Taking a look at the figures presented in yesterday's (December 3) piece, wouldn't it be fairer to say, that in 2023 there has very clearly been no recording of the year? For a recording to merit such an accolade, should it not stand out from the rest? These figures very clearly indicate that there has been nothing outstanding among the crop of 2023.
If I understand correctly, from among your 24 reviewers not a single recording was deemed worthy enough to be chosen by as few as three of them. I would expect (indeed take it for granted) that a recording of the year should appear among the choices of far more than a mere 2 of your 24 reviewers' respective choices. Likewise, if from 109 chosen discs, only 8 received more than a single vote, this means that the overwhelming majority of discs where chosen uniquely by a single reviewer among a team of 24.
These figures can be interpreted in different ways. It can evidence as is said "the great diversity of music and sources", or the sheer variety of recordings on offer over this last year or the vast breadth of enthusiasms among your reviewing team. It could also point out a severe or total lack of agreed judging criteria shared among the reviewing team or a distinct absence of face to face consultation among the 24 reviewers before choices are made. If the latter is true, is there any justification in calling the 24 reviewers a team, or anything other than mere coincidence among 24 separtate selections that decides the recording of the year?
Message Thread
« Back to index | View thread »
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb