Thanks Jacquie for your comment as i didn't watch the entire show ... i didn't hear his remarks but there has been a lot of talk on his comments so i spent a little bit of time researching what was said ... and i guess i believe that excperts of what kenny was talking about were really taken out of context i found a great website that defends Kenny's comments see here
Much ado has been made about Kenny Chesney’s comments after winning the award for ACM Entertainer of the Year. It’s the first time that fan voting has played a role in determining the recipient of the award. A few things appear to be in question, though, including what exactly the Entertainer award is supposed to represent, and what role fan voting actually plays.
Let’s pull the description of the award directly from the voting criteria on the ACM website:
This award is presented to the individual, duo or group who showed the most overall success in the country music industry during the preceding calendar year. The factors to be considered in arriving at this award include, but are not limited to, success at radio, sales of prerecorded music, success of music videos, live concert ticket sales, artistic merit, appearances on television, appearances in films, songwriting, writing and contributions to the country music industry. The nominees shall be determined by a nomination ballot(s) and are subject to the approval of the board. The winner shall be determined by a combination of votes from the membership of the ACM and viewer voting.
This description itself raises a few flags. First, it appears that popularity simply isn’t enough to qualify for the award. It can be argued that popularity guarantees that a few of the qualifications are met (success at radio, sales, etc), but artistic merit and songwriting are independent of popularity.
Fan voting is tantamount to a popularity contest and while the Entertainer of the Year award, in it’s previous form, could be likened to popularity contest, fan voting removes any existing barriers. Fans don’t take artistic merit into consideration, nor do they consider each artists’ contributions to the country music industry. All other factors being equal, the artist with the larger fan base has a decided advantage, artistic merit be damned. On the other hand, voting or selection by the ACM Board attempts to equalize the field while determining the winner. There simply isn’t any prestige in winning a popularity contest, which is a shame, considering the award’s billing as the biggest of the night.
Secondly, the award was promoted as being based entirely on fan voting, but the last sentence of the ACM’s criteria calls into question how large of a role the fans actually played. And without any sort of oversight, that question can’t be answered. Even if the results were released, there would be no way to determine their accuracy due the online polling procedure. I commented previously about how susceptible the procedure was to fraud and a look at artist’s messageboards only confirms those misgivings. I wouldn’t expect the media to understand the inherit flaws in online polling, but without requiring the voters to register, there simply isn’t an accurate way to determine the results.
What you wind up with is a marketing ploy by the Academy to garner exposure for the show. By making the award fan voted, they get huge acts to promote the show and drive their fans to a web page to vote and to eventually watch the show, both of which increase advertising revenue. From a business perspective, it’s free marketing. The voting procedure, however, is subject to fraud, the results neither verifiable nor accurate, and the ACM can ultimately choose whoever they want (again, without any oversight). In essence, fan voting is simply a marketing ploy that cheapens the integrity of the award.
And this is all what Kenny Chesney was alluding to when he said, “but I don’t think it’s right that they picked the one award that means the most, that all the artists sacrifice the most for.” They changed the category “into a sweepstakes to see who can push people’s buttons the hardest on the Internet. I don’t think that’s right, really.” He continued, saying:
“I think it’s a complete disrespect of the artist — what they’ve lowered us to, to get entertainer of the year. … Because of that, it really diminishes the integrity of the music that we’re making and how much work goes into it. That’s what really matters. That’s what entertainer of the year really is. It’s not about flying somebody to some shows and giving free songs away — and giving this and that — and seeing how hard you can push people’s buttons on the Internet. As much as I love the ACMs and what they’ve done for my life, that’s how I really feel about it.. And I can say that because I won tonight.”
It’s a sweepstakes that had Rascal Flatts offering a free MP3 to anyone who would vote for them–which, by the way, didn’t break any rules–and had the ACM changing the rules in the middle of the game and rescinding those votes. I’m not completely sure how the Academy was able to determine which votes were a result of the promotion, but even that procedure should be questioned.
