Subject: Re: [Harp-L] SPAH awards criteria

[EGS1217@xxxxxxx]

Hi Richard:
 
 

I've been following the thread with interest (in between dealing with a lot 
 of my own personal 'sturm und drang' with a home renovation), so pardon 
the  delay.
 
 


I believe by now you've read sufficient explanations --the post by Mike  
Easton sums up exactly 'why' long-term SPAH members would wish the current  
procedures to continue as is, imo. And you cannot discount the opinions of the 
 membership since WE are those who make up SPAH and from whom the 
volunteers are  drawn. Further, when you use the word 'defensible', the implication 
is that the  process somehow requires 'defending' which I don't believe is at 
 all accurate. It is what it is. You are finding fault and demanding  
explanations for a process the majority of SPAH Members are content with.  You 
may have garnered some limited support for your ideas, but for the most part  
the Awards system functions as it should if the emails I've gotten offlist 
now  are any indication.



I really had no idea that this would be a difficult issue  for anyone to 
explain. Either a policy change or an explanation for the policy  will work 
for me. "Shut up and go away" just raises more questions. 
You're paraphrasing. You were never told to 'shut up'. Winslow would never  
be that rude. It's not his nature. Again, you seem not to realize just how  
incredibly busy those in the throes of preparing this Convention are, right 
now.  And the 'right now' extends back a minimum of 6 months. To take the 
time to  delve back into the entire Awards process in order to dissect it 
adequately for  the one person who seems to find it urgently unsatisfactory 
--well, I  agree with the busy people who think it doesn't compute. Your  
need/demand to have an immediate response cannot possibly supersede the work  
they're doing for the entire membership with the 50th Anniversary looming.
 
 


I don't think it's 'difficult' at all to explain. It's BEEN explained. It's 
 not 'secrecy' as much as it's an anonymous process for reasons which might 
not  make sense to you but which works quite well for this particular 
Awards system  as Mike Easton laid it out and Winslow has explained.
 
 


Unless you've attended Conventions for years, stayed from day one through  
day 6 and watched the Herculean efforts of the same volunteers year after 
year  in dealing with myriad issues which naturally arise with a Hotel full of 
people  with different needs, I don't think anyone has the right to accuse 
them of  putting you off or declaring that 'it should only take a few 
minutes of their  time'. No. It won't. And they ARE simply too busy to focus for 
the moment on  what some of us see as a non-immediate concern--compared to 
what they're faced  with right now. While it is important to you, it isn't an 
immediate or serious  issue connected to the 50th Anniversary 
Convention--which is all-important to  those folks eating, sleeping and dreaming of 
putting it all together.



My detailed responses follow. Thanks, Richard  Hunter
I won't dissect both of our posts but want to clarify a couple of points.  
First is that until I read your post saying so I had absolutely NO idea you 
were  also 'campaigning' for an Award! Obviously you didn't send a request 
to me  personally and you have my word I had not visited your website. I 
don't lie so  believe me or not. Your choice. I don't do 'cute' or 'pretend' so 
when I  specified 'someone I know' who sent me a request, that's exactly 
what I meant  and it wasn't you. This person (who also thinks themselves 
deserving) sent out a  request to several of their acquaintances asking to be 
nominated for an award.  While this person IS undoubtedly as equally deserving 
of an award as anyone  else, I found the request uncomfortable, just as I 
find your  revelation equally uncomfortable. Michael and Bob Hanty(sp) have 
both expressed  far better than I did the wrongness of lobbying for oneself for 
an award  which is supposed to be decided anonymously by one's peers. This 
feels very  wrong to me too in several ways.
 
 


As a SPAH member I'd prefer (and vote) to do away with the Awards  
altogether than have them degenerate into the kind of contest you want and I'll  
express this pov during the SPAH meeting.
 
