Overview

Every year, on a Friday or Saturday in March, the Chamber Orchestra participates in Organization Contest. The Chamber Orchestra prepares three pieces and performs to three judges who score the performance based on the seven ratings below. Medals may be awarded based on score.

Evaluation Process

Judges will evaluate the groups using the rating code and judging sheet provided by the Northern Illinois Music Conference. The ensemble receives a 1, 2, 3, or 4 in each category based upon the performance, with 4 being the highest. The sum of the ratings in each category determines the medal awarded. A perfect score (all 4’s in each category) earns a “Division I” Rating and a Medal with a Gold Star. A sum of 32-35 points earns a “Division I” Rating and a Medal. A sum of 27-31 points earns a Division II Rating and a Medal. A sum of 9-26 points earns a Division III rating.

• Tone Production: Considers the production of the musical sound: Resonance, control, clarity, focus, consistency, and warmth. Are the various sections demonstrating the characteristics of the instruments being played?
• Phrasing: Performance has consistent phrasing with attention to nuance. Was there a variation from the composer’s intention? Did the group properly reflect the spirit of the composition?
• Intonation: Were the various instrumental sections in tune with themselves and with the other sections of the ensemble? Were the pitch conflicts relatively minor or flagrant? Did the intonation problems occur in pitch areas that are not generally related to such difficulties, or could you expect these difficulties as a matter of the nature of the instrument?
• Note / Pitch Accuracy: Students are performing the correct fingerings in the key of the piece.
• Rhythmic Accuracy: Considers accuracy of note and rest values, duration, pulse, steadiness, correctness of meters, and vertical alignment of the ensemble.
• Articulation: Performance consistently uses articulations that capture the style of music. Was there a variation from the composer’s intention? Did the group properly reflect the spirit of the composition?
• Dynamics: Performance has printed dynamic levels with added dynamic contrast as appropriate to the style. Was there a variation from the composer’s intention? Did the group properly reflect the spirit of the composition?
• Balance/Blend: Considers the likeness of the tonal qualities and intensities and the resultant sound. Do the performers understand and demonstrate an awareness of the ensemble? Did the various instrumental timbres complement each other to create a desirable sound? Was the instrumentation of the group adequate for the proper presentation of the composition?
• Performance Technique / Other: Considers such mechanical elements as are required for precision of attacks and releases, proper breathing, articulation, bowing, fingering, fluency, tonguing, and embouchure. Did the group present satisfactory stage decorum? Do the students understand and demonstrate proper posture and instrument placement? Were there any physical distractions?

In addition to these ratings, judges provide feedback on ways to improve. We will review the Judge’s Ratings and Comment Sheet a few days afterward in school.

Attire

Students are required to wear the following:

• Orchestra polo
• Black slacks/skirt
• Black shoes & socks

If a student is not wearing the correct uniform the judges may rate us negatively on Other (Stage Presence).

Schedule

Each year, a couple of weeks prior to the date of the contest, IGSMA provides us with a specific schedule for our performance time. Unfortunately, due to the large number of ensembles performing the schedule cannot be completed until only a couple of weeks prior. Students and their families should have the whole day unplanned as the performance time can be anywhere between 8:00a and 5:00p.

All students are to meet at MSN to take a bus together to the contest site. The schedule typically is as follows, but is based on our performance time (specific 2015 times in red):

Typical schedule…

The following is not the specific schedule for this year, but is typical for the event.

1. Students eat a healthy breakfast at home!
2. Meet at MSN (14 March 2015: ARRIVE AT 8:45 AM)
3. Load Bus with instruments
4. Depart MSN
5. Arrive at Contest Site (Hawthorn Townline Elementary School @ 810 Aspen Drive, Vernon Hills)
6. Unpack in “homeroom” area
7. Tune & practice in “warm-up” room (14 March 2015: 10:00 AM)
8. Perform for judges (14 March 2015: 10:30 AM)
9. Return to “homeroom” area to pack up, wait in cafeteria for scores, students may purchase a snack
10. Load Bus
11. Depart Contest Site
12. Arrive at MSN (14 March 2015: 11:20 AM)

Audience

Families are encouraged to attend this performance so tehre is a cheering section in the audience.

Chaperones

If you are able to chaperone on this trip (that includes riding along on the bus, taking attendance, helping at the contest site, etc.) please let me know asap (riley.broach@lz95.org). The orchestra needs about 4 to 6 parents to attend.

MSN Accomplishments

Year	Ensemble	Rating	Scores	Selection #1	Selection #2	Selection #3	Comments
2016	Chamber Orchestra	II	27, 29, 29	Ancient Aires & Dances (Respighi))	Four Seasons (Vivaldi)	Finale from Symphony No. 8 (Dvorak)	–
2015	D95 Sinfonietta	I	–	Minuet & Rondo (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart / John O’Reilly)	Danza (Vaclav Nelhybel)	Boreas: The Cold, North Wind (Todd Parish)	–
2014	Chamber Orchestra	I	9, 12, 10	Bohemian Dance (Antonin Dvorak)	Two Joyous Chorales (Johann Sebastian Bach)	Echoes of Bartok (Bela Bartok)	Judge’s Recorded Comments Judge’s Score Sheets
2013	Chamber Orchestra	I	9, 10, 11	Hopak from “The Fair at Sorochinsk” (Modest Moussorgsky / Merle Isaac)	Largo from the New World Symphony (Antonin Dvorak/ Elliot Del Borgo)	Arkansas Traveler (Colonel Sanford Faulker / Craig Duncan)	Judge’s Score Sheets Student Reflections
2012	Chamber Orchestra	II	10, 12, 14	Symphony No. 3, Movement IV; Beethoven	Symphony No. 7, Movement II; Beethoven	Symphony No. 5, Movement IV; Beethoven	–
2011	Chamber Orchestra	I	12, 8, 9	Two Joyous Chorales; Bach	Adagio Cantabile, Beethoven	Echoes of Bartok, Bartok	Click on music titles to listen to (and read) judge’s comments.
2010	Symphony Orchestra	II	15, 11, 7	Radetzky March, Strauss Jr.	Sarabande, Handel	Pastoral Symphony, Beethoven	Judge’s Recorded Comments
2009	Chamber Orchestra	II	13, 12, 17	Spartacus, Balmages	Bach Suite, Bach	Jupiter, Holst	–
2008	Chamber Orchestra	I	9, 7, 10	Two Joyous Chorales; Bach	Symphony No. 7, Mvmt. 2; Beethoven	Finlandia; Sibelius	–
2007	Chamber Orchestra	II	10, 11, 12	Bohemian Dance; Dvorak	Dance of Iscariot; Mosier	End Pin Rag; Meyer	–

Judge’s Ratings

Year	Tone Production	Phrasing	Intonation	Note/Pitch Accuracy	Rhythmic Accuracy	Articulation	Dynamics	Balance /Blend	Other	Total
2016	3, 3, 2	3, 3, 3	2, 3, 4	3, 3, 4	3, 3, 3	3, 3, 3	3, 4, 3	3, 3, 3	4, 4, 4	27, 29, 29

 

Year	Intonation	Tone Quality	Balance/Blend	Musicianship	Rhythmic Accuracy	Technique	Stage Presentation	Total
2015
2014	1, 2, 1	1, 1, 1	2, 2, 1	2, 2, 2	1, 2, 2	1, 2, 2	1, 1, 1	9, 12, 10
2013	2, 2, 1	1, 2, 3	1, 2, 1	1, 1, 2	1, 1, 1	2, 1, 2	1, 1, 1	9, 10, 11

 

Year	Intonation	Tone Quality	Balance	Musicianship	Technique	Rhythm	Stage Presentation	Total
2012	3, 2, 3	1, 2, 2	1, 2, 2	2, 2, 2	1, 1, 2	1, 2, 2	1, 1, 1	10, 12, 14
2011	2, 1, 2	1, 1, 1	2, 1, 2	1, 1, 1	2, 1, 1	2, 2, 1	2, 1, 1	12, 8, 9
2010	2, 1, 1	2, 1, 1	3, 2, 1	2, 2, 1	3, 2, 1	2, 2, 1	1, 1, 1	15, 11, 7
2009	2, 3, 3	2, 2, 2	2, 3, 2	2, 1, 2	2, 1, 3	2, 1, 3	1, 1, 2	13, 12, 17
2008	2, 1, 2	2, 1, 1	2, 1, 1	1, 1, 1	1, 1, 2	1, 2, 2	1, 1, 1	9, 7, 10
2007	2, 3, 2	1, 1, 1	1, 2, 1	2, 1, 1	1, 2, 2	1, 2, 3	2, 1, 1	10, 12, 11