Comments on: Did the Polaris Music Jury Blunder With the Vote?

By: george

george — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:37:00 +0000

Stick to your Nickelback. I, for one, am glad Fucked Up won. The other acts were way too Top 40 and shouldn’t have made the short list in the first place. Junos are lame sales based awards that are embarrassing to Canadians when seen from around the world. The Polaris Awards are to showcase hot acts that are much better than any Juno winner but would never get big national recognition. I’d rather someone in Germany think that Fucked Up is the epitomy of Canadian music, not Nickelback.

By: Roch

Roch — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:14:31 +0000

David,
For one “explanation”, see this Globe and Mail article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-profane-and-the-gentle/article1299500/

For another “explanation”, see this NewYorker article: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sashafrerejones/2009/09/the-prize-that-dare-not-speak-its-name.html

Sheesh David, even the *Americans* get it. It pains me to find what a dinosaur you’ve become!

By: Mary Dickie

Mary Dickie — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:23:31 +0000

As a member of the Polaris grand jury, I’m going to answer your demand for an explanation of why we chose Fucked Up’s The Chemistry of Common Life as the best Canadian album of the year.
We chose it because we think it IS the best Canadian album of the year. It’s as simple as that. You, of course, have the right to disagree, but I urge you to listen to it again. Try not to be distracted by the band’s name and listen to how much blood, sweat, tears and creative ambition they put into that record: the amazing guitar riffs, the surprising melodies, the organs, the flute, the multiple vocals, all woven into what I think is a really exciting piece of work.
The beauty of the Polaris is that it’s judged on the quality of the album aloneâ€”not the band’s name, politics, genre, sales, radio play, live show, label clout or chances for mainstream success. By contrast, the Juno system (can’t fault it? PLEASE!) is a confusing mixture of sales, panels of experts and interested parties.
I’m proud of our decision and am quite sure that Fucked Up and in fact all the short list nominees will see a jump in sales and interest because of their Polaris experience.

By: dixon_steele

dixon_steele — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:19:59 +0000

Or, more succinctly and more accurately, it’s not called the Polaris oversight committee.

…Because that’s not a thing.

By: Jaimie Vernon

Jaimie Vernon — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:22:06 +0000

David,
The answer is hidden quietly in your post…it’s not called the Polaris OVERSIGHT committee for nothing.

By: juqbox

juqbox — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:04:18 +0000

Some things never change. “Questionable taste. Self-importance. Hype. Toronto-centricity. Inability to take criticism. The politics of my rant being equal to your rant., etc.”. Your comments, Mr. Editor, are highly articluate and obviously fueled by years of experience, passion and the abilitly to process this kind of information with music to arrive at what still remains one of the most heartfelt and worthy points of view on the street. In my opinion, you ask the right questions. Credit to the band for what they are doing and for not giving a fuck about what anybody thinks. Credit to you for publishing your thoughts.

By: bk

bk — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:15:54 +0000

The Polaris Awards are not about helping an act get traction, or about picking one that has a chance of acceptance whatever that means in this post-mainstream-Nickelback world. It’s about picking the best Canadian album of the year. Period. As a secondary issue (that may even be the first issue) it’s also about highlighting the top ten Canadian discs of the year. In fact picking the best one of the ten is almost beside the point. At the end of the Polaris process, hopefully Canadians will get the idea that there is a fuckfull of amazing music east of Nickelback.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:11:21 +0000

“One has no clue how or why the Polaris jury voted The Chemistry Of Common Life in as the best of the best. Iâ€™m sure many of us would like to know.”

It’s not some great cosmic secret: 11 people were in a room Monday night debating, discussing, and deliberating on which of the 10 albums would be awarded the prize. I feel pretty confident that it didn’t come down to a coin toss, or who got the shortest stick. As for their decision, it may not be the one you would have made, or the one the majority of the record buying public would make, but that doesn’t discredit the decision, or warrant demanding a reason for it. I certainly wouldn’t choose to give Nickelback an award, let a lone any of my money, but I don’t question the particular taste/perversion of those who do. It is what is it.

By: S. White

S. White — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:33:43 +0000

Upon first read of your question, “Did the Jury Blunder with the Vote?, I thought perhaps they had. Being a person who enjoys all genres of music not based on name, appearance, behaviour, but solely on creativity, this nagged me all day. So I took the time to read the “Mission Statement” of the Polaris Music Prize (which can be found at http://www.polarismusicprize). Yes, it clearly states “marketing” of the albums of the highest integrity. This band definitely has integrity and creativity–they believe in themselves/their music. The music will market itself. There’s a whole generation out there who eats up this kind of sound. Their performance on Monday night proves that…it invoked a food fight, the excitement of it, which is what Punk music is about.

Their name may hinder a little, but look at other bands whose names are questionable, “Holy Fuck”, an extremely talented group, “The BareNaked Ladies”, whose name got them taken off the bill for the 1991 New Year’s Eve concert outside Toronto City Hall.

This band isn’t ‘mainstream’ and that is what the Polaris Music Prize is all about, right? Just my opinion.