Second Place
Musicianship
Showmanship
Most Outstanding Wardrobe
Outstanding Male Performer (John Cutone)
Favorite Moment of SoCal (Gold Explosion)
Sweepstakes
The idea of having final placement of choirs based on actual points versus rankings by the judges has been kicked around in California for years. Placement by rankings can only be done if the placement is done after all groups have performed. Judges could still assign scores during the performance to aid them in placements, but then throw them away. This does not allow for measuring "how much" better one group is than another and is less educational because directors cannot tell by scores where their shortcomings were.
It is easier to do and puts less pressure on the judges to make sure their scores match what they think the placements should be. It looks here like the judges didn't know that the outcome would be determined by their rankings rather than their scores because one judge had a larger spread than the others.
I would rather have judges assign scores and use placement as the tiebreaker (rather than have, for instance, the group with the highest music score getting the higher placement). You still could have a tie (but less likely) and if you can't have a unanimous agreement on how to break that tie, leave it as a tie.
Bottom line; if you are not going to use assigned scores to determine the placement, don't assign scores. It's confusing and can be controversial.
Don't be afraid for speak your mind. Your post comes across as insightful and constructive.
The division of choirs into 40+ singers/under 40 singers is looking more and more like a euphemism for a division between the elite and the advanced choirs, if that's how you want to put it. That said, I am genuinely curious if Hart, Carlsbad, Bonita Vista, et al. go into their audition process feeling like they absolutely MUST cap their choir at 39 singers, lest they are bumped into the Triple A category.
And before I end this post, I should put out a disclaimer that says that my thinking is in no way indicative of Mt. Eden's show choir's sentiments. As I posted earlier in the topic, I'm six years removed from their show choir program. Just a fan of the show choir world.
Haha alright.
By the way Burbank, does your director listen to dubstep and electro or haha who suggested it? Also, the robot kid who turns into a human, my friends were like he looks like Marty McFly with the second costume. xD
I'm not saying that because I don't believe it is, I understand where they are coming from, but rules are rules. Sorry, if I don't make any sense just woke up from a nap... Anyways, I get why the rules are placed about the 40+ groups since obviously a group with below 40 students will not be able to produce as a stronger sound as a group of 40+ students since there are less people, well I'm not saying they can't, but I think you get what I mean. I just think the situations like this might want to be reviewed further if a group who is in intermediate all year wants to do an advanced competition and have 40+ members. I don't think that AA is at all intermediate though, I personally agree with just sticking to the +40 members thing since the rules are like that. I don't know, I hope you get my point, having a hard time to phrase what I mean, hopefully I got the message across.
Sighh... Feel like people will think I'm attacking them or negatively talking about them... Sometimes I get scared to talk about my opinion on here because I'm self-conscious and quite sensitive that someone will take something I say wrongly...
Don't be afraid for speak your mind. Your post comes across as insightful and constructive.
The division of choirs into 40+ singers/under 40 singers is looking more and more like a euphemism for a division between the elite and the advanced choirs, if that's how you want to put it. That said, I am genuinely curious if Hart, Carlsbad, Bonita Vista, et al. go into their audition process feeling like they absolutely MUST cap their choir at 39 singers, lest they are bumped into the Triple A category.
And before I end this post, I should put out a disclaimer that says that my thinking is in no way indicative of Mt. Eden's show choir's sentiments. As I posted earlier in the topic, I'm six years removed from their show choir program. Just a fan of the show choir world.
Wether or not you wish to call it Triple A/Double A/Intermediate or Advanced/Intermediate/Novice or Tier I/Tier II/Tier III, it doesn't matter... at the end of the day it is three divisions of three separate skill levels.
So basically everyone seems to be advocating that AAA = advanced, AA = Intermediate and what is now called Intermediate = novice. I wonder what current directors of AA choirs would have to say about that.
I'm not saying that because I don't believe it is, I understand where they are coming from, but rules are rules. Sorry, if I don't make any sense just woke up from a nap... Anyways, I get why the rules are placed about the 40+ groups since obviously a group with below 40 students will not be able to produce as a stronger sound as a group of 40+ students since there are less people, well I'm not saying they can't, but I think you get what I mean. I just think the situations like this might want to be reviewed further if a group who is in intermediate all year wants to do an advanced competition and have 40+ members. I don't think that AA is at all intermediate though, I personally agree with just sticking to the +40 members thing since the rules are like that. I don't know, I hope you get my point, having a hard time to phrase what I mean, hopefully I got the message across.
Sighh... Feel like people will think I'm attacking them or negatively talking about them... Sometimes I get scared to talk about my opinion on here because I'm self-conscious and quite sensitive that someone will take something I say wrongly...
So basically everyone seems to be advocating that AAA = advanced, AA = Intermediate and what is now called Intermediate = novice. I wonder what current directors of AA choirs would have to say about that.
