|
|
Post by timothystevens on Apr 21, 2008 18:49:02 GMT 10
It's the meaninglessness, the boringness - the triumph of hot air over substance. The rounding up of usual suspects, the lack of any tangible artistic justification for decisions made. Scott Tinkler as jazz artist of the year. Why? Ask Scott, is he a jazz musician? Where's his record among the best of the year? And how to judge it against Andrea Keller, or Allan Browne, or Phil Slater? Or any of these against the others? I've heard them all, several times, and I'd be stumped. I can judge Little Claps against Angels and rascals, or The drunken boat against Cyclosporin, but even then the results are highly subjective and the criteria altogether personal. But we've been over all this before regarding awards, here on this board, and there are no answers. It just tires me out, this simulacrum of a healthy, action-packed scene. It's apparently a pitch for mass exposure but it seems inherently self-defeating.
|
|
|
|
Post by punter on Apr 22, 2008 0:12:07 GMT 10
Devil's advocate: maybe the value of awards like these is that they stimulate discussion. Of course it's impossible to make an objective judgement about music or most other creative output. But asking whether Scott is a jazz musician is an interesting question - much more interesting than whether he is 'better' than any of the other nominees - so maybe for just that alone these awards serve a purpose. And only a fool would actually care who won...
|
|
|
|
Post by captain on Apr 22, 2008 2:47:55 GMT 10
Considering that anyone can nominate anyone I don't think it really matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on Apr 22, 2008 7:43:50 GMT 10
Of course Scott isn't a Jazzer. but he is better, he can play louder,,,,
It's all about advertising really, you get so much work from a prize like this, just look at how many gigs Phil has at Melbourne Jazz? Oh, then Julien? oh, me? I at least have a gig with Kate Ceberano, that's Jazz isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by vickibonet on Apr 22, 2008 16:57:22 GMT 10
No.
|
|
