Judging
Q&A
By
Joni Bescos, Rich-Tone Chorus, Region 25
NOTE TO READERS: I appreciate the many comments I have received
from you concerning how much you enjoy these articles. However,
I’m almost out of questions. If you have a question you want
answered, please e-mail it to jbescos@flash.net.
Q: How are judges selected for our Regional Competitions? It seems
that we get some of the same judges over and over again instead
of getting a fresh perspective from different judges.
A:
Each spring, practically as soon as the contest season is over,
a memo is sent to all judges with the dates of all regional conventions.
For example, it will list “April 26-29: Regions 3, 6, 8, 13,
16, 17,” and list the other competition weekends in the same
way. Judges are asked to indicate “yes,” they are available,
or “no,” they are not available, and also asked to state
the number of weekends they are available for assignment. There
are nine competition weekends next year. Some of our judges are
able to commit 4 or 5 weekends and others can give only one. The
weekends like the example shown, with six competitions scheduled,
are particularly difficult because the judges in those regions will
not be available for assignment because they are either attending
or competing at their own competition. I can’t tell you exactly
how Betty Clipman, current Judge Specialists Moderator, makes up
a first draft but I can tell you how I used to do it. After responses
have been received from the judges, I would make up a large chart
like this, listing all contest weekends in chronological order.
:
| |
Sound |
Music |
Expression |
Show
|
3/17
Region 10 |
Eggleston |
Meyer |
Burklund |
Beck
|
3/24
Region 11 |
Babb |
Bailey |
Pinvidic |
Parker
|
3/24
Region 25 |
Bescos |
Masterson |
Field |
Wright |
(The above are the judges invited to these Regions, per the
Sweet Adelines Web site.)
My next step would be to make small Post-it notes, in the appropriate
category color. Let’s say Marge Bailey was available for three
assignments in the Music Category, on weekends 2, 5, and 8. I would
make three blue notes with the information “Bailey: 2, 5,
8.” A few, like me, serve in several categories. For myself
I would make pink, blue, and yellow notes—one of each—with
the information “Bescos: 2, 3, 6.” If a judge has noted
availability on consecutive weekend, but stated she will not accept
consecutive assignments, I would note that as, say “2, 3,
5 or 6.” I would then start working the jigsaw puzzle, but
I would not start at the first weekend. Instead I would start at
weekend 6, the one with six contests. I would fill those 24 squares,
double-checking to make sure I didn’t place anyone in two
different regions on the same weekend. Then I would go to weekend
7, with 5 contests scheduled and fill those 20 squares. In doing
so, I would have to make sure I did not assign a judge used in weekend
6 that did not want to serve on consecutive weekends, and of course
that I did not assign a judge to go two places the same weekend.
As soon as I assigned a judge, I would go back to her unused “notes”
and cross off the weekend I had just assigned. The assignment process
is a cross between jigsaw puzzles and sudoku!
Those of you who work jigsaw puzzles know how frustrating it is
to come to the end and still have a blank. I might have a judge
left over, but her piece doesn’t fit in the blank because
she’s not available that weekend. So then I would go back
and see which pieces can be shifted into that blank, shift one of
them, and then put the “left over” judge into a weekend
where she is available. Each year one or more approved candidate
judges are deemed ready for their first panel service, so I would
look at the finished puzzle to make sure that I did not place two
of these on the same panel. I would also look to make sure each
panel had at least one judge capable of serving as panel chair.
Then I would make the appropriate shifts. As Spirit of the Gulf
said, “shift happens.”
The finished invitation list for the following year’s competitions
has to be ready for the Judge Specialists meeting the end of June.
The Specialists may approve the list or may make suggestions for
change based on their knowledge of the work of judges in their category.
After the list is approved by the Judge Specialists, it goes to
the Education Direction Committee for final approval. All judges
are trained at IES next year (2007), so the invitation list for
2008 will undoubtedly be distributed to judges at that time so that
any necessary changes or substitutions can be made while we are
all together.
After all assignments are made, I would use the left over pieces
to compile a list of judges not assigned on weekends they are available,
because that list will come in handy later on. Several months down
the road, undoubtedly a judge will call to say something like “my
quartet has been invited to do a show the same weekend I said I
would judge in Region ___, can I switch with anyone?” I can
go back to my list to see who’s available. Maybe a switch
can be made, or maybe the judge who now can’t go will just
lose that opportunity. You can see there’s more to panel assignments
than just picking judges to go certain places.
If you don’t know the judges assigned to your region, go to
www.sweetadelineintl.org and click on “competition,”
then on “2007 Regional Judges” under “Regional
Competitions.”
Q: Judges must have their “favorite” contestants. How
do you keep from giving your “favorite” the highest
score?
A:
I suppose my “favorites” are those with whom I have
a personal relationship, either because I have worked with them
or because they are friends. However, friendships do not affect
the scores awarded by judges. The highest score in each category
is given to the contestant whose performance best fulfills the standards
of the category in question.
Q: How can a smaller chorus hope to compete against some of the
giant choruses we see today?
A:
In the recent International chorus competition the chorus size ranged
from 49 to 180. The chorus of 49 did not place last and the chorus
of 180 did not place first. There were five choruses larger than
the winning chorus. In regional competitions, sometimes the largest
chorus wins and sometimes it does not. Remember, “large”
and “best” are not synonymous.
Q: I see that North Metro Chorus received a 25-point penalty at
the Las Vegas competition. What was the reason for the penalty?
