"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." -Rhett Butler, Gone with the Wind
Ok, maybe that's not as true as it once was. Nearly 40 million tuned in to watch the Grammy Awards this year, the second most-viewed in its fifty-four year run, and 50% higher than in 2011.
More important than viewer volume are significant and long-overdue changes that will take effect in 2013. Last year music executive Steve Stoute became the unofficial Voice of Reason when he paid $40,000 to run a full-page open letter in the New York Times, addressed to NARAS (the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, i.e. The Academy) and its president, Neil Portnow. In it he complained that the Grammy Awards, in an attempt to be a popular show, has lost touch with popular culture and has failed to correct strong prejudices against cultural shifts in art form.
The Academy responded and is now on track to make amends. Fewer categories. A cleaner and fairer voting process. Still, it's irritating that alternative music is recognized in all of one award, and most other categories get at least four. Ironically there's more innovation here and more independent albums released in this genre than any other. About half the music reviews on Metacritic would only be eligible for this one award, besides the general awards.
Recording Academy President/CEO Neil Portnow says that the Grammy award is chosen by fellow music professionals (not fans) and is thus highly regarded. He also says that half of the entries last year were independently produced, and that there's a lot of talent in that field. Then why are they reluctant to give more of these artists more of the actual awards? Shouldn't the ratio of entries to genre-specific awards be somewhat consistent from genre to genre? Portnow says it's complicated. I believe that much.
Here's what the powers-that-be did think was spicy-hot. Adele won Record of the year, Album of the year, Song of the year, Best pop solo performance, Best pop album, and Best short form music video. Everything she was nominated for, she won. Stoute, tweeting live from the show, was happy with the result, but felt that hip hop was not getting the same respect as pop. I'll agree to that, and extend the bias to other genres, too. High production value, right?
On the other hand, I'm glad Bon Iver was honored as the best up-and-coming artist and won Best alternative music album. I'm glad Mumford & Sons were honored with nominations for both Album of the tear and Song of the tear. I'm glad Alisson Krauss won Best bluegrass album and I'm glad South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone won Best musical theater album for The Book of Mormon. All this is evidence that NARAS is cleaning up its act.
But if I was ready to give a damn about the Grammy Awards, I'd still be disappointed in the great talent that was barely mentioned or ignored entirely. El Camino by the Black Keys. Let England Shake by PJ Harvey. St. Vincent's Strange Mercy. Not a single nomination for any of them - yet ranked #3, #5 and #8, respectively, in Metacritic's User Poll for the best overall music albums of 2011. Pitchfork's user 2011 lists aren't much different: St Vincent is 6th, PJ Harvey is 8th, Black Keys (oddly) comes in at 29th. And I'm sure if I was more familiar with the year's music, many more discrepancies like these would readily present themselves. Let me predict that St. Vincent might soon rank among the likes of Lady Gaga and Adele in terms of fame and acclaim.
Not even mentioning other albums I personally loved but failed to garner the same widespread acclaim (such as TV on the Radio's Nine Types of Light, Yuck's debut eponymous, Mother Mother's Eureka), why is there an ongoing disconnect between the Grammy Awards and the peasant audiophile?
Interestingly, a similar distance exists between film lovers and the Academy Awards - but in this case it's manageable. The same Metacritic poll cited earlier shows that out of the top twenty films of 2011, three were snubbed - Melancholia at #8, 50/50 at #10, and Source Code at #19. Well, since most award categories are limited to five nominations, a few could be easily missed. (Coincidentally, two of the three are Sci-fi thrillers. Prejudice?) But more significantly, there are fewer Oscars to award (only 24!), there are very few genre-specific categories, and none of the top five popular picks were snubbed. As opposed to two (or 40%!). Are the fans really so misguided?
To clarify, we're not talking about music and film of greatest "critical acclaim." Rotten Tomatoes lists the top 100 movies of the year according to professional movie-reviewers. Most of them I've never heard of, much less seen. And only a handful received nominations. I think that's fine. There are many films that don't make a box office showing or are released in very few theaters. There are oodles of great documentaries and short films most people will never watch. That's a different issue. I'd never expect these televised award ceremonies to cater to the artistic elite. I would just expect a greater agreement between critical acclaim and popular opinion. Production value be damned (in a perfect world).
And we're all aware that neither ceremony picks nominees and winners based on a clear and objective rubric. You gotta pay your respects, yo. If Radiohead packaged their own vomit in vinyl and plastic, it'd still get a nomination somewhere. On the other hand, the Oscars are no less political. Think Spielberg and Transformers - neither it (3 nominations) nor War Horse (six nominations) even broke Metacritics' top 20.
Perhaps the shortcomings of the Grammy Awards can be explained numerically. After all, 35,000-40,000 albums, EPs and singles are released each year, but less than 1,000 new films are shown in theaters. The playing field is so much bigger, so a lot of greatness is missed almost of necessity.
Whatever the reason for its existence, the disconnect between the audiophile and the music industry continues to exist, and consequently most music nerds continue to snub the ceremony, if for no other reason than to exact some vengeance on the institution that first snubbed a highly significant and personally favored artist.
That's life.
Some forgiveness might be at hand, were NARAS to create a category to honor innovation and experimentation. Even if the final product didn't have the same glossy finish as so many radio-ready Pop and R&B singles, at least the monied community would be supporting the advancement of its own art form. After all, art by its very nature is constantly evolving. Sadly, when an institution throws all its accolades at traditional forms, money follows fame, and evolution is slowed, if not stopped. And if the powers-that-be don't give a shit about that, then why should anyone with half a brain tune in anyway?
I think that's why I didn't. Maybe next year.
You raise an interesting issue here, Ivan. One to which I had not previously given much thought. The observation which struck me most was "...when an institution throws all its accolades at traditional forms, money follows fame, and evolution is slowed, if not stopped." I would like to hear artists such as St. Vincent on the radio. You've got me wondering why mainstream American music is so homogeneous for the most part. It seems that the people with the money want to play it safe.
ReplyDeleteThe Grammy's reward very few truly excellent artists and often champion mediocrity. Case in point--Britney Spears was nominated for Best Pop Vocal Performance on three separate occasions, and she has won a Grammy. And when they do find an artist who is worthy or relatively worthy, they pile on all the awards as with Adele.
I am curious whether evolution would be more effective starting at the beginning (bigger labels signing artists outside the mainstream) or the end (with awards and honors). The problem may very well be that organizations such as NARAS are too closely tied to the music industry, but were they a more independent and objective organization, would they even pierce the consciousness of mainstream viewers and listeners?
One thing I am delighted about is the open letter for which Mr. Stoute paid. I think the best way to incite change is to speak out about it. If enough audiophiles start "giving a damn" and speaking their minds instead of shrugging their shoulders, the evolution of the music industry may get a much-needed kick in the pants.
Exactly, OkieChic. If NARAS wants to be believed when they claim that the Grammys are awarded for musical and artistic excellence, then why does Spears get a leg up when her clear advantage is the sex appeal of a barely-legal woman?
ReplyDeleteIn terms of whether we should repair the beginning or the end of the process, and which would be most effective, I'm going to go ahead say, Both. If accolades are awarded based on artistic creativity and prowess, labels are going to see that and be influenced. It's harder to start with labels because they're clearly market-driven. If NARAS is equally market-driven, then why should it exist at all? It's like the Pulitzer being given to the year's best-sellers. Kind of redundant.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!