Adjudication Guidelines for JTTP Jury Members

Preamble

The CEC encourages JTTP jurors to assess the submissions with the same basic approach, and to evaluate each piece on its own merits, without comparison to other works among the submissions.

The works are to be assessed anonymously: the artist’s name and biography are not provided to jurors, but any programme note, performance score or technical diagrammes accompanying the submission are provided. The numbers assigned to each of the pieces are for internal identification purposes only and have no other significance.

Eligibility Criteria

Any artist who meets the JTTP eligibility — young and/or emerging electroacoustic artists from (or living in) Canada — may submit their creative work to participate in the project. Consult the Submission Criteria and Rules for more extensive information as needed.

JTTP Prizes and Thematic Awards

The authors of the top five ranking works, as determined by the results of the jury assessment, are awarded 1^st to 5^th prizes (ties may occasionally occur). Four works, projects or practices from among the submissions are nominated by the jury for one of the following thematic awards:

• The Hildegard Westerkamp Award for Soundscape and Sound Installation: soundscape composition / acoustic ecology; sound installation; soundwalk; phonography.
• The Micheline Coulombe Saint-Marcoux Award for Self-Identified Female or Non-Binary Electroacoustic Artists: any genre found within the broader, inclusive category of electroacoustic practices.
• The Jean Piché Award for Videomusic, New Media and Creative Coding: videomusic / visual music; new media / creative coding (related to electroacoustic practices).
• The Martin Gotfrit and Martin Bartlett Award for Live Electroacoustic Practices: live performances and practices in the electroacoustic, mixed and audiovisual arts.
• The Yves Gigon Award for the Most Outrageous Electroacoustic Work: strikingly original, wonderfully excessive, convincingly over-the-top, engagingly boundary-shattering, singular, unusual, surprising, extravagant. NB: The recipient is nominated by the jury and cannot self-nominate as with the other awards.
• The jef chippewa Award for an Electroacoustic Artist Having or Identifying with an Indigenous Cultural Background: with family or historical lineage or who maintains a spiritual connection to indigenous culture, including, but not limited to First Nations, Métis and Inuit.
• The Barry Truax Award for Environmental or Ecological Audio Practices: narrative audio (radiophonic, radio art, Hörspiel, etc.), mediatic statements on environmental and/or ecological conditions (including video and installations), community-oriented initiatives, outcomes and derivatives (workshops, educational initiatives, soundwalks, etc.

A submission that has been designated a prizewinning work is not excluded from being nominated for a thematic award.

Adjudication

Assign a score for each work, from 0 to 20 inclusive. In the case of a conflict of interest, e.g., you recognize that one of the submissions is by a student or friend of yours, leave the score box empty (it will not affect the scoring).

Do not attempt to rank the pieces in any order.

Any comments you provide (in the third column of the scorecard) must be kept anonymous, as artists can request to receive jury feedback for their submission. (Individual scores will never be shared with participants.)

Assessment Criteria

Each of the following three areas of assessment should be used in your adjudication (please do not simply assign a global mark). The weight you assign each of the criteria may vary according to the nature and intentions of the individual works.

• Expression and Originality. Can a distinct artist identity be discerned? Is an identifiable signature (genre), style and/or æsthetic apparent? Does the work advance or bring something new to the art form, practice or field?
• Execution. Consider the artist’s skills and/or adeptness in the execution of the work from a compositional, formal and technical perspective. Has the artist demonstrated a notably creative use of technology in the work?
• Clarity. Does the work communicate the artistic idea(s) with clarity, in terms of their development, realization and presentation? Does it do so in a convincing and/or affective manner?

Criteria not specifically mentioned above may also be relevant to your adjudication.

Ranking

The following guide is proposed for the jury members to follow when assessing the works, with the understanding that some of the terms used are highly subjective and open to a degree of interpretation.

20 — The work is exceptional in all, or virtually all respects, or is special or unique.

15–19 — The work is excellent to outstanding.

10–14 — The work is good.

5–9 — The work would benefit from further improvement and/or development.

0–4 — The work does not sufficiently meet the assessment criteria. Any mark of “0” must be justified by the juror in the scorecard’s comments column.

Once the results have been tallied, jury members may, and only if they see fit, nominate one or more submissions to receive an Honourable Mention. Excluded are all works that have already been selected as a JTTP prizewinning work or designated to receive a thematic award.