Feature: The AMP: Why We Got The Shortlist W ..
The Australian Music Prize needs to work out whether it wants to be a peer-voted or critically appraised award, writes DARREN LEVIN ahead of today’s big announcement. In the lead-up to last year’s Pazz & Jop poll – a survey of critics published annually in The Village Voice – outspoken US critic Christopher R Weingarten openly questioned the credentials of the 700 writers who cast their vote for their album of the year. “They should close Pazz and Jop ballots to anyone who heard less than 500 new records this year,” he Tweeted to his 13,000-plus followers. Why should the AMP be any different? While it’d be somewhat unfair to hold the judging panel to the inflated standards of a guy who calls himself the “Last Rock Critic Standing”, Weingarten’s point still stands. Taking into account population size, if you didn’t listen to at least 100 new Australian records last year, then you have no business judging the AMP. Over a three month period (late-October to mid-January), the AMP’s 40 judges (myself included) would typically listen to 80 titles. These titles were to be adjudicated “purely on their own merits” with the expectation (as laid out in a judges charter) that the album would be listened to from start to finish. That works out to roughly an album a day for three months, leaving very little room for repeated listens. While you probably don’t need two listens to work out whether you like Royal Headache’s Royal Headache or Gilgamesh by Gypsy & The Cat, more “difficult” albums such as HTRK’s Work (work, work) , Snowman’s Absence , +DOME by Seekae or Ex Tropical by Lost Animal, could’ve really benefited from a few extra spins. (It’s worth noting that none of these five titles made the nine album-strong shortlist.) While The AMP’s short time frames are almost unavoidable – they need to allow for records released in the latter half of the year, which in late 2011 saw excellent releases from Geoff O’Connor, Dick Diver, Nick Huggins and Witch Hats – judges should’ve heard at least 70 percent of the records that came across their desk (roughly 56 titles). Sure, there were anomalies (each year there’s the inevitable batch of self-recorded projects that should never leave the bedroom, or wonderful surprises like Fred Smith’s Dust Of Uruzgan ), but most of these records are not on the margins. They’re commercially available, or sent out by publicists, and if you’re not aware of most of them, you’re probably not fit to weigh in. Of the AMP’s 40 judges, 13 are so-called critics, six work in radio and nine are retailers. I’d say the vast majority of these judges will listen to 100 new Australian record in an average year. The remaining 12 judges are mostly working musicians; most of whom, I believe, would fall way short of that benchmark. The reason is simple. While I have absolutely no idea what Kram listens to while jogging, or what Cloud Control’s Ulrich Lenffer spins on the road, it’s not their job to listen to music for a living. It’s their job to play it. (Unless, of course, you’re Robert ...
Mess and Noise
7 March 2012