 


Here's one reason, fwiw. Many people who are given the Awards do not post  
on either harp-l or Slidemeister or online at all for that matter. I've  
asked. For a long time I was interested in just how many people who  attended 
the Conventions were also online so would query those I met with. It  was a 
genuine surprise to find that the majority of players did not post online  at 
all. Their music was a separate entity: they played harmonica as much as  
possible and the consensus was that they preferred playing to talking about 
it  and in fact most laughed at the very idea of harmonica 'lists'. In those  
days--and I'm talking no more than 6-7 years ago, we were still having 
'harp-l  meetings with Michael (Polesky) with his Renny at the Bar on Wednesday 
at 5p.m.'  Each time there'd be roughly 20 or less people meeting up. 
Obviously, things  have changed a bit since then with more harmonica list posters 
going to SPAH but  not nearly as many as you may suppose.
 
 


It isn't a requirement to be up to date with the electronic age in order to 
 be an Award recipient. Therefore anyone who is just an 'ordinary' person 
but who  has a huge love for harmonica and spends their own time promoting 
and furthering  that love for our instrument would obviously be at a distinct 
disadvantage  against those who DO have websites, post on lists like this, 
and have access to  voters they can solicit and lobby, no? Where is the 
fairness then?
 
 


I have other reasons for trusting in those we've elected to the SPAH BOD,  
but this will suffice for now. Turn it into a contest because an Award will 
look  good on your resume and methinks you don't fully grasp what the Awards 
were  meant to represent. In addition, you've completely lost me and those 
who think  like me. This isn't what SPAH and the Awards system were set up 
for. If you  think it is you're also missing what Bernie Bray and Pete 
Pedersen were about.  As suggested before, read up on their lives and why 2 of the 
Awards were named  for them.
 
 


A couple of years ago  when all sorts of suggestions were being put forth 
to 'change' SPAH I remember  hearing the same argument you still make: that 
it is 'dying'; 'can't survive',  'won't be relevant', etc. etc. I've seen no 
sign of this at SPAH or among the  people still doing the scut work to keep 
the organization running and as vital  as it always was. 


Anyone who doesn't  think it's a vital organization simply has to spend a 
couple of hours observing  the people who volunteer to keep SPAH functioning, 
and spend a similar  length of time among the many groups playing in the 
Hotel lobby. Those are  the people who are truly amazing and who are SPAH's 
lifeblood. Yet they never  seek out acclaim for themselves and are most happy 
to welcome in new and  younger people. Selfless.
 
 


I see new (and young)  people coming in all the time and quickly 
'belonging'; I read the excitement  from those who're attending their first SPAH and 
the euphoria once they have and  their vow to keep coming back; I've met 
people who've come to maybe 3 or 4  SPAH's now who think of themselves as 
'veterans'. So the nonsense about it dying  off with the older generation is 
purely ageism and a specious argument, imho. 
 
 
I wondered then as I do  now, why those who are so bound and determined to 
change SPAH into their own  vision of what they think it should be, simply 
don't build their own new  organization from the ground up to suit their 
every requirement instead of  trying to take over an already existing and 
venerable organization while making  it over completely into something which is 
THEIR idea but not one which  suits the rest of us? There's certainly room for 
other harmonica organizations  and groups. Why NOT start something which 
will have everything you want - and  more? Isn't the old claim: 'build it and 
they will come' no longer relevant? I  could quite see vendors, players and 
all sorts of people being interested in a  new type of harmonica 
'organization' different from SPAH. Many of us attended  Buckeye and SPAH regularly. 
Buckeye didn't adversely affect SPAH's attendance.  Now it's gone. Garden 
State is unlikely to have another festival in the near  future, at least 
anything close to the brilliance of those done by Val  Caltabellotta with Phil. 
There's more than enough space for newer venues  and ventures. Speaking as a 
New Yorker--we're aching for jazz  harmonica.
 
 


I would love a serious and coherent response to this question (no one has  
yet --and I've asked it onlist and waited two full years for a response).  
Contrarily, Mike Easton's response to your Awards question was dead-on and  
explained everything many of us feel. While people like Mike aren't yet part 
of  SPAH's BOD, he and other long-termers are the core of those who make up 
SPAH so  his opinion is extremely valid regardless of whether he's had to 
drop out  momentarily. He could easily become part of SPAH's volunteers if he 
so chose and  could find the time. Of course every organization can stand 
wee tweaks here and  there--especially as technology grows, but to advocate 
for change for its own  sake and for no good reason purely TO change something 
which is already  functioning well, makes zero sense to my mind.
 

Regards,

Elizabeth