Can All-Female Groups Compete?
alls...@my-deja.com
Another one of Guang Ming's questions desiring feedback, and I know
this is opening up a big can of worms. Please don't stigmatize the
group I'm in because of it! :) I'm just trying to gain a deeper
understanding.
I know the USC Sirens had a great time at NCCA's (we of course were
disappointed, but agreed with the results, and didn't have any judge
death threats or parents calling to complain) and we will do it again,
but we are going to go into it with the attitude of getting exposure
and making bux off CD's, not winning.
I don't think it is possible (at least on a college level, I can't
speak for beyond that) for a women's group to do as well as a mixed and
especially an all male group in a competition. Just take a look at
http://www.a-cappella.com/ncca and go to the results page. The finals
will be 4 male and 2 mixed groups. I talked with Jessika Diamond about
this, and I know less female groups entered than other types (not sure
how many), but I think the male/mixed/female comparison is there and
things like competition highlights it.
I think it would be good for future groups who desire to win know what
is winning so they can direct themselves in that way. Funny groups?
Lots of choreography? Sort of high school show-choir cheese-ish? I
don't know. Can anyone fill me in? I know the Men's Octet are
comedic. How about the other groups who won? But a female group can't
direct itself to be mixed or all-male!!
How about in the Harmony Sweepstakes, I don't know much about that.
And aren't most successful pro a cappella groups male and mixed? How
many successful female groups are out there that people in general
would say are at the same level as the top mixed/male groups? (pro and
college) I noted in an earlier post, someone mentioned the top
collegiate groups in his/her opinion and not one female group was
mentioned. And when someone replied, they listed TWO female groups
when about 20 of the other two kinds were listed.
In talking with gabe rutman during the making of our CD, he told me
that two women, an alto and a soprano, are enough in a group. Men can
sing lower than women and as high as women. Even with an octiverthingy
on a woman's mic...put the same thing on a guy's mic. The average
vocal percussionist is male, and usually the ones in female groups
(again on the college level) aren't as good as the guys. If the best
male VP-er went head to head with the best female VP-er, who would
win? So women's groups are missing a ton of range, and often missing
strong VP.
It is also way easier for men's groups to be funny-which is an
advantage on an audience-pleasing level. Have them do Britney Spears
or dance at all together and everyone is in awe. But girls are
"expected" to be good dancers, and must have truly humorour things to
be funny. Very few women can pull off the physical/crude/gross comedy
men pull off-look at stand up comics.
Sirens were lucky to have a great vocal percussionist (Jenny Levy) do
almost all the VP on our CD. (and sadly she is graduating) Elaine Chou
liked it! (Hi Elaine!) We were also lucky to have gabe yell at me so I
let him use an octiverthingy on our bass line. I encourage all female
groups to screw tradition in recording! Use the octiverthingy so people
won't think "thin" when they hear our songs. Don't let the way things
were effect how things are now. Women can do VP as good as men!
OK, I'm totally not a feminist, I want to stay home and raise my kids
myself, but for the first time in my life I am directly affected by the
glass ceiling thing and I don't like it. Or am I just perceiving
things incorrectly because of my vantage point? Facts and logic please
show thyselves!
Guang Ming
PS: OK, I know I am going to be ripped on for this, but I'm not trying
to start a fight, or cause problems, just an open discussion with
people who really know a cappella. Thanks Del in previous posts for
acknowledging that!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ben Tritle
<alls...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8cdcm0$fu1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hi!
>
> I don't think it is possible (at least on a college level, I can't
> speak for beyond that) for a women's group to do as well as a mixed and
> especially an all male group in a competition. Just take a look at
> http://www.a-cappella.com/ncca and go to the results page. The finals
> will be 4 male and 2 mixed groups. I talked with Jessika Diamond about
> this, and I know less female groups entered than other types (not sure
> how many), but I think the male/mixed/female comparison is there and
> things like competition highlights it.
The only two cents I can provide for this is to take a look at the history
of the NCCAs and note that the very first group to win the crown were the
UNC Loreleis...a women's group. Just food for thought.
Ben
vpsau...@yahoo.com
feel about this subject is shared by a few others too. I've never
really liked the all female sound when dealing with "contemporary" A
Cappella. For me, the thing that drives the music is the rhythm
section (bass and VP), which is the most difficult area for the female
voice to produce. Without this (especially the bass) it sounds like
something is missing.
Another common problem is that the soprano voice is the loudest and
most easily heard. One soprano in a group can usually be heard fine.
When you throw two or three more on the same part, it can become
grating (You know those commercials where the opera star breaks a glass
with her voice, its like that times 4). This also covers up a lot of
the interesting stuff going on in the middle and bottom. Unfortunately
most females that I've encountered are sopranos, though, and are more
comfortable singing high. Nothing thrills me more to hear a nice,
rich, low alto.
As far as the judging goes, I had the privilege of judging some events
this year. While the female groups usually had a nice sound, the
groups that won had more of a complete show. They combined sound,
coreography, and energy to really involve the audience with what they
were trying to do. For some reason, the female groups seemed to just
stand there. Many of them didn't even smile or look like they were
having a good time.
I know I'm being really pessimistic right now, but don't take this the
wrong way. I believe that an all female group can win again. Groups
like Brandeis' Up the Octave and Providence's Anaclastic are working to
incorperate more VP and do songs that are more like what male and mixed
groups do. I've also noticed that, collegiately, some of the best VPs
are female. While some may say that all-female groups are behind the
rest of A Cappella, they're not that far behind. The tides can easily
change at any time.
Chris
aka Pelican Groove
Austin Putman
I too have looked at the overall NCCA
results with some concerns about the positioning of female groups. Very
few women's groups even made it to the semi-finals, and those that did
deserve recognition. I think it's important to be conscious of the NCCA
as an organization that is growing and changing. Jessika has pointed out
the huge expansion in the number of groups applying. What we don't know
out here in newsgroup-land is how financially successful the concerts have
been, and how large the NCCA infrastructure of host groups, producers,
MCs, judges, etc has the potential to be. If, over the next few years,
the NCCA were to continue growth, what sort of options could exist for
better showcasing female a cappella?
It may well be that as the prestige of the competition heats up, more
female groups will apply, be selected, and rank higher. But what if the
pattern we've seen this year continues?
Would it make sense to separate the competition, like the CARA structure?
This leads to a whole host of questions, like:
Would shows with single categories of groups still attract the same
audiences?
