All About Women | Women

Are you an artist looking for a welcoming, innovative, and cool online community to meet, share ideas, and just hang out? Artists Universe has all of the functionality you are looking for as well as a community full of creative people just like you. Artists Universe has taken the best features from other social networking sites such as live chat, blogs, forums, and more, and tailored them to the needs of artists everywhere. From music to dancing, painting and everything in between, no other website is looking out for the best interest of artists everywhere than Artists Universe!

How much would you pay to surround yourself with some of the best up and coming artists in your field? At Artists Universe, registration and use of the site is absolutely free. The only part of the site that requires a fee is the section to post a classified ad and to post an upcoming event; other than that, the whole site is free to use. The founders of Artists Universe understand how difficult it can be for some artists to make a living doing what they love. You shouldn’t have to pay extra to have an online refuge where you can share ideas, improve your skill,s and meet other happening artists who feel the same way you do. This amazing new social networking site is here to help you refine your skills and meet great new people.

Artists Universe is also a site where video of you doing what you do best comes alive. When you create your own unique profile on Artists Universe, you can also upload your own homemade videos or videos of other virtuosos that you idolize. This is your chance to show the world what you can do. Best of all, Artists Universe is an inclusive and welcoming space, so you don’t have to worry about being flamed because you stepped up and put yourself out there. Artists know how scary it can be to show the world your true self, which is why this whole interactive site was created in the first place. Artists need a place where they can feel welcomed and where they feel they can let their creativity flow without fear of angry responses. In the very near future, Artists Universe sees itself as the premiere online home of artists of every medium, from amateur to expert. Come be a part of the artist revolution at the number one site for creative people on the Internet, Artists Universe.

It was sent out earlier today, to several concerned parties who have been working hard to protect children in Yarl's Wood, many who have been supporting Baby C and her family directly. It's apparently Quite A Big Deal, for a junior Minister to send out letters to MPs that aren't... ahem ... factually accurate. There, and you thought I wasn't capable of tact, didn't you?

Believe me, in terms of the meeting that did take place at Yarl's Wood, you have no idea how tactful I can be. Nor how much I can keep my big mouth shut about things.

You should read the letter....

- - - -

It's come to my attention that on September 30th, a letter was sent out by Meg Hillier, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, at the Home Office. The letter was sent to several MPs, who had enquired on behalf of their constituents, about the treatment on Baby C in Yarl's Wood, in June 2008. Namely, that a prescription formula milk for Baby C had been allowed to run out, and the baby had been left unfed for over 18 hours.

In this letter, Meg Hillier assures MPs that Brian Pollett and Jeremy Oppenheim were reviewing this case personally. She states that a meeting had been set up with Mrs Alison Blenkinsop, and other concerned parties, with Brian Pollett and Jeremy Oppenheim:

"In addition, Brian Pollett and Jeremy Oppenheim have also arranged to meet with Mrs Blenkinsop and other concerned parties to discuss this issue and seek an appropriate way forward. I am confident that any recommendations resulting from these measures will be fully considered and, where appropriate, implemented."

I have to inform you that this is factually incorrect.

Neither Jeremy Oppenheim, nor his office, has had any contact with Mrs Blenkinsop, and no such meeting is planned. Brian Pollett has responded personally to Mrs Blenkinsop, in the past, and a meeting with his staff, Mrs Blenkinsop and myself, took place some time ago: Brian Pollett was not present. There simply isn't any meeting, that we are aware of, with Brian Pollett, Jeremy Oppenheim and Mrs Blenkinsop.

On 15th September, two weeks prior to this letter going out to MPs, Mrs Blenkinsop and myself did attend a meeting at Yarl's Wood. Present were UK Border Agency staff, considerably junior to Mr Pollett and Mr Oppenheim, and Serco staff. The meeting was not fruitful, and all present refused to allow me permission to name those in attendance, or to agree on any quote that could be taken from the meeting.

In fact, at the start of the meeting, a Serco staff member directly addressed the Border Agency person chairing the meeting, and apparently jokingly said something like "Be careful what you say to her, she'll put it on the internet."

