In Measure for Measure, an A Cappella Blog contributor takes a look at both sides of a controversial issue in collegiate a cappella. Please note that the views expressed by columnists do not necessarily represent those of The ACB as an organization, nor do they necessarily represent the view of individual columnists. The purpose of this piece is to explore issues and further civil, intellectual debate.
This edition’s topic: Varsity Vocals should institute gender divisions within the ICCA competition.
In Measure for Measure, A Cappella Blog contributor takes a look at both sides of a controversial issue in collegiate a cappella. Please note that the views expressed by columnists do not necessarily represent those of The ACB as an organization, nor do they necessarily represent the view of individual columnists. The purpose of this piece is to explore issues and further civil, intellectual debate.
In Measure for Measure, an A Cappella Blog contributor takes a look at both sides of a controversial issue in collegiate a cappella.
This edition’s topic: There’s an established market for the sale of professionally written a cappella arrangements. With this in mind, it is best for your group to buy arrangements rather than trying to compose your own.
True: The marketplace for professionally written arrangements gets bigger, better, and more affordable with each passing year as a cappella itself grows more established and the field of collegiate alumni eager to still have some involvement in the aca-universe expands. While there’s certainly room to still create some of your own arrangements, so as to learn the craft and take ownership over a select number of pieces, on the whole, it’s better to pay to get arrangements done right right off the bat—it will result in a better musical product and allow your group to shift a lot of its energy and focus to learning and mastering the music, perfecting performance.
In Measure for Measure, A Cappella Blog contributors take a look at both sides of a controversial issue in collegiate a cappella. Please note that the views expressed by columnists do not necessarily represent those of The ACB as an organization, nor do they necessarily represent the views of individual columnists. The purpose of this column is to explore issues and further civil, intellectual debate.
On Sunday, August 28, members of Psalm 100, a Christian collegiate a cappella out of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Psalm 100 voted to remove senior Will Thomasen. The rationale? Thomasen’s views on homosexuality (not, the group leadership emphasized, because Thomasen, himself, is gay).
In this special edition of Measure for Measure, ACB Production Manager Mike Scalise and ACB Content Manager Mike Chin go head to head to assess the validity of this statement:
It was OK for UNC Psalm 100 to kick out gay senior Will Thomasen.
Will Thomasen sings the solo on Psalm 100’s rendition of “The Cave” last spring.
Mike Chin: This statement is true. It’s easy to dumb down Psalm 100’s decision to remove Will Thomasen from its ranks. They’re a Christian group. He’s a gay kid. It’s easy to say that the decision was as simple and discriminatory as that, and, in turn, it’s easy to demonize the group and, by extension, the university that just might let them get away with it.
Let’s look at this a little more critically, though. UNC’s non-discrimination policy states that it’s OK for student groups to limit their membership to individuals who share common sets of ideas. True, the policy does also include a caveat that a student can’t be excluded on account of personal characteristics, but this is where there is an important distinction to be drawn between excluding Thomasen because he’s gay versus excluding him because of his beliefs regarding homosexuality.
Spin the issue on its head, and say that the group included an extroverted homophobe, who made other group members uncomfortable on account of his outspoken hatred for gay people. In this day and age, I would be surprised if others would be comfortable affiliating themselves with such an ignorant and intolerant colleague. Would it be OK for Psalm 100 to give this hypothetical group member the boot? If a part of the group’s constitution indicated that there’s no place members who are prejudiced and hateful (and, to be fair, the issue at hand is that the group claims to be guided by The Bible) then, yes, I would suggest it is OK for the group to vote out a homophobe.
There is more gray area in the case of a gay man, or a man who views being gay to be OK, as the case may be, given that most research and contemporary opinions will confirm it is not a choice, and also given that it’s controversial, at best, to say that The Bible condemns homosexuality. Nonetheless, if a UNC group truly has the right to remove a member whose ideas and philosophies are not consistent with the group’s constitution as the group interprets it then Psalm 100 did have every right to remove Thomasen. For Thomasen’s part, he has every right to shun the group that deemed him unfit to remain a member.
Mike Scalise: This statement is false. As a society, we are more diverse and accepting today than ever before. There’s a reason for that--differing viewpoints and beliefs breed new ideas and facilitate intelligent conversation. When I heard the news that UNC’s Christian a cappella group, Psalm 100, unanimously dismissed a member based on his view of homosexuality, I was stunned. Blake Templeton, general director of Psalm 100, claims Will Thomasen, a gay senior who had been a member of the group since freshman year, had been expelled not for his sexual orientation but because his views weren’t in accordance with the group’s constitution. This argument is weak at best. If we look at the history of the U.S. constitution, we see that it has been amended numerous times to meet the ever-changing needs of society. If the group members were truly indifferent to Thomasen’s orientation, they, too, would have revised the document to be more accepting, and in doing so, updated it to match the times. Furthermore, university policy states that no student can be excluded from a student organization on the basis of sexual orientation. While group members claim the dismissal was based on Thomasen’s views of sexual orientation and not his sexual orientation itself, the unforgiving attitudes reek of discrimination. Psalm 100 needs to re-evaluate its position on social matters to determine if ousting members based on archaic traditions is worth the group itself getting ousted by society at large.
In Measure for Measure, an A Cappella Blog contributor takes a look at both sides of a controversial issue in collegiate a cappella.
This edition’s topic: Varsity Vocals should continue to hold the ICCA and ICHSA finals as separate events.
