Ball of Confusion

Rip It Up, Issue 200, 1 April 1994, Page 5

Ball of Confusion

Call it a slowly rolling stone gathering moss or call it a summer of discontent, the fact remains — the 30th Annual New Zealand Music Awards is not the harmonious celebration of ‘artistic and technical achievement in the recording industry’ the organisers would have you believe. This article was originally planned as a short commentary on the glaring omissions and surprising admissions among this year’s finalists. Several phone calls later and a snowball effect had begun. Further grievances were aired until it was clear many influential people involved in the music industry were not at all happy. The most common complaint was the inclusion of six judges (from a total of 14) from the very record companies whose artists were competing for awards. Many felt being expected to take it on faith that judging would be totally unbiased was unreasonable, and that a wholly independent panel would be considerably more appropriate. Lisa Van DerAarde, long-time host of 95bFM’s New Zealand Music Show has been a member of the judging panel for the past three years. “The second year that I was involved [1993] there were no record company people present and that was far more suitable. The record companies are responsible for nominating their artists so it’s not appropriate for their representatives to be involved in the final decision making. I really believe the record buying public should be the judges, that would be fair and also a true reflection of the most popular NZ bands.” BMG Records had several artists nominated this year including the hugely popular Auckland band Supergroove. Dave Jordan of BMG was a member of the 1994 judging panel but completed his voting by correspondence, he was unable to attend the final meeting having being struck by a car two days before. “It appears to me that it has been too strong on personal opinion judging. If that’s the situation it may be an idea to take it away from the industry and have ‘Mr Joe Public’ judging the Awards, and maybe we will get a more unbiased result. Then you would just be putting the product in front of them, saying listen to this and give us an opinion.” Russell Brown, editor of Planet magazine and judging for the second year in a row, also had reservations. “I was reasonably pleasantly surprised that most record company people appeared impartial, although

some were definitely more impartial than others. Putting the judging in the hands of the public would give you an entirely different sort of awards and it would create a lot of logistical problems, but it seems like a good idea to include one or two ‘Public Choice’ awards.” In reply to these criticisms Terence O'Neill Joyce, ‘ president of the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ), the organisation that governs the awards, refuted claims that record company involvement could lead to biased results. “We have representatives from radip, television, and the media not only the record companies. It has always been a policy to have record company involvement in the awards as it does provide a balance within the industry.” That doesn’t address the fact there are some very blatant omissions from the list of finalists in the 1994 Awards. Recordings submitted to RIANZ for appraisal are judged under three main criterias (although more emphasis may be placed on a criteria depending on the category involved): (a) The commercial appeal of the release. (b) Artistic merit. (c) The potential international appeal of the recording artist. Points out of 40 are awarded for the first category and 30 each for the remaining two. The Recording Industry’s terms of reference for the award categories describes the prime consideration-for judging within the Best Single and Best Album categories as being based on ‘commercial success, ie; public acceptance.’ RIANZ request in writing that record companies provide chart returns and audited sales figures as proof of their artist’s commercial viability. Meaning, a band or artist that had experienced considerable chart success would hold more than a slight advantage over their peers. Therefore one of the most obvious omissions this year must be Supergroove who were nominated by their record company for two categories, one being Single of the Year. ‘You Gotta Know’ was released in June of 1993, has been certified ‘Gold’ (5000 copies sold), spent over eight weeks in the Top 20 (four of those weeks in the Top 5) and peaked at number 4 in the charts. A feat that doesn't even come close to being matched by the eventual three finalists. With such a clearly defined criteria Supergroove are obviously top qualifiers and when Jordan speaks of his frustration you just know it isn’t a case of sour grapes. “It makes you wonder what the criteria for the

.Tl!e/W U^ards _ U \J

Awards is. Sure there is going to be a certain amount of personal taste from judges but it has also got to cover chart statistics and the success stories of the year. We had in Supergroove one of the most successful groups of the year, both of their singles went gold for us. Based on that sort of success you would think they would finish up as finalists at least for Single of the Year. The main feeling from us is one of disappointment.” So if chart success is acceptable to RIANZ as a measure of public approval, and the most important consideration for the Top Single Award is commercial success, why has such a popular record been ignored by the judges? Lisa Van Der Aarde: “It’s very hard to understand why, they should have been among the finalists. Perhaps none of the judging panel like Supergroove.” That final sentence reinforces Jordan's claims that personal preference played too big a part in the judge’s decision that resulted in the elimination of Supergroove. When the judging criteria has been made so crystal clear, and a band so obviously fits the bill, that makes the current situation unacceptable. There was also talk in the industry that representatives from BMG Records would not attend the Awards ceremony, so great was their dissatisfaction with the judging procedure. Jordan: ”... No there will not be a boycott from BMG. All the staff here are given the opportunity to attend the Awards. We usually buy ‘x’ amount of tickets but what we have done this year is given the staff the option of whether they want to attend or not, and that’s at all levels from management right through: That’s the situation." Among the contractual obligations an artist must comply with in order to be eligible for consideration in the Awards is a condition of entry that states the following: ‘Recordings must have been first released in NZ between Ist January and 31 December 1993.' The last eleven words are displayed in bold type and are underlined. This clause would appear to eliminate one finalist in a very high profile category. Body Blow by the Headless Chickens was originally released in 1991 and won the Best Album Award at the 1992 ceremony. Subsequently remixed and with several tracks added (primarily for the Australian market), it was re-released in 1993 and has once again been included in the Best Album category. Headless Chickens manager and bassist Grant Fell: “It’s nice to have the recognition but being a finalist

