In Defence of Creativity (& The Greater Problem Of The ‘International Quality’): An Artist’s Response To The 2011 Taite Music Prize

The Taite Music Prize was introduced in 2010 to ‘recognise outstanding creativity for an entire collection of music contained on one album’ released over a twelve-month period. At a recent ceremony in Auckland, the 2011 prize was awarded to the artist Ladi6 for her album The Liberation Of…. This decision and how it has been made interests me for several reasons, and as an artist I feel it is important to explore issues surrounding it. In particular, I want to address: Does the Taite Music Prize allow for creativity to be assessed in an acceptable way? What does this decision mean for the future of the award? And; How do the attitudes of judging panels such as this one impact the creativity of emerging New Zealand artists?

I’d firstly like to pre-empt any inevitable interpretation of this response as one of upset in my being a finalist but not winner of the award. My motivations here grow both from an overall concern that I’ll go on to describe, as well as a result of receiving significant feedback from others – both in and out of the music industry – who are also interested in discussing the judges’ decision, specifically in relation to the award criteria. Also compelling is my observation that when something of an imbalance occurs within our music community, very few people seem prepared to make their concerns public. I suspect artists fear being blacklisted from future chances of recognition within the circles in question, while others in media positions have business and personal relationships that they are afraid of bruising. These anxieties do not personally concern me, especially in comparison to the responsibility I feel in contributing positively to the dialogue of what in New Zealand music we consider to be creatively successful work.

‘The Taite’

According to its publicity, the Taite Music Prize is the first of its kind in New Zealand, designed to be an equivalent of The UK’s Mercury Prize and Canada’s Polaris Music Prize. Touted as honouring ‘originality, creativity and musicianship’ and offering a $10,000 cash prize, it was set up by the Taite family in memory of the late music journalist Dylan Taite, and is principally sponsored by Independent Music New Zealand (IMNZ) and PPNZ Music Licensing (PPNZ), whom I will refer to as ‘the facilitators’ of the award.

The judging process is two-staged. The first stage is an online vote by IMNZ members (made up largely of record labels and artists) and a twenty-person non-IMNZ group of music industry and media people. All entered albums – this year there were 73 – are made available to listen to via a digital stream, should the voter wish. The voter selects ten albums that they believe best fit the criteria, ranking them from 1-10. Combining all votes, an undefined number of finalists are selected (5 in 2010, 8 in 2011).

In the second and final stage, eleven judges decide the winner from the finalists. These judges have already cast their top ten votes in the first round, so according to Renee Jones of IMNZ, this involves a ‘hearty debate’ from which the winning album emerges.

Many felt that the introduction of the Taite marked the long overdue arrival of an award that acknowledges creatively ambitious and original work, arguably unique to Aotearoa. Though I’m dubious of competition in general, I was absolutely one of these people, relieved and excited about the potential energy that the award could bring in encouraging the vital use of imagination in making New Zealand music, as well as the expanded audience that further exposure of nominated albums could open up.

The Ceremony (& My Own Naïvety)

I attended this year’s Taite Music Prize ceremony. I’d never been to an industry event of this kind before so didn’t know entirely what to expect, however given the emphasis on creativity and artistic merit in the rhetoric of the award’s publicity, I was very happy to be there. I’d once been to the Sale St bar (wheeler-dealer types/meat-market Saturday nights) to see a friend perform, and from that brief experience I thought it an unusual choice of venue.

The ceremony itself was relegated to a tight-ish corner of the bar, everyone lit in an overbearing, almost Lynchian red. The soundtrack for the evening was the far-too-loud generic nothingness of bar beats – odd considering the occasion – remaining at overkill level even during the speeches, which probably a good half of the 120 or so people attending couldn’t hear. The speakers were John Taite, Ben Howe of IMNZ, Kristen Bowman of PPNZ, and MC Russell Brown. From what could be made out, they all talked a lot about creativity and how important it is. A short video was shown with thirty-second clips of music videos or graphics from the nominated albums. Bowman then announced Ladi6 as the winner. MC Brown followed with something very close to: ‘Wow, I’ve worked with Ladi6 and she’s great, but I didn’t think she’d win!’ A gracious pre-recorded acceptance speech from Ladi6 and her collaborator Parks was shown, Lawrence Arabia performed, and things wrapped up as suddenly as they’d begun.

In my naïvety I assumed there would be a level of decorum and sense of occasion to the night, and as a nominated artist, was disappointed. Perhaps the other nominees were more clued up; I’ve confirmed with Renee Jones that it was a relatively artist-free zone, with only myself and possibly Julia Deans in attendance (apparently most of the others were overseas or unavailable – no fault of the organisers of course). At the end of the day, you could argue that it’s not about the quality of the ceremony, but the prize itself. Surely though, considering both the kaupapa and gravity of the award, more thought – and needless to say, creativity – could have been put into the shape of the evening. Furthermore, if the production of the ceremony is any reflection of how the Taite Music Prize as a whole is managed, concerns regarding its integrity are warranted.