.
I did mention during the meeting that Transparency and Accountability were key tenets of our current Government, but those points did not appear to be taken on board.

Of the meeting, I can only report the following, but alas, have no quotes approved by UK Border Agency upon them:

1) UK Border Agency accepted that there had been an 'issue' and that the formula should have been brought in on time. They declined to name this 'issue', not agreeing to it being called a 'failing', a 'communication breakdown' or otherwise. They assured us this administrative 'issue' would not arise again. When pushed, the chair asked us to write to him, with wording, to see what he would approve. I've not yet had a chance to do this.

2) UK Border Agency refused to accept there was any problem with the standard of Baby C's care, whatsoever, once the formula had run out. There was simply no leeway on this, and they refused point blank to accept that there was anything wrong with the baby going hungry for this amount of time. Serco asked that we consider the time Baby C was without formula to be 15 hours, not 18, in respect to her being fed as the formula ran out. We agreed to this, as it made little difference to the facts - that the baby was left unfed for so long. Mrs Blenkinsop made the point several times, that it was simply unacceptable for a baby to be left unfed for this amount of time, and UK Border Agency refused to accept this was not an appropriate standard of care. They directed us to the GP who had advised oral hydration sachets on the phone. Mrs Blenkinsop pointed out a doctor's advice on the phone was only as good as the information given to them, and that Yarl's Wood had the care of this baby. These points were consistently denied, and absolutely no admission that the baby had suffered from being hungry for so long, was conceded. If we wished to take this further, the mother must formally complain to Serco about the Dr's advice, and that was an end to it.

Therefore, I have to refer back to Meg Hillier's words in her letter, "I am confident that any recommendations resulting from these measures will be fully considered and, where appropriate, implemented." and inform you that, unfortunately, I'm not aware of any such process taking place. As UK Border Agency made it clear that there was no problem with Baby C being 'cared for' in this manner, nothing is being considered with a view to implementation. Not from our meeting, at least.

On that, there is only one other point in the meeting that I am free to discuss. When I had alerted Brian Pollett, by email, the evening that the baby was not being fed, and urged him to intervene immediately, I had also asked him to get an answer as to why a previous letter of mine to Yarl's Wood, had never been answered.

In April 2008, I had been supporting a mother being denied lactation support for her breastfeeding baby at Yarl's Wood, and had been told by the head of healthcare, to put it in writing. I had sent in an extremely detailed letter asking for information on several aspects of infant feeding and breastfeeding support at Yarl's Wood.

I had never received a reply, despite cc'ing the letter to a considerable amount of UK Border Agency staff, and other interested parties.

I received a letter shortly after, from Gill Foley, at UK Border Agency, informing me in no uncertain terms that I had been answered fully. She even supplied the approximate dates of emails and letters that had been sent to me. I asked for copies.

.
At the meeting on the 15th, Serco apologised to me, as no such letters, or evidence of them, could be found. There was no explanation for this, and none to be found. When pushed to find a way to describe how a contractor had assured a Government department that legitimate letters of concern had been answered, when no record of such could be found... UK Border Agency refused to agree on how to describe it. "Lies", "misinformation" and "communication breakdown" were all negated by UK Border Agency.

When, as the injured party, I pushed that I felt I had a right to a reasonable explanation, I was told that the member of staff concerned was no longer in their employ and there was therefore nothing more to be said.

It is of note that I have not received an apology from UK Border Agency.

In light of the subsequent letter from the Home Office, detailing the non-existing meeting to be held to discuss the issues on Baby C, I feel it pertinent to raise this prior situation, illuminating UK Border Agency's track record on correspondence on such matters.

For my own part, I will be blogging later on today, to advise all constituents who had previously complained to their MPs, to contact them with this letter, and to alert them to the factual inaccuracies in Meg Hillier's letter.