again doesn’t make sense. Why the Shihad album wasn’t included I don’t know.” NZ Herald music critic Graham Reid has been on the judging panel in previous years, he also declared personal reservations regarding judging criteria. “I think it’s very suss and I’m surprised that it [Body Blow] would get through given that there were other albums out there. That’s no reflection on the Headless Chickens or even their record company, what it says is the rules are that flexible you can put something like that in and it will still be up for contention. I would have thought the judges might have said, 'Let's blow the whistle on this one, is there not another album that is equally good?’ I never consider a remix album as a new album, most sensible people don’t. Perhaps that's an area that needs to be looked at." Southside recording artists Moana and the Moahunters, although nominated in four categories for their album Tahi, have been patronisingly marginalised appearing only as finalists in the Best Maori Recording category. “I’ve always really enjoyed the Music Awards but this year we’ve felt quite insulted because our album is only a finalist in the Maori Album category. What I find disturbing is this sends a message that catchy music that contains Maori language and pre-European instruments does not qualify as ‘kiwi music’, it is placed in the dumping ground that is the Maori Award. We definitely

are not going to attend the Awards.’’ Graham Reid: “I would have thought Moana would be in there for Top Vocalist, it’s an extraordinary album and I’m also surprised it’s not up for Album of the Year. She is right in regarding herself as marginalised in that sense.” This year 21 artists were competing in the Top Single category for three positions as finalists, 24 LPs were considered, also for three places, in the Best Album category. With such a large number of records in contention it would appear major changes are necessary. Murray Cammick, owner of Southside / Wildside Records (and RipltUp Editor) suggests a possible solution. "With a committee voting, even the judges can be surprised by what act scores the highest points overall. Maybe the solution is to have five finalists in the Single of the Year and Album categories to reflect the significant number of releases in recent years.” Other divisions that have yielded some surprising finalists are those of Most Promising Group, Most Promising Male Vocalist and Most Promising Female Vocalist. The most important condition of entry that affects all three categories has seemingly been ignored by the judges in two. This condition states the following: ’Each artist nominated must have had their first recording released by a member of RIANZ or NZ domiciled producer between 1 January and 31 December 1993.’ The last 21 words are again displayed in bold type and are underlined. Under this condition the following finalists would be deemed ineligible. The 3Ds appear in the Most Promising Group category, their first recording was an EP called Fish Tales released by Flying Nun Records in 1990 followed by an album, Hellzapoppin ’in

1992. The Holy Toledos are finalists in the same category, yet Christchurch label Failsafe released their first recording, the vinyl EP / Confess in 1991. Michael and Brendon Gregg of the Holy Toledos are also competing in the Most Promising Male Vocalist category. Rob Mayes, owner of Failsafe Records was perplexed by the inclusion of Holy Toledos in both categories.

“My label released the Holy Toledos first two recordings. The EP came out in May 1991 and a fulllength album, Forget and Forgive, was released in January 1992. Failsafe Records is a totally New Zealand resident label and I personally produced and engineered both recordings in conjunction with the band.”

As has been stated earlier, the fact these bands and/or artists are finalists in categories for which they are not eligible should not discredit them or their record companies. It is the responsibility of RIANZ to seriously reconsider some of the criteria under which nominees are judged, and the Conditions of Entry for several categories need to be tightened. Although the three finalists competing for the Most Promising Female Vocalist Award comply with all six conditions of entry specific to that division, the inclusion of two artists has still raised eyebrows. Not only for the fact there were only three nominees to begin with.

Graham Reid: “I think that says something about the paucity of female artists which is interesting given that last year was International Year of the Woman and Suffrage Year. However I suspect there were more people out there than were entered, but if a record company chooses not to put their stuff in what more can you do?"

So there you have it. It is quite clear there is widespread dissatisfaction within the music industry regarding certain aspects of the Music Awards. In conjunction with the changes to the RIANZ Conditions of Entry there are definitely other options that should be considered as an alternative to the present industry based judging system. Whether or not these additional avenues will be explored before the 1995 NZ Music Awards remains to be seen. The 30th Annual New Zealand Music Awards will

be held at The Pan Pacific Hotel in Auckland on Monday 11th April 1994. JOHN RUSSELL POSTSCRIPT: Since the completion of this article the 3Ds have been replaced as finalists in the Most Promising Group category. Their immediate replacement, Auckland band Second Child, were also deemed ineligible as their first recording, the mini-LP Magnet, was released in 1991 by Wildside Records and distributed by Festival Records, a member of RIANZ. Auckland band Grace are now finalists in this category, their first recording, ‘Skin to Skin’, was released by Deepgrooves in September last year. Sony Music NZ have successfully argued the Holy Toledos inclusion in the Most Promising Group category as Failsafe Records is not a member of RIANZ. This does not address the fact that Failsafe Records are a NZ domiciled record producer. Strange days indeed. J.R.