I love my job this week, too.

Gather round, friends, as it is time for yet another brilliant email from an “a cappella person.” This time, he copied me on a message he sent to — who knows? He blind-copied them. Awesome.

My response is below his email. In my defense, I have been listening to these kinds of complaints for five years now, and I have officially run out of patience. I do send nice responses, though, to people who address me with their concerns in a respectful and level-headed manner.

On 2/4/07 4:28 PM, “Jason” wrote:

Ladies and gentlemen:

My name is Jason. I am the Business Manager for the [group name eliminated to protect the innocent], competing last night. I am writing to you because I have noticed what I consider to be a disturbing marring of the competition’s objectivity: The issue of home-field advantage. I am not referring to the boost a group gets from its home crowd, but rather the astounding competitive advantage gained from using a familiar sound system.

As you well know, competing groups are generally visitors to the site at which they are competing. They are given no advance notice of what the sound system will be like, the types of microphones used, the background and solo mic setup, or how they should manipulate these data to their advantage to produce the best quality sound. Obviously, this knowledge is crucial to producing a high-quality performance. When putting on a concert at its own school, a group knows exactly what they will need, exactly what to expect, and exactly how to capitalize on their own situation.

However, this is not true of the ICCA. As previously noted, groups go in completely blind. They are given a wanting ten minutes for their sound check, which is not even enough to fully run a set, much less experiment with the setup to figure out what would make each song sound the best. As a result, all the visiting groups wind up going into the show with a near guarantee that their product will not be as refined as it could and should be. Problematically, many hosting schools have their own representative groups competing at that location. This means that the “native” group has an enormous advantage over its competitors, as they are already familiar with the sound system and know how to use it to its fullest potential.

For example, take the competition my group just finished competing in. Though we were not the best group there, and did not deserve to win, we were convincingly disadvantaged by the unfamiliar sound system. One problem was that a “bass mic” was used, a setup which we had not encountered until we were told it existed: The mike routes whatever it picks up through the mixer and into the subwoofer, creating an excellent grounding for bass notes. However, this method is obviously designed for a bass section of one to two people at most, whereas most groups, including mine, have a three- to four-person section. We suffered as a result.

The problem was so bad that our judges even commented on it: Said Ann Clements, “Overall I might do some additional mic work. It’s hard when you’re on the road like this but I think you could have done something differently to make more of the amplification offered here.” We would have liked to do just that, but the time constraints placed on sound checks make it nearly impossible to switch gears fast enough and effectively enough to truly take advantage of the sound system. J. Sears said, “VP –> holding mic to the side of the face loses (thump) – intentional?” This was not intentional; it was a casualty of different microphone types. We use a certain mic for our own concerts, but were never told that the mics being used were a different kind that required a different style, as not holding the mic off to the side for perc at our own concert would create massive amounts of feedback on snare hits. With no other information, one must default to what one knows works.

Conversely, the event winners knew exactly what they were getting into and exactly what to do. I do not believe this is an isolated case, however. I have gone through the previous results of ICCA competitions and found a disproportionate number of groups placing in the top three spots when singing at their own venue. I have included the list I have compiled at the end of this letter as simple text (not an attached file). I urge you to examine it and to consider its implications. While I am not trying to say that these groups do not deserve their spots (they do, of course; I am not disputing that), I am saying that their visiting competitors are at a severe disadvantage.

I thank you for your time and effort on this issue. When possible, I would appreciate a response with your thoughts and comments. I would also like you to know that despite my (and my group’s) disappointment at this year’s competition, I am looking forward to incorporating the judges’ commentary and improving for next year’s contests.

Again, thank you, and good luck to you and all the competitors at the semifinals.

Sincerely,
Jason

From: Amanda
To: Jason
Subject: Re: Issues with “home field advantage”

Jason:

If you are going to take the time to write an email with the intention of garnering respect and consideration for your group, you might at least have the decency to allow your opponent the opportunity to respond. Copying me on this blind email is simply tantamount to bragging, and it gives me very little patience for your commentary.

That said, I’m sure that your email will garner you the solidarity that you are looking for, and you and the other groups who do not advance (yet, somehow, return to compete year after year) will come together and start a revolution.

But, in case that doesn’t happen, allow me to at least share a few of my thoughts with you. Perhaps you will consider sharing them with the other recipients of your message. Or, perhaps I will be inclined to share your scathing email — as well as my thoughts — with my contacts, who are, for example, all the groups involved in our competition. Or the tens of thousands of our clients, or various a cappella forums, et cetera. But that wouldn’t be very mature of us, though, would it?

The finger of blame never points inward, does it, Jay? Surely the only reason your group did not win was that the “home teams” spent hours upon hours rehearsing in the venue, with full sound setup and support. Just like the Bears lost the Superbowl yesterday because the average rainfall in Chicago is less than that in Indianapolis, and they hadn’t had “equal” time to prepare under the given conditions.

Blaming the environment or equipment is the oldest excuse in the book, and it doesn’t do much for me. The truly great groups can operate in top form under any circumstances. We cannot create a competition in a vacuum, and there is always going to be some situation that gives one group an advantage over another. Our judges are professionals who understand this remarkable phenomenon, and I’m sure they did not allow it to influence their scoring.

I might point out that, whenever possible, our producers provide competitors with as much sound setup information as is available to us before the event. Your producer has assured me that, although the finalized sound setup that the host group could provide was not available until days before the event, she did answer every question about sound that came her way.

Shockingly enough, your group did not ask about the sound setup, despite your serious concern that it would surely spell your failure. Or was it that you did not consider this until after the event, and now need a scapegoat?

I am sure that I need not remind you that the opportunity to host an event on your own campus is made available to you year after year. In actuality, the groups who do host events tend to be groups with the most interest in the ICCA. And groups with the most interest in the ICCA tend to be the groups who are poised to do well in our competition. Another remarkable phenomenon!

If you would like to engage in a fair discussion about this issue, I’d be happy to participate. But I have no patience for whining and the pointing of fingers, or the egging on of factions for the purpose of such, when you give no indication that you have any interest in my response. It’s immature, and, frankly, you are too old for it. So am I.

In reality, as a former member of a group that competes in the ICCA, and in my five years of coordinating these competitions, I am sensitive to your concerns. I wish I could offer a solution to what you view as a formidable problem, but there is none, and, at the end of the day, good groups will accept disadvantages for what they are and will still rise to the occasion.

My very best wishes to you as you endeavor to behave and perform like one of them.

Regards,

Amanda

Mean, I know, but I just couldn’t help myself!