Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Scrump
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 09:03 AM

Thanks GUEST 8:17 AM for that well-thought out (IMO) posting. I agree that certain aspects of the awards are poorly thought out and some questions need to be answered, as you say. If the organisers have nothing to hide, they should fully explain how it works, why agents are allowed to vote (I would oppose them being allowed), etc. If they don't provide a full explanation (assuming somebody bothers to ask them for one), it will only lead to assumptions that something is wrong (like a politician who refuses to confirm or deny a rumour - everyone assumes it's true, because otherwise why would he/she not deny it?)

The idea of the organisers making 'suggestions' in a list seems totally wrong to me. This will only encourage the panel (or whatever they call themselves) to be lazy and just pick from the suggestions list instead of going out and finding their own nominees, and at worst expose the BBC to suspicion of corruption by only including people on the suggestions list if they satisfy some unknown criteria. It is also giving those on the list a distinct advantage over those not on it, and as such is reprehensible.

Who should challenge the organisers, and how should they do it?

Has anyone (even the other nominees for best trad song) challenged the inclusion of the Seth Lakeman song? If not, why not?

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:40 AM

the only thing that gets me is that its out and out capitalism masquerading as folk music. Nothing wrong with making money but I thought the bbc was supposed to be a public service thing . The comment about " all pissing-in-the-same-pot" summed it up.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:37 AM

I wasn't bovvered either but we all have a bit of 'evengelic' about this weird music and some people are not playing the same game and are not being transparent are they?

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: stallion
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:19 AM

This is so so tiresome, am I bovered, do i look bovered (sigh) the whole thing isn't worth tuppence to debate. Just go out sing,play, enjoy and if someone gives you an award send it back it's all a yawn anyway, or keep it, who's bothered. True, the seth lakeman thing is a bit dodgy but take heart that if it wins "best traditional song" then others can record it without having to pay MCPRS diddly squat after all it is "traditional".Did I hear someone mention Mr Damien "You know nothing about folk music, I've got a degree" O'Kane, as being in line for a gong, I think I will stop there can't end this without swearing, too many expletives are pouring into my head, he needs to hone up his people skills, I will leave it at that although I am tempted use the word Gobsh**e

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:17 AM

I used the term 'informal 'cartel',' not 'conspiracy.' This is as much about the way all businesses operate in all fields; using market research to establish a realistic level of investment etc.

I'm not making any allegation of wrongdoing. I'm trying to explain how I've been told it works, and stimulate a proper discussion on the Folk Awards, which do suffer from a damaging lack of transparency, leaving them open to charges of wrongdoing which they may well not deserve.

I hope you can all see the difference.

The trouble is we don't really know how it all operates, and how or even if it's policed.

Meanwhile, as greg points out, we keep getting these strange anomalies - which are not easy to explain using the little information we are given:

For example:

The White Hare is somehow mis-attributed by a large number of informed folk broadcasters, jounalists, agents and promoters as trad - when anyone listening to it can tell at once it's a (good) folky pop song. The panel chose it, remember, not Smooth Operations - so a lot of people must have made this mistake, all together. Strange.

Acts who've only done a handful of gigs (and therefore whom only a handful of the panel can have actually seen perform - assuming we have a good geographic spread) are occasionally nominated for best live act, or best duo, or other awards. So do we have a good geographic spread across the UK? We don't know, and they don't say.

The same names keep copping up time and time again, when we all know there are lots of other good hard-working and very popular contenders who never get a look-in year after year. Why is that then?

Only tracks that have been played on the Mike Harding show (and not CD sent to the office) are included in the suggestions list - but this fact is not made public. If anything it seems to be kept secret and even denied. Why's that, and why can't the suggestions list be made public?

There is no attempt to find out, and include in the suggestions list, the most popular tracks played on the many local BBC folk shows (or the most prolific club or festival performers, for that matter). Local BBC shows account for far more air time than the MH show, and perhaps have more listeners in all (though we don't know). Why are these not taken into account in what is after all the BBC folk awards?

The full list of nominations is not published - denying the near-misses valuable publicity, and preventing anyone from seeing that these are indeed (as I'm sure that are) majority suggestions made by the panel. Why is the nominations list kept secret?

Agents are allowed to sit on the panel - when obviously they have a vested interest in promoting their own acts. We don't know if any record companies are permitted, but if so a similar conflict of interest would apply. Normally the BBC would object to this - but they seem not to. Why is that?