Judging Judging (& Judges)

In my view, there are several major flaws in the judging process.

In the first stage of voting, there is no obligation for voters to listen to each album before voting. In fact, if the average album were about 45 minutes in length, a fair judge in this year’s round of 73 records would have to listen to nearly 55 hours worth of music, worthy of an award in itself. I doubt many did this, and the result is that the basis of the initial judging round relies on an unrealistic system in which voters simply don’t have the means to grasp the material they are assessing. As a voter, the temptation is to support artists or albums that you do know, or, depending on your loyalties and your ability to put these aside, are associated with. However, the 90 or so judges are trusted not to do that, and vote according to their belief of those albums that most align to the award criteria. It has been noted that several highly creative albums failed to be nominated as finalists, while several finalists are not especially ambitious but are, however, popular. I agree with this view, and think that already at this first and crucial stage, the Taite’s judging process is distorted and open to bias.

By the second round, the power of the decision relies on the views of the eleven-person judging panel. This panel have the great and complex task of mutually deciding on, and therefore defining, the best example of creativity from the finalist albums. Therefore, the selection of judges on the panel is of the utmost importance. They need to be people who are able to make qualified decisions regarding creativity, and to put aside existing relationships with nominated artists, any knowledge of popularity, sales and international recognition, and even what might be their favourite of the finalist albums to instead focus entirely on the aspects of ‘originality, creativity and musicianship’. They need to be the kind of people who to some extent understand the process of creating work, because according to the award criteria they are not only assessing the music of an album, but the work as a whole: the music, the artwork and the packaging.

One would also expect this panel to represent knowledge in the various forms of musical expression in Aotearoa, so as they can bring the widest possible perspective and expertise to this process. In 2011, the judges were John Taite (son of Dylan, BBC Worldwide), Sam Collins, Fleur Jack, Phoebe Spiers (all of KiwiFM), Graham Reid (NZ Herald, NZ Listener, Elsewhere, KiwiFM), Charlotte Ryan (bFM), Aroha Harawira (George FM), Sam Wicks (Groove Guide), Vicki Anderson (The Press), Nicky Harrop (Sony/BMG), and Hugh Sundae (a more general media personality). Apologies if I have missed any other significant associated roles or organisations.

At first glance, it may seem that there is a decent enough selection of musical taste and background represented. Indeed, each person above is to be respected for working within his or her own niche, operating active parts of the New Zealand music machine and therefore bringing valuable personal experience to the judging process. Despite this, I feel that the scope of critique that this panel offers is not encompassing enough of the challenge at hand. Where are representatives of the classical world (as with the Mercury Prize panel)? Anacademic perspective? And pivotally, why are there no artists on the panel? Surely those that choose creative expression as a career have the experience and interest enough to make qualified judges. More preferable to a media personality would be, for example, an established artist from another medium, such as a poet or writer, who could offer their perspective on, among other things, lyrics or narrative.

It seems to me (and this was confirmed by Jones when I asked how the judges are chosen) that the panel is based largely on the media organisations they represent. This is practical for the facilitators of the Taite in the sense that media coverage of the award – it’s build-up, conclusion, and developing reputation – is ensured through the involvement of the people or organisations on its panel…but at what compromise?

As well as the responsible selection of a panel, the award facilitators need to provide their judges with every opportunity to spend time with the finalist albums. Common sense would suggest that each judge would be given a copy of each album in order to listen to and experience it in the environment that best suits them, with the album presented in the original manner that the artist intended. As opposed to last year’s prize, the 2011 panel were not provided with this. Music from the albums was offered solely via a low-medium quality stream from the IMNZ website. Instantly, the conditions the judges listen under are limiting: sitting at a computer digesting a compromised quality of sound (that relies on a steady internet connection), sans packaging, artwork or where relevant, lyrics.

There is another obvious reason for judges having physical copies of the albums (if indeed the artist intended for a physical release): the published criteria state that album packaging is assessed as part of the overall award. Despite this, the judges’ experience of the packaging was based on viewing it only once, at their single hour-and-a-half meeting to decide on a winner. Incidentally, this meeting was not attended by judge John Taite, while judge Vicki Anderson joined from Christchurch via telephone.

In my view, the above conditions are nowhere near as practical as they should be for making sound decisions about creativity; even if they were considered acceptable by a judge, I doubt they would be by many of the nominees.

The International Sound (& Hopefully Getting Over It)

Following the announcement of the winner, a press release was issued from IMNZ that begins: A release that judge Sam Collins describes as “a truly international quality album”, Ladi6’s The Liberation Of… was this evening awarded the 2011 Taite Music Prize… The work of soon-to-be Europe-based New Zealand musician Karoline Tamati AKA Ladi6, The Liberation Of… was recorded over two months in Berlin with production duties shared between her producer Parks and German beat auteur Sepalot.

