Grammys: Five reasons not to tune in
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 is it worth enduring medley after medley?
Click here for five reasons to watch, but here are five reasons not to tune in:
1. Relevancy, or lack thereof. As the major record labels must adjust their business models in the face of declining sales and file sharing, so too must the Grammys reevaluate their broadcast. For one thing, the eligibility period (Oct. 1, 2006, to Sept. 30, 2007 this time) should be rewritten. As noted weeks ago, plenty of the year's best music wasn't even eligible for a Grammy. Alicia Keys will perform, and her single "No One" is nominated, but she'll have to wait until 2009 for the best album of her career to get Grammy recognition. Radiohead? Not eligible. Jay-Z even lapped the Grammys. "American Gangster" is one of the rapper's stronger efforts, but the Grammys still haven't even gotten around to honoring one of his weaker efforts, 2006's "Kingdom Come."
2. Beyonce. The 2008 Beyonce Tour of Televised Galas begins here! Let's at least hope she comes up with something better than her pairing with Sugarland at the AMAs. But if Beyonce is a predictable choice, it's reflective of the Grammys as a whole. Indeed, when it comes to this year's performance line-up, the only drama appears to be in who will or won't show up (Amy Winehouse? Michael Jackson?), and what shape they'll be in when they get there.
3. Where are the independents? The Grammys have always honored the efforts of the major labels ahead of the independents. Such oversights were more excusable 10 years ago, when the majors and indies seemed to operate in two different worlds and radio defined pop music. That's no longer the case, as more and more of today's big artists are finding ways to work outside the major label system (see Radiohead and the Eagles, another ineligible album) and more and more independent artists are appearing atop the U.S. pop chart. Sooner rather than later the Grammys will have to recognize that the tide has shifted from the major labels to the Internet. But can that be done without sacrificing ratings?
4. The Grammys recognize great music -- just not on TV. Throughout the Grammys' bloated 110 categories, there's plenty of swell music to be had (as noted over here). Unfortunately, most of it is celebrated during a lengthy pre-show void of all press and television. (They're all on the red carpet awaiting the stars.) It's nice to recognize some smaller acts, but does it matter if no one sees it?
5. There is a category for new/adventurous music -- it's just not utilized as such. The best-new-artist category is the one televised award in which the Grammys truly have the opportunity to be about discovery -- but seldom are. Though the category states that it will honor the "first recording that establishes the public identity of the artist," it's still a bit much to honor an artist with a nearly 10-year career (Ledisi) or one who's been on Warped Tour multiple years running (Paramore). There needs to be a greater effort to dig beneath the surface and not just honor artists once they're discovered by a major label. And going forward, no "American Idol" contestant should ever be eligible for best new artist.
(Beyonce photo courtesy Anne Cusack / Los Angeles Times)
I agree, we don't no Beyonce. She's so overexposed and overrated. She's not even that good of a singer. Her voice is rail thin, her tone is unpleasant, she sings with no soul, and she oversings and screams! Her music is childish and laughable. She's just eye candy. She's there for ratings and becuase she's popular. They should bring in some REAL TALENT like Jill Scott or Annie Lennox.
Posted by: MrsTalented | February 05, 2008 at 06:37 PM
How come Mariah Carey isn't considered a legend or an icon? How come she doesn't have any classics. What is she doing wrong? Is her focus too much on the charts and not enough on music? I hope she also learns how to sing with emotion. I'm tired of this whispering and melisma. I need some emotion and passion for a change. Come on Mariah!
Posted by: Jason Englisbe | February 05, 2008 at 06:40 PM
It is so disappointing that more interesting categories are not on TV, while the generic and over-exposed are treated like they're the only artists of interest. What happened to respecting Jazz, Classical and Folk...to name a few. Perhaps the Grammy Awards should be picketed...for bad taste!
Posted by: Topanga | February 05, 2008 at 08:51 PM
So true! The writers of the Simpsons have already been on this page for the past 10 years, though.
Posted by: Ike | February 05, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Let me upgrade ya - Beyonce
Posted by: Anthony Hernandez | February 05, 2008 at 10:38 PM
The Grammys are ridiculous. Aretha Franklin sneezes and gets nominated every time. Tamia released her album on an indie label and got no nominations. Deborah Cox's "Destination Moon" was severely overlooked as well. And Mary J. Blige's "Just Fine" did not deserve a nomination for Female R&B Vocal.
