ABC ABC Jazz

Hi there - thanks for the comments.
At this point the broadcast is no longer available as streaming on the website due to licensing arrangements with the musicians.
Thanks for the interest in this feature...! While you're here, please check out some of the other features on the ABC Jazz website....

Not having been lucky enough to be there is there and having missed the broadcast is any way of still getting a listen? This thread has definitely got my curiosity aroused - very intriguing!
Above it did mention it would be available for 2 weeks after broadcast although it neglected to provide a link (!!)
- hey! why only 2 weeks?! Has ABC gone pay-per-view or something?

If you want a TRUE 'trumpet-off' with strict judging criteria that not even anonymous internet forum kings can debate, I have a simple solution that might just work...get the competitors on stage together (no expensive house rhythm section required Adrian) and the winners of the competition could be decided by who can play highest note with the loudest tone and most distasteful musicianship.

Always a little disagreement with judging in these situations. Look at the history, Ian Chaplin didn't get in, he is one of the best players on the instrument in Australian history, Philip Rex had the same situation. Mags and Muller equal when the judges job is to decide?

We are humans, we have biases and aesthetics, all differing, that is evident here. The judges use theirs and make their choices.

To those who say there was clearly a winner I disagree, and I'm probably quite knowledgeable in the arena of jazz trumpet. The guys all sounded great and I'm glad I wasn't judging.

Get over it people. It was a great opportunity for them to be heard and show their skills, beyond that they got some pocket money that will maybe pay their rent for a couple of months, if that, go buy their music.

As for the judges, all good people who have spent their life in music and deserve our respect too.

None of this competition or what these 3 guys did matters anyway. Even in the afterlife, I am still the king of the trumpet.

"Firstly to deride participants to this forum on the basis of their anonymity is with respect churlish and completely misses the point. Whether a participant chooses to post under his or her own name is largely irrelevant."

- Unfortunately Johnny, I disagree with you on this one, which is why I used my real name. I think people should stand by their opinions and reasonings and I feel internet forums encourage a lot of mindless and unsubstantiated material, purely because the poster needn't be publicly accountable for what they express in the domain.

"Finally, you raised the character of the 3 finalists however I am at a loss as to why? No one here has commented or raised any issues as to the personal standing or integrity of these 3 young men, quite the opposite. AS to better spending our time congratulating Matt for representing Australia overseas, again I am confused by what this means as I am not sure it is in this capacity that he is in NYC."

- I admit that paragraph may have seemed irrelevant, but what I meant to do was eradicate any sense of bias as I have known and played with Eamon for many years. My comments about this forum really don't have anything to do with my opinion of who should have won the award, I haven't even heard most of the final.
In terms of Matt representing Australia, that was a figure of speech. He is by default representing us. He was raised and he studied here.

Picking up on Adrian's comments, I don't think that the judges should enter into public debate but I don't see why they can't let the audience know what it was about the winning performance that made it stand out. This doesn't require any criticism of the other performers. The judges could simply prepare a few sentences which highlight the most impressive aspects of the winning performance - the depth of the ideas, distinctiveness of voice, mastery of the range of the instrument, engagement with the band...

Congrats to all the players - wonderful performances all 3. I'll be buying your records - I've got a few already.

Hi all, we have now posted the 3 performances from the finals, with introductions from the players. This will be available until 2 weeks after broadcast (November 14).
Thanks for your contributions and we hope you continue to enjoy ABC Jazz.

The judges don't follow a strict mathematical process, as you might get e.g. in a gymnastics contest, with 10 points for technical ability, 10 points for originality, etc etc. It really wouldn't be workable. eg, if one judge is a 'hard marker', a scoring process would give their vote less weight than someone inclined to give higher points.

We do try to achieve consensus in deciding which 10 entrants are invited to play at the festival ; then which 3 should be chosen to play the final round ; and which finalist wins which prize.

If anyone can advise of a similar competition where the judges do enter into a public debate to justify their decision, or announce scores for each performer, I would be surprised ; but would also be interested to hear how it works.

Thanks for clarifying Adrian. My apologies for not knowing about this before posting.
Do the judges allocate marks for each person in each criteria as they hear or is it 'generalised?'
As Johnny Jazz said I think it's more the curiosity factor - nobody is trying to diminish the character or the playing of any of the 3 players but of course it's going to be subjective and open to interpretation. It is a competition after all and all finalists know that they are putting themselves 'out there' for public scrutiny. Let's remember that esentially it ia a PUBLIC competition, otherwise it would be held by a magazine and people would submit a CD.
Unfortunately the finalists don't deserve this kind of scrutiny as they are all great but I think people just want transparency in the judges decision.
Anyhow this is likely my last post as this seems a bit pointless but congratulations to all 3 finalists, they played their asses off and they should all be proud of themselves.

