Writers, composers, and artists are invited to submit studied comments, commentaries, and pithy observations on the art and field and politics of jazz, as well as on song and music crafting.  

This section will be updated accordingly.  Selected quotes from such feedback, relevant to points, will be incorporated and possibly addressed in subsequent updates. 

The trouble with the music industry, song contests, and those self-help books regarding success in music is that they promote a specific music culture,  almost entirely some branch of pop and usually adolescent, excluding all others.  They invariably urge you to keep your eye on the music charts and your ear to the upcoming trends.  In this framework success is measured entirely in popularity and, consequently, money earned.  The popularity element attests to the adolescent nature of the beast.         

Gone forever in this scenario is the artist true to him- or herself, willing, if necessary, to stick to a personal vision despite social-economic pressure against it.  These were my heroes.  In the new utilitarian order they are fools.  The “artist” now is he or she who has a strong business accumen with just enough musical talent to meet industrial demand.  Music in this utilitopian society is now an adjunct to successful mercantilism.  Music has little to do with what its name once defined.               

Such neo-culture is alien to my existence as a musician.  I often hesitate now to refer to myself as an “artist” because of how broadly non-specific, low, and loosely-applied the term has become.  The larger tragedy is in how badly served is the greater society by not being able to know genuine artists hidden from them by the voracious totalitarianism of the commercial music industry.              

They make music irrelevant except as business.  Who hears?  Who listens and likes a piece whether or not it matters - whether or not it results in usefulness?  

It was exciting when I decided in the late 1980s to join and become a voting member of the National Association of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS), the organization that presents the Grammy Awards.  I looked forward to being involved in the process that honors the “Best” in recording artistry.  What an eye-opening experience! 

To begin with, I discovered that each voting member is allowed to vote in a limited number of categories out of the many that are available.  What are we talking about here?  For instance, a rock producer is able to vote in not just the rock categories, but also in the classical, the jazz, the Gospel, etc., as well.  What is the result?  Not necessarily the “best” put forward in each of these categories, but more likely that which is most akin to what appeals to a rock producer. 

There are exceptions for certain categories in the nominating process.  Nominations for and voting in the Best Arranging category, for instance, can only come and occur from a pre-selected slate of members - namely, established arrangers.  Evidently, there is some adherence to an objective standard here.  Evidently, the question has been put to rest by a power-block within the NARAS itself as to the value of the process let loose on most of the other categories. 

The membership of NARAS is overwhelmingly the “Boomers, et al” that is, the first rock-pop generation and their successors.  Naturally, not all of them can be described as typical of their generation.  I speak only of the vast majority of those generations, the rock music culture and what that has inspired.  Music that does not appeal to that sensibility is generally overlooked in the nominating process in favor of that which is least like what it means to be.  Confusing?  You bet! 

Consider this as well: it is virtually impossible for any voting member to hear all the music put into the nominating process.  A voting member - at least the overwhelming majority - relies on what he or she has been hearing on the air - almost exclusively from the pop-rock broadcast industry - the big sellers. 

Writing of this situation, Robert Hilburn (Los Angeles Times, 1/5/2000) says of the 42nd Annual Grammy Awards:     

“As part of this year’s voting process, the Grammy organization set out a 241-page book with a list of almost 900 eligible albums and more than 500 singles.  In retrospect, all the academy had to do was send out the SoundScan list of the year’s Top 20 sellers.”

Like collecting Pez containers, “It’s the economy, stupid!” 

Jazz that is really jazz rarely gets a hearing.  Of course, not just jazz, but Individual songs on little-heard albums as well.  So what?  Well, the NARAS talks about a song as being the “best.”  Do the majority of members of this organization know what they are voting on?  What standards are being adhered to in the nominating and voting process? 

I don’t think much time needs to be spent in finding the answers.  Popularity is the standard.  If it’s popular it’s good.  If it’s the most popular it’s the best.  Like politics like high school, so goes music and art.  Americans seldom outgrow the music that appealed to them in their childhood and adolescence.  As the Americanism goes - “for kids of all ages,” fed on a steady, fast-food diet of low-nutrition music.

