Choral Competition - Judges Discussion Thread

[Mike]

Judges for the up and coming Choral Competition may use this thread to discuss matters pertaining to it.

Some discussion has already taken place privately via the PM system, but it may be made available for public viewing at some point in order to give the competitors a better idea of what the judges will be looking for come submission time.

[Guest Nickthoven]

Thanks Mike! :P

[leightwing]

Here is a copy a PM I sent recently to the rest of the judges.

Originally Posted by leightwing

Here are my thoughts regarding an approach to assessing submissions. I suggest we think in terms of a work

[Nightingale Incorporated]

Any and all comments, questions, and such may be sent to my e-mail adress: scs03c[at]fsu.edu Please use "Choral Competition" in the subject line so I know not to delete any of it. I suggest that once the submissions come in, we divy them up according to judge talents. This way it isn't a random free shoot and everyone's pieces are heard fairly by a judge that knows most about those pieces. However, if a contestant wishes to have a particular judge judge their piece, that may also be taken into consideration. I've never judged anything like this. What exactly should we be thinking about?

[leightwing]

Certainly, we all need to view all submissions. I would like to propose that whatever the guidelines are, all judges are allowed to nominate something like one half of the field for inclusion in the next round. So for instance if there are 15 submissions, I get to nominate seven pieces. From that list (which could have 15 different names on it btw), we advance the top five vote getters - or in other words, the five pieces that were nominated the most. Then from there, perhaps we do a similar proceedure to find a winner.

This is all just an off the top of my head idea and has within it the possibility of many variations. Certainly, we can't nail down any solid numbers until we know how many submissions there are. It may turn out that only a half a dozen people get their pieces in by the deadline.

[Christopher Dunn-Rankin]

This is all just an off the top of my head idea and has within it the possibility of many variations. Certainly, we can't nail down any solid numbers until we know how many submissions there are. It may turn out that only a half a dozen people get their pieces in by the deadline.

I don't want to do this to be lazy, just to let you know, but here's an idea for a sort of pre-round:

If every judge is given a portion of the pieces - sort of a pre-screening type thing. If they want to advance it to the next round, then they nominate it, at which time at least two other judges view it and okay it. Likewise if a judge wants to cut the piece out of competition, at least two other judges must view it and okay the drop. If more than two judges view it and opinions differ, majority rules. If there is a tie, one more judge must break it.

Following this, there will be fewer submissions for all the judges to view, thereby decreasing the workload. However, if this feels too lazy, feel free to veto.

[Mike]

I agree with what you said, I think that's going to be the best way to tackle it.

[Guest Nickthoven]

Keep in mind that the number of submissions we usually end up with in competitions such as this is always greatly lower than the number of people who signed up to compose.

That being said, here's some suggestions for judging criteria: Judge each piece upon these topics, all with a grade (1-10), and a comment: Selection and appropriate treatment of text, Substance of musical ideas (themes, motives, development, etc.), Harmonic control (accessible yet interesting and flowing harmonies), Idiomatic and appropriate accompaniment (if applicable), Freshness/originality, Notational clarity, and Sensitive vocal writing (ranges, tessituras, difficulties, etc.).

I got those topics from an existing Song Cycle competition, but they apply here just as well. ;)

[Maximilian Caldwell]

Perhaps a rating of 1-10 on each of those 7 criteria, for a total out of 70?

[leightwing]

Do we really need points??

[Dunael]

Hi there.

By the idiomatically stuff... you mean the text OR or AND the writing for voice ? For there is nothing said that I've seen about writing well the voice for the text. I this that we should evaluate the way the text is brough into music.

[leightwing]

Hi there.

By the idiomatically stuff... you mean the text OR or AND the writing for voice ? For there is nothing said that I've seen about writing well the voice for the text. I this that we should evaluate the way the text is brough into music.

I made mention of these things in one of the earlier posts:

Differing textures that appropriately highlight the selected text - this includes things like key changes, tempo changes, dynamics, articulation, and even changes in the accompaniment. It also includes effective settings of text - examples: where to use a melody in unison or octaves - or where to switch from two-part writing to four-part.

And also using more exclusionary language:

-Poorly executed setting of text - such as the ineffective use of melismas if applicable

-Inappropriately or awkwardly set accents (one of my pet peeves).

Is this what you mean?

[Maximilian Caldwell]

Yes, I believe we do need points. I am guessing we'll get about 8-15 submissions, 15 being the absolute most. If we give the judges a week (or maybe more, that hasn't been decided yet) to evaluate them on a point system, we can average the points and leave the ones that score 50-70 in, and then narrow it down from there.

And Nickthoven, is the deadline on the aforementioned date at midnight or at some other hour of the day? And which time zone? Perhaps GMT?

[Mike]

Haven't really got anything to add, but just a little heads-up here: I may have to drop out as a judge. If that happens, sorry everyone. I'm positive that the rest of you will do a stellar job, though.

[Guest Nickthoven]

Sapphire, I usually do the deadline as follows: when I close the thread, then the deadline is over. That usually seems to work. :)

And usually I close it the first chance I get the day after the deadline, or sometimes right after midnight. Obviously the contestants should realize that if a deadline is a certain date, then handing it in unexcused the day after would be too late.