Shannon, thanks for your comments. I would like to respond. Firstly to deride participants to this forum on the basis of their anonymity is with respect churlish and completely misses the point. Whether a participant chooses to post under his or her own name is largely irrelevant. I'm sure you would not know most of the people who have posted here. As you also personally well know many participants to forums such as these choose to remain anonymous. Surely this does not cheapen their contribution?

The posts I have read have almost without exception been respectful. There is however strong feeling about how the award was judged and a desire for more information as to the process. Surely the public who of course are the lynchpin of these awards are entitled to this information. Indeed I have read other forums where jazz musicians have questioned and been openly contemptuous of the standard and the process of some of the major jazz awards in this country. Shannon you will not need to travel far to come across this view from your fellow musicians.

In your post you talk about the potential hurt to Eammon. With respect this again misses the point. Eammon's playing as with all the finalists was exceptional. Indeed the awards were the event I enjoyed the most this year. To ask for more information about the process is not to cast aspersions on Eammon or indeed the Judges. I for one as with many other people would simply like to know by what criteria the entrants were judged upon. Very simple. In fact I can easily live with Eammon winning the award I would just like some more information. In any event the criticism meted out to other jazz award winners on other forums from their fellow musicians is I would submit more likely to be hurtful than the postings on this forum.

Such discussion that is going on here is more likely should the festival respond in an appropriate manner to lead to the protection and advancement of the integrity of the competition. All the public is asking for is more information as to the judging process.

Finally, you raised the character of the 3 finalists however I am at a loss as to why? No one here has commented or raised any issues as to the personal standing or integrity of these 3 young men, quite the opposite. AS to better spending our time congratulating Matt for representing Australia overseas, again I am confused by what this means as I am not sure it is in this capacity that he is in NYC.

Thank you.

Yes, there ARE criteria for the judges to follow. These are stated on the entry form, which is available on www.wangarattajazz.com

The criteria don't include reference to where anyone lives ; sorry, but that 'theory' is simply silly.

The 3 finalists are judged on how they perform in the final round. Unavoidably, the judges will take into account how someone plays in the final round, compared to how (and what) they played in the semi-finals.

The policy of not asking the judges to explain/justify their decision is not a matter of treating the audience with 'disrespect'. It's more a matter of treating the finalists with respect. If the judges are critical of some aspect of their playing, they can explain that to the finalist in question (if they wish to discuss it with the judges), rather than making potentially critical comments in a public forum.

It is a subjective competition, not an Olympic sprint.

Some of these comments are so offensive.

To all those who thought Mat was great, maybe your energies would be better spent telling him how impressed you were with his playing and how proud you are that he is representing Australia on the world stage, as he does in New York.
Hopefully Eamon doesn't end up reading these comments; imagine if you put your heart and soul into playing your best, both leading up to and during a competition, won it and then had to read about people thinking you didn't deserve it. How utterly hurtful. If you disagree with the judges' decision, that's your business. Hiding behind the anonymity of the internet is, well, just cheap.

The beauty of this competition is the exposure it gives to the players. I know many of the top ten players were largely unknown to the general jazz going public in each state.

Having had the absolute privilege of sharing the stage (at various times) with all of the gentleman who made the final, I can safely say that they are all fantastic players and genuinely fabulous human beings with so much to offer the Australian and international jazz scenes.

Get over it. Or start your own competition.

it can be streamed from jazztrack's website if you want to relisten

I doubt that formal judging criteria would solve anything... i would like to go and have another listen though. Is there a podcast of the finals broadcast here?

Must agree with the general sentiments here. I thought all the finalists were exceptional and each had different strengths. Eammon had a wonderful warm tone and I thought Nicks playing showed avant gardish elements which I really enjoyed. Matt however I thought was just on a different level and I must say I was shocked to hear he didn't win. I was really very surprised. One theory I heard was the reluctance of the judges to award the title to a non resident performer Matt, like Jacam Manricks last year, currently residing in NYC. As indicated by Adrian however don't expect any feedback from the Judges. We the punters are the poor old cash cows continually treated with disrespect. I challenge the festival to award an audience choice award for the finals which would be very simple to do. Matt would have romped it in this year

Great comments Adrian, but your comparison and agreement with people re: Monk and Oscar kind of proves my point below.
If you can't compare Oscar and Monk then why do it at Wangaratta in a competition format without some kind of judging criteria? At the end of the day these 3 awesome musicians were being judged/adjudicated/compared/whatever you want to call it.
Being that this really IS a competition then what are the criteria? If it's to be transparent then the finalists need to know what they are being judged or asessed on.
I am declaring an interest in that I am friends with Mat but I thought it was a given he'd win when I listened to the finals on ABCFM. You mentioned that the judges listened to the semis and the finals and most of the anonymous people likely didn't - so does this mean that their performances in the semis were also adjudicated? Did anyone tell the finalists that? I'm sure Mat wouldn't have done the same set if this were the case.
Whilst the other finalists were great Mat showed a maturity that was unique and while others mention the 'tradition' of the music and uniqueness in Eamon there were a lot of '60s Miles influences happening there too.
I'm not taking anything away from the other two I thought they were great and I really loved their playing, but I didn't think either of them were 'the best' in my humble opinion.
Jazz is what it is because some like Zorn, some like Bird, some like Kurt Elling, and others hate them all and consider themselves Jazz afficienados.
What is right or wrong?
To me transparency and a judging criteria are the only fair way to judge a 'competition' as Jazz moves further away from its original tradition.