Mrs Blenkinsop can be contacted independently via her website: http://www.linkable.biz/

Yours

Morgan Gallagher

http://www.nursingmatters.org.uk/

.
- - -

It's only the Mums that continue to fight on this one, I sometimes feel. I found out about this letter from a Mum on MumsNet, and then asked around to find lots of Mums-who-complained-to-their-MPs had been sent it. My MP hadn't sent it to me. edit: Well, who'hav'thunk. My MP, of all people, as Yarl's Wood is in his constituency, hadn't had a copy of the letter sent to him! Ho hum.

Am I surprised? No, not any more. Am I shocked? No. Not feeding a baby is what shocked me. Defending those actions, no matter what... that's not shocking, that's obscene.

If you have complained to your MP before hand, please get in touch with them asap, even if you haven't had a response from this about this letter - and let them know. As I said, it's apparently Quite A Big Deal for a letter like this to go out. If you haven't complained to your MP yet, maybe now if the time to do so. Put your .

If you read the original letter from Meg Hillier, you'll find comments about things being published on the internet. This has happened several times - some MPs have even said in their responses to Mums, that there is only a fuss as it's on the internet. As if being in a network, where human beings - tax payers and voters - share knowledge and information on what our Government is doing, in our name, is A Bad Thing?

Thanks heavens for the internet!!!!

And Mums.

.

Whereby I can tell you, finally, and thankfully, that the Home Office have seen sense and apologised over the Baby C farrago.
.
Or to be precise, Jeremy Oppenheim, the outgoing Children's Champion to the Home Office, has stated that what happened with Baby C wasn't acceptable. In his own words...
.
Your first concern is that no infant should be deprived of food for 14 hours and particularly not while in an Immigration Removal Centre. Further you believe that more could and should have been done to ensure that the necessary formula did not run out and more effort should have been made to obtain new supplies promptly when it did. I can confirm in writing as I did at our meeting that I agree with you on all of these points.
.
If that sounds a little sticky, and not-quite-an-apology, I'd advise you to go read the full text of his letter. It's a long and detailed response, taking time and effort to meticulously document the objections that myself and Alison Blenkinsop have raised with the Home Office, time and again, since this debacle erupted. It also documents the struggle everyone has undertaken in getting this issue dealt with, and it acknowledges the effort that was made by all of us. and by all of us, I mean you to, as the contacting and re-contacting of MPs over this, was clearly of real importance in getting this result.
.
Since the event occurred you have spent considerable time writing to and telephoning the agency about your concerns. You did not receive a response that satisfied you. You approached Members of Parliament who wrote on your behalf. The responses they received did not reassure you. You met Yarls Wood staff together with Morgan Gallagher. At that meeting you thought that the staff minimised your concerns regarding the lack of necessary food for the infant. They therefore could not reassure you that a similar incident would not occur again. Following this meeting there were further delays before your meeting with me.
.
The letter is addressed to Alison Blenkinsop, and I'll explain a little about that. This sequence is important, if you want to get an understanding of how, and why, these things both happen with UK Gov, and aren't then actioned upon. So pay attention. :-) The devil is in the detail...
.
When both Alison and I became aware that the Home Office had been sending letters out to MPs, reassuring them that the situation was under control, and naming Alison personally, in her role as a member of the Lactation Consultants of Great Britain.. and stating she and Brian Pollett and Jeremy Oppenheim were to have a meeting.. a meeting that had never been arranged, or spoken about... she contacted Meg Hillier at the Home Office, and asked for an explanation. Why was her name in this letter sent to MPs, and why were MPs being informed of a meeting that didn't exist?
.
Meg Hillier never responded. Jeremy Oppenheim's office, did, several days later. Only to Alison, not to myself. It was a request for a meeting. By this time, we'd discovered that two versions of the "everything is under control" letter had been going out to MPs, from two different people at the Home Office. The text had been copied and pasted from one letter to the other. And had been sent out over a span of several weeks, to different MPs who had written requesting an answer to the issue of Baby C going unfed.
.
Alison responded to this request, by demanding that it was clear upfront, what was going to be discussed. After the horrendous meeting at Yarl's Wood we'd both attended in early September (that we were forbidden from quoting) neither she, nor I, were prepared to attend more of the same, without reassurances.
.
Answer came there none.
.
Several days passed. Alison again contacted Meg Hillier's office, and requested clarification.
.
Answer came there none.
.
Last week, she got a phone call from Jeremy Oppenheim, who is leaving office to take up a new role in the Government, stating he was in her area and could she attend a meeting that afternoon? Alison agreed, and off she went.
.
I wasn't at the meeting, but Alison felt it went very well, and fed back elements to me, and stated that Jeremy Oppenheim had promised the same in writing. Which duly arrived on Friday, and is the letter above.
.
So if the letter looks ungainly, and super step-by-step detailed, I'd reassure you that it is in order to reflect the torturous path we've taken, to get to this point.
.
Importantly, it acknowledges what we've all been so incensed about. Not so much the dire mistakes that led to the baby going hungry, but to the complete and utter refusal by the Home Office, that there was anything wrong with this. And their complete refusal to listen to all of us, when we said time and again, that this wasn't acceptable. Oppenheim is extremely clear on this:
.

