as a general rule, i dislike award shows. art is too subjective, i am too opinionated, and it’s usually just best for me to stay away from them for my blood pressure’s sake. but the grammys are the absolute worst. and i can say this from beyond my clustered, frumpy, negative viewpoint. i say this as a point of debate: the grammys are worthless. specifically in the last decade or so. the music monopoly has been peeled away; and unlike television and movies which still develop decent products within a monopolized vacuum of selected producers, studios, and networks, music has become commonplace and limited to one’s talent rather than cash flow, no longer demanding mainstream attention or production. who made the best album or had the best song is no longer a question of who sold the most singles, who got their videos played the most on mtv, or who stayed #1 on the charts the longest. the best album of the year may have been recorded in a bedroom and heard by a mere handful of people. it’s no longer asinine to believe this. but if the everyday music listener is to place any stock in the grammy awards, he/she is forced to reject this idea. and this is where i start to get a little curmudgeony. this year, especially, i felt the boiled blood lap my veins. there were a few pieces of business that i needed to address that 140 smug characters couldn’t do justice.
the grammys just aren’t meaningful anymore.
the grammy awards no longer reflect the quality of an artist or album. it doesn’t necessarily exclude it either, but it cannot be recognized as a serious indicator of an artist’s value. because, quite simply, the grammys are geared towards commercial success almost (at this point) exclusively. had adele not sold record numbers, her album would have been ignored. if skrillex hadn’t been so massively popular with youth and dubstep clubs, his stuff would have been ignored. no one even knew who bon iver is, and he’s had music out for four years. it’s also not fair to expect that all the grammy judges will have listened to every recording from that year, or that there won’t be great music that gets missed, but when the sole reason for recognition is sales, that’s unacceptable. sales don’t mean a thing. jersey shore makes money. britney spears makes money. the twilight books make heaps of money. none of those sales insure a quality product. the incidental artists that have the good fortune of making good music and selling a lot of product are the lucky ones, but will only stay in the spotlight for as long as they’re buzz artists and are making big money. glimpses of grammy artists past and present like avett brothers, mgmt, arcade fire, bon iver, civil wars, etc. are all but guaranteed to fade away due to fluctuating sales, while their contemporaries make as good or better music and are ignored entirely. a band like wilco, or tune-yards, they may make their late night tv appearances, generate some excitement, and maybe even make grammy appearances at some point. but they wouldn’t get praised for their music, they’d be praised for their hype. which would be like martin scorcese being completely ignored for thirty years, getting a nomination for hugo and a slap on the back, and never making another oscar appearance. how can awards based on this be taken seriously from an artistic perspective? i don’t believe they can.
chris brown? really?
i like the idea of forgiving someone for a mistake, because we all make them. but part of what makes the forgiving process so rewarding to both those that forgive and those being forgiven is the transformation period. (see: mike vick) to see someone truly sorry for what they did, and willing to make changes to correct mistakes, then come back stronger and better than ever is heartwarming and inspiring. on the other hand, seeing someone beat up his girlfriend, get a slap on the wrist, continue being a gigantic douche to media and fans, then get rewarded with millions of dollars, a performance at the grammys and an award? not so heartwarming. and quite a bit less inspiring. the only thing that would make it worse is if all those idiots who bought his music were totally cool with him beating his girlfriend and even thought it was funny. but, that would be ridiculous.
bon iver isn’t a “new” artist.
his first album was in 2008. and better than the one that got him noticed. so what exactly makes him a “new” artist, then? new to the grammy people, i guess. *sigh* what made it worse for me was seeing justin vernon take such a strong stand against performing at the grammys, and calling them out for being a sham, but then showing up and accepting his award. the awkward, slightly-sarcastic acceptance speech didn’t make things any better, either. i’m guessing thick, hipster irony isn’t the humor du jour for a lot of those people anyway.
if i have to hear any more adele, i’m going to punch an old nun.
or whatever it is people do to relieve stress. HERE’S THE THING ABOUT ADELE. i really liked her album when it first came out. that girl can sing, no doubt about it. she’s talented, she’s humble. she’s a breath of fresh air. well, she *was* a breath of fresh air. now i need a breath of fresh air from the breath of fresh air. seriously, she’s EVERYWHERE now. i can’t get away from her and those two stupid singles I HEAR THEM ALL THE TIME I HATE IT SO MUCH!!! *composure* she’s on top 40 radio, she’s at the mall, she’s on mtv, vh1, she’s on the local news, she’s on hipster radio stations, she’s on bbc, she’s on npr, she’s on t-shirts at target, she’s on posters at wal-mart (really!), she’s a hero to everyone. and why not? she’s so talented and sympathetic cause she’s not hollywood pretty and got dumped by the bad man in all her songs. AND THIS IS A BAD THING TO ME!! this is what overexposure does to a normally sane person like myself. the best people and stories are reduced to eye-rolls and heavy exhales. everything in moderation. you don’t eat chocolate chip cookies for every meal because you’ll get incredibly sick of them. even chocolate chip cookies, one of the greatest deserts ever made by man or beast. and i don’t want adele’s cookies at every meal. please?
the futility of it all, and being in the minority.
i realize i’m in a massive minority here, after reading gobs of fluffy grammys tweets and status updates from people i thought had more sense. but why does it have to be so unpopular to discount award ceremonies that no longer hold any value to a widening music base, not want anything to do with a jackass woman-beater, or need a break from hearing the same two songs over and over and over and over? probably for the same reasons that rebecca black can make a million dollars with a single, terrible song without even breaking an artistic sweat. oh, she was at the grammys too, by the way. :)