Yay Adrian! Some sanity. I guess one approach is to buy Mike a drink and bail him up until he spills the beans on the great Jazz Award Conspiracy.

Generic???? Are you KIDDING me. Maybe listen to the recording again. Mat has such an original voice it's RIDICULOUS. Who does Mat sound like to you? Just because he can play all over the instrument doesn't mean he's generic.

I'll hazard a guess that Eamon won because he has a more developed 'personal' voice. He is an utterly recognisable trumpeter with his own sound and approach to improvisation. Matt is a spectacular player but sounds more generic. The judges are entirely correct in ordering their priorities in this manner... it is actually the tradition. That's why Thelonius Monk is accepted as a more important pianist than Oscar Peterson even though Oscar Peterson could 'bring the house down' in a way that Monk never could. Jazz is an ARTFORM not a craft or a sport (even though aspects of craft and physical prowess do play a part).
Eamon is one of my favourite trumpeters (I am a professional trumpeter myself) he can actually surprise - so, so rare. That's not to take anything away from Matt who is one of the most extraordinary trumpeters we have produced but this award is not a 'brass' award or a 'trumpet' award it's the National JAZZ Award people...

On behalf of the Wangaratta Jazz festival, I feel the need to make a few points.

* The three judges are very experienced and respected musicians, who took the task of assessing the recorded entries, and the performances at Wangaratta, very seriously. I have the utmost faith in their integrity, and have no doubt that they gave their honest opinion on the performances presented to them.
* The judges listened to every performance in the semi-finals and the finals. I would be surprised if some of their (mainly anonymous) critics could say the same.
* I would be very surprised if any other similar competition would ask the judges to publish the reasoning for their decisions (as suggested here), and enter into a public debate. I have no intention of doing so. I suspect that such an exercise would be fruitless. The judges' decision is final. Having said that, the judges are happy to provide feedback to any of the contestants who might contact them directly.
* People can debate the merits/strengths of the respective musicians who were in the finals. That's fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion. [Someone raised the example of Oscar Peterson/Thelonious Monk ; it's a good point..for what it's worth, I think Peterson had a far more commanding technique, but personally I'd be more swayed by Monk's originality and wit. If others disagree, I can't say they're right or wrong, just that they have a different opinion]. It does surprise me when people are so confident in their own knowledge/opinion that they can declare not just that they disagree with the judges, but that the judges 'clearly' got it 'wrong'.
* I hope that this debate doesn't detract from the achievements of Eamon, and Mat, and Nick, in making the finals in what was a very strong field, and all playing some superb music throughout the course of the weekend.

To preface I am a big fan of the playing of the judges.Friday night's performance by Mike Nock New Quintet featuring Phil Slater was a highlight of the festival and I've enjoyed James Greening's playing in a variety of settings. I've listened to and played jazz for over 40 years and heard live the playing of trumpeters including Louis Armstrong, Dizzy Gillespie, Woody Shaw, Freddie Hubbard and Wynton Marsalis.
Maybe because where I was sitting - at the back and up top - the impact of Mat Jodrell's playing was immediate. The last of the three finalists to play, his sound seemed to fill the room in an acoustic sense especially when he moved back from the mike. The quality of his tone was profound and reminded me of a 1988 sound check by Marsalis in the Perth Concert Hall.
Of the three finalists Mat apparently was the only one to play the same three pieces. His control of dynamics and the nuances in the quality of his tone in Flamenco Sketches were superb and no doubt he used similar devices both in the semi and final but the overall impact on this ballad was both times sensational. Should he have played a different blues in the final? Straight No Chaser in the final possessed an interaction with the trio especially Ben Vanderwal that provided some of the highest quality playing of the weekend and he surely did not play the same solo as the semi. His ability to maintain control of the rhythm with Ben's propensity to utilise complex poly-rhythms was first rate.
Mat's original with a McCoy Tyner-style ostinato that Sam Keevers nailed superbly provided Mat the opportunity to again display technical facility and accuracy; a knowledge of contemporary musical form; and the highest notes of the final.
I have used the 10 point criteria above to analyse Mat Jodrell's performance. In the interests of accountability I would suggest that the judges make public their analysis of the three finalists that an overall jazz-educated audience may better understand the way this artform is perceived by its most talented practitioners.