Chesney didn’t criticize fans, and from his comments he believes they should be included in some form. But making the Entertainer of the Year award fan voted is not the answer. Chesney is completely justified in making the comments he did, and winning the award allowed him to air his complaints without sounding bitter. The fans would be bitter to hold his comments against him. Like Chesney, I think the Academy should reconsider the way it handles this award.
Let’s pull the description of the award directly from the voting criteria on the ACM website:This award is presented to the individual, duo or group who showed the most overall success in the country music industry during the preceding calendar year. The factors to be considered in arriving at this award include, but are not limited to, success at radio, sales of prerecorded music, success of music videos, live concert ticket sales, artistic merit, appearances on television, appearances in films, songwriting, writing and contributions to the country music industry. The nominees shall be determined by a nomination ballot(s) and are subject to the approval of the board. The winner shall be determined by a combination of votes from the membership of the ACM and viewer voting.
This description itself raises a few flags. First, it appears that popularity simply isn’t enough to qualify for the award. It can be argued that popularity guarantees that a few of the qualifications are met (success at radio, sales, etc), but artistic merit and songwriting are independent of popularity.
Fan voting is tantamount to a popularity contest and while the Entertainer of the Year award, in it’s previous form, could be likened to popularity contest, fan voting removes any existing barriers. Fans don’t take artistic merit into consideration, nor do they consider each artists’ contributions to the country music industry. All other factors being equal, the artist with the larger fan base has a decided advantage, artistic merit be damned. On the other hand, voting or selection by the ACM Board attempts to equalize the field while determining the winner. There simply isn’t any prestige in winning a popularity contest, which is a shame, considering the award’s billing as the biggest of the night.
Secondly, the award was promoted as being based entirely on fan voting, but the last sentence of the ACM’s criteria calls into question how large of a role the fans actually played. And without any sort of oversight, that question can’t be answered. Even if the results were released, there would be no way to determine their accuracy due the online polling procedure. I commented previously about how susceptible the procedure was to fraud and a look at artist’s messageboards only confirms those misgivings. I wouldn’t expect the media to understand the inherit flaws in online polling, but without requiring the voters to register, there simply isn’t an accurate way to determine the results. What you wind up with is a marketing ploy by the Academy to garner exposure for the show. By making the award fan voted, they get huge acts to promote the show and drive their fans to a web page to vote and to eventually watch the show, both of which increase advertising revenue. From a business perspective, it’s free marketing. The voting procedure, however, is subject to fraud, the results neither verifiable nor accurate, and the ACM can ultimately choose whoever they want (again, without any oversight). In essence, fan voting is simply a marketing ploy that cheapens the integrity of the award.
And this is all what Kenny Chesney was alluding to when he said, “but I don’t think it’s right that they picked the one award that means the most, that all the artists sacrifice the most for.” They changed the category “into a sweepstakes to see who can push people’s buttons the hardest on the Internet. I don’t think that’s right, really.” He continued, saying:“I think it’s a complete disrespect of the artist — what they’ve lowered us to, to get entertainer of the year. … Because of that, it really diminishes the integrity of the music that we’re making and how much work goes into it. That’s what really matters. That’s what entertainer of the year really is. It’s not about flying somebody to some shows and giving free songs away — and giving this and that — and seeing how hard you can push people’s buttons on the Internet. As much as I love the ACMs and what they’ve done for my life, that’s how I really feel about it.. And I can say that because I won tonight.”
It’s a sweepstakes that had Rascal Flatts offering a free MP3 to anyone who would vote for them–which, by the way, didn’t break any rules–and had the ACM changing the rules in the middle of the game and rescinding those votes. I’m not completely sure how the Academy was able to determine which votes were a result of the promotion, but even that procedure should be questioned.
Chesney didn’t criticize fans, and from his comments he believes they should be included in some form. But making the Entertainer of the Year award fan voted is not the answer. Chesney is completely justified in making the comments he did, and winning the award allowed him to air his complaints without sounding bitter. The fans would be bitter to hold his comments against him. Like Chesney, I think the Academy should reconsider the way it handles this award.
No comments:
Post a Comment