Would winners only be declared within their category or could the groups
be integrated in the semi-finals or the finals?
Thoughts?
-Austin
Denise Shepherd
De-lurking to discuss a very interesting and timely question about the
"glass ceiling" for women's groups. I sang with a coed group in college for
four years (Everyday People at Stanford), and am currently with an
all-female semi-pro group in the SF Bay Area, Dilemma.
Having experienced both sides of this issue, my viewpoint is this: women's
groups have the ability to be just as entertaining, creative, musically
proficient, and successful as men's groups. I think women's groups have
been successful in the past, and will continue to do so. The key difference
is HOW. I don't necessarily think that a group of women has to attempt to
sound like a group of men for several reasons. The obvious ones are
range-related. I sing "bass," for the group, and I can hit a low B-flat
most days, but I won't be able to sing in those sub-woofer ranges that
someone like, say, Bert from the House Jacks is so easily able to.
I don't disagree with the use of octave-droppers, or other enhancement
devices. It does annoy me when it's ASSUMED you have to use one. I
wouldn't be averse to using one on a recording.
It really is all about two things for me: arrangement, and performance.
First of all, I think that vocal percussion is something men AND women can
do. I've heard female VP that was pretty damn good. True, women may not
have that same low resonance, but it can still be energetic and skillful.
As for low bass, like I said, B-flat ain't half bad. We happen to have three
women in our group who can sing at least a low C. Not sub-woofer, but not
too shabby either. It's definitely workable in an arrangement. And if you
arrange with the idea that you have six women (as in my group) singing
something.. you're geared in that direction. You can try to add things that
sound good with female voices, like thick chords and complex, layered
rhythms. Personally, I like things nice and loud. Nice and loud, I say!
As for performance, if you're having fun, and you're energetic, and you're
polished, the audience should be entertained. Of course, there are people
who just aren't into women's groups for whatever reason. That's their
prerogative. But you have the other sizable chunk of audience to convince.
All that said, the glass ceiling question is tough, whether within the
competition area or not. I believe it's definitely out there. Like I
said, there are people who will just NEVER like a women's group. And as far
as I know, there's been no "breakout" women's group in the same vein as the
House Jacks, M-Pact, et. al. How do we overcome that? Believe me, I'd love
to know. :) I do think that most women's groups that I've seen, college or
not, are significantly more restrained on stage than their male
counterparts. Maybe it's just about letting go more... I don't know.
Thanks again for the post.
Denise
Dilemma
PS Congratulations to Everyday People on their Best Album CARA win!!! Sorry,
just couldn't resist.
a2evie
being a)all-female and b)a recent Sweeps participant. The discussion
has not really been about how we could do better in Sweeps, because
that's only one performance, but how to look at performance as a
women's group in general, being that there is a definite conception
(and often reality) that female groups just aren't as entertaining, for
a variety of reasons (mentioned in others' messages that I don't need
to list).
One breakthrough conclusion we came to, and let me admit from the start
that this is a generalization and not at all universal, is that the
conception out there about female groups can have a significant effect
on the performance itself. i.e., female groups have a tendency to know
they're being looked at as "just a female group," so their confidence
level in performance is weakened, and they even feel somewhat
apologetic to their audiences ("we know we're just a girls' group, but
we sing pretty so I hope you enjoy us anyway"). This consciousness has
been a significant force in how my group approaches our performance
style, and since keeping this in the front of our brains, I personally
noticed an enormous difference over only a few months of rehearsal. I
wish it wasn't something that had to be consciously addressed, but
experience in two female groups tells me it is. Not that it means I
can suddenly sing two octaves below middle C (although like Denise, I'm
still pretty proud of my B-flats :) ). Nor does it mean we're suddenly
threatening Minimum Wage on the hilarious meter. But it does mean that
we feel comfortable putting our very best qualities as musicians and
performers out there, stigma be damned.
When I was a sophomore in college, I thought my group was pretty bad-
ass -- until that year's group of Duke Out of the Blue girls performed
on tour at my school. I was blown away, and had a new conception of
what female a cappella could be like. They had the whole audience's
attention, because they demanded it.
It's still true that we get excited when someone tells us "you're the
best female group I've ever heard," even though when you think about
it, that's putting the glass ceiling right on top of the compliment.
But it's a pretty undebateable fact that female groups are at a
physiological disadvantage when it comes to range and power, and so
just narrowing the gap is progress in itself. And, I think it _is_
fair to think of female contemporary a cappella somewhat as its own
genre, because we also have a lot of potential performance ammo that
boys don't have, we just have to use it :).
~Evie
alls...@my-deja.com
Me again.
> It's still true that we get excited when someone tells us "you're the
> best female group I've ever heard," even though when you think about
> it, that's putting the glass ceiling right on top of the compliment.
OK! Can I tell you that we have gotten that comment a lot! (which was
why we had such high expectations for ourselves in NCCAs) Like when we
visited the East Coast two years ago, and when guys groups come out and
visit us. And with our new gabe-produced album-surreal, we've gotten
the comment, "This is the best (or one of the best) female collegiate
album I've ever heard! So we have submitted it to the 2001 CARA's and
BOCA. As the only active female group in Southern California, there
isn't much basis for comparison out here.
In response to Ben Tritle, because the Sirens have only really performed
with mixed and mostly male groups, we actually choreograph a lot of our
stuff-and don't just stand there! (which was one of the things commented
on when we visited the East Coast) And we actually have a new word in
our group for when we do slow songs: The East Coast Curve, which is two
lines tightly curved, since we saw that in all the female groups we met
in the east!
I also agree with the whole confidence level thing. At least with my
group, some people are sort of subdued/apolegetic in
performance...including me sometimes. Would a pre-show shot help? :)
Also, we've only got one girl who is low C/Bb capable! The rest of the
basses can hit a D. I can't arrange the bass line low for just her,
because we need more volume in the bass line. I currently always have
only one or two sopranos, and 3 or 4 basses. Any suggestions?
Guang Ming
PS: Also, people are saying we can increase volume with numbers, but a
smaller group sounds tighter with blend and problems are more
pin-pointable and fixable IMHO. Any suggestions? It is like, we go on
after an 18 member mixed group, down to 10 girls and our volume is half
of theirs with everyone singing full out!!