Even though, as a BBC contractor, Smooth Operations are subject to the same regulations as the BBC, we get no answers to letters written to the office, or questions posted here or on the BBC Folk and Acoustic board (which is run by Smooth Operations) about the all of above.

I'm sure there are good innocent answers to them all. It would be in Smooth Operations interests to supply them.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 07:38 AM

Watergate started with a small break-in.

People enjoy conspiracies - look at that daft Da Vinci rubbish. I would have dismissed the whole thing but on reading the record reviews in the latest English Dance and Song - although records by the most popular on the MH show appear, so do lots of others who don't get heard much:

The Pixies, Jackie Oates, Mawkin, Peter Cooper and Richard Bolton, Paul and Liz Davenport, Jeff Warner, Keith Kendrick, Bodega and so on.

I bet a trawl would show MH had played most of these a bit, but maybe not. I guess the point being about how many Jackie's to a Kate or Eliza? And is it possible that some "fixing" is going on.

I was shocked to find that Opportunity Knocks was fixed by Hughie Green.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Scrump
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 07:06 AM

Yes, but I'm not sure how this allegation can be pursued - it seems to have been made by a Guest here. I don't doubt the Guest has his or her own valid reasons for remaining anonymous, but unless he/she is prepared to speak out openly I don't see how we or anyone else can take the allegations at face value - for all we know, it could be a wind-up (apologies to the Guest concerned, but you can';t be too careful when it comes to this type of thing).

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 07:04 AM

"Consoiracy" seems to be pitching it far too strong,it's a very emotive word. Surely all we have is one group of people who are wedded to a kind of Rusby/Carthy/Lakeman etc view of folk music in Britain, and they are involved with one part of the scene. Others have different views, and operate in their own various ways. Just the way the world wgas, not a conspiracy thing.
    Though I admit to finding one thing curious. Apparently, or so we are told, there is a group of independent people in the "jury"(150 it is said) who have a perfectly free hand to choose whatever they like in whatever category. And the membership of this jury is secret, so lobbying is not possible. In which case, it seems sstaistically odd to me that a very anomalous decision could get taken, like the inclusion of one specific non-traditional song in the traditional category. That seems to me a remarkable statistic freak if we really have an large jury voting independently. I mean, Seth lakeman has written dozens of songs. Odd. eh?

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 06:38 AM

The serious allegation seems to be that a collection of people have a conspired, if that is not too strong a word, to promote a group of Folk Musicians and they use Mike Harding's programme and the Folk Awards to do this to the exclusion of other Folk musicians who are just as good.

Does such a well organised cartel exist? Is it effective in getting what it wants for it's own Musicians?

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Scrump
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 06:05 AM

It seems to me that the main gripes about this year's awards are:

1. A non-traditional song (Seth Lakeman's White Hare) has been nominated for best traditional song.

2. Many good artists have been omitted from the nominations and don't get much (if any) airplay on the Mike Harding Radio 2 show

3. Many of the artists nominated are those that have received plenty of airplay on the same show

4. Some of the artists nominated are not really folk artists at all and are really pop groups or play other non-folk music

Have I missed anything?

My response to these are:

1. Yes, I agree this is indefensible, and the correct response would have been for people to lobby the BBC and ask for the nomination to be withdrawn, and replaced by another suitable nomination (the 5th one on the list, i.e. the first one that missed out because of the inclusion of the erroneously included one)

2 and 3. There's not much you can do about this, as it is difficult to prove any connection between the presence/absence of airplay and the nominations. Those who missed out will just have to try harder to get played and hope they can push their way in next time. Unless anyone can think of something I haven't? This is the same problem that rock/pop artists face, when trying to flog their records and get into the charts. I don't believe the airplay issue is as important as it was in the past, because of the web making it easier for artists to get heard and known (via myspace etc.).

4. This is entirely subjective, and as we already know, there is no agreed definition of what is and isn't folk music. So again we can do nothing about it. My own view is that all the artists nominated are what are normally classed as 'folk', but that's just my view and I know many others don't agree. That doesn't mean I like all the arists nominated, just that I recognise they have some sort of 'folk' credentials. I don't see anything those who object can do, except over a period of time, making the sort of music they like to a high standard and trying raise its profile and gradually 'educate' the public and the BBC 'folk mafia' that there is a lot of good stuff out there that's being overlooked.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Folkiedave
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 06:44 PM

According to them, the UK folk industry is run by a small informal 'cartel' of broadcasters, promoters, magazines, record companies and agents. (The majority are too small to get a look-in)

How does this work then? These "mafia" decide who is good and popular and then they promote them via radio and festival and sell their records? I wished I could decide who the public would like!! It would have been a damn sight easier than lecturing in FE believe me.

