This is a long post in relation to the great comp at Chatswood RSL last night...
I had hoped to be competing in it myself but missed the chance, so it was nice (and flattering) to be asked to judge instead. (THANKS GAZ!!) I was a little surprised at a couple of my fellow judges' decisions but overall, it was a very good standard, I felt.
Many moons ago, after winning one comp at a different karaoke outfit's show and venue, I was made ineligible to compete in the next one and also made a judge for that next comp. In that case, marks were not allowed to fall below 50% in any category which was silly in my opinion, so it was nice to see last night had no such restraints but was actually fair and honest.
I have witnessed greater talent overall in the past at Chatswood but the standard was certainly high and the 4 place getters were all deserving as were some who didn't make the final 4. Everyone really made an effort which, when you're talking about $2k up for grabs, I think is important.
Surprisingly, a lot of folk stuck around even when they themselves didn't make it through to the next round. That was particularly nice to see since many are often not so supportive. Great night.
Well done once again, Rising Star Karaoke! Gaz as always was very professional at the mixing desk. I noted his adjustments to get the best out of every singer. When they were quiet, he was doing his utmost to make them audible and when loud, he was racing to mute them only enough to protect the gear from blowing. Some singers were noticeably more difficult as they would switch from soft to loud so often mid sentence.
Singing wise, that is actually a bit of a cheat but business wise, it is very savvy as audiences are more likely to enjoy hearing singers at the best they can possibly sound rather than had they been left to use mic technique and projection alone to sound good. Thus, an audience is more likely to stick around and even return in future. Plus, the singers themselves have a better time because they sound good - even when they don't, if you know what I mean.
One chap unfortunately got a little too creative with his act and actually had a bad fall on stage, landing on (and bending) a mic stand in the process but I gave him extra points when he covered that mistake well - as any entertainer should be able to do. He was also unhurt and when I spotted him on the poker machines long after the comp had finished, he was chuffed he'd won the $100 that he had and not at all bitter about missing out on the higher rankings (with much greater prize money). Later still, after the club had shut, a friend inadvertently inspired him to burst into a rendition of Paradise By The Dashboard light with her though she was only wanting to know if he knew it but the guy was obviously still on such a high as to belt out the majority of the song right there on the street. Thankfully, no local residents yelled out their windows at us or anything. Perhaps they found it entertaining... Who knows?
People kept commenting how difficult the judging must have been but I didn't find it so. First round, I was conservative in marks and did have 5 place ties out of the 15 competitors but only because of different categories balancing out that way (such as someone who performed well but didn't dress the part and someone who didn't perform quite as well but DID dress the part, etc) but thanks to the total tallies of scores of all 3 judges, it all worked out. For second and third rounds, I gave higher marks than for the first because now I knew the overall standard whereas I noticed my fellow judges were still quite harsh but they were consistent markers so that was good. The other thing I did was to mark people up for costume changes and down for a lack of them. A particularly smart looking costume change would gain extra points, whereas a simple one would only gain a single point. Each lack of change lost a single point on my score sheets.
For those interested, my opinion of judging is that for the first round, assume full marks are only 60% because the bar can sometimes be raised considerably and if you've already awarded near full points to the first great act you see, you don't have anywhere to go to reflect how much better an act that blows that one out of the water is.
Once second round comes along, you have a fair idea of what to expect, so from that point, it's fair to assume all acts have 100% in each category and then dock them accordingly for their errors. It's like sculpting. I forget who it was who said it but there was a rock sculptor (Michelangelo, perhaps?) who said something along the lines that he didn't really create his carved figures but merely revealed them from within the block of stone. That is, it was what he took away from the whole that made the art. Same deal with judging. Dock points from full marks for flat notes, missed lyrics, wrong or rather, out of wack timing (I won't mark someone down if they prefer r'n'b or jazz timing, etc. over the original, for example), poor effort in dress sense, presentation styles etc.
I also took into account people's sizes cos not all gals are able to fit those modelesque, slinky evening gowns and not all guys can find shirts or pants that fit them to a tee and are flattering and thus, so long as an effort to wear something reasonably smart was made, they got the points. I'd then dock them if they didn't have enough accoutrements on. A smart watch, cufflinks, a few rings, necklaces and bangles / bracelets, flashy earings and even matching nail colour for fingers and toes were taken into account on my scoresheet cos if you're going to mark them on presentation, then you might as well go the whole way, yes?
Vocals + performance were combined in one score so that was a little tricky to get the hang of. I was forever scribbling out and replacing some scores because I'd award points based on voice before remembering stage performance was not a separate category as I have judged in other comps. So, when someone had great vocals but poor presentation on stage, I'd balance out that score but I was focussed primarily on vocals and that unfortunately will always be a subjective thing no matter how impartial you are. Some voices grab you, others don't and not everyone has the same opinion on who belongs to which category there. So, those who were in tune but didn't grab me got marked as I suppose, 'average' whereas those who sang in tune but had a voice I found captivating, were marked up. Those who had voices that were jarring were marked down and that was only the case of being out of tune or screechy instead of powerful - you know, where you can tell what they 'wanted to do' but didn't quite make it? Often, it's given away in body language when a singer isn't happy with the note they hit. The expression on the face usually gives it away. You see the eyes close and an exhalation take place as if they are cursing 'Damn!' silently or they widen the eyes and stick out the tongue with a bit of a grin as if to say, 'Oops! I really stuffed that one, didn't I?'
That's my 2cents on what being a judge entails for those of you who do judge whether officially or just from the audience and those of you merely interested in what goes on in a judge's mind. I hope my method is seen as sound, fair and just. I believe it is.

Congrats to last night's winners and well done to any of the other competitors reading here! You all did very well!

Submitted by Johnny B on 22-07-2006

Meet karaoke hosts and singers in the Where2sing.com forums . . .

Where2sing.com