What is ‘a truly international quality’? Possibly it could be a number of things, but in this context I interpret the phrase as suggesting that The Liberation Of… is comparable to current international trends. It would also be fair to assume that this ‘international quality’ was at the least a significant motivator for the judges to deduce The Liberation Of… as the winner of the Taite Music Prize. This begs the question: Should the creative success of a local artist be judged on their ability to comply with international trends?

For most of the 20^th Century colonial societies such as New Zealand suffered what is known as ‘cultural cringe’, or more formally, a cultural inferiority complex. This is essentially the often-subconscious (but often not) belief that everything about our own society is notquite as good as that of others.

Tragically, some parts of our society are still unwittingly stuck with their eyes and ears fixed firmly on the horizon, obsessed and distracted by the glow of all that is ‘international’. Many parts of our music industry are in this place. The major funding organisations, for example, too often evaluate the worth of local bands, artists and songs by gauging their sound with overseas formulas proving popular at the time, however through a combination of the conservatism of these organisations and New Zealand’s geographical isolation, these trends end up being rather yesteryear by the time they influence our music. The ultimate result is that we end up with musicians concerned more with emulation than innovation, taught that to receive funding, airplay and media attention, they need to wade through territory that, whether they know it or not, has already been canvassed overseas.

Of course, being influenced by and aware of what is happening in other cultures can be a hugely positive thing for an artist, and arguably necessary to his or her development. Industry fixation on artists who are based on foreign counterparts, however, in turn adversely contributes to a lack of support and resources for those artists concerned with creating fundamentally unique work that is a more direct expression of Aotearoa, whatever that may be.

I detect strong traces of cultural cringe in the press statement from IMNZ. If the 2011 Taite panel were not in fact influenced by the irrelevancy of international trends, the press statement has done a perfectly good job of suggesting otherwise, and its unambiguous tone contributes to the outdated mentality that, as a music industry, we are failing to move through.

The Liberation of… The Taite

Where to from here for the Taite? If the current award criteria are to be maintained, several procedural changes need to be made.

The judging process requires an overhaul.

In the first round, a system that presents the potential 90+ voters with the challenge of listening to over 70 albums is unrealistic. Instead, I believe that the steps taken to find a shortlist of finalists should take inspiration from the Polaris Music Prize. In that system, the first round includes judges who both apply to be involved and are invited by the facilitators. Known as the ‘jury’, there were 225 members this year, from widely ranging backgrounds. Each jury member puts forward five albums, from any genre, that they believe show artistic merit. The 40 most-voted albums form a ‘long list’, and from this list, the jury vote again to create the ‘short list’ of ten finalists. Finally, a ‘grand jury’ of eleven judges debate and then choose a winner. This process takes place over several months and encourages great levels of online discussion between each stage of voting – jury members argue the case for certain albums, are introduced to work they hadn’t considered, and become as educated as possible before voting for the short list.

The finalist judging panel needs to represent a wider scope of critics from more varying backgrounds including the classical and academic worlds, as well as established musicians and artists from other mediums.

In the second and final round of the current system, digital streaming as the only means for judges to listen to finalist albums should be scrapped. Judges need to be given a copy of each finalist album in the manner the artist originally intended it to be presented. I’m sure, given that they are finalists, artists won’t have a problem supplying eleven copies of their album, as they did in 2010. This will also ensure that packaging, artwork and other information such as lyrics will be properly absorbed and assessed.

Also in the second round, a greater level of dialogue between judges needs to take place, as opposed to this year’s single ninety-minute meeting. Looking to the Mercury, the judging panel meets twice, with a six-week gap between each meeting. The second meeting is held on the afternoon and evening of the awards, with a break for dinner, and the winner is decided just prior to the awards ceremony. I feel that a process as important as choosing the winning album simply can’t happen quickly, and at least two panel meetings are required. At the initial meeting, judges need to absorb the views of other panel members and have their own opinions challenged, before retreating to reassess their decision and meeting again weeks later. This way, judges have gone through a personal and group process that demands much more reasoned and thorough decision-making than one, probably relatively polite get-together.

Finally, the awards ceremony needs to be a far better conceived, planned and produced event that reflects the nature of what the Taite should be honouring.

The Taite family, IMNZ and PPNZ deserve to be acknowledged and thoroughly supported for recognising the dire need for an award that celebrates unique New Zealand albums. The Taite Music Prize is still young, and has the opportunity to become the great thing that it is meant to be. For their kaupapa to truly flourish, though, the greater industry needs to reverse its attitudes. We do not need to look globally. Our worth is in what makes us unique.

If the facilitators of the Taite care about being honest to creativity – and let’s hope they do – they will consider this and any other responses that have been made with some thought and concern. If not, the supposed prestige that this award has been set up to manifest simply won’t last, and the Taite will be placed on the same shelf as our other music awards.