You are also concerned that our responses to you and your colleagues were unnecessarily delayed and defensive. It would have been a relief to you and your colleague if you had known the steps that the agency was actually taking in response to this incident. You also believe that an earlier meeting with a sufficiently senior member of the Agency would have ensured that the replies to the letters sent on your behalf by Members of Parliament were more helpful. Again I can confirm as I said at our meeting that delays should not have occurred and that the Agency needs to be more welcoming of well meant criticism from professionals concerned for the welfare of children. I apologise on behalf of the Agency for the delay and personally for the fact that I did not meet with you much earlier.
.
That earlier meeting was a complete stonewall. I never reported it, as it was pointless. No one had agreed to my even mentioning who was present, and no single quote was ever agreed. I was personally attacked, several times, and accused of breaches of confidence with mothers and babies I have supported. Thankfully, I have always obtained signed consent forms for every aspect of support and publicity we give via Nursing Matters and I was able to refute those allegations. Further, we are still in contact with every mother and baby we have ever helped and can ask them to testify to this. We continue to support most of them to this day.

There were 2 of us - myself and Alison, and 7 senior managers from the Home Office and Serco. Their tone was one of complete defensiveness; there was nothing to answer for apart from a delay in getting in the formula. It is of note that Oppenheim has both accepted, and apologised for this, and stated very clearly that the Home Office needs to be more welcoming of well meant criticism from professionals concerned for the welfare of children. I suspect this is a powerful message, in the world of UK politics, especially within the Home Office. Those of you who have continued to engage with your own MPs over this matter, might want to consider sending them a note, containing this quote from Oppenheim, and the URL for the full letter.
.
Especially if you got a "Quite all right dear, there's nothing to worry about, I'm sure it's all as it should be." response from your MP. Those MPs need to hear these words far more than the ones who responded "I'm shocked and will be following this up."
.
Because, intrinsically, those "there there dearie, there's no problem" MPs are part of this problem.
.
Part of the complacency that allowed the senior Home Office managers in that meeting in September, to sit and stonewall us, and accuse us of wrongdoing, whilst they carried on maintaining it was perfectly acceptable not to feed a three month old baby.
.
Part of the complacency that allows senior civil servants and contractors for the Government, to act completely outrageously (3rd paragraph).
.
So where does this letter leave us? Well, it does stop short of a complete apology to Baby C and her mother. As such.. well, this letter isn't designed for that. I do know Alison did request that a letter of apology should be sent direct to the family, and I do have some confidence this will happen. I'll update at the bottom of this post, if, and when, it does.
.
Aside from that, I am very happy with this letter. I am very happy with the acknowledgement of the incident, that the Children's Champion at the Home Office agrees with our complaints that it should never have been allowed to happen, and that the delays and refusing to listen should not have occurred. The whole stitch in time tone sits well with me. Brian Pollett was informed by me, personally in email, that evening, before Baby C ever got hungry, about what had happened. Senior management at Serco have stated that they knew about the situation within minutes of my first phone call to Yarl's Wood, so they did have time to act before Baby C became distressed. Her mother, of course, was already in a state of extreme anxiety. If they'd acted then, and just gone to Bedford Hospital, or sent baby there with her Mum, she'd never have gone hungry in the first place.