What is wrong with the popularity standard?  Nothing, if you’re a fan.  But, the voting membership of the NARAS is, ostensibly, professional or some about to be.  When a song is nominated in the Best Song category, for instance, what matters is not the performance of that song, but the crafted song itself regardless of the goodness of its performance - regardless of how well it’s been sung or arranged or the catchiness of its beat, and so forth. 

A fan cannot be expected to know this.  But, neither do most of the so-called voting members of that organization, as history of the NARAS reveals.  It’s stating the obvious to say that what the Grammys honor is not so much excellence as hype.  And that the hype and the channels for that hype are controlled by a very limited number of industry forces.  And that these forces, considered as a group, could be reasonable defined as an oligarchy - rulers by way of wealth and power - able to control what the public will see and hear.  And that this control is primarily effected through control of the media. 

Of course it’s understood that the Music Industry, being the industry it is because of its control, has little to do with music, per se.  The Music Industry is about merchandising and profit.  Music is merely the excuse.  The NARAS, on the other hand, for what it means to project of its image to the public, is about “art.” 

Commerce panders and plays down to people, always striving for success (popularity); art serves and plays up, always striving for perfection (completion).  While the Music Industry renders a fairly clear picture of its purpose, the NARAS, being a subjunct of the Music Industry, pretends. 

Exacerbating this is the first generation unwittingly raised by media.  The media have been parents and mentors to the grown members of this generation now chairing the very same media, where we are treated to the vagaries of news reporters gushing live with each other about this or that rock or pop star’s birthday or impending arrival in town.  The spector emerges of an enveloping culture that is continuously closed to adultness, that never gives childish attachment reason to grow up but to remain throughout a lifetime drawn to the things of childhood. 

Succored from birth by media, they will not listen to strangers - a stranger being anyone who has not been introduced to them by the media.  The current American custom is to respect an artist relative to how much he or she has been projected to them via the major media. 

For Boomers, role models - call them idols - are celebrities.  Like their parent generations, they do not look or expect to find among those near to themselves anyone who could do for them what elevated persons, by way of celebrity-ism, could do.  It is possible to see in this an irrepressible human social need for a class to be above - an aristocracy. 

Not the real accomplishments of art, but glamor and fame of publicly celebrated persons comes closest to satisfying the need for a noble class and for heroes that in slightly more ancient times were provided by myth, that celebrity-ism has replaced, provided by spin-doctoring and the media. 

And the medium within is glamor.  Glamor, a term of witchcraft, is the appearance of beauty where there is none.  The awe inspired by the products of glamor is the awe of nothing.

How about this for a marketing spin, the success of a multi-award-winning Gospel singer was attributed to his “smokey blend of sex and spirituality.”  Alright!.  Let’s hear it for spirituality! 

Being seen or heard on major media has the same effect on this generation as the caveat had in ancient times - "It is written."  In disk jockey domain, fame-toadies wear cap and gown and mount the presiding chairs, fixed as though forever to the mating music of their adolescence.  And they, dominant in number, choose the “Best” that Americans have to offer in the way of music. 

By way of the NARAS and the Grammy Awards and the contemporary Music Industry, the public receives a skewed picture of what is really going on in music in our Country.  And could go on, if this type of totalitarianism were to be seen for what it is and rectified.  

Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you (the backlog from the Holiday weekend was significant and we do like to craft personal responses to each inquiry we receive). 

That being said, I'm not sure how happy you'll be with my answer.  The part you might not like is this:  like other Contests, our Executive Committee of judges do not listen to all the tapes.  The big name artists that participate do so because they like the idea of creating opportunities for songwriters, most of whom have no real access to the music industry.  We make the process as easy for the judges as possible and it simply would not be realistic to ask our EC members to spend weeks listening to tapes.  

So, yes, there are levels of adjudication before the Executive Committee. But we do not think of those levels as screening:  they are part of the adjudication process.  The bulk of the judging before the Executive Committee is done by Gold members of the National Academy of Songwriters in Hollywood, CA.  Some people think that NAS judges are even more qualified to judge than our Executive Committee.  All the judges are professional songwriters and again give their free time to come into the NAS offices on Sunset to judge the Contest's entries.  