Looks like a wind-up to me. In over forty years as a folkie, club organiser, festivals, and more recently book seller I have never heard such a load of round spherical objects.

There is a load of folk programmes on BBC other than Mike Harding, some great agents, some better than others and some artists and agents who work harder at getting bookings than others.

Anyone who knows anything about folk music would know it is not that well organised. Yes a lot of people know each other, that is the way of folk music and damned useful it is at times too.

Frankly it looks like a dig at Steve Heap.

Since they can't have a go at him via Sidmouth looks like this is another way. It's bollocks.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 03:51 PM

perhaps finite is the wrong word, but you could put a number on it, and it would only change slowly from year to year - with peaks influenced by things like BBC4 programmes etc.

i could well believe that they have figures for projections on cd and concert sales etc. it's only what every other industry does,

it would help explain a lot of things

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 12:03 PM

So the current market is finite? So only so many people can be pro? And this is managed and controlled by the "Folk Mafia"?

Mm ....... I really don't know who believes it. I kind of doubt that anything in the folk world is organised well enough to have such a controlling effect.

Do other people have evidence of this?

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 04:30 AM

I had it explained to me by one of the UK's top (and, as it happens, award-winning) acts.

According to them, the UK folk industry is run by a small informal 'cartel' of broadcasters, promoters, magazines, record companies and agents. (The majority are too small to get a look-in).

In order to secure the percentages that they require to run their businesses (and their cars), the cartel needs to make sure that there are just enough successful (and by that they mean successful beyond habitual folk consumers) folk acts to keep the market churning. Too many artists and they'd be splitting a, for the moment anyway, finite market, too few and they'd not be shifting enough units.

The Awards are one of the key ways they manage this.

Now, this may be pure bunkum - but a lot of people believe it.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 04:48 PM

I must admit that I have been a long time defender of Michael, but I am begining to feel that he is a bit top end, and by that I don't mean the people he chooses are any more interesting, but they have emerged as quite good, but lots of other people are also good and not getting a look in.

Am I with the flow people?

And nobody died as a result of the creation of this thread

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 04:27 PM

Mike Harding's seems to be warming up towards the Awards season. This week's guest, Eliza Carthy. Next week's: Seth Lakeman.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Skipjack K8
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:47 PM

Gosh, what a long thread. Did anyone die?

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 12:48 PM

"Change is an entropic process and, hence, inevitably leads to loss"

It's not a 'viewpoint', Grab - it's physics! I'm not terribly happy with the force of gravity but I have to live with it.

"As judged by attendance at gigs and purchase of CDs, you're probably in the minority though. And that doesn't give you the right to blithely dismiss the majority ..."

No it doesn't give me any rights except, possibly, the right to rebel against the tyranny of the majority - otherwise 'eat shit - 10 million flies can't be wrong!'

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Grab
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 12:36 PM

Refusing to accept passing off non-traditional as traditional is completely justified. I'm not defending that - that's clearly bogus. And I'd agree with you that good musicians love the music for its own sake.

I disagree on originality though. I assume you mean "challenging" as in "challenging preconceptions"? In that sense, a challenging musician is the one who can put their own spin and personality on the music, and make you hear it differently from how you expected to hear it (irrespective of whether that take on it is commercially viable or not). If all a musician is doing is repeating something that they've heard, note for note and phrasing for phrasing, and something that the audience also knows the same way, what are they doing that's challenging? So the challenging part is always the interpretation of ideas through the music. If there's no interpretation, it simply can't be challenging.

Stifle debate? Nope. You have the right to your opinions, as I have to mine, as does everyone else. (Opinions and arseholes, and all that.) As judged by attendance at gigs and purchase of CDs, you're probably in the minority though. And that doesn't give you the right to blithely dismiss the majority as "uncritical, easily satisfied, 'easy listening' fans" because they don't like what you like. There's plenty who'd put Dave Swarbrick or Altan in the "easy listening" box because it's pleasant music to listen to in the background - but they'd be wrong as all hell to treat it that way.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Scrump
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:59 AM

The problem seems to be that it's not possible for anyone performing traditional material to be different from anyone else, unless they present it in a different way from their predecessors.