Dana L Goldstein
member of the all female collegiate group the University at Buffalo Royal
Pitches for 3 and a half years now. And in these past 3 and a half years
I have discovered the exact same things you have... that women have to be
clever to be humorous. We can't, like you said, pull off the
"physical/crude/gross" and silly comedy bits like the guys. And, if we
add a whole lot of choreography, it's not a
big deal since girls are supposed to be able to dance. When guys dance,
however, audiences may rise to their feet. In any case, I feel for you
girl and have been struggling with the same stereotypes about women in a
cappella as you have for years.
At the same time that I wish that women would be more widely appreciated
in the a cappella genre, I do have to admit that there are reasons why the
men tend to be more popular... not necessarily better, just more popular.
For starters, the fact that they can sing as
high as us and a whole lot lower makes for a fuller sound obviously. They
can sing a gamut of notes we can't even touch. Second, although my
group's got some pretty phat vp'ers, I'd have to attribute that to the
fact that we try to model ourselves after the males. Heck, when I pat
myself on the back for vp it usually ends with, "for a girl." We just
don't have that resonance. Yes we can be as energetic, rhythmic, and
creative as the next guy but we will never get that bass drum as kick-ass
as they can (without using the octave drop). And, though I already
mentioned the fact that in general, guys have an easier time trying to be
comedic, look at their crowds... they're full of women who adore men that
sing. Unfortunately, guys aren't as impressed with female singes. It's
just like the dancing thing... it's not unusual for a girl to be able to
sing publicly.
As far as musicianship is concerned, there is no difference. A guy or a
girl can have the same exact skills. They can both be amazing singers,
great arrangers, etc. But in my experience, men have an easier time
blending together than women. I am really not sure why that is, but
that's what I've seen/heard.
So, I'd have to say that in order for my girls group to compete in the a
cappella world, we have to try to do it like the men do it. When I tell
my basses something, it's usually, "sound more like a guy." So yes, this
female is guilty to contributing to the male dominance in the a cappella
scene. Why I'm even trying to start an amateur group and I have chosen
to make it co-ed so I don't have to worry about the "female problems."
But believe me, I would give anything to have women's voices,
personalities, skills, talents, etc be accepted and appreciated (as
equally and as commonplace as the mens' are) for who and what we
naturally are without having to compromise any of our female tendencies!!!
I would like to say one last thing. Yes there are exceptions.
There have been women groups that have won competitions over men, I
am sure. But let's face it, that's few and far between. We are
talking about the norm. So thanks for speaking your mind, Guang Ming. I
was so right-on with everything you said. It's a tough a cappella world
out there for us, women.
Dana Goldstein
University at Buffalo
Royal Pitches
"Many dreams come true... some with silver linings. I live for my dreams
and a pocket full of gold."
Led Zeppelin
If you can't beat them, join them...then beat them!!!
Chris Tess
<Pine.GSO.4.05.100040...@hercules.acsu.buffalo.edu>,
Dana L Goldstein <dl...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
> So, I'd have to say that in order for my girls group to compete in the a
> cappella world, we have to try to do it like the men do it. When I tell
> my basses something, it's usually, "sound more like a guy."
I think this is why many women's groups just don't "work" for me--by
trying to sound like guys, they usually flat-out fail. Women's groups
that kick-ass are great because they are able to do the things that make
THEM sound good, not by doing thing that make men sound good. They take a
completely different approach and succeed by finding their own way.
This hit home not too long ago when hearing the Smith Smiffenpoofs--they
rocked, and it seemed like it was because they followed their own formula,
not someone else's.
This, I think, is true for all kinds of groups. Did you ever notice that,
often, arrangements that are either created "organically" by the group
together or are changed so much by the group while singing it often sound
a lot better than when you're singing strictly from an arrangement?
-Chris
--
Chris Tess
ch...@rarb.org
boogie
Thanks for your post. It's such a good thing that you brought these issues
to light.
A few thoughts:
1) Don't let the fact that female groups are underrepresented in the a
cappella community keep you from making music that you love, and don't ever
doubt that what you are doing is meaningful, whether it is singing or any
other form of expression.
2) Women aren't better or worse at VP, singing low notes or high
notes---they simply add something different to the mix. DIFFERENT is OK...in
fact, it is often a good thing! Treasure what you have as a female
group---why concern yourselves with what you don't have?
3) There are plenty of feminists who stay home with their children. There
are also plenty that don't. Before you jump back from the vague gloss that
is <feminist thought>, be sure you understand that there are many different
understandings of and approaches to feminism.
In the meantime-- keep on singin!
-a former member (now a big fan) of 10fm: reckless female a cappella.
(check out www.10fm.com )
<alls...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8cdcm0$fu1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hi!
>
> Another one of Guang Ming's questions desiring feedback, and I know
> this is opening up a big can of worms. Please don't stigmatize the
> group I'm in because of it! :) I'm just trying to gain a deeper
> understanding.
>
> I know the USC Sirens had a great time at NCCA's (we of course were
> disappointed, but agreed with the results, and didn't have any judge
> death threats or parents calling to complain) and we will do it again,
> but we are going to go into it with the attitude of getting exposure
> and making bux off CD's, not winning.
>
> I don't think it is possible (at least on a college level, I can't
> speak for beyond that) for a women's group to do as well as a mixed and
> especially an all male group in a competition. Just take a look at
> http://www.a-cappella.com/ncca and go to the results page. The finals
> will be 4 male and 2 mixed groups. I talked with Jessika Diamond about
> this, and I know less female groups entered than other types (not sure
> how many), but I think the male/mixed/female comparison is there and
> things like competition highlights it.
>
S. Wellisch
Its funny. I have been going to malaika concerts for about 5 years and
never once have thought to myself - they are really good for women.
Malaika is a four woman a cappella group that truely does its own thing. I
think its strength comes from the strong identities of the women in the
group. They all bring strong influences to mix so that when you see them,
they just blow you away with their powerful voices and ideas. They have a
very women centred meessage that advocates the strength of women and an
antiracial message as well.
Don't get the idea that they aren't fun. They
can be hilarious, but not in a goofy way, the humour comes from their own
personalities. They tell stories or just make comments or do things that
are funny - they play off eachother. If you get a copy of their first CD
Malaika Live they have left some homour on it from the live taping and
you'll see what I mean. (I really liked the Marilyn Monroe impression
Stella did 'nuff said)
I guess it would be completely illogical to compare Malaika to a men's
group because they are such strong women.
