Grammys: Five reasons to watch

The Grammys -- the awards show that music fans love to hate. But it's also the only legit one we have, and while not always succeeding, it makes a genuine effort to walk the line between artistic achievements and populist entertainment. But there are plenty of noteworthy artists in attendance, and great art can transcend a canned medley. 

Click here for five reasons not to watch, but here are five reasons to tune in:

1. It's no easy feat. Each year, Grammy producers face a nearly impossible task, creating a show that's musically relevant yet equipped with enough star power to bring in about 20 million viewers. In a heavily fragmented, Web-driven pop landscape, those tasks are often in direct conflict with each other. To base a telecast solely on sales would be to turn the Grammys into the Josh Groban/Miley Cyrus/Daughtry show, and the music that got people talking in 2007 -- Radiohead, M.I.A., LCD Soundsystem -- won't bring in viewers. For better or worse, the Grammys represent that odd place where the mainstream, the major labels and the culturally important collide, and whatever the producers come up with will inspire conversations and debates on popular music. That's more than can be said for any other music awards show.

2. Kanye West. By all accounts, this looks to be West's year to win album of the year. West has acted miffed about losing in the past, and the chance to see his long-overdue acceptance speech is by itself worth tuning in for. He's also provided two of the stronger Grammy telecast performances in recent years: "Jesus Walks" was turned into a modern gospel cut with Mavis Staples and the Blind Boys of Alabama in 2005, and the dueling marching band rendition of "Gold Digger" in 2006 was one of the few Grammy performances that felt on the verge of becoming completely unhinged. West hasn't been cast as a performer yet, but given his recent announcement that he's plotting a "Glow in the Dark" tour, the Grammy producers would be wise to let the man have the floor for four minutes.

3. Beatles mash-up. With a planned segment combining the casts of Cirque du Soleil's "Love" and the film "Across the Universe," the show producers found a way to honor the Beatles without having to craft a backward-looking segment, and are doing so with over-the-top theatrics. OK, so it may result in something unwatchable, but "Across the Universe" deserves a larger audience, and this should help.

4. Rihanna and the Time. This is one of those intriguing "blockbuster" performances the Grammy producers have cooked up, and it should be a better showcase for Rihanna than her recent American Music Awards appearance. With the reunited funk act the Time backing her up, it's time for Rihanna to show the world she's an artist who's here to stay, not just a singles act with some A-list producers behind her.

5. Plenty of good music is recognized. The Grammys face nearly annual criticism that they honor only the major labels and the heritage acts. A look at the premiere categories this year shows that the argument has plenty of weight, since album-of-the-year offerings from Herbie Hancock, the Foo Fighters and Vince Gill -- as nice as some of those were -- weren't exactly defining 2007's pop music landscape. But dig a little deeper and it's clear that Grammy voters are far from tone-deaf. The alternative-album-of-the-year field, in fact, provides a better snapshot of the year's music, recognizing work from Lily Allen, the Shins, Bjork, Arcade Fire and the White Stripes. Farther down, the fiery soul of Bettye LaVette (for best contemporary blues album) is overdue for the kind of spotlight the Grammys can shine on an artist's work. Though these artists have long been championed by the press and bloggers, there's no denying that affixing a Grammy-winner sticker to their albums will carry weight with a certain segment of the population.

(Photo courtesy AP)