A Cappella Innovations

[Innovations Participants]

I am a member of a collegiate a cappella group. We’re in Albany, at A Cappella Innovations. This is the second semester that this festival has been held. Before you read the rest of our post, we’d like you to read the following articles:

http://www.cultnews.com/?p=2291
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1013/088.html
http://www.rickross.com/reference/esp/esp40.html

Keith Raniere, who you’ve just read about, founded A Cappella Innovations last year. When we attended the first festival in the fall of 2007, it was a productive experience, which is why we decided to return this spring after being invited back. We immediately noticed several changes in format:

- A program with extensive references to Keith Raniere’s “patent-pending technology”, Rational Inquiry. The connection between this endeavor and a cappella music was not established.
- Numerous insistent requests for our personal information, including e-mail and home addresses, as well as Social Security numbers.
- Questionnaires encouraging us to consider the “Emotional Journeys” of each of our songs, rather than musical sections on which we wanted criticism.
- Workshops being moderated by employees of Mr. Raniere with tenuous ties to a cappella music. While the a cappella groups gave each other constructive, musically-oriented criticism, the moderators repeatedly attempted to steer our conversations to more existential topics, confusing some of us and unnerving others.
- Constant surveillance, including intrusive photography and video recording, even during ‘down time’, when we and the other groups present were simply talking between ourselves.
- An after-party sponsored by Mr. Raniere and promoting an entirely unrelated “social network” fronted by Allison Mack and Nicki Clyne, actresses who also have no clear ties to a cappella music.

The entire atmosphere was drastically different than that of the first festival, and our group, as well as every other group with which we discussed these concerns, feels very unsettled. Mr. Raniere and members of the a cappella group he founded, Simply Human, have posted on this board in the past. We welcome their response to this post, considering the numerous questions that remain unanswered. Events that celebrate a cappella music should obviously be encouraged, but we feel that the motives of Mr. Raniere and his constituents were not and have not been candidly presented. Our only reason for presenting this information is to encourage other a cappella groups to think about the intentions of this organization before committing themselves to something they may not be prepared for.

[billhare]

This is weird... radio silence since this was posted late last night - anyone else there who can confirm this? Dave? Ben? Kurt? Let us know what's going on there!

-B

[AMalkoff]

this whole thing leaves a VERY bad taste in my mouth. any one of the things that the poster mentioned should raise red flags, let alone all of them together. i understand that an organization with pockets deep enough to hire some of the best groups around is alluring (especially when most events like this are run on a shoestring), but we should think very carefully about getting collectively and individually involved in something like this.

i haven't been to these events, but doing the reading sure does make this man and his organization seem insidious, if not outright dangerous (at least one person's suicide has now been attributed to them).

i spoke to a knowledgeable friend earlier about this and he'd read something elsewhere about how this organization has been known to silence and/or trail individuals who questioned them. i'm not really concerned for myself, but i do think this is worth taking a MUCH closer look at, and not ignoring the red flags because they seem to be supportive of a cappella, and they have financial backing.

if you don't want to bother reading the articles (which you really should), here's an interesting distillation from the forbes article:

John Hochman, a forensic psychiatrist who teaches at UCLA, who pored over the Executive Success manual and describes it thusly: "It is a kingdom of sorts, ruled by a Vanguard, who writes his own dictionary of the English language, has his own moral code and the ability to generate taxes on subjects by having them participate in his seminars. It is a kingdom with no physical borders, but with psychological borders--influencing how his subjects spend their time, socialize, and think."

[dherriges]

After the extensive discussion here about these issues before the first summit occurred, I can't say I'm surprised by this turn of events. Don't want to say it's an "I told you so" vindication for the people who were skeptical the first time around... the fact is, wacko cult involvement or not, the first A Cappella Innovations sounds like it was a very positive experience for those who attended. But this now all seems very typical of a cult-like organization or scam - appear completely innocuous just long enough to hook people, then show your true colors.

At least it sounds like everybody attending the summit this time is on to what's going on, and they're talking to each other about it, so hopefully nobody gets caught up in something they shouldn't.

[sparkleytone]

I think we can all wait until the festivities are over and groups have returned to start passing judgements. Until then, let's take this with as big a grain of salt as anyone else who creates an account to post something controversial.