Before the NAS, we take the tapes to the Berklee College of Music and select judges from a pool of teachers, students and local musicians.the key here is the interview process.  We really only use songwriters who are enthusiastic and understand how important the Contest is to the people who enter the Contest...I know this might not make you feel better about the process, but we really do the best we can given the vast number of entries we receive. 

Please let me know what you think.         

Regards, Gregg Ross, JLSC         

Mr. Ross: thank you for responding to my email and its concerns.  I will (try) not take up your time any longer on this issue other than to say the following.  Despite all the adjudication (or pre-adjudication) process, it still comes down to two issues:  First, the ability of such persons involved at any level of this process to be able to separate the song from its performance in order to determine the quality of the material itself, not an easy thing to do even for many experienced professionals.  

In my field, which is primarily jazz, there is additional dimension to be considered along with the worthiness of the material as a singable song.  That is, the sequence and relationship of the underlying chords, especially for the instrumental improvisation.  In this case, for jazz, a notated and symbolized leadsheet with the lyric would be more suitable in the submission process than just the procedure allowed by the JLSC,  lyricsheet alone. 

This brings me to the second issue:  what are the standards, if any, being applied in the adjudication process?  That the song is suitable as commercial product?  As art?  A fine mix of the two?  Freshness of language, imagery, metaphor?  Is interesting, even upscale, harmonic juxtoposition taken into consideration, and given points?  Or, in order to fit category, does it need to be entirely like what has already been done in the field of that category?  Does it need to speak in the vernacular?  Can it be reflective of other than contemporary times?  Or does it just get down to “I like it” or “I don’t like it” among the various judging levels? 

This is briefly what I might otherwise write on the subject.  I think song contests have potential as shapers of culture, in a very positive way.  They can, if they choose, stand apart from regarding song merely as product.  Usually fresh and valuable new work needs time to be absorbed by a purchasing public, to be out there awhile on the various media, heard over a period of time.  The music industry itself does not support this.  Thus the place for the song contest, as an estate under no pressure to have its honored songs succeed immediately as commerce. 

There is another point I’ve not gone into, which is that many very slight (often unmeritorious) songs succeed simply on performance alone.  But, of course,that is yet another issue, is it not?   

NOTE: The correspondence between Misters Ross and Mlely occurred in November of 1999.  There has been no further response from Mr. Ross.  In 1998 the winner in the Jazz Category was a faculty member of one of the screening elements, the Berklee College of Music.

Recently, against my usual forebodings, I submitted songs to two different song contests.  Many in the song business recognize that there exists a problem for writers of new material - the screeners.  A screener, for those unfamiliar with the term, is a person who listens to song material for this or that usually established artist before the artist gets to hear the material, and decides whether or not to let the artist hear the song.  It is a frustrating and often unfair procedure for songwriters, and almost as often so for the targeted recording artist.   

It is similar to what occurs in the movie industry, having readers pass or not on screenplays submitted to studios and producers.  But at least there, most readers have some training in the field, many of whom are screenwriters or screenwriters in-training themselves.  A screener in the music industry, on the other hand, can be the artist’s manager or agent or producer or attorney or friend (even a gum-chewing, flippant teenage girl I once encountered who answered the phone at a major label and told me I had to submit all material through her). 

For instance, songs of mine that I knew were suitable for one or another known artist were all rejected initially by screeners.  But, when the artists themselves heard the songs the songs were immediately accepted and soon recorded. 

Song contests, i.e., Billboard, U.S.A., e.g., utilize this screening process as well, which they euphemistically style the "multi-tiered" judging process.  Songwriters entering songs, though most are not aware of this process, pay their money expecting the names and so-called names touted in the promotional material to be the ones who hear the songs, when in fact this is not usually true. 

The final judging panel hears only what the screeners decide to give them to hear.  Screeners I have placed songs with are not generally skilled at distinguishing the material of a new song from its performance.  Song contests make a big a point of how they are concerned only with the song itself apart from its performance.  But, knowing what occurs in this song business, how can that be?                 

Always hopeful, I am currently considering whether or not to submit a song or two to the most recent song contest to send its promo material and application form to me, the John Lennon Song Contest.  This time I’ve written by way of email to the JLSC, apprising them of my concerns and asking if matters are any different with them than with other song contests.  When or if I receive a response I will add it to this commentary.