Likewise, if they'd just accepted they got it wrong after they didn't feed her, the past four months of struggle could have been avoided. So there was a stitch missed, that caused a huge tear in the public's confidence in the care of babies in detention. This letter does lay this out, and address that, competently and clearly.
.
However.
.
Well... you know.. much as I like this letter. Most of that is just sheer relief that someone is listening. I'm totally on board with this letter, and the meeting that took place. I feel it is an honourable letter, and one that should be applauded. Well Done! round of applause
.
However.
.
Whilst, in itself, it's a good letter... well, there's a lot still missing in this situation, isn't there? Oppenehim says that he should have been in touch earlier... why wasn't he? We've made a huge fuss over this affair, we mothers. We've blogged, written to MPs, complained, passed on details to journalists and had major television news coverage of the incident. His office, which I can't find a URL for, or any meaningful link to, has never responded. I've been supporting mothers and babies in Yarl's Wood for over eighteen months, and have never had any sense or suggestion from anyone that the pathway of progress led to the door of the Children's Champion Office. It was not mentioned at the meeting in Yarl's Wood. I've emailed literally dozens of officials and MPs and civil servants over alleged mistreatment, and actual mistreatment, of babies and children in the detention system, and contact with this office has never occurred. If you engine search, you get a plethora of hits on documents, debates, meetings and fervent activity. But no contact point, no explaining what this office does, how it can be approached, and how it deals with complaints about children's treatment in the detention system.

There doesn't appear to be a direct, transparent and accountable procedure set up, for this office, that enables individuals to contact them directly? No sense of what it does and how it acts?
.
One wonders if this office only became aware of the situation after MPs had been misinformed of their involvement?
.
One wonder where this office has been over the past few years as stories of the systemic mistreatment of children detained in Yarl's Wood have become more and more public?

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not questioning Mr Oppenheim's, or his office's integrity. I have never met him, know nothing of his work, but for what I've encountered in the past few days. And I am greatly impressed by that contact, and am saying so up front. What I am questioning, is the process by which we've ended up here. A huge Government funded and directed operation, working from within the Home Office, that is locking up babies and children in secure units for months at a time, and refusing to accept that not feeding a baby was A Big Deal. That's what I'm questioning here.

And part of that questioning, is centred upon the letter. Oppenheim makes the following statement:

Which sounds really good, doesn't it? I'm sure some of you reading it, nodded your head and thought "Good, that will help." Well, I have to report... Bedfordshire Social Services have had an office in Yarl's Wood for months, if not years. There is a Social Services worker assigned there. And that social worker office was contacted, directly, the day Baby C was going hungry. And the social worker who answered the phone, initially went "Oh that's terrible, I'll go see." and returned with "There is no problem, thank you for your concern."

So comments about liaising with Social Workers to ensure protection... do not ring true. How can a single social worker, stand against the might of the Home Office senior managers based in Yarl's Wood? The social work department were part of the stonewall and silence on the baby going hungry. They were complicit in not seeing this as a big deal, as that's what they'd been told by senior civil servants and managers in situ.

Further, it's not as if we haven't been here before. Reports on babies and children suffering harm in Yarl's Wood have been made public for years. The Home Office have always blamed such incidents on the contract providers, and have changed them to new contractors when contracts are due for renewal. They then state it was a mistake and it 'won't happen again'. Always, in these stories, is a sense that the Home Office are refusing to take responsibility for the problems - it's not their fault...

In 2005, Baby D was released from detention in Yarl's Wood suffering from rickets and anemia. The mother engaged a lawyer, who sued on behalf of the baby, on the basis of unlawful detention and that the lack of care of the baby, was a breach of the baby's human rights. The Home Office stated that it wasn't reasonable to expect them to be held responsible for the baby developing rickets and anemia, as it was the responsibility of the contractor providing medical care to ensure the health of detainees. The judge disagreed:

Case No: CO/9745/2005 THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS : [2007] EWHC 1654

The Defendant in this case was the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Home Office.

