’t give an award for it. On the other hand, Solo, Arrangement, Choreography and Vocal Percussion are the only awards allowed. FYI, the policy used to be more flexible with special awards (I’ve been party to giving out awards for backing trios and creative syllables, and, for one particularly emphatic MD, the Tom Green Award for Having No Shame) and also _less_ flexible with the HotLips Best VP award (specifically sponsored by the record label).
Water is certainly allowed on stage, AFAIK. If constant swigging of water creates a distraction… well, the word “distraction” is a pretty prominent word in the judging criteria, so take that as you will.
The Commenter from McDermott Will & Emery wrote:
>>Also another point that has been made in the past is that it is really difficult to judge 3 different types of a cappella: all female, all male and mixed. Different textures in the voice relay to different arrangements, different choreography and especially different vocal percussion. The girl who won the vp award was not outstandingly better than any of the other VPers, in fact sounded quite worse with her occasional “hiccuping” in one of their songs. However, I can see how it may have been deemed appropriate to give her the award in a category that is not traditionally dominated by female a cappella. Maybe the ICCA should look into dividing it into 3 different categories?
Warren B. | Apr 8, 2007 | Reply
Sorry; HTML hiccup. The rest of my reply was:
The “problem” of judging multiple genre lineups– or, for that matter, multiple genres– is not a problem. The judging criteria works equally good for every conceivable all-vocal group that could step on the stage.
The beauty of the ICCA is that judging process is very transparent; the criteria for judging is right there on the web site (www.varsityvocals.com), including the scoring and comment sheets and their instructions. People who are suspicious of judging criteria should take a look at them before hootin’ and hollerin’.
And awards are certainly not offered based on some sense of gender balance. That’s a bizarre suspicion, considering that female VPists get awards fairly often; the Outstanding VPist of the 2006 finals was female, IIRC. The deal is: the most outstanding of the outstanding VPists (if any) in a show, in the opinion of the judges, will get the Outstanding VP award. Period.
Sorry, had to nip that all in the bud. Recommence the hootin’ and hollerin’.
Warren B. | Apr 8, 2007 | Reply
Another hiccup, this time typographical: I meant to say
“The ‘problem’ of judging multiple GENDER lineups– or for that matter, multiple genres…”
Warren B. | Apr 8, 2007 | Reply
Johns,
here’s a video of OA’s Time is Running Out. PLEASE don’t tell me that he is flat on the high C’s (the first one is at the 2:30 mark), or even nasal for that matter. If you still stick by that, you really need to get your ears checked.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qSWkxGuwnKk
Nathan | Apr 9, 2007 | Reply