True: There are two main disadvantages to holding the finals of the high school and collegiate competitions on the same night, in the same venue. For one thing, the resulting show is just too long. Generally speaking, quarter and semifinals have six to ten groups competing—adding in intermission, the judges’ deliberations, host group performances, and words from the emcees, this comfortably fills a two-to-three hour show. This is very reasonable for an evening’s entertainment, offering the audience its money’s worth without running the risk of boring anyone, or necessitating that families take their kids home because its past their bedtime. The last time the finals event featured both the high school and collegiate competitions, four high school groups and seven collegiate groups. While some die-hard fans will enjoy a long evening of a cappella, this results in a show that’s going to test most anyone’s attention span. My hat’s off to the organizers for keeping the show moving along, but, seriously, this is just too much.
In addition to the sheer length of the show, there’s the element of perceived performance. When all of the high school groups perform before all of the collegiate ones, it creates the perception that the high school competition is, quite frankly, less important. While there’s no denying that the collegiate groups tend to be more advanced in all around performance, it’s still a bit of a disservice to these championship-caliber high school groups to have them serve as opening acts. Ultimately, each collection of competitors is more justly served to have an event devoted exclusively to itself.
False: Sure, holding the ICCA and ICHSA finals at the same time makes for a long show, but, in attending that show for the last three years in which it was set up as such, I have to say that I never felt that one of these shows dragged. When the performances are as good as these finalists tend to produce, it’s easy to get lost in the music, and lose track of time in enjoying a great show. That’s what the finals is all about.
In addition to creating a really good, long show, holding the finals of both tournaments at once maximizes the audience for each. While there is a core group of us a cappella enthusiasts who will travel to New York for the finals each year for the music, there are a lot of people who attend purely for the purpose of cheering on their friends or family members who are competing. Regardless of why you go to the show, the fact that you end up there really contributes to the ‘big show’ feel, and is a service to all of the performers. Having the supporters of high school groups and college groups come together is, therefore a great contribution to the energy of the overall show.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the combined who gives high school performers the opportunity to look ahead. Year after year I’ve been amazed with what these high school kids are able to do at their age; what better way to foster and nurture their growth as performers than to put them in the same auditorium with top notch performers at the next level. I don’t know that anyone has been keeping track, but I’d be really interested to see how many ICHSA champs go on to take part in high profile collegiate groups. The combined finals show supports this natural progression.
In Measure for Measure, an A Cappella Blog contributor takes a look at both sides of a controversial issue in collegiate a cappella.
This edition’s topic: It’s a good idea for collegiate groups to compose and perform original songs
True: It can be a very difficult thing to rise above the a cappella landfill and have a truly different repertoire from your peers. One of the most surefire ways to avoid performing the same music as other groups is to arrange original songs. Granted, this is by no means a small task to take on, and yet it is the inherent challenge of this task that makes it so rewarding. In creating its own music, a group becomes more than no-instruments cover band, and progresses into the realm of original artists—demonstrating true creativity, talent and independence. Sure, not every song will be a hit, but if you do score big with an original song, you just might end up the next Sara Bareilles, defying “Gravity” en route to stardom.
False: While performing original material does ensure that you won’t repeat the same songs as the group to perform before you, it does not mean that you’ll necessarily, or even likely be better liked. The fact is that a cappella audiences have a tendency to connect best with songs they already know—forgotten favorites, new songs they never imagined would translate so well, and even standards that perhaps make them nostalgic about other shows they’ve seen. What’s more, the notion that ‘all the good songs have already been covered’ is pure bunk. The contemporary music catalog is wide and deep, and if you look, there will always be something different for a group to cover.
In Measure for Measure, an A Cappella Blog contributor takes a look at both sides of a controversial issue in collegiate a cappella.
In performing, groups should embrace the use of props and costumes on stage.
True: One of the fatal flaws of a lot of collegiate a cappella groups is that they take themselves too seriously. I’m all for careful preparation and a disciplined musical performance, but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t also take the time to have fun with what you are doing. Props and costumes are a great way of giving the audience a laugh and demonstrating that the group, itself, is having fun with a performance. What’s more, such items lend a visual element to the performance that just isn’t there otherwise. Sometimes, it’s a fun surprise for those who are watching closely—raising a random item to match up with the lyrics of a various part of a song. Otherwise, if, for example, you’re using signs, the sight of the group carrying out sheets of oak tag lets the audience know something interesting is on its way, creating a sense of anticipation and a wonderful pay off when the signs are revealed. All in all, props and costume are a fun and exciting piece of a cappella performance.
False: While there are a small handful of exceptions, by and large, the use of props—everything from posters to sunglasses to multi-colored scarves—does not enhance a cappella performance. On the contrary the appearance of these items looks unprofessional and silly and more often than not distracts both the audience and the performers from the music itself. If performers are worried about how and when to use their props, the odds are they are not concentrating as much as they should on pitch and rhythm. Similarly, when it comes to a cappella, I consider the visual presentation to be an extension of the sound—all created naturally by the human body. Under this rationale, facial expressions are good, choreography is fine, stage positioning is an important consideration. But props and costumes? This is the visual equivalent of instrumentation, which is contradictory to what a cappella is about.
In Measure for Measure, A Cappella Blog contributors take a look at both sides of a controversial issue in collegiate a cappella.
Please note that the views expressed by columnists do not necessarily represent those of The ACB as an organization, nor do they necessarily represent the views of individual columnists. The purpose of this column is to explore issues and further civil, intellectual debate.