A: Section III, 3, h, (1) of the Rules of Competition states: Contestants
are expected to report for entry into the traffic pattern at the
time and place designated by the competition coordinator and/or
the director of music services, and are expected to be ready to
perform in their assigned sequence. Any contestant who fails to
appear and/or is not ready to perform in the contest at the time
designated is penalized twenty-five (25) points, loses position,
and appears at the end of the contest.
This particular contestant was already the final contestant. However,
their stage entrance itself took longer than six minutes and was
deemed to have delayed the contest. A similar penalty for delayed
entrance was assessed another international chorus competitor several
years ago. Remember that a chorus entrance, or the manner in which
they get onto the stage, is not part of the actual contest performance.
For judging purposes, the chorus “entrance” is that
period between the end of the introduction, when the lights go up,
and the time they actually begin singing (or talking, in the entertainment
package). The schedule or traffic pattern for the chorus finals
allows for five minutes between the time one contestant’s
performance ends and the next begins. To avoid penalties, contestants
need to read not only the Judging Category Description Booklet,
but also the Competition Handbook that includes the rules.
Q: In what category or categories would a judge be allowed to reward
a chorus for (1) originality, (2) taking a risk? In other words,
how does the organization’s judging criteria encourage choruses
to grow instead of doing the same old things. How are we as an organization
encouraging and rewarding choruses to push the envelope?
A:
The criteria you describe do not fit into any of category standards.
What might seem original to one judge, because she has not previously
seen or heard it, might be part of another judge’s previous
experience and, therefore, not original.. The same applies to “risk
taking.” If you will look back over the past 60 years of competitions
you will be able to see how the organization has progressed. When
I joined Sweet Adelines there was very little choreography and moves
were limited to what I describe as “now we put our hand out
here.” In my first chorus contest we stood with outside heel
touching inside instep – a very difficult stance for good
vocal production. We wore white gloves and a sleeveless navy blue
sheath made from a dull fabric. Progress — look at us now!
Q: What criteria do judges use to assure that performers, (chorus
or quartet) that are early in the line-up to compete, are equally
judged and the appropriate point are given? Ex. Numbers one thru
three or five vs. last three or five performers in a contest.
A: I believe this question has been answered in a previous article,
but judges listen to a level tape right before they go into the
judging pit. The tape contains examples of performances at all levels,
from D+ to A, and serves to fix in their minds the differences between,
say, a C+ and a B- performance, or a B+ and an A- performance.
Q: Some of the larger men’s choruses’ risers are placed
in more of a horseshoe style lay out (more curved). I would think
this would help them hear the sound better, have fewer synch issues,
and even less tuning problems. Why haven’t Sweet Adelines
offered that sort of riser position at our international contest?
Could it be? Has it been discussed? It seems it might be more conducive
for better singing.
A:
Some years back the International Board approved the standards we
now use. At regional competitions two different configurations are
available, one with the reverse section and one without. This decision
was made at the request of smaller choruses who felt they could
hear better without the reverse section. In regions where both options
are available, all choruses still have the option of choosing either.
At the international level the standard is eleven (11) sections
of 6-foot choral risers with the reverse section in the middle.
Eliminating the reverse section would require a deeper, but somewhat
narrower stage. In most of our competition arenas this would result
in the loss of audience seating. Some of our large choruses are
forced to use the configuration you describe for their annual show
because some auditorium stages are not wide enough for the configuration
with reverse section. I have experienced this with my own chorus,
and the front row has faced the challenge of having to modify choreography
for the smaller floor area that results.
Q: When there is obviously a reverberation/echo going on in the
auditorium, at least noticeable by chorus members, is it difficult
for a judge to distinguish synchronization problems from it?
A: Frequently the sound heard on stage, in terms of echo or reverberation,
is not the same as heard in the audience or by the judges. Sometimes
monitor speakers help the performers and sometimes they seem to
compound the problem. Each auditorium or arena is different, presenting
its own unique challenges. At the auditorium inspection the panel
chair works with the sound technicians, using a microphone testing
chorus and quartet, to make certain that the sound heard by the
judges is the best quality possible. At IES 2007 the organization’s
sound expert, Glen Glancy, will present a class on sound systems
to both judges —as part of their training— and chorus
directors or quartets. We should all come away from those classes
with a better understanding of the subject.
Q: How about having judges use MiniDisc recorders to make
comments after the performance? I think a lot more information could
be obtained if the judges didn’t have to write. The color
guard judges talk into a recorder as the students are performing.
It’s great to hear the “ohhs and ahhhs” and even
the “oops” of the judges. I know that for Sweet Adelines
having the judges talk during a performance is absurd, but isn’t
technology advanced enough that it could be used in some way to
enhance the ability of judges to communicate their scoring results?
A: This sounds like a good idea on the surface, but it also has
its drawbacks. First, the judge would have to make notes during
the performance in order to remember what to say on the recording.
Second, since the performance of judges is reviewed annually, if
the disc were given to the contestant there would be nothing for
the specialists to review. Third, believe it or not some judges
are just as mechanically challenged as some chorus members –those
whose tapes don’t record when they’re supposed to–
and there would undoubtedly be blank recordings. But most importantly,
it would add a task that required another block of time to complete
which, when multiplied by the number of contestants, would add that
much time to a competition. I believe the best idea is laptop computers.
I can type much faster than I can write, and I don’t have
to watch the screen when I’m typing (right now I’m watching
Martha Stewart strain gravy as I type). There is a task force currently
working in this area.