Posted by: Syrus | February 05, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Sixth Reason: The extremely lame writing. Time for new writers folks, the forced inept interplay between presenters stopped working years ago. Can't the producers see it's so bad the presenters themselves are embarrassed to read it?
Posted by: Tommy Shoe | February 06, 2008 at 12:09 AM
You say "there needs to be a greater effort to dig beneath the surface" and I say YES to that. There's an insanely talented artist with a beyond-phenomenal voice named Happy Rhodes (her real name) who quietly released an amazing album a few months ago called Find Me. If it had caught on (unlikely since she's unsigned) and a miracle had happened and she had been nominated for Best New Artist, all her fans would have laughed (with joy, but still...) because Find Me was Happy's 11th album!
If the Grammys ever have a category called "Brilliant talents we've shamefully ignored" then Happy should be the first nominee/winner.
Take a listen and tell me (with a straight face) that she's not worthy of attention:
http://www.myspace.com/happyrhodesfindme
http://www.myspace.com/happyrhodes
Posted by: VickieM | February 06, 2008 at 01:27 AM
You say "there needs to be a greater effort to dig beneath the surface" and I say YES to that. There's an insanely talented artist with a beyond-phenomenal voice named Happy Rhodes (her real name) who quietly released an amazing album a few months ago called Find Me. If it had caught on (unlikely since she's unsigned) and a miracle had happened and she had been nominated for Best New Artist, all her fans would have laughed (with joy, but still...) because Find Me was Happy's 11th album!
If the Grammys ever have a category called "Brilliant talents we've shamefully ignored" then Happy should be the first nominee/winner.
Take a listen and tell me (with a straight face) that she's not worthy of attention:
http://www.myspace.com/happyrhodesfindme
http://www.myspace.com/happyrhodes
Posted by: VickieM | February 06, 2008 at 01:29 AM
Sorry about the double post.
Posted by: VickieM | February 06, 2008 at 01:30 AM
Beyonce is a true talent. Just look at her live concert reviews and us because someone has had alot of exposure doesn't mean they should be bracketted pedictable. Her live performances are parralelled by none - and her voice is phenominal - there are copius amounts of videos in Youtube which confirm this. Dis girl has a tough ride and it's obvious that people jum on the band wagon - we love to hate the great.
Posted by: AL | February 06, 2008 at 03:02 AM
This is ridiculous Beyonce is the only reason why my friends and family are tuning in. Get a clue there was no need to single her out like she has done something personal to you. SOme adults are worse than teenagers somtimes.
Posted by: Ashley | February 06, 2008 at 04:54 AM
Uh, Radiohead and the Eagles are not indi bands they both have major distribution deals.The Industry is changing,you have to look past the label on records now to see where the money lies.Often the bands on lesser known labels are called indi when they are in fact part of the big 4.The word indi has been coopted to mean anything thats not Van Halen.Lets stop giving this form of corporate music a free ride and call it what it is.
Posted by: saul | February 06, 2008 at 09:52 AM
I agree with Ashley and AL. Out of all the artists, Beyonce is the one person they put all the attention on. Then go on to complain that she's overexposed. The irony. I guess some people love to hate on those who keep on succeeding in life.
Posted by: NoH8in08 | February 06, 2008 at 10:00 AM
There will always be something love and hate about the Grammys. First off the eligibility works just fine and has been 50 years now. My biggest gripes with the Grammys is the Best New Artist category...bad enough NARAS cannot ever get it right when it comes to nominations but mostly when actually selecting the winner...here are some examples: Starland Vocal Band, Milli Vanilli (the biggest blunder in Grammy history), Debby Boone, The Swingle Singers???, A Taste of Honey, Maroon 5, and hits keep on coming. I wish NARAS will go back to its rule of an artist's first recording is eligible for Best New Artist. The reason the rule was change was because Whitney Houston was considered ineligible for BNA since she had made a recording the previous year of her actual debut. But I think NARAS went too far as to consider artists who have been in the industry for over 10 years to be eligible for a BNA nomination. It's a slap in the face of artists who actually released their debut recording. It makes absolutely no sense!!