I suspect it is because you are innundated with men's groups in the US
that you automatically compare yourselves to them. Don't get me wrong, its
not like I have never seen a men's group. There are some guys in Ottawa,
that I have seen for longer than Malaika, but because we have so little a
cappella there isn't really a "standard" to measure by.
I'd say broaden your horizons - get Malaika's album and those of other
female groups to give yourselves examples of women's groups so that the
male sound isn't the standard that you are going by.
HTH
Susan
Warren Bloom
> I've never really liked the all female sound when dealing with
> "contemporary" A Cappella. For me, the thing that drives the music is the
> rhythm section (bass and VP), which is the most difficult area for the
> female voice to produce.
Denise Shepherd <denise.i...@intel.com> wrote:
> First of all, I think that vocal percussion is something men AND women can
> do. I've heard female VP that was pretty damn good. True, women may not
> have that same low resonance, but it can still be energetic and skillful.
Dana L Goldstein <dl...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
> Second, although my group's got some pretty phat vp'ers, I'd have to
> attribute that to the fact that we try to model ourselves after the males.
> Heck, when I pat myself on the back for vp it usually ends with, "for a
> girl." We just don't have that resonance. Yes we can be as energetic,
> rhythmic, and creative as the next guy but we will never get that bass
> drum as kick-ass as they can (without using the octave drop).
"boogie" <newc...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> Women aren't better or worse at VP, singing low notes or high notes---
> they simply add something different to the mix. DIFFERENT is OK...in fact,
> it is often a good thing! Treasure what you have as a female group---why
> concern yourselves with what you don't have?
Alrighty. I'm a little sketchy on the line of reasoning being followed here.
As a fairly experienced pop/rock vocal percussionist with several college
and pro groups, I have made many discoveries over the years about the
nature of how I produce my sounds (and, of course, I've drawn inspiration
from others). At first, circa early 1993 when I started doing it
seriously, I didn't give much though to "how" I produced my sounds; I
simply... produced them. (The first time that one finds that he or she
has the strength to do that "pbf" snare is an epiphanal moment in any
VPist's life.) Anyway, my kick is basically a loud "p". I would venture
to say that a majority of male VPists do it that way.
The most popular alternative for guys is the "thump", which is basically a
staccato grunt. This would be where Denise's and Dana's concerns about
"low resonance" would come in when a female VPist tries it that way. And
it would be a debilitating problem for female VPists if it were the only
way to do a kick. Which it isn't.
Then there's the technique which most female (particularly collegiate)
VPists have picked up on from males, and is the root of the problem: the
syllable "doom". It's not very convincing when done by guys as it is, and
it's downright ridiculous sounding when done by gals. That one of those
things where I sit in the audience and think... Damn, do they have any
idea how bad that sounds? In addition to just a lack of phonetic and
auditory imagination, the relative quality compared to a guy's attempt is
also a result of a lack of "low resonance". And putting an octave-drop
effect on something silly sounding will make it sound just as silly, but
lower. Which, in a way, makes it sound sillier. But again, it would be a
debilitating problem for female VPers if it were the only way to do a
kick. Which it isn't.
Late last year, I was sharing a cab in Manhattan with Kim Armstrong (of
10fm) and Brian Reichelt (of The Exboyfriends), and inevitably the topic
of VP came up. Kim asked me what my self-assessment of my VP endurance
was, i.e. how long can I go without taking a breath? I've always been
particularly proud of my lung capacity in tandem with my breathing
technique, as a singer and later as a VPist, so I assessed myself as
"pretty good". It got me to thinking about how surprisingly short a lot
of VPists' (female in particular) "endurance" is. Was I really doing
anything special that somehow I could go longer without inhaling? Later
on that week, as I percussed to myself in my apartment (gotta keep my
chops in shape while I'm between bands, ya' know), I made another
(epiphanal) discovery that no doubt countless other have already:
My "p" kick requires no breath. No "vocalizing" (as my vocal pedagogy
text would say). Nuthin'. Not even a vowel. It's all lips smacking
together outward at just the right tension on a very plosive "p".
Point: A kick does not HAVE to have ANYTHING to do with "resonance". At
least not the resonance which we associate with the male voice, which is
really a result of mens voices being lower, providing something meaty to
resonate in the first place. Sure, a kick drum's got a big chamber to
resonate the sound, but you've got to hit the skin first. In the case of
the "p" kick, the "skin" is our lips, and I'm certainly not aware of any
inherent difference between the strengths of mens or womens lips.
(Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.) And the rise of the individual-miking
standard in pro circles has certainly helped the cause. The whole
octave-drop issue seems really irrelevant here.
Now, I have heard female VPers who are just as capable as male VPers at
making the "pbf" snare. I've certainly heard even mediocre female VPers
handle hi-hats. The next logical step is the "elusive" kick. Which is
what baffles me. Because I see ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSIOLOGICAL REASON why
there should be a difference between male and female vocal percussion, and
the kick in particular, or why one should be inherently "better" than the
other.
So... why is there this comparison to begin with? Is it because guys did
it first? Is there some alpha-male conspiracy that I haven't been told
about that's keeping female VPists down in order to preserve some sort of
status quo? (A VP glass ceiling?)
This is crazy. Lips is lips is lips. Same goes for the teeth and
tongue. This reminds me of the "debate" on this newsgroup a few years
ago, about whether people of African descent really are inherently
"better" singers than people of European descent. The overwhelming
opinion of the group: It's all about culture, your personal ingrained
vocal habits, your standards... your mind-set. It's actually kind of
funny, considering how very recent this explosion of the number of decent
collegiate VPists (mainly male), and the usage of tasteful VP in pop/rock
contexts, is. Decent pop/rock VP hasn't existed long enough for male
dominance to be some sort of ancient institution!
Aspiring female VPers: The "problem" isn't a problem at all. Ignorance
of your freedom is your captivity. Now go out there, and kick some kicks.
Viva la revolucion!
Warren Bloom Alter Egress Music
wjbloom at bigfoot.com Astoria, N.Y.C., N.Y.
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
How do you know when there are singers outside your door?
They can't find the key and they don't know when to come in.
scoo...@my-deja.com
First off, let me say that I think that Female groups CAN compete with
men's and co-ed groups. That being said, I think the more important
question is HOW they can compete.
When I was in college we had this discussion a lot. The men's group I
was in was wildly popular on campus, but the women's group was not.
Why? Were we better musicians. No. Were we better dancers.
