but if the judging criteria is:
sales/radio play - marks out of 50
artistic merit - marks out of 50
(that sales 'slash' radio is important y'see)
based on the principle that you can have a no.1 single in nz without it being available for sale.
like i said. it gets screwy.
right then. the way it works is:
1. band (or their record company) nominates themselves for the categories THEY think the should be in. gives a bunch of cd's and bios to be distributed to all the judges.
2. judges get the cd's, bios and the list of who has entered into which category
3. judges, obviously, then judge the nominees. (This is the difference between 'nominees', ie. anyone who puts their name forward, and finalists - the ones in the lists above)
depending on the category, there is different judging criteria .... all on points adding up to 100.
for example, almost every category has a sales component, some have a radio play component, some have a live performance component.
all categories have one or some of the above PLUS artistic merit.
this is where it gets screwy. something might have as much artistc merit as a rats arse, but sell like a mutherfuker.
... then, some thing else might have the sales of a rats arse, but be the most goddamn wicked piece of music / record in the world.
bad song - 50 for sales / 0 for artistic merit
good song - 0 for sales / 50 for artistic merit ...
so both the good + the bad will get the same mark out of 100.
that's how it works. not perfect, but it never will be.
i guess the idea behind it is to find some way of showing, if a record sells = people like it. even if it is a pile of poo they are paying money for it.
(deep sigh)
you'd be correct young man.
imagine being in salmonella dub or the illsemantics ... having to buy like five more tickets - at no less than $140 a piece.
imagine if they gave all the bands enough tickets for their members - or made the tickets resonabley priced - there might end up being filthy Musicians there. and y' cant have that, not at a music awards.