Now that the 2006 MAC Awards are behind us, I would like to voice some opinions on the subject. Not about this year's show, but about the Awards process, which is a much more fundamental matter.

Problems

In writing about the Awards in Back Stage in 1994, I made a few points that remain pertinent twelve years later—but I see that I did not go far enough. In that column I acknowledged the undue role popularity, as distinct from merit, played in the Awards process. I attributed the phenomenon to two factors:

Unfortunately, the situation is actually more problematic than I'd imagined. In the years that followed my article, I noticed that people sometimes won despite the fact that their New York work that year was extremely limited. While a few MAC voters might have seen these artists on the road, I knew it was unlikely that this could have fully accounted for those victories. I strongly suspected that people were voting for shows they had not seen. About ten years ago, a MAC Award winner confronted this issue head-on. In his acceptance speech as Outstanding Male Vocalist, he said something on the order of, "Thank you for this award, but I don't know who voted for me; you certainly didn't come to my shows." Recently, having participated more intimately in the Awards process, I became aware of several instances in which a first-ballot candidate received more votes than his/her performance schedule could reasonably explain. Not only would these candidates have had to play to packed houses, every member of those audiences would have had to be a MAC voter. In a pig's ass! This confirmed my suspicions: A fair number of people have been voting for work they did not see—and that stinks. I do believe that some of these dubious votes were probably cast innocently, by voters confusing the work for which a candidate appears on the ballot with other work they may have seen the candidate do, perhaps in another year. Nonetheless, such votes still compromise the Awards process.

I freely acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of people who have won a MAC Award have been extremely talented. (Indeed, I consider the vocalist who called the membership on having voted for him without seeing his show one of the best singers I've ever seen on a cabaret stage.) However, work done by even our greatest artists can vary from year to year. Not all of their shows are up to their own personal best; what's more, in any particular year, their work, while wonderful, might not have been the best work done in their category that year.

This issue, then, goes beyond popularity; it goes to credibility and, yes, integrity. The Award was not established to recognize people who are very well liked indeed, or even people who are really very, very talented. It is meant to acknowledge the most outstanding work done in a particular year. In general, popularity is a good thing; in the context of live performance, its proper expression lies in audience attendance—that is, if you like someone, go see his/her show. Voting for work one has not seen honors neither the artist nor the MAC Awards.

There is another problem that is equally—or perhaps even more—distressing: Year after year, some of the best work fails to get recognized. Sometimes, outstanding work never makes it past the first ballot because the artists are not as "popular." More heartbreaking are the artists who have become so discouraged they don't even bother to submit themselves for consideration. As more than one has said to me, "Why bother? The membership won't vote for me; I'm not one of their darlings"—or words to that effect.

Solutions

For years, MAC Award ballots have carried the admonition that members vote only for work they've seen. A fat lot of good that has done. I am convinced that so long as both rounds of voting rest with the membership, these problems will not be solved. In my 1994 article, I suggested the use of committees. Discussing songs and special musical material, I wrote: "Why not have nominations for song and for special musical material determined by a committee based on submitted tapes? (Indeed, an argument could be made for having the winners in these categories, and not just the nominees, chosen by committee.) This could be extended to other categories, particularly the more specialized ones."

I am pleased to see that for the past few years, the nominees for song and special musical material have been chosen by committee based on submitted recordings, and this year, both nominees and winners were selected by committee in these and in the recording categories. In Spring 2005, the Board, meeting in extended committee, voted unanimously to revise the process so that for most categories, nominees would be chosen by a Nominating Committee, and for more specialized categories, committees would choose the winners as well. (See my comments on Comedy and Jazz, below.) This change was announced to the membership at the General Meeting in June 2005, and discussed more fully at the MAC Annual Meeting in September 2005. The Board subsequently voted to delay full implementation of the revised process until all aspects of the composition and functioning of the Nominating Committee could be worked out in detail.

As should be evident from what I have been saying, I am strongly in favor of having nominees chosen by a Nominating Committee. For one thing, Committee members would be honor-bound to vote only for work they have seen. What is more, the Committee would consist of people who see shows with great frequency, which would minimize the chances of a worthy show's being overlooked in the Awards process. As a result, there would be a far greater likelihood that merit would be the chief and determining factor in securing a spot on the ballot. Beyond that, of course, it would still be up to the membership—and there is no way of guaranteeing that they will base their votes on their honest assessment of work actually seen that year. But perfection is not a concept that can be applied to awards processes, and the approach planned is certainly a hell of a lot better than what we've had. And deserving work would stand a better chance of at least having the honor of a nomination.