Absolutely not! Were we funnier. Sometimes. However, there were three
areas where we excelled over the women:
1) Set Selection
Most women's groups I have seen (mostly collegiate) all do the same
repertoire. How many times have you seen 'Possession' performed? They
also do the same type of music, usually nice ballads or mid-tempo tunes
that are nice to listen to but usually don't bring down the house.
2) Arrangement Strength
Granted, I think given the vocal range of a men's group that it is
easier for us. The low parts are much lower which tend to make the high
parts sound much higher, with more room for complexity and rich sound in
between. The same way men's groups should build from the bass up, so
too should women's groups build from the Alto 2, yet most don't because
there are often far too many Sopranos. When women take their
arrangements out of the rafters and go for more close harmony chords,
they are more successful.
3) EGO!
This is the most important, at least in my opinion. Think about the
really best men's groups you have seen. When they are on stage, they
appear to believe that they are the greatest thing ever... and this is
reinforced by the audience. Now this may or may not be what they are
thinking, but one of the most important factors in performance is the
confidence exuded by the performer. Women have been socialized to
believe that it is wrong for them to get on stage and be a "Diva".
There are so many negative steriotypes that work against that way of
performing. However, think about the great female performers out
there (love them or hate them)... Aretha Franklin, Tina Turner, Madonna,
Mariah Carrey (I'm sorry to have to include her in this list!) When
they get on stage, they exude confidence and it draws the audience in.
One of the best groups I ever saw do all this successfully was the Smith
Notables. In a set, they did songs that most people wouldn't expect...
everything from 60's and 70's rock to 'Super Freak' complete with the
rap that showed up in the 80's remake. Their arrangements were tight
and NEVER included a glass breaking soprano line, and they had that
attitude that just seemed to say... "we rock, we're having fun, and
frankly, we don't care what you think of us." And it WORKED! I've
never seen crowds cheer for a women's group the way they cheered for
this group.
The point is, women can do as well (and maybe even better) than the men
as long as they aren't ashamed to enjoy what they are doing and be
confident that they are doing it better than anyone.
Just my two cents!
--Jim
alls...@my-deja.com
overcome.
First of all, it is different when a single female performer gets up
there and solos like a diva in front of a performing but not diva
background. Then (but only if she IS good), she is cool and loved.
When you get ten to 15 girls up there acting like divas-the insta-
thought (Especially by other women) is "What a bunch of self-centered,
conceited b*tches." I've found that men don't care as long as you're
cute. (Sorry for the sweeping generalization.)
So lets say my group becomes "diva" onstage. Sirens already were
facing problems by doing nothing. We had several auditionees ask
friends of Sirens, "Do the Sirens only pick the pretty girls to become
members? I heard that and I went to the Back to School show last
night."
I think my group is a bunch of gorgeous women, personally, validated by
the large number of male groups who have asked us to host them (even
when our webpage had been up about a month, and we had been in
existence about 3 months! We were formed in Oct. 1997) and the warm
welcome we received on the east coast (One guys group only provided
alcoholic beverages with dinner!) So if people perceive us this way
without us doing anything but looking and being who we are anyway, how
will we be perceived when we all act like we are "da sh*t".
I think there is a fine line between confidence and cockiness, and it
is the perception of the audience that determines that line. We like
being approachable, and don't want people to think of us badly. But
will the difference in our performance be worth the change in image
that will inevitably occur?
Sirens as a group also hate cheesiness. "No skits" is in our
constitution. So we don't have any desire to become funny. And I
don't think there is anything wrong with that.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?
Guang Ming
Frank Tseng
Yale groups in particular (Proof of the Pudding, Something Extra, as
well as their senior group Whim N' Rhythm) Plus the Cal Golden
Overtones, musically, have been quite good most of the times I've seen
them.
As for recordings, check out BOCA, while there are fewer all-female
tracks than all-male or co-ed tracks, the ones that are on there are
some of the best tracks on the albums (The Tufts Jills' "Bethlehem" on
BOCA '99 and Duke OOTB's "You Were Mine" on BOCA 2K in particular) So
there are all-female groups out there that can do just as well as their
all-male or co-ed counterparts. You just have to look hard for them.
-Frank
a2evie
>I think there is a fine line between confidence and cockiness, and it
>is the perception of the audience that determines that line.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. I've seen female groups that
had "we are da bad-ass bomb" written all over their faces, but still
retreated back from the audience throughout the set, still huddled in a
little clump and didn't take up their rightful space on the stage,
still didn't look like they were truly enjoying themselves, etc. The
generally higher confidence level that male performers have is
reflected in those ways, not by adopting a bitchy (or macho) persona.
By thinking in those terms, a group (male or female) can portray their
genuine image to the audience, whatever that may be, and not have to
rely on stereotypical cocky images to show they have confidence in
their talent. Girls have more choices than "gorgeous bitch" or "scary
tomboy" if they want to exude confidence as a whole group (because
you're right, it's easier for soloists to do the diva thing), but
that's not always as evident as it should be.
Ken Malucelli
a2evie wrote:
> I think you've hit the nail on the head. I've seen female groups that
> had "we are da bad-ass bomb" written all over their faces, but still
> retreated back from the audience throughout the set, still huddled in a
> little clump and didn't take up their rightful space on the stage,
> still didn't look like they were truly enjoying themselves, etc.
<snip>
> ...Girls have more choices than "gorgeous bitch" or "scary
> tomboy" if they want to exude confidence as a whole group (because
> you're right, it's easier for soloists to do the diva thing), but
> that's not always as evident as it should be.
Of the three all-female groups that competed in the recent NoCal Harmony
Sweeps regionals, the one group that totally knocked me out was the
supremely talented Solstice, and all they did was stand in a semi-circle
and cast their magic spell with a variety of ethnic pieces. Goes to
show that you don't need to do the "bitch/tomboy" thingie, as one of the
other competing female groups did...and whose performance, to me, came
across as quite satirical and, ultimatelty, annoying. Somebody refered
to them as female wannabe House Jacks. Whatever.
Re Solstice, they will be featured at my annual A Cappella Showcase, in
the Carriage House, Villa Montalvo, Saratoga, CA; and as in the past,
both shows are selling well. The Nov 1 show has about 150 seats left,
and the Nov 2 show has about 100 seats left. Those a cappellaheads
planning on catching one or the other show while they are in the Bay
Area for the A Cappella Summit up in Marin, had better make their move!