If they don't change anything, they are regarded as more of the same, and not different or innovative enough; whereas if they do change anything, e.g. use electric instruments, they are then accused of not being bona fide folk performers.

So it seems there is no solution to the problem.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Grab
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:42 AM

Thanks for that vote of approval, Greg - love you too... ;-/

Maybe I should have been clearer. That was specifically in response to Shimrod, who *was* very clearly objecting to non-traditional music being included in folk music awards. Eric the red was also making the same argument. The "challenging" and "commercial" quotes come straight from Shimrod's post as of 12:55PM, 25 Nov 06.

As for your last paragraph, I absolutely agree. The problem is when the disagreement comes from the "Change is an entropic process and, hence, inevitably leads to loss" viewpoint. That's an opinion that I fundamentally disagree with, because it tries to embalm what it loves in its current position (or more usually, in the position it was a few decades ago). And embalming requires the thing in question to be dead as a doornail.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:31 AM

Grab,

As a "hard core folky" I can assure you that I only sulk when attempts are made to pass off non-traditional music as traditional. And I get extra-sulky when this is attempted by our national broadcasting corporation.

On the other hand I tend to get very angry when people like you attempt to stifle legitimate debate by characterising the arguments of people like me as being somehow unreasonable - we have just as much right to our opinion as you have!

The most "challenging" singers and musicians, that I have heard in my life, have been those who have loved the music for its own sake and who not wanted to change it in order to make it more commercial or to produce an 'original sound' or to respond to the latest whim, fad or fashion. Good traditional music tends to be relatively 'ego-free' and I submit that it is this characteristic that many modern listener find most challenging!

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST,greg stephens
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:11 AM

Re Grab's comments: I haven't noticed anybody at all on this thread objecting to non-traditional music. Personally, I like loads of traditional music, and loads of non-traditional music. There may well be people who object to non-traditional music being labelled traditional, but those objections are inevitable when we get an organisation like |Smooth Operations trying to define things like Folk and Traditional(both notoriously dodgy areas). Grab's technique of argument is to invent a ridiculous opponent, and then attack him. Bit of a waste of time really. There may well be people in the world who only like traditional music(anythng is possible)but that is quite another thing, but as far as I know there are none contributing to this thread.
    Controversies are bound to arise whenever someone sets up a system which is designed to deliver financial and other rewards to people placed in a specific category, if there is substantial disagreement about who fits in the category.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 07:00 AM

Whapweasle, Roy Clinging, Bellow Head, Waterson Carthy, Kate, The Boat Band, Michael McGoldrick, Cooupe, Boyse and Simpson, Duncan McFarlane, Tim van Eiken, English Accoustic Collection, Gace Notes, sorry the tea has brewed.

But we like nothing better than a winge -a thon

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Grab
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 06:47 AM

I was going to oppose the view of "commercial" (ie. "successful") being a bad thing, but I don't think I can say it better than Karine Polwart did.

And I'm not sure what counts as "challenging" whilst staying traditional. If anyone cares to nominate a "challenging" traditional folk group, please let me know. Steeleye Span were as challenging as you like - today their stuff is no more than you could hear in any folk-rock pub gig, and they became challenging by dropping the trad instruments. Bellowhead - great music, but they're doing that by playing in a completely untraditional way. Artisan (sadly no longer performing) - harmony singing is definitely unusual, but almost everything they did was written by them, and they'd had the benefit of lots of formal voice training (especially Hilary). Albion Band, Fairport, Lindisfarne, and (to be fair) Show of Hands - took folk-rock to another level, but derided here as "not our kind of music". Altan, Planxty, the Chieftains - great musicians all, but they're doing nothing that hasn't been done before, and by definition you can't be "challenging" if all you're doing is playing the same pieces in the same style as people who've gone before.

As far as I can see, "challenging" means doing something original. Carthy and Pentangle were original in their arrangements. Steeleye Span and Dylan were original in adopting electric instruments. The problem here is that as soon as you do something original, a zillion hardcore folkies shout "IT'S NOT TRADITIONAL" and sulk. Whilst simultaneously saying that they never hear anything challenging...

Graham.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 06:11 AM

'paying less for guests'

I shoud have said paying the same for guests in spite of galloping transport costs (etc).

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 05:53 AM

A few venues have stopped having live music because of the change in the law - but not as many as we all feared. The main reason there are fewer gigs is because clubs are closing, or stopping booking guests, or having fewer guests, or paying less for guests, or putting less effort into promotion - perhaps because folk audiences are getting older and less bothered about fighting the decline.

