68 replies to this topic

[Backdrifter]

Very interesting thread. I don't usually pay any attention to these awards, not through any discontent at the winners or voters' motivations, more through natural lack of interest. But by osmosis I've picked up on the notion there is 'populist' voting, this year seemingly no different.

What are we saying? There's no value in having a publicly-voted-for awards? Are people who'd vote for perhaps the less 'obvious' stuff simply not bothering, or are voting but being massively outvoted by everyone else? Or that by having public votes, you simply get what you ask for and the results are truly representative of what's most appreciated by the general public?

One year I was on the Oliviers panel and quite discouraged by the system - some choices longlisted by the panel were strongly expressed as outstanding in their categories, but the long list then went through the SOLT mincer and the strong preferences of the panel disappeared, leaving 'obvious' choices. The panel Chair couldn't confirm that every SOLT voting member had seen every production. An example of a 'closed' industry voting system that was questionable, while the WOS is a public system that we are also questioning. I wonder what the ideal would be (no awards at all?).

[freckles]

Backdrifter, on 18 February 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

Are people who'd vote for perhaps the less 'obvious' stuff simply not bothering, or are voting but being massively outvoted by everyone else? Or that by having public votes, you simply get what you ask for and the results are truly representative of what's most appreciated by the general public?

Bit of both I think. Some people who might make a difference are too disillusioned to vote & the simple logistics of vastly varying audience numbers between shows, coupled with the fanaticism of some stars' followers mean we will always get results like these.
I consider myself a keen & discerning theatre goer. I voted within the parameters of what was nominated & hardly any of my selections matched those that won...I coan only assume I was "vastly outvoted"!

Backdrifter, on 18 February 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

One year I was on the Oliviers panel and quite discouraged by the system - some choices longlisted by the panel were strongly expressed as outstanding in their categories, but the long list then went through the SOLT mincer and the strong preferences of the panel disappeared, leaving 'obvious' choices. The panel Chair couldn't confirm that every SOLT voting member had seen every production. An example of a 'closed' industry voting system that was questionable, while the WOS is a public system that we are also questioning. I wonder what the ideal would be (no awards at all?).

This is very interesting and, I'm afraid, not untypical of most industry awards. They are primarliy a PR event, designed to attract revenue & sponsorship The organisers are going to lean towards what works best for them. As the WOS awards are public I think it's just a numbers & popularity result, rather than panel intervention, but I think the awards are set up to steer voting that way. From that point of view the biggest names - and the biggest spenders - are going to be desirable winners.

There are a whole host of theatre awards and I read them all with interest, as I'm sure we all do, to see if I agree or not with the winners. But you always have to question the motivation of whoever has organised them.

[paplazaroo]

Lol I'm glad people feel the same way as me! I wonder if they made it possible to vote in one category only it would make it fairer as I suspect most categories turn into a popularity contest when people who have only really seen Les Mis but want to vote for it as best musical have a guess at the other categories.

[Laughingmonsta]

I have always thought with awards like this - there should be an algarythem added - which takes into account size of the theatre, how many shows it played, etc then award each vote a % once the above has been taken into account.

So a vote for example for a show in the Duchess is worth 1
A vote at the Appollo Victoria worth 0.25

[freckles]

Laughingmonsta, on 18 February 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

I have always thought with awards like this - there should be an algarythem added - which takes into account size of the theatre, how many shows it played, etc then award each vote a % once the above has been taken into account.

So a vote for example for a show in the Duchess is worth 1
A vote at the Appollo Victoria worth 0.25

Now that sounds like a plan!

[Lynette]

When I was on the Olivier, they did that too - sent the long list to Solt for additions. It was blatant. When the list came back we noticed and objected. Maybe we were a bit bolshie [ AA Gill was on the panel that year] but when we voted, as far as I know, the winners were who the panel wanted. The Olivier panellists see eveything. I certainly did and so did the other civvie on the panel in the plays' section. I think maybe the professionals missed a few.

[popcultureboy]

It might help if someone at WOS made a list of all eligible productions and performances in all categories before voting of any kind even begins? Ladykillers won best comedy, but it opened in 2011. American Idiot won best regional production, it was a tour, not a regional production. Idina Menzel won for Best Solo Performance, a concert can't really be considered as such (especially when it's against Cillian Murphy and the like). Will Young is not a newcomer to the stage, to singing, to acting, so how did he win the newcomer award? To me, it's errors like that which diminish these awards, not populist winners like Sheridan Smith (I love her, but Morahan should have won).

[jamescrispy94]

Not sure why everyone's bashing the WOS awards I think they all deserved to win. Sweeney Todd DEFINATELY deserves it's awards (hopefully it will be th same at the Oliviers!). After all they are public vote so there's nobody to blame but us.

[popcultureboy]

My bashing is mostly because of the ineligble nominations, which then went on to win, as listed above.

[Backdrifter]

Lynette, on 18 February 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

When I was on the Olivier, they did that too - sent the long list to Solt for additions. It was blatant. When the list came back we noticed and objected. Maybe we were a bit bolshie [ AA Gill was on the panel that year] but when we voted, as far as I know, the winners were who the panel wanted. The Olivier panellists see eveything. I certainly did and so did the other civvie on the panel in the plays' section. I think maybe the professionals missed a few.

Yes the panel I was on definitely saw all. We too objected when we saw the shortlist so they must be accustomed to grumbling panels.