As posted previously, both nights will headline Naturally Seven, but
there will be different opening and mid acts each night. Solstice will
appear with BNO, and Fleet Street Singers will appear with a female
barbershop quartet. It looks like the Solstice/BNO evening w/b Nov 2.
The series has a Web site: villamontalvo.org.
Cheers,
KM
Elaine Chao
>fact that we try to model ourselves after the males. Heck, when I pat
>myself on the back for vp it usually ends with, "for a girl." We just
>creative as the next guy but we will never get that bass drum as kick-ass
Ooh! Ooh! Something I can actually say something about! Men have a
little (and I mean a little) bit of a head start when you're talking about
acoustic vocal percussion. But the grunting sounds they can make down ther
where girls can't is STILL pretty soft, and they struggle with the same
things that ALL vocal percussionists do in an acoustic setting - what
carries and what doesn't?
As for the bass drum... so, I'm sitting at the vocal percussion panel at
the very end of the 1999 East Coast Summit, surrounded by fantastic vocal
percussionists. The guys on stage, all of which had participated int he
competition, asked me how I made my kick drum sound! It's very possible,
and the microphone levels things out considerably when it comes to
percussion. (For more information on how I make my kick drum, check out
http://www.gotspit.com/)
>mentioned the fact that in general, guys have an easier time trying to be
>comedic, look at their crowds... they're full of women who adore men that
>sing. Unfortunately, guys aren't as impressed with female singes. It's
>just like the dancing thing... it's not unusual for a girl to be able to
>sing publicly.
Oops. I cut the part I wanted to comment on. However, I was just going
throught he CASA site, and both this year anad last year's best mixed
collegiate soloist has been female. And I can't figure out why. Even the
best runner ups have been female.
-Elaine
Elaine Chao
>of VPists' (female in particular) "endurance" is. Was I really doing
>anything special that somehow I could go longer without inhaling? Later
>on that week, as I percussed to myself in my apartment (gotta keep my
>chops in shape while I'm between bands, ya' know), I made another
>(epiphanal) discovery that no doubt countless other have already:
Interesting point you bring up here. Um. It's been a while since I've
been out of breath, and generally it's been from the way that I structure
my breathing. My kick takes some support, but nowhere as much as my snare
does. In fact, I'd agree with you - my kick drum takes very little off my
breath.
>resonate the sound, but you've got to hit the skin first. In the case of
>the "p" kick, the "skin" is our lips, and I'm certainly not aware of any
>inherent difference between the strengths of mens or womens lips.
>(Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.) And the rise of the individual-miking
I hope not. I've seen some pretty kickin' female trumpet players.
>standard in pro circles has certainly helped the cause. The whole
>octave-drop issue seems really irrelevant here.
>
>Now, I have heard female VPers who are just as capable as male VPers at
>making the "pbf" snare. I've certainly heard even mediocre female VPers
>handle hi-hats. The next logical step is the "elusive" kick. Which is
>what baffles me. Because I see ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSIOLOGICAL REASON why
>there should be a difference between male and female vocal percussion, and
>the kick in particular, or why one should be inherently "better" than the
>other.
>
>So... why is there this comparison to begin with? Is it because guys did
>it first? Is there some alpha-male conspiracy that I haven't been told
>about that's keeping female VPists down in order to preserve some sort of
>status quo? (A VP glass ceiling?)
From the responses that I've gotten from male vocal percussionists wherever
I've gone, it's been something like, "We're lonely. Where are all the
female vocal percussionists?" Most of the guys I've met have been
extremely supportive, in the sort of "way to go" atmosphere - which is
prevalent in the a cappella community.
(And, Warren, you give really good pep talks.)
-Elaine
Elaine Chao
Frank Tseng <fts...@c-cube.com> wrote:
>I don't know, I've seen some pretty darn good all-female groups live,
>Yale groups in particular (Proof of the Pudding, Something Extra, as
>well as their senior group Whim N' Rhythm) Plus the Cal Golden
>Overtones, musically, have been quite good most of the times I've seen
>them.
Slight side comment here. I was at the NCCAs this year, watching the
groups, and the California Golden Overtones were so good I almost fell out
of my seat. Having heard them for five years, it was a very big surprise
to hear them improve so much, in arrangements, performance, and
entertainment content.
Incidentally, CGO and a number of other Cal groups (and I hear VocaMotion
as well) will be at the Seventh Annual A Cappella Against AIDS on April 15
at UC Berkeley. (Oh, and there's something called Estherfest in San
Francisco at the same time, which is most likely also a cappella - still
working on that one.)
-Elaine
cynsa beans
>It's all about culture, your personal ingrained
>vocal habits, your standards... your mind-set.
ain't that the truth about everything?
as far as women making music not being as "good"
because of , sheesh, physiology, huh... has anyone here read
"The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould?
there is such a friggin ancient tradition of people leaning
falsely on science to support their prejudices, it's hilarious
to read it here in the context of scientific proof that one
type of music is better than another, or men are better
singers or VP'ers than women, or what have you. we
all have virtually the same body parts, and since it isn't
necessary to tootle with your...uh....twiddle, the rest of
it just don't count, in my book.
look, all I can say is: if you want to make music, none
of that is worth a damn. you go out there and make it
to the best of your ability and as suits you, not something
fake you are trying to emulate or copy, but your own music
in your own way, and if someone else is in tune with you
as an audience member, they will want to hear you again.
so they will come, and they will buy your albums, and they
will applaud you.
that is all.
cynsa beans
came up with incredibly original idea of cross-dressing and singing
in falsetto and they won audience favorite at the bay area regionals
that year, and some other group comes out and does a "tomboy"
thing and it's somehow offensive to you, ken?
you're betraying a certain prejudice.
and btw: it really is tasteless to use a very intense discussion
on an important issue to push some commercial "plug" agenda of yours.
-cynsa
Ken Malucelli
cynsa beans wrote:
>
> wait, lemme get this straight: some men's group, as I recall,
> came up with incredibly original idea of cross-dressing and singing
> in falsetto and they won audience favorite at the bay area regionals
> that year, and some other group comes out and does a "tomboy"
> thing and it's somehow offensive to you, ken?
Nope, and comparing the purposely satirical and comic men's group
you mentioned to the "tomboy" group that, *to me*, appeared forced
and gimmicky and trying too hard to be something they weren't, are
two different things. Also, I did not find it "offensive," merely
unconvincing. Big diff.
Last, as many have posted on this newsgroup, one person's opinion
is as good as the next's. If you didn't care for the former and
dug the latter, s'OK w/me.