Mt. Eden will never be able to truly compete in triple A because of oour commitments to other choirs, we have 8, and our lack of finances. It costs us alot of money to even get down to LA and San Diego just to compete because we have to rent a shuttle bus. Mt. Eden, even though our director may not like pointing it out, is a a ridiculously poor school and so we HAVE to fundraising to the point of having no lives haha.. It's obsurd to expect us to even have a chance at triple A with our current skill level as well as financial situation..
Our belief has been that we would never move up a division till we were able to win the current division we preside in.
Cheeestrans question about the ranking is still valid.. Why did Mt. Eden get 4th with nine ranking points while Bonita got 3rd with 11 ranking points?
Haha how come you quoted me? I understand your guys' situation, I told my friend it's probably because you guys were in intermediate and it doesn't really make sense to go to Tier I. Never say never, who knows, maybe you guys will be able to compete in Tier I someday, only time can tell! By the way this is a reply to all the Mt. Eden posts. Well, technically the rules are based on 40 or below or 40 and above for AA and AA.A, but yeah I do agree that a revision of what AA and AAA really is could obviously help tweak some of the problems such as skill level, but obviously there should be a limit on number of members with exceptions in skill. Anyways, you guys keep on working because you guys are improving every year and it's evident. Who knows, you might spark a huge mass of schools that want to do show choir soon in NorCal and have your own NorCal circuit, you can have a Northern California Show Choir Invitational hahaha and maybe that will save you the hassle of having to come down here or I don't know haha, things always seem to find a way.
Oh by the way, congratulations to Chula Vista for finally getting their show choir back! I'm glad that they are back, was very sad when they lost it. Another show choir to look out for next year! =)
Mt. Eden will never be able to truly compete in triple A because of oour commitments to other choirs, we have 8, and our lack of finances. It costs us alot of money to even get down to LA and San Diego just to compete because we have to rent a shuttle bus. Mt. Eden, even though our director may not like pointing it out, is a a ridiculously poor school and so we HAVE to fundraising to the point of having no lives haha.. It's obsurd to expect us to even have a chance at triple A with our current skill level as well as financial situation..
Our belief has been that we would never move up a division till we were able to win the current division we preside in.
Cheeestrans question about the ranking is still valid.. Why did Mt. Eden get 4th with nine ranking points while Bonita got 3rd with 11 ranking points?
For decades, the only thing that separated choirs in California was skill level. Entrance into a division was entirely voluntary; it's pretty obvious where most groups belonged. If a group won their division every year they would move up. There's no honor in sitting in a division you clearly outperform and just taking the trophy every year. Likewise, if you're a more modest-level group in a rebuilding phase, it's a little silly to ask you to compete where you don't belong. I feel the same way about Ohio competitions that group choirs by school (!) size, when clearly that's just one factor of many that go into determining the effectiveness of a program. Number one is the director. I fully support your reasoning and believe choirs should be separated by skill level and nothing else.
Couldn't have worded it any better myself. Mt. Eden competed in the intermediate category this entire year with the exception of this competition. It would be ridiculous to throw them to the sharks and bump them up from single A to triple A to compete with Burroughs and Burbank—arguably two of the TOP THREE show choirs in the entire nation—based on numbers alone. Other factors must be considered, including the rebuild of a show choir program such as Mt. Eden's. I'll reserve further commentary for another time, save to say that if the tiers are strictly about numbers, then maybe there needs to be further discussion about exactly how choirs are divided.
It is difficult for us to perform in Triple A because we do not have enough resources for it. Numbers do not indicate that we have enough money or skill to build a triple A show. Our choir may have 40 + people in it, but it is obviously not up to the bar with the other Triple A choirs. Our show choir started back up 2 years ago, and it would be unrealistic to throw us into that category. Numbers shouldn't make a choir triple A, skill does, and unfortunately, we are just not there yet.
For decades, the only thing that separated choirs in California was skill level. Entrance into a division was entirely voluntary; it's pretty obvious where most groups belonged. If a group won their division every year they would move up. There's no honor in sitting in a division you clearly outperform and just taking the trophy every year. Likewise, if you're a more modest-level group in a rebuilding phase, it's a little silly to ask you to compete where you don't belong. I feel the same way about Ohio competitions that group choirs by school (!) size, when clearly that's just one factor of many that go into determining the effectiveness of a program. Number one is the director. I fully support your reasoning and believe choirs should be separated by skill level and nothing else.
So I just watched the replay of the SoCal AAA (thank you for providing it SCC) and all I can say is wow. Literally. Two absolutely phenomenal performances by two very classy show choirs. I can’t even imagine being there live, because the performances via the stream were incredible and obviously shows are a billion times better live. When you’re that good who really cares about placements? Just enjoy the incredible amount of musicianship and showmanship. California is creative like no other!