So the ruling is clear - that the medical care of detainees is the responsibility of the UK Government, who detain the babies, and employs and supervises the private company who provides medical care in the compounds.

The contractors change. The problems continue. Who is responsible for that?

If you look at the report of Yarl's Wood staff acting illegally this past week, you'll find the same argument:

How can a contractor - Serco in recent times, but others have held this dubious 'honour' in past years - be culpable in an institution that is overseen by the Home Office? Surely the Home Office are the ones in charge? They write the contract? They pay the contractors? Senior managers and civil servants for the Home Office, sit in Yarl's Wood itself, running it! They're not on a phone line in London - they have their offices in Yarl's Wood, side by side with the 'contractor's management.

But they aren't reponsible?

Hmmm... I'll leave you to make your mind up on that.

But before I go... an explanantion for those of you who might be a bit confused about my comments on the role of 'Children's Champion'.

Because I suspect some of you read the statement "Children's Champion for the Home Office" and think "Oh, that's the Children's Commisioner, he's spoken out about Yarl's Wood and children before." Yes, he has - but these are two different roles, and two different people.

Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green, is Children's Commssioner for England. It's an independent post, and he and his office are charged with looking into, and reporting upon, the lives of children in England. There are other Children's Commisioners around the UK.

Jeremy Oppenheim has just left post, as Children's Champion within the Home Office itself. As I said, I can't find any URLs that explain this position clearly - if you do, let me know. :-)

Al Aynsley-Green's department have already reported on the treatment of detained babies and children. He's about to publish a new report, sometime this month. It will be interesting to see if the defence outlined above... that a contractor is culpable.. reappears in its wake.

The Home Office. Paid for by you. Its leaders voted for, by you. Acting in your name.

At last someone at the Home Office, has been listening. So, once again, great news that Oppenheim has written this letter and broken through this stonewalling. :-) Gold Star on the report card for Jeremy.

However, could do better scrawled across the Home Office report card... especially the Home Office managers in Yarl's Wood itself. I suspect Serco's report card will soon show they've been expelled... or at very least are up in front of the headmaster for a severe ticking off. (After all, rumours abound that the Serco employed head of medical services at Yarl's Wood, when Baby C went hungry, has subsequently been sacked.)

And a heads up to the rest of you. When this new report from the Children's Commissioner is published... keep you eye out for comments that any problems are the responsibility of the 'contractor', Serco. I guarentee you'll see them!

But I'll end this post on a happy note! Yaaaay! Yaaay for mothers! Yaaay for MPs who wouldn't sit back and accept the first response! Yaaay for fighting back! Yaaay for letter writing and constituents taking the lead!

Yaaay us! :-)

Imagine this: you’re a huge rockstar.  You’re pool is filled with hotties and your bathtub with champagne.  You have a coffee table made out of your signature guitar and your Cadillac Escalade has beer on tap and a flat screen high definition TV.  Even with all of the expensive toys and extravagant showpieces in your crib, the thing that first draws the attention of press and partygoers alike: the wall lined with your awards.  

Admittedly, human beings, are fascinated with awards.  We love to gawk at the shiny trophies, glossy plaques, and framed certificates of any and every kind of winner.  And, as a species, we place a lot of stock in the importance, abilities and general “coolness’ of those who've come home “the winner.”  So, it’s no surprise that musicians are constantly submitting to the many awards and entering the myriads of contests offered to unsigned artists every year.  After all, with a couple of awards on the wall of your garage, can a hot tub full of babes really be that far behind? 

But what if you continue to enter and never win?  What if time and time again you have to send out the newsletter announcing that you’re not the “Best Band Of The Year” or the “Best Songwriter in the Nation” or even the winner of the “Battle Of The Most Mediocre Bands In The Midwest.”  Will you be branded as a loser?  Will your fans abandon you, asked to be removed from your mailing list, line their birdcages with your CDs?  It is really better to have entered and lost than never to have entered at all?  