[AMalkoff]

I think we can all wait until the festivities are over and groups have returned to start passing judgements. Until then, let's take this with as big a grain of salt as anyone else who creates an account to post something controversial.

even removing the info from the original poster, anyone who could read those articles and look at the a cappella innovations website thoroughly and not have some SERIOUS questions about their motivations is lacking a working intuitive sense.

it'll be interesting to see if the participants have anything to say. i hope they do.

[bstevens]

I'm back from the festival, with apologies to Bill for keeping 'radio silence'. I'm able to write just a bit now about the weekend, and will be happy of course to engage in ongoing conversation as needed somewhat later (it's late, and -- as a student of mine pointed out before our break -- I'm "obviously older").

As before, I appreciate concerns raised about aspects of the festival and have, as readers of last November's similar thread know, some of my own. I also appreciate, and appropriate, the spirit of inquiry in which this thread has been opened. If we don't ask, we risk never knowing.

I don't know whether there is a connection to be made between the a cappella festival, in its musical-educational and social purposes, and the other affiliations or interests of its principal organizers and/or backers. In the absence of evidence, I hope charitably to assume that there is not. But I do wonder. From what has been reported, it does seem as if the afterparty, hosted by a new business called 10C, _could_ be read as an attempt to establish just such a connection, with 10C hoping to develop a first roster of clients out of festival attendees (but also others). But this is only true _if_ 10C seeks to further the interests of ESP and/or NXIVM, and I don't know enough -- really, anything -- about 10C's business model to know for sure. I don't have that impression (I never experienced pressure), but would look forward to hearing other impressions of the business, and/or whether anyone felt particular pressure about it or about ESP and/or NXIVM.

Of somewhat more immediate concern for me, as an educator of your age-group in particular, are the requests by the festival for sensitive, personal information. I take it that the information was requested in order to be of use during workshops focusing on 'emotionality' in musical performance; this must be hearsay, since I at least was not invited to take part in the workshops. If that is all, then the manner of its asking might be criticized as well-intentioned but ham-fisted: there are less intrusive ways, less potentially off-putting ways that are quite ordinary to pedagogy, of encouraging a student's investment in material at hand. But my read of the situation must be different if the information was actively being collected for other, unclear reasons. Was any sensitive and/or personal information being collected for use outside of the workshops, e.g. by turning in completed forms? Were SSN collected? If so, in what context?

Of particular frustration to me, much more so this time as before, is the fact that either the hour-to-hour proceedings of the festival itself were not clearly organized or their organization was not shared effectively with participants including the judges. If all of the participants -- groups, judges, others -- are known well enough in advance to be detailed in the festival program, then so too can the master schedule -- of group judging order and of workshop order, description, and leadership -- be printed and shared with the participants. For this not to have taken place at the first festival may be attributed to the speed, indeed haste, with which that festival was put together. But for a second festival to suffer from the same lack of obvious organization is either unprofessional or, possibly, uncharitable.

As before, I commend the festival organizers for very quickly developing their interest in the artform, but hope that in the future they will be rather more open to making more efficient and obvious use of existing a cappella expertise and organizational knowledge. A great many a cappella musical experts in attendance as judges went totally unused as workshop leaders and were unnecessarily doubled or tripled up as judges. One group doesn't need to be critiqued by both Joseph Bates and Dave Baumgartner and Ben Stevens (not to mention Carl Taylor on sound!), or by both Dave Brown and Kurt Walker. Five (even six) 'names' divided by only two panels is too many judges per panel, and this is not counting judges from _outside_ a cappella.

In the same light, lastly, to me the festival operating under the ambit, verbal or otherwise, of Mr. Raniere is not sinister so much as parochial. I don't understand the relevance of quoting, for definition of the "essence of a cappella", someone who is himself not essential to that artform. Quote Deke Sharon or Bill Hare, Dave Brown or Jonathan Minkoff, Chris Tess or Seth Golub, Jerry Lawson or Ysaye Barnwell, 'dio or Brojo or Kurt Walker. If you don't know these names (and others, excluding me, whose comments seem always to _end_ conversations!) -- if you don't know these names, then you don't know a cappella.

Looking forward to further conversation.

[The Crosbys]

Ben-

I know that I speak for all of the Crosbys when I say thank you for maintaining an open line of communication throughout the weekend. Your points largely represent the way that our group feels. Surely the goal of all groups involved is to further our a cappella goals and we thank all of the judges that attended the festival for helping us improve our performance.

-Niko

[BenjGC]

So hey.

