Rick Davis
2139 posts
Jul 20, 2013
7:25 AM
|
An editorial I posted at the Mile High Blues Society website
BLUES CHALLENGE ETHICS
The International Blues Challenge is a treasure. It nurtures and develops emerging talents and encourages excellence in their music and presentation.
I have competed in regional contests for the International Blues Challenge three times. I’ve been a judge twice, and twice been involved in the planning and production of the events. I have also been to Memphis for IBC week. I love the IBC and I am quite familiar with the issues involved.
One of the most persistent issues is the perception by artists in the regional competitions that the judges are biased or harbor conflicts of interest. Some blues societies just dismiss these concerns while others have codified policies to protect the integrity of their events. For example, The Jersey Shore Jazz & Blues Foundation does it this way:
“Any conflict concerns with the committee’s selections [of judges] must be made to the event Chairman within 24 hours of receiving notice of the list of judges. The Committee’s determination on selection, after consideration of any concerns expressed, is final and not subject to challenge.”
So, what constitutes a conflict of interest for local IBC judges? The Blues Foundation has this rule for those who nominate and judge its W.C. Handy Blues Music awards: “To avoid potential con?icts, those with a vested interest in any song or artist are excluded from further involvement.” That sounds like a good place to begin.
Here are two examples of egregious conflicts that I have seen in these events: A judge who was a bandmate – a part-time employee as it were – of one of the artists he was scoring. Another judge was a booking agent who worked frequently with one of the acts. These were serious conflicts for obvious reasons, but concerns were brushed off by the event organizers. That is wrong.
The payoff of winning the IBC is fame and gigs, which often means “money.” Any judge who could share in or benefit from the payoff of any particular artist winning the IBC has a conflict. But the term “vested interest” does not refer only to a potential monetary benefit that may accrue to a judge. It would stand to reason that close family members of any of the artists should also be excused from judging that round of the contest as well.
Artists may sometimes object to a judge because they feel he is biased against them or may be friends with another artist. That is not a valid reason to excuse a judge. If it were, these events would never get going. Good blues societies should screen judges for knowledge of the blues and impartiality toward the artists. If an artist has a concern he or she should consult the event chairman. The chairman may not be aware of an issue unless you bring it up.
As an artist performing in a regional Blues Challenge event you have the right to ask that the people judging your performance are free from conflicts of interest. You have the right to ask to see the official rules put in place by the blues society to deal with these issues, so that you will not be treated arbitrarily. The taint of favoritism can soil a great event, even if the favoritism does not really exist. Having a defined set of policies will make it a fairer and more satisfying experience for everyone involved.
http://milehighbluessociety.com/fr_editorials.cfm
----------
-Little Rick Davis
The Blues Harp Amps Blog
The Mile High Blues Society
Tip Jar
|