We only have a fraction of the clubs in the Uk we had 20 or 30 years ago when most of the big stars originaly won their reputations.

There are new places opening up, of course, but it's very hard to get audiences to come to arts centres, theatres and the like. Habitual folkies prefer clubs and festivals, and the rest of the world only turns out in numbers for people they know.

The best way to short-circuit this problem is air play. Which is why the Mike Harding Show and the Folk Awards (which do need to be televised) are so important.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Scrump
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 05:35 AM

Or are there fewer venues, maybe because of the change in licencing laws? (I'm not saying there are, just asking if this is the case)

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: oggie
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 04:53 AM

Quote - 'dwindling number of gigs'

Maybe we should be asking ourselves why? Are we becoming insular, purist, ageing and irrelevant?

oggie

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 03:20 AM

On the contrary. The folk industry is hugely competitive, with an increasing number of artists chasing a dwindling number of gigs. It's also very conservative, with a majority of consumers (including bookers - who tend to be hyper-cautious) being uninterested in acts they do not already know well.

Any agent will confirm that a nomination makes a massive difference when it comes to gig-getting, gig promotion, CD sales and all those other unpleasant necessities demanded of those of us who wish to make a living as a folk musician.

But quite apart from that I suspect most people would agree that the BBC should abide by the basic principles of fairness and transparency that we expect from other public bodies.

It may be the folk awards are in fact fair (I'm actually fairly confident that they are, barring a few minor issues born of slack thinking rather than corruption) - but they are not transparent.

There are precious few ways to open up a debate on the matter and perhaps bring pressure for change.

Madcat is one of the very few places where such a discussion can begin. And there is debate here every year because a lot of people lack confidence in the way the awards are run - but no changes.

Yet.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:36 AM

Guest, whoever you are, most things don't matter much and neither does posting on here. The Awards are not very important and not democratic or very fair?

They are just another attempt at raising the public profile of some great music and some great people.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:27 PM

Oh ...and while I am bothering.....who votes for and therefore decides on the annual folk club of the year awards. Lsst time I heard (not from an authoratative source) It was open to "selected folk artists". Who are these "selected artists" and would they vote for a club that couldn't afford to book them.? Hmmmm Lets think about this......It would seem that the award should be for the "folk club that has the most expensive artists and dumb punters award".

But this just aint a catchy enough name for an award is it?

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:18 PM

What purpose do the Folk awards serve.? I have looked at them occasionally and generally think they are pointless. Is there a presentation evening? Does anyone immediately go out and buy the "Album of the Year (week, month) apart from mindless punters?. Does anyone specially go and see some of the winners?.

Who could possibly take the BBC seriously about folk music. They broadcast an hour a week nationally and then various local stations(far better in my view) have weekly programmes. Do the local BBC stations have a vote in these awards.

These awards (and a lot of the winners ImHO) are largely pointless and not worth this worthy discussion lists time.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 06:03 PM

Guest, most closets are empty, join us out here.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 04:57 PM

I do have the list, but I will not post it here.

I'm hoping someone else will confirm that I'm telling the truth.

If I did post it there would be a debate about who was on it, which would cloud the issue.

It's who draws up the list, and how and why, that requires a proper discussion - and, if necessary, feedback to the BBC, who pay for the awards and are subject to rule and regulation.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: greg stephens
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 04:35 PM

If you actually have the list, GUEST, as you claim: let's have a look at it.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 04:32 PM

Another cut and paste from the actual invitation.

"To aid your selection, we have included a list of a selection of albums which have been released during the past 12 months and featured on The Mike Harding Show and/or on the BBC Folk & Acoustic website. Please do not feel restricted to this list as it is only included as a reminder of some of the great albums released this year."

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: greg stephens
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 04:26 PM

So, which is it? Some selected albums played on Mike Harding, or all the new albums SmoothOps got sent. We have two authoritative(?) anonymous GUEST presenting precisely opposite "facts". Anyone any ideas? There is no conceivable reason why the authorities shouldn't reveal what they are up to.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: breezy
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 04:16 PM

cos they dont write 'songs'

that was a rhetorical Q i presume >?

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 04:14 PM

oh - and I do get a decent amount of radio air play - an average of about one track a month on one of the local BBC stations.

But never BBC2.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 04:09 PM

I always send my albums to Smooth Operations.

They get good to excellent reviews in folk mags large and small.

I play a lot of folk clubs (35 this year) and even headline the occasional festival.