KM
Seth Golub
Dana L Goldstein <dl...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
> But in my experience, men have an easier time blending together than
> women.
I think that's due to timbre and range differences. Even slight tuning
problems are more obvious with purer tones and high frequencies. The
bright side is that when the chords do lock, they really lock.
alls...@my-deja.com
The Sirens don't want to be "gorgeous b*tches", but if we go out there
with the confidence/cockiness level of male/mixed groups, that is how
we will be perceived. And I KNOW this for sure for sure! :(
I think that in recording, female groups can overcome all the problems
of live performance, especially if they have a good VP-er and layer the
tracks, etc.
In live performance, I saw the Overtones at the NCCA quarter-final, and
IMHO, I thought they should have won 2nd place to the Men's Octet with
Artists in Resonance in third. (no offense to Stanford Harmonics, but
I've got the whole thing on video and the people I showed it to down
here in LA thought as I did.) Sure, they didn't have as much
choreography and no interludes. But what good are choreography and
interludes unless they are GOOD? :)
But beyond the Overtones, none of the women's groups I have seen live
have impressed me. Of course, I've only seen four others. One from
Stanford, 3 East Coasters. But I think the best female album winners
don't compare to the best male/mixed albums. In fact, if they did a
best overall CARA's for collegiate groups like NCCA's, I doubt a female
group would get anything except solo or arrangement.
I think the reason women often win best soloist in the mixed category,
is that there is often more prestive in being in a mixed group than in
an all-female one. I think this prestige ranking is more evident at
schools with lots of groups. Usually it is the male groups with the
most prestige (thus they get the best boys), then the mixed groups,
then the female groups. And there are always more female singers out
there than males for cultural reasons.
Guang Ming
gmea...@rarb.org
http://www-scf.usc.edu/~sirens
scoo...@my-deja.com
> The Sirens don't want to be "gorgeous b*tches", but if we go out there
> with the confidence/cockiness level of male/mixed groups, that is how
> we will be perceived. And I KNOW this for sure for sure! :(
>
---I'm afraid I might not have articulated my original point as well as
I had hoped. You can show confidence as a group without being
"Georgeous B*tches". What is most important is that when you are on
stage as a group, you stand together as a group and don't back down.
One of the biggest pieces of advice I always give to groups is have fun
with each other on stage before you worry about the audience. You have
to LOVE being on stage with each other and LOVE the spotlight. This is
not a bad thing! One hint is to try to make eye contact and give a big
smile to every other member of your group at least once during every
song. Sounds corny, but what the audience sees is you having fun and
then they will have fun. Of course this doesn't work for serious
numbers, so there you just have to be unified in your committment to the
song you are performing. Don't look at your shoes when you are singing
and never, ever be afraid of what the audience thinks. This is the
biggest mistake made by groups (not just Women's). As soon as you start
to worry whether or not the audience likes you, you've lost them. You
can't care about what they think, and when you approach it that way, if
you have strong musicality, song choice, and entertainment value, then
you have a great show. Remember P.E.T.-- Pitch, Entertainment, and
Tempo.
>
> I think the reason women often win best soloist in the mixed category,
> is that there is often more prestive in being in a mixed group than in
> an all-female one. I think this prestige ranking is more evident at
> schools with lots of groups. Usually it is the male groups with the
> most prestige (thus they get the best boys), then the mixed groups,
> then the female groups. And there are always more female singers out
> there than males for cultural reasons.
--- This is not always true. At many of the schools I've seen here in
the North East, yes the Men's groups have a high level of prestige in
the available talent pools, but so do the Women's groups. At Binghamton
University, the Crosbys draw the best Male talent and the Pegs (Women)
seem to draw most of the best female talent, before the Co-ed groups. I
think the same can be said of Tufts (Beelzabubs, Jackson-Jills) and
Rochester (Yellow Jackets, Vocal Point) and St. Lawrence (Singing
Sinners, Singing Saints). Just my observation. Maybe it is a regional
thing.
Most important, don't sell yourselves short. Go in with an attitude and
a goal of being the best, and don't give in to marketing steriotypes.
The pendulem has always swung back and forth between male and female
acts as far as popularity and acceptance in the marketplace, so it can
be done.
--Jim
dezsc...@my-deja.com
past, but it wasn't until i saw the recent postings about the no.cal
sweeps that i really felt i had something to contribute.
i think that one of the things that unfortunately has been validated by
the sweeps in years past is the status quo. groups that bust out of the
mold in various forms (by doing original music, or innovative
arrangements, or non-vp percussion, or whatever) have not generally been
recognized by the sweeps for their contributions, apart from the "best
original song" category. (and before you say it, i know that so-vo-so is
different and original. so there.)
as much as i LOVE LOVE LOVE +4db, and think that they are incredibly
talented people and friends, i think that there were some other
incredibly talented people up there who didn't (in this newsgroup,
anyway) get the kind of positive acclaim i expected.
and before slamming house jacks clones, ken, i'd just suggest that you
look at your own stable of acts, and see how many groups you have
encouraged who are exactly in that category. m-pact, boyz nite out, etc
etc etc. except that they have one major difference from dilemma. what
is it? hmmmmmm.......
sexism exists, people, and it's only by women being out in front,
original, intelligent, articulate, and in people's faces that anything is
going to change. maybe not by winning sweepstakes, but by being
innovators.
in the spirit of plugging gigs on this discussion, i would like to call
attention to a women in a cappella night, which will feature dilemma,
solstice, and treasure, at the freight and salvage in berkeley, on may
24. these women will rock, and the freight is a great venue to see that
many of the arguments against women's a cappella in this discussion are
gloriously wrong. the website for the freight is http://
www.thefreight.org.
fight on, my sisters!
:)
desiree schmary
cynsa...@my-deja.com
ACap...@PrinceSF.com wrote:
> Cynsa, I think you misread something in my
statement:
> Nope, and comparing the purposely satirical and
comic men's group
> you mentioned to the "tomboy" group that, *to
me*, appeared forced
> and gimmicky and trying too hard to be something
they weren't,
>are are two different things. Also, I did not
>find it "offensive," merely
> unconvincing. Big diff.
(putting on feathers and singing in a falsetto is
what we in the biz generally call, uh, camp. it
sure ain't satire.)
you said that you found them "annoying" not
"unconvincing." you then made a very
contemptuous comparison. all of these things
show greater reaction than "unconvincing."