I really enjoyed John Burroughs “Powerhouse”! I have to admit, the first time I saw a video of their 2012 set, I wasn’t really a fan, I didn’t quite understand it, and it honestly wasn’t a very quality video. This performance was untouchable. I really thought Powerhouse turned it up a notch and had stellar and fitting choreography. The boys’ number, “Dig”, was by far my favorite moment of the set. I also was very excited by the changes in their show, because it made the experience way more understandable, relatable, and simply better. Speaking of the amount of change from Powerhouse from their first performance to this last one, I’m just curious as to when all this change was implemented. For example, was this Burroughs show similar at Los Al’s competition or did they add even more extra bells and whistles for SoCal? I would think they would’ve wanted the most complete show when going against Clinton, but I’m also aware that usually extra things are added for SoCal (such as the fireworks last year!). Overall, I loved the show. Congratulations Powerhouse on a great season and I can’t even imagine what you’ll do next year!
Burbank “In Sync” … I don’t even know what to say. By far, no contest, this was the most creative show I’ve ever seen/heard of/thought of/anything. So mind-blowing. I remember seeing this show for the very first time and not fully understanding the insanity and depth of the show. I didn’t dislike it; instead, I couldn’t wait to learn more. Throughout the SoCal performance, there was literally just so much energy on stage from you guys. It was like a constant party. And I really thought your backdrop was so cool! Your vocals were deafening on the video, literally, that strong. I would die if I ever saw you guys in person. I honestly preferred In Sync’s show to Powerhouse, but again like I said above, when you’re this good, it’s simply a matter of preference. I really don’t know how In Sync didn’t end the season undefeated, seriously. By far the best choir of the year, in my opinion regardless of other placements. I’m really glad In Sync had the opportunity to present this unique set to the Canadian show choirs – because this gives hope and a vision to those choirs that anything is attainable and that show choir is more than novelties and jazz hands. Congratulations In Sync, you were a great ambassador to the show choir world this year – I can’t wait to see what insanity you come up with next season!
Probably the only thing that “rubbed me the wrong way” was when the FAME National Championship results were announced and yet it was then said that two best choirs in the nation were about to perform. I understand it was probably just a simple joke, but it kind of seemed like an unnecessary jab at FAME. Everyone knows In Sync and Powerhouse are among the elite, it just kind of seemed to take away from the national championship wins earned by Wheaton-Warrenville South and Los Alamitos. To call yourselves “the best in the nation”, you have to put yourself out there and earn it. I think FAME has done a remarkable job to try to create this National Championship scenario where there are regional qualifiers (such as FAME Hollywood) and then a National Championship Finals. Even more so, I like the changes they implemented for this year regarding the Friday clinic and Saturday one-and-done performance. There’s no doubt that In Sync and Powerhouse are among the show choir elite, but I wouldn’t say that they are “the two best choirs in the nation”, because that’s simply an opinion that was interjected at poor timing. Then again, that’s all just my opinion. Again, I’m sure it was all in good fun, but then again who knows. I hope that in the future SoCal and FAME Nationals aren’t on conflicting weekends so that these Cali groups like In Sync and Powerhouse would at the very least have the opportunity to earn the Show Choir Cup. I know FAME pushed their Nationals Finals back a week and will be on the last weekend of April in 2013, so hopefully SoCal can stay the second to last weekend in April, thus giving those choirs the opportunity to attend without conflict.
Another random thought: I think one of the best newer trends of show choir is the amount of growth throughout the season. Clearly Powerhouse and In Sync alter their sets throughout the season to better fit the storyline, etc. I also like that this isn’t just a “California” trend, as Clinton usually makes slight changes and I know Fairfield does, too. It’s much better than presenting the same show week in and week out! I also liked how the concept of “Home” seemed like a popular underlying theme throughout this season. Both Powerhouse and In Sync sang about “home” as did WWS “The Classics” and probably Los Al since they had a Oz themed show too, I would assume? Anyways, I liked that!
Congratulations to all performing groups at SoCal! The live feed was really great and the performances seemed incredible! Hopefully my long post of random thoughts makes sense!
I am a strong proponent of using rankings for placements, and believe the correct groups took home the first place trophies. It should be used uniformly across the board, however, for all places, as well as the showmanship and musicianship awards. I don't know why it was not.
For that matter, why was a school with more than 40 performers allowed to compete in the AA division? The rules are clear that the only difference between AA and AAA are AA=40 or fewer singers, AAA=40 or more.
It is difficult for us to perform in Triple A because we do not have enough resources for it. Numbers do not indicate that we have enough money or skill to build a triple A show. Our choir may have 40 + people in it, but it is obviously not up to the bar with the other Triple A choirs. Our show choir started back up 2 years ago, and it would be unrealistic to throw us into that category. Numbers shouldn't make a choir triple A, skill does, and unfortunately, we are just not there yet.
Chula Vista SoCal Performance Show Choir Invitational (Day Two) 2012
Sometimes I get scared to talk about my opinion on here because I'm self-conscious and quite sensitive that someone will take something I say wrongly...
