Re: [Harp-L] Re:SPAH award nominations--who's nominated, and how is the winner chosen?

[Winslow Yerxa <winslowyerxa@xxxxxxxxx>]

Richard Hunter writes:

RH: When Stagg McMann won Player of the Year Award in 1996, he'd been dead for 8 years, and it had been over 40 years since the release of his landmark record "The Legendary Stagg McMann Trio."  We can argue that he was overdue for recognition, but that could certainly have been addressed via a different award--"Lifetime Achievement" comes to mind.  This is an example of the kind of thing that a more open nomination process might avoid, i.e. a process in which nominees were known in advance, so people could raise the question of why a man long dead is being proposed for Player of the (current) Year.  That aside, this is another diversion.  I'm not contesting the worthiness of award recipients.  I'm arguing that nominations should be published.  Period. 


====

The Stagg McMann thing stuck in my craw, too. That's why award criteria now state that an award recipient must have been alive during the 12 months prior to the award. I made that change in 2010 when I was tasked with reforming the awards process.

Back in 1996 the Lifetime Achievement Award didn't exist. And I suspect that back then award recipients may have been chosen in a less formal manner than today.

Which is why I also strengthened the nomination process - nominations must be in writing and submitted by the deadline, and must be reviewed and voted on by the entire board and staff -  no "cliques" as Iceman is fond of talking about. And each nomination receives full consideration - the complete text of all nominating statements is given to attendees beforehand for study, and I actually advocate for all nominees to make sure that none are passed over.

Announcing nominees is not a panacea. The abuse mentioned has been taken care of by the current rules - which are published. 

Let's say someone was nominated, nominations were announced, and someone questioned the validity of a nomination. Ineligible nominees, such as dead people and previous recipients of the same award, would already have been disqualified. So the only grounds for objection would be that the objector didn't feel that the nominee deserved the award. But that's not a valid reason to reject a nomination. Any SPAH member can nominate anyone for an award. If the nominee meets the basic eligibility requirements, they will receive due consideration.

At the awards meeting, each nominee is evaluated against the stated criteria for the specific award, and compared with the other nominees. This is done through open discussion and comment by all participants. If it agreed that a nominee does not sufficiently meet the criteria, he or she will be eliminated and focus will be placed on comparing the nominees who do fit the criteria.

So I don't see how announcing nominees would have any effect on eliminating inappropriate nominations.

After the convention, we can discuss other potential pros and cons of announcing nominees.

Winslow
 
Winslow Yerxa
Author, Harmonica For Dummies, ISBN 978-0-470-33729-5
            Harmonica Basics For Dummies, ASIN B005KIYPFS
            Blues Harmonica For Dummies, ISBN 978-1-1182-5269-7
Resident Harmonica Expert, bluesharmonica.com
Instructor, Jazzschool for Music Study and Performance


________________________________
 


RH: When Stagg McMann won Player of the Year Award in 1996, he'd been dead for 8 years, and it had been over 40 years since the release of his landmark record "The Legendary Stagg McMann Trio."  We can argue that he was overdue for recognition, but that could certainly have been addressed via a different award--"Lifetime Achievement" comes to mind.  This is an example of the kind of thing that a more open nomination process might avoid, i.e. a process in which nominees were known in advance, so people could raise the question of why a man long dead is being proposed for Player of the (current) Year.  That aside, this is another diversion.  I'm not contesting the worthiness of award recipients.  I'm arguing that nominations should be published.  Period.