Comedy and Jazz

Quite a few years ago, to embrace a broader segment of the live entertainment scene, the MAC Board reached out beyond New York's cabarets and expanded the roster of MAC member clubs to include comedy and jazz clubs. The name of MAC was expanded as well, to Manhattan Association of Cabarets & Clubs. This expansion was never properly assimilated. Very few MAC members go to jazz or comedy clubs—certainly not with any regularity—and jazz- and comedy-goers rarely set foot in cabarets.

As this situation played out, comedy and jazz artists who played in the specialized clubs had little chance of being acknowledged by MAC—unless the membership happened to be familiar with their work through TV appearances or guest spots in cabaret variety shows. This gave short shrift to the comedy and jazz member clubs. Moreover, by virtually ignoring the work done in those clubs, the comedy and jazz Award categories, though recognizing some high caliber performers over the years, diminished in credibility.

I agree with the Board's original and renewed objective of bringing comedy and jazz more persuasively into the MAC fold. With increasing frequency, comedy and especially jazz artists perform in cabarets—both in major venues and in the smaller rooms—and people we would classify as cabaret artists are performing in jazz clubs. Most cabaret fans like a good laugh and many of them enjoy jazz; and quite a few funny people dig music. All forms of civilized live entertainment deserve to be supported.

However, two conditions pervade the scene: (1) most of the jazz being performed in New York takes place in jazz clubs, and most of the comedy in comedy clubs; (2) the majority of the MAC membership does not go to either type of club. So long as both conditions prevail, in order to meet the objective of recognizing comedy and jazz and the work being done in those member clubs, the MAC Awards process needs to treat these categories differently. I support the current rules, which provide that nominees and winners in these categories be chosen by specialist committee, and that to be eligible, candidates in these categories need not, themselves, be MAC members, but must have performed in a MAC member club. I would hope that as comedy and jazz become a more organic part of MAC, artists in these fields would choose to become members and the membership provision can be brought in line with the cabaret categories. Time will tell.

Final thoughts

We all know that the MAC membership spans the entire talent spectrum, from amateurs with more passion than polish, all the way to truly gifted professionals. We also know that since many clubs don't hire performers, rather, the performers work for the door, it is very easy to get booked (and become eligible for a MAC Award); all it takes is some money and some flyers. [Yes, I'm simplifying things. And I hasten to add that I am not disparaging this situation. On the contrary, I have seen it give many performers from the lower half of the spectrum the opportunity to develop into very fine artists—and that is a marvelously gratifying thing to see.]

Regardless of where members stand in their careers or their artistic development, they will all benefit from a more robust live nightlife scene. When I go to clubs, I usually see people I know in the audience. I love the fact that these dedicated fans support live entertainment as they do. However, I am even more pleased when I see an audience filled with people I don't know—and I don't mean the performer's friends and family. The greater the number of people who attend live shows, the more money performers and club owners will make—and clubs that are profitable tend to remain in business. We all want that.

The MAC Awards are one way of increasing the visibility of live entertainment. The Award does mean something—and people who have won one in the past have every right to be proud. But it can mean more. Any step that links the Award more surely to the very best work done by the MAC community strengthens the Award and enhances its credibility—and its effectiveness as a tool for bringing live entertainment to the attention of a larger segment of the general public.

Yes, MAC could go back to the way it has been for years—rather like a social club, a friendly [for the most part] group of people celebrating and congratulating each other in an insular world of familiar faces and regular haunts. It's nice, it's cozy, it's comfortable. Or MAC can come of age. It can continue to welcome enthusiastic neophytes and emerging talents—and through networking, seminars and showcases, help them to grow—but reserve its highest public honor for the most outstanding artists from among the full diversity of talent New York has to offer.

Feedback
My focus in this column is to offer advice and instruction. In that connection, I welcome your questions—anything you would like my thoughts on. And if you disagree with something I say and want to offer a different opinion, I welcome those comments as well. Please direct questions and comments to me by e-mail addressed to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Roy Sander has been covering cabaret and theatre for over twenty years. He wrote cabaret and theatre reviews, features, and commentary for seven print publications, most notably Back Stage, and for CitySearch on the Internet; he now writes reviews on www.bistroawards.com. On television, he covered cabaret monthly on "New York Theatre Review" on PBS, and he covered cabaret and theatre weekly on WLIM-FM radio. He was twice a guest instructor at the London School of Musical Theatre. He is currently Chairman of the Advisory Board of MAC, and he serves on several award committees.