I don't post frequently, but I was an attendee at the first A Cappella Innovations. I saw Mr. Raniere, did NOT interact with him (had no idea who he was or about NXIVM or whatever) and went about my business. My group got a lot out of being critiqued by Ben, Kurt Walker and Valerie Kolko, although their commentary was placed among commentary from others which, for the most part, really had no a cappella bearing whatsoever. I loved meeting the House Jacks (with whom we'll perform in a month...shameless plug...), and I found Allison Mack, Nicki Clyne and Kristin Kreuk to be very nice, delightful people, as was the case with everyone I met, and I do mean everyone.

My insight into this is limited to my dealings with Allison, Nicki and Kristin; Allison and Kristin appeared on my radio show to talk about their website. I've filled out the survey, and there seems to be nothing diabolical or Machiavellian about it; I also don't know whether they're involved in NXIVM (although Google would indicate that at least Kristin has been). Then again, I had no idea that Siobahn and Mike B (refer to the earlier thread if you don't know) were involved with NXIVM, nor did I know about NXIVM at all. In retrospect, I'm a little creeped out. That said, I'm OK with having gone the first time (we had a schedule conflict for this past weekend's event), and I'm pretty glad I politely refused to give up my SSN.

Many thanks to Ben for talking about this, and for everyone's open discussion. I'm founding my own a cappella cult next week; it will be called simply..."Groink". This is the greatest syllable ever. :-)

Ben Gellman-Chomsky
Brandeis VoiceMale

[The Crosbys]

So hey.

I don't post frequently, but I was an attendee at the first A Cappella Innovations. I saw Mr. Raniere, did NOT interact with him (had no idea who he was or about NXIVM or whatever) and went about my business. My group got a lot out of being critiqued by Ben, Kurt Walker and Valerie Kolko, although their commentary was placed among commentary from others which, for the most part, really had no a cappella bearing whatsoever. I loved meeting the House Jacks (with whom we'll perform in a month...shameless plug...), and I found Allison Mack, Nicki Clyne and Kristin Kreuk to be very nice, delightful people, as was the case with everyone I met, and I do mean everyone.

My insight into this is limited to my dealings with Allison, Nicki and Kristin; Allison and Kristin appeared on my radio show to talk about their website. I've filled out the survey, and there seems to be nothing diabolical or Machiavellian about it; I also don't know whether they're involved in NXIVM (although Google would indicate that at least Kristin has been). Then again, I had no idea that Siobahn and Mike B (refer to the earlier thread if you don't know) were involved with NXIVM, nor did I know about NXIVM at all. In retrospect, I'm a little creeped out. That said, I'm OK with having gone the first time (we had a schedule conflict for this past weekend's event), and I'm pretty glad I politely refused to give up my SSN.

Many thanks to Ben for talking about this, and for everyone's open discussion. I'm founding my own a cappella cult next week; it will be called simply..."Groink". This is the greatest syllable ever. :-)

Ben Gellman-Chomsky
Brandeis VoiceMale

Ben-

The Crosbys attended the first one as well, and we felt that it was a great festival and that we gathered a lot from the critiques, but this last one changed a lot. While the judges still helped us quite a bit, the rest of the festival felt strangely different.

[whataboutrob]

The asking for SSN's strikes me as a bit bizzare, indeed. A group from my school attended this weekend, so I'm planning on asking them for more info on how exactly the conference went down...

That being said, I'm of mixed minds about the whole thing. On the one hand, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong about an organization choosing to sponsor a festival or event of any kind, and then using the fesitival or event as a platform for promotion of their brand or product. If Pepsi, for example, were to put down the funds for a youth basketball tournament, you can bet they the backboards and maybe even the basketballs themselves would have Pepsi logos, and there would likely be at least a table at the festival/event where Pepsi would try to hawk it's products, give away promotional material, and maybe even look to hire some of the festival's participants to jobs or internships. And, really, that's all just fine. If that's what NXIVM is up to, then fine. You want to ask for festival participants' email addresses (although you shouldn't require them)? Fine by me. You want to stand up on a stage at a competition and talk about how wonderful the organization is that sponsors an event? Great. If you're paying for the theater, have a ball.

I think what we're getting at is the issue of legitimacy, and whether or not we, as a community, consider a cappella innovations to be a legitimate event, and if college groups and a cappella experts can take part in these festivals without loosing credibility.

And I think that, so far, I've yet to see a whole lot one way or the other convincing me that A Cappella Innovations is either legit or a complete scam. I mean, the website, frankly, reads like cross between a bad late night, religiously-based info-mercial (And then keith heard a cappella, and was inspired, and that's what we're founded on -- this man's innovation and desire and community, etc), and an excited, yet awkwardly worded press release (this just in: people like to sing together! Without instruments! And sometimes other people like to listen!). The judges are a strange mix of people who I think most of us would consider experts in the world of a cappella (Dave Brown, Joseph Bates), and those who simply aren't (who the hell is Ivy Nevares, other than a dancer who's written with Keith Raniere?).

What I think the festival has done well is bring outside financing to a cappella (this way groups don't have to pay for masterclasses, etc), but the way in which they've done it is a bit suspect.

I think, also, that the way in which these events have been marketed leads to a bit of hesitation on our part, as a community. The posts on this board on behalf of the conference are a bit strange, and they usually happen only weeks before the actual conference, which comes off as quite a bit sketchy.

That said, I'd love to hear from other people who were actually there this weekend. Thoughts? Comments?

[livingfiction]

It's true, things were a little different at this event then they were at the last event. But that's understandable, at least to me. The last ACI was the first ever, I know the producers were in touch with me since the last event asking what I felt could be changed or tuned to make improvements, so I expect the next event will be different than ACI 1 and 2, as there seems a real commitment to improve and grow.

The last ACI's judging was somewhat repetitive in feedback from group to group. Emotional connection and commitment to material was a note that seemed to be repeated from group to group, this is just my observation from sitting in on the judging, so I wonder if that isn't potential motivation for the emphasis on that aspect of performance.

I have kind of an interesting opportunity to see these events from a different angle. I work with the organizers, but I'm not an organizer, I get to roam around the workshops and judging, but I'm not an attendee. So I understand that I get a little of all elements but not the full experience of any, so I can't speak to any group's experience or the organizer's intentions with full understanding, but where the social security field on the forms are concerned I can shed some light on that.

I've been working with the video team on a limited basis during my visits, as anyone who attended knows they film all the performances, as well as the event in general and the workshops. At present these tapes are used to provide the groups in attendance with tools to improve, and as a means to market the event and generate future promotional materials. Permission for these uses is included in release information, but if there was ever a desire to release some kind of DVD for purchase, or to use the footage in a way other than promotion or private viewing, additional release would be needed. SS numbers were brought up as a way to ensure the ability to get ahold of people in the future, considering that college students tend to move, and phone numbers and email addresses change. Once the forms were created it was determined that SS numbers were not really necessary and the volunteers distributing the forms were instructed to let people know that filling out that part was not necessary. In fact, a point was specifically made on stage by the producers that any and all personal information, even answering questions and participating was at the discretion of each attendee to decide whether or not they wished to disclose it.

Where all this cult business is concerned, the bottom line for me is simply this. They are who they are, that isn't changing, those articles online exsist, that's not changing, nor is there any new information there that wasn't there last year. If one goes into a situation looking to see the worst, they'll find it. I followed my wife across the country, and over an ocean to China. Because she loved me it's a beautiful romantic story. If she didn't, I'm a crazy stalker. There's nothing inherintly negative about discussing emotional content of songs, passing out emails, networking, keeping in touch, or any of that, unless you place it in a framework that is itself a negative thing.

I've been to two of these events, and I'm going to trust my own personal experience and not allow myself to be "brainwashed" by some stuff people I've never met write in articles and online. Truth is, if you want to find articles to make someone look bad, you can:

http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/acm2.htm

There were some things that were different at this event than last event that bothered me though. At the last event there weren't any groups tossing around containers of their own urine and feces. There weren't any groups breaking fire extinguishers and vandalizing local hotels. That was different, shameful, and embarrassing.

There have been a lot of points brought up in this thread, and I'd like to address more of them, I'm also happy to answer questions. But I'm late for lunch.

As I say, I'm not an expert, but I do get to see a pretty large portion of the event from a different perspective. So I try to report what I observe.

[bstevens]

I appreciate Michael's thoughtful reply and his careful emphasis on perspective. The festival was large enough, and perspectives diverse enough, that there is real value in combining, comparing, and contrasting our various accounts.

He is also right to draw attention to the festival organizers' interest in bettering their event over time; in that light I want to pursue three of his observations or comments.