Posted by: FrankieR. | February 06, 2008 at 10:27 AM
I'm afraid Beyonce is the poster girl for what is wrong with the music business and the Grammys. If she is the reason you are tuning in, you need to get out more. There is so much great music that isn't part of some marketing scheme. How many mobile phone commercials do you have to see before you say enough already? She is a marginal talent who has made a lot out of a little. Now if they had a show for Indie artists that would be worth watching. Something new and exciting.
Posted by: john B | February 06, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Grammy Gripes part 2:
Since the Grammys present over 100 categories...the solution for the telecast is quite simple...the 4 major categories are always presented on television. But as for the other categories, NARAS and the producers need to simply just select and rotate certain categories to be presented and/or performed on TV. Besides just focusing on mostly Pop, Rock, Country, R&B, Rap/Hip-Hop and sometimes Jazz & Classical..go out of the box and have performance from say Best World Music Album, Reggae, Musical Cast Show, New Age, Folk, Blues, Latin and even Comedy, Engineered recording...the Grammys after all is about music and the recording arts & sciences...it's one time all kinds of musical genres get an opportunity to connect with a worldwide audience. Sure the popular musical genres sell a lot of records but NARAS needs to be more adventurous, put some focus on the non-mainstream. How many times over has U2 and Aerosmith won Best Rock Vocal Group/Duo? Cut away from repeat winners...let's see some wins by Bjork, Arcade Fire, Wilco, Dwight Yoakum, Rickie Lee Jones, etc. Also NARAS needs to retool its rules in the Best Rock Female Vocal Performance. This past year alone I can name a little over 10 eligible ladies who's recordings fit in the Rock category. NARAS requires 10 entries for the category to be included...under 10 entries the category becomes Best Solo Rock Vocal. It's just ludicrous! But it's also the fault of the record companies who entered their artist in whatever category they deem appropriate. And by the looks of things, record executives can't the difference between a Rock song and a Pop song if it bit them in the ear...Over all, tune in to the Grammys Sunday...with the writers' strike still going on, we mindless escapism like this to sooth our souls in such dour times!...Just hope there's no Justin Timberlake...now that'll make my evening!
Posted by: Frankie R. | February 06, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Beyonce is da bomb! and she is the top draw to the Grammy's which is undoubtedly why they asked her to perform! Is it her fault the music biz as a whole is suffering and is in this position. I think she's a trooper for crossing the pickets to help boost interest in music and the biz. Those writers will get their money regardless of the outcome of the strike anyway! I'm looking forward to the Tina Turner/B collabo and will be tuning in only to witness this historic performance. I also agree with part of 'Topango''s comments that..."respecting Jazz, Classical and Folk...to name a few." are severely underexposed genre's that deserve attention on 'Music's Biggest Night'!
Posted by: DB | February 06, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Beyonce? So-so.
Mr. Jackson? So, 1984.
The Grammys, like the
industry as whole...So, SAD.
Mr. Martens? So TRUE!
Posted by: LoveZilla | February 06, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Can't we all just get along?
Posted by: Bonnie | February 06, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Er, Beyonce is THE reason that you have a Grammy show this year!! If she and Foo Fighters hadn't decided to perform despite that dumb strike, the Grammys would have had NO show. And she IS the reason a ton of folks are going to watch. So this column is STUPID in concept and she is a great live performer and a 10 time winner....how foolish to say the things that you did!
Posted by: sktdoctor | February 06, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Amerie deserved a Grammy for her song "1 Thing" in 2006. She deserves a little more attention than she is getting. Beautiful voice and did a cool remix with rapper Eve. I think she should do a duet with Beyonce or Mariah.
Posted by: Jonathan | February 06, 2008 at 12:31 PM
The Grammys is joke. It is nothing more than an irrelevant, self-serving, clueless, popularity contest like the Miss America pagent. The RIAA is not about acknowledging the work of artists but rather about pushing record sales with this boring, predictable awards show. Plus the fact they thought Shelby Lynne was a new artist a few years back proves the RIAA is absolutely clueless. If the Grammys was truly about recognizing the artistic merits of musicians, they would include a lot more indie artists instead of just a few handful.
Posted by: Jezebel | February 06, 2008 at 12:32 PM
The Grammy's are a joke. It's just a vehicle for the dying record industry to showcase mediocre artists. It is for people who don't do their own research into music. It is not for music lovers, it is for celebrity lovers.