May I begin by saying that I have no connection to any of the players in the final nor do I mean any disrespect to any of them - reaching the final and being able to play under that sort of pressure is a great achievement. However, as a regular attendee of the festival and a regular patron of the competitions I feel I need to comment on this year's decision. It seemed to me and all of my companions (all long time jazz fans and students of the genre) that the failure to award the final to Matt Jodrell was no less than astounding. Surely all patrons of the competition (and purchasers of tickets to the festival) deserve some feedback from the judges ,in all the competitions, to enlighten us as to the reasons behind the decision. Perhaps then we would not feel so amazed at what appeared to be a travesty. Otherwise we may feel that we are being treated, as one prominent critic labelled us in a review of last year's proceedings, "just a festival crowd".

Matthew Jodrell has actually been studying at the Juilliard School and we will be hearing a lot more from him too, despite the fact he was placed second.

Hi all, appreciate some healthy discussion.... awards season always seems to attract some lively posts.
We have just uploaded interviews with Mike and Roddy on this page, so check them out...!
Congratulations again to the three finalists - it was great to hear your playing and compositions.

The judges need to explain where they were coming from with this decision! Good luck to them.

To those who say "that's only your opinion" I say that when someone like Matt is that far ahead of the rest and is not rewarded the result lacks integrity. To those who say "it doesn't matter who wins" I say well don't have a competition then, just have the best ten players of the instrument presenting their material. To those who say "well its on again next year" I say that after 4 years of watching these curious decisions I'm boycotting the Awards until there's much more transparency of judging.

An embarrassing decision. Jodrell showed incredible maturity and was clearly on another level to his competitors.

Whilst all the competitors were fantastic, this decision really is astounding. Matt Jodrell was clearly the best in terms of musicianship, ensemble interaction and virtuosity. Conspiracy theories aside, it is unthinkable that matt could not have won it as he was clearly the best brass player in the final. I was in the audience and it seemed unanimous that Matt was the best finalist. I can only reiterate what was said previously in that the 'fact matt did not win is an embarrassment and has done nothing for the reputation of the competition"

By the way, Nick sounded pretty damn good too!

There were many fabulous musicians in the competition and really getting into the top ten is brilliant so stop complaining that Matt didn't win, or I'll start complaining that my favourite didn't win.

No disrespect to all of the 10 players in the competition! It shouldn't really matter if he played the same tunes though - he was completely pushing the boundaries in all aspects of his playing - I hardly think he was playing it safe. Ultimately all three players played well - but Matt was on another level completely and I find it hard to believe people couldn't hear that.

No disrespect to Mat, who soudned great (as always)......but the people complaining he should have won may not realise he played the same set in the final as he did in the semi-final......maybe the judges decided he sounded great, but was taking a very safe approach?

Here's a question for you then: if Thelonius Monk and Oscar Peterson were in the comp who would you think should win?

Every year - nobody gets it! It doesn't matter who wins, half the people will say that's ridiculous, how could they have possibly given it to Mr X?? There will never ever ever be total consensus. As for prejudice against a certain city or state - gimme a break. Go watch some 9/11 conspiracy films.

Congratulation to Eamon however I believe strongly that the wrong decision was made here. Matthew was not only incredibly original, but showed his technical mastery of the horn and his ridiculously strong musicality.

Matthew Jodrell was clearly on a completely different level both musically and technically as a trumpet player. The fact that he did not win is such an embarrassment and has done nothing for the reputation of the competition. It was an obvious choice.

Decisions in competitions are rarely so easy. How the judges got this wrong is so hard to understand. If decisions like this continue to be made, the reputation of the competition will suffer.

Hey all, here we have the problem with competition in music! They all played wonderfully, but so different. Nicks chops were also incredible in his first tune, wailing up to double G's. Mathew was fiery as always, he is amazing. Eamon played the ballad so beautifully that I thought he was in another class there. It's not all about range, volume etc.

about time someone from melbourne won it, how long has it been... 12 years?? (not including magnussen's half victory in 1998)

They picked the guy who was more original, less idiomatic perhaps. Jodrell's set was incredible and he is an astonishing trumpeter but Eamon's got something else going on. I remember years ago when Will Guthrie was judged winner over Danny Fischer and lots of people were kind of surprised but it seems to me that decision has been well vindicated with Will going on to develop in all sorts of directions and really influence a lot of other musicians.

The last guy (Matthew Jodrell) absolutely killed it and gave the rest a lesson in how to play (especially with a band). Maturity was second to none.
Also he wasn't out of tune for the whole set.
Can't quite fathom this decision but congratulations to Eamon. He sounded good.

This is the most unbelievable decision - clearly Matt Jodrell was in a completely different league of musicianship, technique and maturity