There's nothing inherintly negative about discussing emotional content of songs, passing out emails, networking, keeping in touch, or any of that, unless you place it in a framework that is itself a negative thing.

Agreed, but complications arise when festival participants are not told in advance what to expect of workshops (with their new emphasis this time on "emotional content of songs") and when "networking" and "keeping in touch" are not purely interpersonal but possibly in the service of organizations whose interests are not clear. In part, such complications could be alleviated by timely and complete information-sharing with potential and actual participants. Basic information like workshop content, leadership, and scheduling was not made available; this is unprofessional and unpragmatic, disenfranchising participants including judges while contributing to an aura of mystery if not suspicion.

In particular, the festival should not have surprised participants with requests for sensitive, personal information. To this point Michael writes:

In fact, a point was specifically made on stage by the producers that any and all personal information, even answering questions and participating was at the discretion of each attendee to decide whether or not they wished to disclose it.

Clare did make this point, but it is not enough.

With young people -- college students, including minors -- it is not at all sufficient to say that anyone who wishes not to share need not. When the information is requested publicly, in a group setting, it is a rare young person indeed, and in particular a rare young woman, who is able to resist feeling pressured into sharing against her will. No young person should be put on the spot by authority figures, in front of close associates and friends as well as strangers, about his or her personal experiences and convictions, especially not if failure to respond runs counter to the spirit of the occasion.

In such a context the 'choice' not to participate is severely constrained: this is the very definition of _shame_. It is a kind of compulsion and it is entirely unacceptable. The fact that it came as a surprise to all participants only makes it worse. The manner of it -- the format of the requests, their very fact -- must be changed for next time; indeed, as I mentioned in my first post in this thread, there are other more ordinary ways of encouraging emotional connection to material at hand.

Finally:

There were some things that were different at this event than last event that bothered me though. At the last event there weren't any groups tossing around containers of their own urine and feces. There weren't any groups breaking fire extinguishers and vandalizing local hotels. That was different, shameful, and embarrassing.

I know about some of these details only by rumor, but the hotel confirms that rooms were left in despicable condition. There were of course other guests at the hotel -- the front desk staff couldn't tell me which rooms were damaged or by whom -- but if the damage was indeed caused by groups attending the festival, then Michael is right that they should be ashamed on their own behalf and sincerely apologetic for the damage done to the reputations of everyone involved in the festival. I would however like to find out more about this aspect of the weekend.

[sonicaudio]

Hello everyone... this is my first post. Wish me luck!!

First of all, I should probably introduce myself...
I own Sonic Audio Productions in Denver, CO. I sang with the 17th Avenue Allstars for 10 years and was part of the original groups that spawned M-Pact out of the University of Northern Colorado. I currently am the touring sound engineer for Take 6, Groove Society, and Face. I will start to do sound for M-Pact later this month.

I was in attendance at the A Cappella Innovations event this weekend as a judge and engineer for the concert on Saturday night. In retrospect, I look back at this event with questions of my own. Although, I don't know what questions to ask. I did see this event as under organized, free form, and at a lack for information and structure. In some ways it was refreshing and others frustrating.

-Refreshing in a way that schedules were flexible enough to allow for the creation of small clinics and performances on a whim.

-Frustrating because I didn't get any information on details until I pulled Kurt Walker aside when I arrived. Thanks Kurt for the help.

I've had some time to think on the event and see it in a very factual manner. A company, with intentions of marketing to a group of individuals and entities that might purchase their product, invited said group and entities to an event they would enjoy. Of course in the attempt to possibly influence them into a future business relationship. As it was said earlier, Pepsi would not be questioned in this manner of advertisement. Honda does the same thing with their "Honda" concert tour every summer. Is the company one that most people would accept as a legitimate entity? That is the question. After going to the event and paying only attention to the great music and people, I could care less about their agenda. It did bring together people with common interests and that was great! Sharing ideas, judging, getting dinner and then a few beers with Blake Lewis (American Idol) was priceless. Sharing the stage with Kurt Walker, and Dave Brown while no one else was really around, Priceless!! We had a great time hanging out and connecting all in the name of vocal performance.

The concert was awesome on Saturday night with Groove Society. The free form beatbox thing with Blake, Dave, and Matt was awesome.

I had a great time and didn't notice the "Cult" thing...

Maybe I'm naive??

I'm just a sound guy.

[Jimmy]

Not to hijack the thread, because this is an interesting (and probably important) discussion. But what I really want to know is: how was FORK?!