Posted by: christine | February 06, 2008 at 12:58 PM
MORE PUBLICITY FOR BEYONCE!!!!! YAY.......and this will probably be the most watched grammys in history since there hasn't been a real award show on that doesn't require cable...and not to mention its the grammy's 50th birthday........OH, and thanks again for singling beyonce out of every other artist in the biz...it really shows that she has a choke hold on this industry.....BEYONCE 4 PRESIDENT.........LOL
Posted by: Joseph Bennett | February 06, 2008 at 01:07 PM
I remember hearing the same comments about the Grammys back in 1966. Except then, it was tape-recording instead of file sharing, and instead of Beyonce Knowles, it was Steve Lawrence and Edyie Gorme. The more things change, the more they stay the same!
Posted by: David V | February 06, 2008 at 01:48 PM
As a person who worked intimately in the Los Angeles record industry for almost a decade, I can honestly say that the music/recording industry has been at its lowest point for nearly the last decade. Where things have gone is sickening. All flash. No substance.
Posted by: Jon K. | February 06, 2008 at 02:45 PM
Who Cares... The Grammys is/are dead.
Posted by: Gene Vincent | February 06, 2008 at 03:22 PM
Ledisi has had a career longer than 10 years, but in truth, her first solo CD didn't come out until 1999. It was independently released as was the second album She is much deserving especially when you consider that even on a major label, most folks still don't know who she is. Ledisi is an AMAZING artist, especially in live performance. What a lost art that is.
Posted by: Cecile T. | February 06, 2008 at 05:03 PM
Unfortunately, the Grammys have never been about the best in American music. Rather, they are a popularity contest for the mainstream and were more relevant when the recording industry and major labels controlled nearly everything. True independent artists and music was rarely recognized. Some of the most influential songwriters and musicians that you've probably never heard of outside of the mainstream, were never recognized. The Grammys are a waste of time.
Posted by: Christian Hokenson | February 06, 2008 at 05:13 PM
If Kristin Hersh is ever recognized with a Grammy award, I'd drop dead in front of the TV. Shame it will never happen, but here's an artist who's discography and songwriting are superior to most "artists" the Grammys do actually recognize. Good riddance to the mainstream, good riddance to the RIAA and the major labels. Now that music genres are thoroughly fractured and the iPod and MP3's reign supreme as the source of new music, award shows like this are increasingly irrelevant.
Posted by: Christian Hokenson | February 06, 2008 at 05:24 PM
Katt Williams once said,a haters job is to hate,so those of you who have no one to hate,feel free and hate on Beyonce,WE ALL KNOW SHE IS THE BOMB!
Posted by: Charles | February 07, 2008 at 12:34 AM
I just think that Beyonce is awesome.
Posted by: j. | February 07, 2008 at 05:48 AM
If you are going to mention ledisi's long career you must also mention Feist. And if you have ever heard Ledisi perform live or listened to her albums you would know that if just based on vocals she would win the category.
Posted by: Malcolm | February 07, 2008 at 08:28 AM
Ok,
Tired of Rap/Hippity Hop/Gang Rap - the hole tamale.
Keys, Beyonce, Winehouse, Brown,Rihanna, Kanye, MJ Blige.
Hip Hop Nation never was, the rest of us went stone cold silent.
If you did not let the Rude Dude from Attitude Lewd spit in your face and jerk his hand where ever the _ _ _ well pleased you were racist. Well I do not think so! I am sick and tired of that dirty crap passed off as any kind of music. I fart in your general direction.
Posted by: Triple A | February 07, 2008 at 06:20 PM
Waoh, i love this pix she looks so kinky and she's gonna be on my weekly celebrity's List....................................................
www.messagegarden.9f.com
www.sendfreesmstoanycountry.blogspot.com
Posted by: Gbenga | February 08, 2008 at 06:43 AM
Waoh, i love this pix she looks so kinky and she's gonna be on my weekly celebrity's List....................................................
www.messagegarden.9f.com
www.sendfreesmstoanycountry.blogspot.com
Posted by: Gbenga | February 08, 2008 at 06:51 AM
It is so crazy that the same people who overexposed Beyonce, now hate her. I love Beyonce, Kanye, and Mary J are the only reasons I am watching. I think she is the joint. I REPEAT, STOP HATING!!!
Posted by: blondiedred | February 10, 2008 at 01:09 PM