I've been having a discussion via Twitter with BBC radio folk show presenter Mike Harding about the BBC Radio 2 Folk Awards controversy, but the 140-character format of that medium makes it difficult for anyone to get a point across. Mike kindly asked me to email him directly, and I have now done so. In an effort to keep all this in the public arena as much as possible, I've copied the email, unedited, below, and I hope to get Mike's permission to similarly post any reply he sends to me.
Phil.
(SENT at 18:17 on November 23 2011)
Hi Mike,
At your suggestion, I'm writing to you directly in a further attempt to put across my criticism of the jury and voting system used by the BBC Radio 2 Folk Awards (R2FAs). Other people have either supported me or made criticisms of their own, but I do not claim to speak on their behalf or to necessarily support them.
You've said that you are tired of what you see as "carping" and "sniping". I'm tired of the issue myself, but feel I have to continue to be critical in an attempt to break through a brick wall of secrecy, complacency and confusion.
As you seem to be under some misapprehension about the motives and the issues, below I've attempted to sum up the issue in 10 hopefully easy-to-grasp points. However, if you want just one "soundbite" it is this:
The secret jury and confidential rules of the BBC Radio 2 Folk Awards do nothing to engender trust, are detrimental to the standing and reputation of everyone involved and are contradictory to the democratic traditions of the folk scene itself.
Here are the 10 points that expand on this:
1: This criticism is not about trying to knock down the R2FAs, it is all about building them up, making them stronger and ensuring nothing but the clearest, fairest possible representation of the folk scene. Awards of any kind are worthless unless we can all have confidence in the people and procedures involved.
2: The R2FAs are funded by the BBC licence payers and therefore subject to scrutiny by the licence payers. This scrutiny is not "mischief making" or "misinformation" but rather a desire to ensure that the awards are not only honest but can be demonstrated to be so. It's about abolishing secrecy and letting in the light of inspection, and about removing the cause for the annual round of whispered accusations of "cliquism", "favouritism" or conflict of interest.
3: The criticism is not against the BBC or against you (Mike Harding) personally. Your own contribution to the folk scene, artistically and otherwise, is widely acknowledged and admired.
4: The criticism is not about who wins any particular award category in any particular year. There will always be differences of opinion about that, and such debate is not only unavoidable it's also healthy - as long as the reasons for how and why the award has been made are clear and open.
5: As these are BBC awards they speak for the BBC and, therefore, the nation, yet they are run in a manner that makes it impossible for the nation - "The Folk" themselves - to understand exactly why each award is made, who has decided on it and why. The procedure also denies the public any influence over the awards at a time when it has never been easier to allow it, via registered internet voting.
6: There is nothing new about these concerns. Smooth Operations must have been aware of them for several years as they have been repeatedly raised not only by fans but also by some very prominent artists, including some past winners of the awards. However, despite repeated public and private criticism and direct questioning, Smooth Operations has chosen to do nothing to address the issue. This has led to some fans calling for closer investigation by the BBC into the procedures.
7: Despite your own public protestations that the awards are "done for love" and that "no ego, no money" is involved you must be aware that winners of a R2FA can potentially receive very large financial rewards, indirectly, thanks to increased record sales, ticket sales, festival appearances and so on. Artists' careers have been made or massively enhanced by winning a prominent music award, and the R2FAs have become the most important award in the British folk scene.
8: The biggest concern about the R2FAs is that the identities and allegiances of R2FA jury members are kept secret by Smooth Operations. The R2FAs tell the world that the winners are "the best" in their category, but when we ask "says who?" Smooth Operations replies "we aren't going to tell you". That hugely devalues the awards, and leaves them wide open to criticism. It has been suggested that concealing jurors' identities is the best way to avoid "lobbying". In fact, all it does is ensure that only those who do know the names of jurors can lobby, potentially creating an even greater distortion of votes. I'm not saying this has happened, but the system does nothing to prevent it happening or to allow people to be confident that it doesn't happen to some extent.
9: Even those closely involved with the awards cannot seem to agree about who is on the jury. You (Mike Harding) have publicly stated that no-one from record companies is involved in voting, but Smooth Operations have said the opposite, admitting that "agents and record labels" are among those with a vote. This confused and confusing situation is a further detriment to the reputation of the R2FAs, to the BBC as a whole and to the folk scene in general.
10: There are further criticisms including a) All non-musical awards such as the Folk Club of the Year Award, have been scrapped and so no-one in the folk scene other than musicians is rewarded or even acknowledged for their work, and b) the awards - either by design or accident - give multiple awards to a small group of "elite" artists year after year while ignoring others artists working hard on the scene. However, these concerns are secondary to the main issue of the unnecessarily obfuscated jury membership and voting procedure.
If these awards were run by any organisation other than the BBC my concerns would be irrelevant, but as these are BBC awards every effort must be made to ensure that they stand up to any scrutiny. I'm sure that the BBC, Smooth Operations and you, Mike, as the public face of the awards, want to ensure that the BBC R2 Folk Awards are not only fair and honest but also are seen to be fair, honest and above reproach. You all have the opportunity to ensure that this is the case with a simple revision of procedures and the publication of a full list of the jury members' identities and commercial allegiances.
Clearly it is too late now to change anything for the 2012 awards as the nominations have been announced. But the time is ripe for revision and reinvention. Why not start by asking what "the folk" actually want? I hope that, once the 2012 awards are complete, the BBC launches a full consultation of listeners: what award categories they would like to see, what voting system to use, what level of direct public involvement there should be. Ask people what they want the Folk Awards to be, rather than presuming to speak on their behalf.
A lot has changed in the folk scene since the Folk Awards were first staged in 2000 but there has never been a proper root-and-branch review of the awards themselves, just tinkering with various categories. What started as a simple party in the off season to hand out prizes to the great and the good has grown massively in importance and impact and it's no longer just a jolly fun night out for a bunch of mates. Sadly, the R2FAs are failing to match the role they have perhaps unintentionally acquired: speaking to the wider world on behalf of the cream of the British folk scene.
If you are absolutely convinced that the R2FAs are perfect and cannot be improved and made more robust then continue to do what you have been doing - but be sure that the criticism will not go away just because you tell fans and musicians to "stop moaning" as if it has nothing to do with them. It has everything to do with them! These are the very people who pay for these awards through their TV licence, these are the very people who through their daily involvement with playing or listening to music, organising events and taking part in dance and other activities are the living, breathing embodiments of the folk scene. If you want to see this situation resolved then show that you really are in tune with what the folk scene is all about by helping to break down the barriers between the Folk Awards and The Folk themselves.
If you're not totally happy with the awards then now is the time for you to use your position and influence to help bring about the revision and reinvention that's so badly needed. By doing nothing you are supporting a rotten system, sticking up for the establishment and propping up the status quo - and that doesn't sound like the Mike Harding I know. Drive out secrecy! Bring in democracy and openness!
Seize the opportunity to make these awards what they should have been all along: by The Folk, of The Folk and for The Folk.
I want to encourage proper debate with other folk fans on this issue and to that end I intend to publish this email on my blog (http://folkcasters.blogspot.com/), so that others can see exactly what has been said. With your permission, I'd also like to publish any reply you choose to make.
Thank you for taking the time to read this email.
Yours respectfully and in friendship,
Phil
--
Phil Widdows
Producer/Presenter
FolkCast
http://www.folkcast.co.uk
1 comments:
I agree 100%
Post a Comment