I run my own record company.

My albums do not appear on the list.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 04:03 PM

this is a cut and paste:

"this list as it is only attached as a reminder of some of the great albums played on the Mike Harding Show this year"

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 03:27 PM

Ok the take away has to be collected but I think I would like Mike to encourage people to go to their local folk club and to push that whole local folk club thing a lot.

Cheers

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: greg stephens
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 02:36 PM

That list, that GUEST refers to earlier, seems to be a little controversial, with people saying quite different things about it. Perhaps SmoothOps could let us all have a look at it to clear up the confusion..but perhaps it is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act?

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 02:22 PM

"To help them (and, I believe, to help people think beyond the obvious choices) they are reminded of about 150 tracks THAT HAVE ALL BEEN PLAYED BY MIKE HARDING - so if you haven't been on his show you're not on the list."

This is not true. The list comprises every album that Smooth Ops are aware of having been released that year. It is not a list of things that have been played or a list compiled by preference. This means if you didn't send a press release or a copy of the CD then you won't be on the list, but to be honest if you weren't bothered enough to send a copy then why would you be bothered if you were on the list or not?

If you'd like an explanation of why your favourite act isn't on the shortlist, then read Karine Polwarts (far more well-put) words here :- http://www.footstompin.com/forum?threadid=68321&pageid=2 about four replies down.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST,John C
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 09:29 AM

As I understand it - having been recently advised by a panel member:

The panel is made up of 150 'movers and shakers' from the folk world - agents (that's wrong imo), club organisers, festival organisers, broadcasters, journalists, record company people (also wrong imo if true) folk arts professionals etc (no artists).

The official view

The list is kept secret to avoid members being put under pressure by artists, agents or record companies (see above).

They are all sent a list of categories, in which to make four nominations each.

To help them (and, I believe, to help people think beyond the obvious choices) they are reminded of about 150 tracks THAT HAVE ALL BEEN PLAYED BY MIKE HARDING - so if you haven't been on his show you're not on the list. It IS stressed that you can suggest anyone you like, but we've no way of knowing how much this list influences people.

The votes go back to Smooth Operations, who calculate (we don't know who verifies the count, if anyone) who will be the nominations in each category, (the top four). This full list is not published.

The entire panel is then asked to vote again on the nominations, to decide who will be the winner of each award.

There would appear to be some other forces at work though.

Over the years a good few atrists have been nominated as 'best live act' for example, when they've hardly done any gigs, and there seems to be some 'muggins turn' effect at work.

That said - I'm not against the system. If you're going to have awards (and on balance I think it's a good idea - just) this is better than many, and the winners are all richly deserving.

But that doesn't mean there's not room for improvement.

Now, can someone on the panel, or from Smooth Operations correct any errors in the above, please?

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 09:02 AM

Good luck to the young ones what ever the arguments for or against them. But why oh why does Swarbrick keep appearing what has he done recently thats worthy of mention.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: Scrump
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:54 AM

A good question GUEST,trevor bond - well, two questions really.

We the public can't vote - they are chosen by a panel of some sort, and voted by a panel (not sure if this is two different panels or the same one). It would indeed be interesting to know who the panel(s) are - does anyone know?

The only one we (the public) can vote for is the best folk song of all time (see the BBC website). I think you can vote for absolutely any song in that. A difficult decision for a voter, and presumably a nightmare to count up the votes for the thousands of different songs that will probably get voted for.

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST,trevor bond
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:48 AM

How do you vote for the people on these short lists , and how were they chosen?

Subject: RE: Review: Folk Awards - Mike Harding
From: GUEST,redmax
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 05:19 AM

To go back to an earlier comment "I think there's a problem that anyone who is successful gets slagged off automatically by some people in the folk world, just because they are successful"

Surely this applies to other genres. I can remember a mate of mine being appalled when Nirvana broke through, as he knew about them when they were just another underground punk-ish outfit.

But I reckon in the folk context it's not simply "just because they are successful". It's not a genre of obvious mass appeal, so in order to be succesful it seems that you need to make it sound extra pretty and easy on the ears. Folk for people who don't like folk, indeed.

There's a lady I sit with at work who says she likes folk music, but in truth knows little beyond Kate Rusby, Show of Hands and the Oysterband. These acts have been succesful because they're dressing up their shop window in a way that attracts the less committed passer-by. Fair enough, but that doesn't mean the more passionate folk fans are being bitter just because they find these acts to be pretty insufferable.