> Last, as many have posted on this newsgroup, one
person's opinion
> is as good as the next's. If you didn't care
for the former and
> dug the latter, s'OK w/me.
I didn't say anything either way, actually,
and don't care to, because I was a judge at
the Sweeps where the latter appeared.
as a judge, because in general my "opinions"
might be granted greater weight by the
participants than perhaps deserved, I feel
it is not appropriate to post them in so public
a venue.
-cynsa
cynsa beans
there is no reason, and an obverse need, to make tones so pure that
they don't blend, regardless if you're a female or male singer. blending
is a skill, some are better than others at it but working at it, as at anything,
improves it. same goes for the claim of high frequencies not blending:
again, it just practice and breath; I would note that extremely low frequencies
have a tendency of sounding out of pitch at times, because the harmonics are
more evident: sometimes the bottom of the tone isn't loud enough, or is harder to
hear, and all you hear are the harmonics and the top of
the pitch, creating a sensation that the pitch is basically off. again,
takes practice but people can get better at it. the best basses
are rounder and have a tighter tuning, so they stand out more
and sound more on pitch. but you don't hear people generally
complaining that men's music is difficult to listen to because
sometimes the basses seem out of tune... well, I remember when
I was younger I used to complain about it to my father
(he was conducting a chorus) and he explained the difficulty.
when I myself became a bass in a women's group, I found how
right he was. in fact, there is a note I hit on our upcoming album
where you can actually _hear_ the sense of the pitch change
once you can hear note better. It embarrasses me, because I
knew I was on, but it sounds a bit off until the other voices back off.
but all this discussion of how Mighty Science supports some argument
that men have better voices for a cappella, or are better to
listen to, or whatever, just gives me the heebie-jeebies. it's like we're
back in the dark ages, when scientists would classify skulls
on a racial basis and then try to dig up scientific support
for racism, at one point using supposed differences in skull volume.
you see, they actually used to think that the size of your brain determined
your intelligence. when Stephen Jay Gould later investigated the
experiments, he discovered that the previous scientists had used
seeds to meaure volume, and that they had actually, unconsciously,
been packing the seed more tightly into the white skulls than the
other races! Even though there is now no recognized scientific merit
in the theory of intelligence based on skull size, back then they took
it very, very seriously, and so the scientists, perhaps unconsciously,
we can only assume, were endeavoring to find hard, empirical data
that would support their theories on racial superiority. of course, when
Gould ran the same tests, his findings were that there was no difference in
skull cavity sizes at all; so even had the test been an accurate
measure of intelligence, the scientists themselves had mis-measured to
their own purposes. all of this, as I said, is from Stephen
Jay Gould's _A Mismeasure of Man_. it is really fascinating
reading, but you will find it makes you distrust a lot of the
scientific "data" you read in the media, whenever there appears
to be a political or social motivation behind the findings.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: even were it true that any of
our completely suppositional theories (I've seen no one attempt
to cite anything beyond "it's been my experience" yet)
about the physiology of singing had any support whatsoever from
scientific fact, I would still distrust them as evidence because they
seem to be motivated by deeply ingrained beliefs that are
important to the people stating them. Just as mine are to
me. Take my point about singing bass: if you are a bass,
you might be offended by what I wrote, but at the same time
feel helpless to argue it because it is shrouded in a semblance of
scientific merit. But my only purpose in mentally investigating the point even
casually was to add a counterpoint to what I considered a
specious argument about "high frequencies." I have no
idea if it's sound theory or not. The theory came afterwards, to
support the native understanding. So: what are we to believe? Scientific
dogma that is created to support what we already believe?
Or can I just believe, as I do, that music is music, dammit, and
good music that is good to listen to can be created by anyone
with the talent, skill, and a good practice ethic; that people will
want to listen to it, sound frequencies be damned.
-cynsa bonorris
"She has a Masters....in Science!"
--Thomas Dolby
dgoo...@acadia.net
Nobody seemed to mention Vibrato as an issue with women's groups,
but I've always found it to be much more dominant in women's than
men's groups. Ironically it's because more girls than boys go
through chorus in secondary school, so they are more classically
trained and thus, tend to have more vibrato.
Someone mentioned that men seem to blend better than women - I'd
say the culprit is vibrato. You simply cannot achieve blend with a
band of warbling voices. In my group auditions, an important
criterion (mostly for the women) was vibrato control.
Men in college groups are often singing for the first time on a
formal basis and haven't developed the bel canto (sp?) style.
As an interesting sidebar, I've started analyzing Mainely A Cappella's
customer base. Among other things I'm tracking sales, male vs. female.
The result so far? About 60% of our customers are male, 40% female.
I'm not quite sure why that is, but it corresponds to my gut impression
of our customer base. And when you think about it, if that holds
true, then maybe there's something about a cappella that is
particularly attractive to men - interesting when you consider that
in most other singing styles women outnumber men.
Getting to the core question - sure, I think women can compete in the
NCCAs - I was there for the first final when a women's group won, in
part because they were just as good as the men's groups, but
different. And women's pro groups can be very, very successful -
just look at Sweet Honey in the Rock. I've had the pleasure of working
with Ysaye Barnwell, who provides their "bass" sound - surely an
important factor in their success. But they've also tried to be
themselves, not emulate other styles.
I think there will, at some point, be a women's group that "breaks out"
within the vocal band genre, and it'll be because they all have strong
personalities, they have big voices with excellent vibrato control, a
couple killer soloists who know how to work a crowd, and some dynamite
songwriters and arrangers. It won't be easy - but it wasn't easy for
the first men's group to emerge, either. And the seeming proliferation
of boy bands is really a very recent phenomenon.
btw, I think all the responders deserve kudos for addressing such a
potentially sensitive issue without flaming. It's all too rare on the
Internet these days!
Don Gooding
Mainely A Cappella
d...@a-cappella.com
http://mac3.a-cappella.com
Steven Walvick
singers (bassi? bassos?) -- and I don't mean the 'low-baritone' that poses
as a basso, in many groups can really make a difference in the sound of a
piece. The additional range can allow for more varied arrangements and
compositions. There is a reason a piano has 88 keys, and not 60.
Most other arguments are subjective, but until you intoduce me to a
contralto who can hit the Low-C with power ( I myself go down to the A
below that on most days, and when I'm really hung-over the low-E :-) )
an all-female group will be hampered somewhat.
-Steven
alls...@my-deja.com wrote: