colton wrote:And yet, "a cappella" does not mean "from the mouth". It means "in the chapel". In this context, "in the chapel", in my opinion, most closely translates to "without additional instruments".
Umm, I've played guitar in chapels. Does that mean I was playing the guitar "a cappella"? Words and meanings change as people, cultures, and styles change. What does "Classical" mean to some people, and why is John Cage lumped in with Beethoven? Heck, why is Beethoven lumped in with Bach?
Sure, you can sub-genre into Baroque, post-modern, or whatever, but it still gets to live in the same overall classification - even though Bach would find John Cage to be random noise.
colton wrote:but said group should still be able to give a tolerable performance without the additions.
Why? Top artists who sell millions of records don't. Why make it a requirement for amateur collegiate singers?
colton wrote:Perhaps a new word should be coined to describe that kind of music.
OK, but first, rename all the little differences in pop and rock music, because that's more important globally than our little problem. And what if the groups doing this stuff WANT to call themselves "A Cappella"? Will they not be allowed?
colton wrote:Another reason the guitar analogy doesn't work for me is this: think about the skill set required to play the guitar. Does this skill set change at all when distortion, etc., is added? No, not really.
Yes, very much so! Just as singing Opera, Pop, Indian Carnatic music, etc are different skill sets with the voice. Hand Segovia an electric guitar through a Marshall stack and it won't be pretty!
1. without instrumental accompaniment.
2. in the style of church or chapel music.
So my point is 100% accurate: in today's usage "a cappella" means "no instruments". It does not mean "from the mouth".
Um, I see it says "in the style of church or chapel music". Let's go with that. Now we're all wrong.