Mudcat Café message #3263203 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #141635   Message #3263203
Posted By: Howard Jones
25-Nov-11 - 07:57 AM
Thread Name: BBc defends folk awards
Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
this time there's a freedom of information request. But that really shouldn't have been necessary.

It wasn't necessary.

The interest in who the judges might be is no more than curiosity. Anyone who knows the folk scene can make a guess as to who might at least be on the list. There's no serious suggestion of any skullduggery, or evidence that the nominations have been rigged. With apparently around 170 judges involved, that would be quite hard to do.

If Bellowhead hadn't been nominated for anything, then that might have been cause for an investigation, but this seems to be stirring for the sake of it. It's one thing doing that on Mudcat, that's within the family, but quite another taking it outside.

When we do see the list, so what? Some of them will be well-known names, others may be known only within a certain region or field of activity, but that doesn't mean they don't have the knowledge to act as judges. I suppose it will create another pointless discussion about who should or should not be on it. What it could well do is discourage some well-informed and knowledgeable people from being judges.

What I was more interested in was how acts are put forward for consideration and what criteria are used for judging. That has largely been answered, partly by John Leonard and mostly by Mike Harding. As I've said before, their PR could be better but like most things in the folk world it's due to cock-up rather than conspiracy.

If you don't like the Folk Awards, then ignore them. They do some good and little harm. On the whole, we're lucky that the BBC pays for them.