The following are a few tips that may help you to fill up your trophy room without becoming the laughing stock of the indie music community:

    1. Enter Contests You Have A Chance Of Winning -- Sounds like a given, but you’d be surprised how many new bands enter Billboard’s contests for the first time and are then amazed when they don’t walk off with a room full of accolades.  Building a resume of award nominations and wins is very similar to building up your reputation as a gigging band or filling up a folder full of press.  Start small, submitting to smaller local and regional contests/ awards that you’re more likely to get a nod for then the national and worldwide events.  Then you can submit to the bigger organizations with a list of awards and wins on your resume.  Everybody loves a winner and seeing that you’ve already won various awards may inspire the powers that be to nominate you for their particular contest. 

    2. Pick The Contest That Will Best Publicize Your Band -- We all love to win.  But more important than basking in the glory of becoming king or queen for a day, awards are fantastic publicity tools for your band.  Nothing shines up a bio, website, email blast or blog like the words “nominated” and “won.”  These vocabulary heavyweights are certain to perk up the eyes and ears of clubs, fans, press and the industry alike.  When deciding which awards/contests to submit for, keep in mind that this organization’s event may well be the flagship of your promotion for months.  Sayings like: “vote for us for…”, “we’re nominated for…” and “we’re the winners of…” will top every mailer you send out during the run of the competition, so make sure you get something great out of it for your band, even if it’s not the gold plated statue you’d hoped for.

    3. Promote A Nomination As A Win -- Even though it sounds like something your high school band instructor would tell you, just being nominated is really a win for you and your band.  So, if you’re lucky enough to garner a nomination for your awards de jour, make sure your promo machine hails you as a winner.  Start your announcement with, “We’ve been honored with a nomination for Best Pop Band” and not “We’re one of six bands that may win this award if we get enough votes.”  The nomination itself is an accolade of its own accord and should be included to any list of band accomplishments.  If, by chance, you happen to win the award or contest, then promote that as another bigger accomplishment. For example: “We’ve been honored with nominations for the Best Music in the Universe Awards in five categories including: Best Drummer, Best Bass, Best Songwriting, and Best Female Vocals, and were thrilled to take home the award for Best Alternative Band.”  To fans and industry alike, this looks like five awards and not one.

    4. A Win For A Band Member Is A Win For The Band -- As creative people, we all have a need to be recognized for our individual talents, and as such, would all like to be nominated and hopefully win for each of our respective specialties.  But awards and contests can be fickle and even though your fans rave about your guitarist or your songwriting, it may be your drummer who walks away with a nomination/award.  Remember always that a band is a unit...all for one and one for all...and that without your killer vocals and great songs, your drummer may never have been noticed in the first place.  Therefore, promote any nominations and awards for your band’s team as a win for the band.  If your singer wins a writing award for his/her lyrics, your band has won.  If your bassist gets a pick endorsement, your band has won.  If your guitar tech gets nominated for Best Tuning, your band has won.

Awards and contests can be tricky when egos, pride, and the eager anticipation to win, mix in with the already delicate balance of the creative temperaments that make-up a band.  Keep this in mind and be careful when entering contests.  Sure, it’s fun to get awards and prizes but not if it means your band will break up two weeks later.  Enter into contests/award shows as a way to publicize your music and further your career as a band but try not to get caught up in the manic frenzy of seeking award wins like a crack addict in rehab.  So, head to the mall, get a plaque engraved that says, “Best Band In The World” and stick it up in your rehearsal room to remind yourself that you’re a winner everyday just for: having the courage to write songs, record them, get up in front of people and play them, deal with critics reviewing your music, weathering rejections from the industry and entering into a very personal creative relationship with three or four other artistic people without murder ensuing.  Then, when the time comes that your wall fills up with trophies and accolades from the industry, get a keg of beer invite the groupies and party like the rockstar you are.