[Maximilian Caldwell]

Thanks

[Dunael]

Thanks leightwing, that's what I was asking for !

[Guest Nickthoven]

I might have to drop out as a contestant and become a judge, but at this point I'm not sure. Just letting you all know.

And let's have more discussion about the judging criteria! You people need to decide what the official criteria will be, not me!

[Maximilian Caldwell]

How long do we have to download, listen to, and critique the pieces, then submit our scores?

[Maximilian Caldwell]

I have a scoring idea that is somewhat complex but I think is effective:

Each entry will be graded in all the 7 aforementioned categories on a scale of one to ten, making the final score for each piece out of 70. 80% (or 56 points) will be the cutoff for the semifinals, all of which will be deemed "Honorable Mentions". Each Judge will vote on their favorite three semifinalists (or "Honorable Mentions"), the best of which overall will proceed to the finals. The finalists will be put in order of best to least best by each judge, best earning two points, least best zero, and the middle one, one. The finalist with the greatest number of points will be crowned Best Choral Piece of YC. The 2nd best will be crowned Almost Best Choral Piece of YC. The 3rd best will be crowned...

...well they can just be a 'finalist'. If there is a tie, Mike (it's his site) or Nickthoven (it's his thread) will break it.

Good method of scoring? Comments?

[Guest Nickthoven]

I like that idea, Sapphire. But which '7' criteria are you referring to?

Also, my piece has just now (as of the last hour and a half or so) become the most dissonant thing I've written to date. It's intelligent dissonance, as I like to call it, being all harmonies are based on a motivic chord, comprising a major chord and the minor chord a minor third above it (E major and g minor for example), and not at all random dissonance for the sake of dissonance. But I'm still hesitant to enter it into the competition. I want to submit the piece for the choral reading here at my school, and the deadline is Nov 30th, so I have more time for the piece in that regards. Who knows - I may or may not submit it here. I may not know until very late. But, obviously, if I do submit my piece in the end, I would not be able to break any ties!

Anywho, let's hear more suggestions! :whistling:

[Maximilian Caldwell]

I like that idea, Sapphire. But which '7' criteria are you referring to?

-Audience Appeal (and how much we as a judge enjoyed the piece overall)

-Originality and/or uniqueness

-Idiomatically effective writing

-Differing textures that appropriately highlight the selected text - this includes things like key changes, tempo changes, dynamics, articulation, and even changes in the accompaniment. It also includes effective settings of text - examples: where to use a melody in unison or octaves - or where to switch from two-part writing to four-part.

-Effective use of form (and in some cases, having a form you keep to)

-Compositional continuity - to include elements like style and idiomatic stability - both harmonically and melodically.

-Balanced and realistic use of the ensemble (write for a oboe/trumpet/cello/timpani/soprano, not something they cannot or cannot easily sing; challenging is fine, impossible or intentionally awkward for no reason is not)

All credit goes to leightwing ;)

[Nightingale Incorporated]

A note to Nickthoven:

Some of my favorite choral pieces are fairly dissonant. See what you can do with it and submit it.

A suggestion to Mike and Nickthoven:

I think we are approaching the point where there are too many people wanting to be judges. It's likely to get to a point where there will be more judges than competitors. It's kind of annoyed me to see so many people joining in as judges because they were too late for the deadline to compete. If I had it my way, I would have denied anyone to be a judge who did not express his wish to do so by the same deadline the competitors had to join in. As it stands, I think we should lock the judges as they are. If you decide to drop out, drop out, but don't continue to add on.

A suggestion to Sapphire:

I think those principles work out pretty well, but I think they can be revised some. For instance, a very important part of Choral writing is voice leading. Singability should be an important criterium for this competition. Also, text setting is also important. Please note that if you have decided not to set a piece to text, this does not exclude you from text settings. Neutral vowel sounds like [o] [a] and humming are all considered text settings. You cannot simply write notes and not tell your chorus what vowels or words to sing.

All these by-laws need to be charted down by the judges and voted on until we reach a standard of requirements for the competition. Until we reach this conclusion NO pieces may be listened to or judged, so as not to give an unfair advantage.

A suggestion to other judges:

I think pieces should be submitted anonymously for fairness. This would require one of the judges to act as the middle man between competitors and judges. All competitors will send him their pieces. He will then label them a-z or 1-90 or however it works best. That way we have no idea who's pieces are whose except the competitors and the middle man (who has no vote with the judges). Competitors should be encouraged to remove their names from the pieces to remain anonymous.

These are merely suggestions, but I think they should prove as a stable foundation for our judging criteria.

[Christopher Dunn-Rankin]

I like your seven ideas, Sapphire, except I feel that perhaps "audience appeal" should hold less weight given its objective nature, as opposed to things like voice leading/singability, which is something that at least to a point is subjective.

[Maximilian Caldwell]

They're leightwing's ideas, not mine :P

And as there are plenty of judges, we will have a very diverse opinion!