Yep - that's exactly my point. I'm not commenting on whether KS were innovative/groundbreaking/etc years ago (of course they were), but rather on whether they are now - which I don't believe that they are. That notwithstanding, I'm very glad that we have them around, doing exactly what they're doing.
I'd make the same point about OTB - while OTB sounds more "now" than KS, I'm in the camp that would like them to move beyond "zhin zho", and sooner rather than later. But each of those groups can proudly say that they pushed the envelope at some point in the history of the genre (even if that point in history was some years ago), and they've earned every bit of the recognition and acclaim given them on that account.
All I'm saying is that the wonderful music made by the King's Singers - of whom I have said zero negative things in this thread - is not consistent with the terms "innovative" or "modern" as I understand those terms to apply to a cappella music in 2009. And, based on the depth of talent they possess and the broad chasm between their work and what I recognize as "modern a cappella", I suspect that - as is the case with many of the Ivy League groups, who eschew a "modern" sound for a more traditional one - that difference is entirely by design.
Lead Arranger, , 2005-present
Music Director, , 1999-2002