As a kid who grew up in the 80s, 90s, 2000s and now, I treasure the music that my parents listened to: easy listening, adult contemporary music. Sadly, today’s music is losing that concept and meaning of real music. I miss the moments when rock music was king...oy vey!
3
It doesn't matter if it's the Grammy's, the Oscars, the Tony's, the ultimately low-brow People's Choice awards--whatever--they're all bad, boring, a huge waste of time, money and energy. Let's face it, award shows, like malls, are becoming increasingly irrelevant. And not a moment too soon quite honestly. Some still watch just to ogle the celebs and their outfits, but now we have to suffer through an endless and unbelievably vapid "red carpet" display in which these folks stand and preen and make small talk so inane it makes my chat with the cashier at Target seem deep. No thanks. Never watching another one again. And when I ask my 20-something daughters if they ever watch these things, both just laughed. Some stuff just runs its course. So, award shows--bye, bye!
5
Anyone who believes awards shows mean anything is a fool.
I look forward to the backroom deals done to determine nominees and winners being exposed. Just know the mainstream media probably won't do it. It feeds off the hype of you believeing it is an altruistic venture.
1
Axl Rose, represent!
1
According to the Grammy official web site, the 1967 winner of Best New Artist was Bobbie Gentry. Bobby Goldsboro's web site does not cite ever winning a Grammy. That doesn't suggest the artists you mention aren't all Hall-of-Famers which Bobby Goldsboro is not. I'm just wondering about the basis for the Goldsboro reference.
1
The [awards show] have become so commercialized I wont be watching. The [art form being celebrated] ceased to be recognizable as [art form] when [recent unconventional genre] took over the industry. I much preferred the [art form] when [artist from bygone era] was making [art form]. Wake me when it's over!
4
Keep trying to make something out of nothing. The Grammys have always been the worst of all the awards shows as far as representing what was currently going on. But at least there were some great moments now & then. You don't even get that anymore. And really the Oscars have become even worse. It has nothing to do with diversity. It's because most of it to be blunt .. is garbage. Many of the major artists shouldn't even be musicians & singers let alone at the top of the profession. It's boring. The spectacle big production numbers don't make any sense to me. Even the dancers compared to like the 50's, 60's & 70's are weak and have these canned moves. Simply no talent. I mean just the fact that some of the people in the major categories have auto-tune on their voices. And that's like accepted. Even desired. Pretty much like everything else, up is down & right is wrong.
6
@Doctor Woo
No, the Oscars have always been the worst , or most politicized and marginalized of all shows .
I'll skip it, thank you. To call this broadcast irrelevant is a compliment.
6
When Daft Punk won, my son was upset as their first two albums were much better than Random Access Memories, and the Grammies were much more comfortable with their salute to disco than with innovative electronic music.
The Rolling Stones won a best album award in the 90s for the forgettable Voodoo Lounge, decades after they did their best work.
Could go on and on. The people who run the Grammies are committed to the past as the article said. They even made Daft Punk collaborate with Stevie Wonder to make sure older people felt more comfortable with a nod to Motown.
I feel the Oscars are making a legitimate effort toward moving to the present and the Grammies never will.
Tho after reading other comments from readers who say rap isn't music while it is now the best selling genre, I can understand why it is so difficult for Grammy producers to feature rap.
I predict that Kacey Musgrave will win Album of the Year, a sweet country pop album to go along with the previous "safe" picks of sweet albums by Beck, Adele, Taylor Swift, none of which had an ounce of originality.
I will watch anyway, just to see how many shoutouts 21 Savage gets.
1
Your coverage of this event far exceeds the public’s interest.
7
Just as in hiring for jobs, it appears that minority award requirements should be in place. The article implies that people should be judged not by their skills and abilities, but rather by their color when it aids minorities.
5
I never consider a Grammy, People's Choice, Oscar or any other award in my choice of entertainment. What other industry has to continually pat itself on the back? These award shows are nothing but a advertising vehicle. I'm not going to spend hours watching a commercial.
4
Te problem with the diversity problem is its not about race, but genre! The Grammy's like the RnR Hall of Fame, ignores huge swaths of popular, not pop or classic, traditional rock, music.
The metal awards at the Grammy's are always a joke. Metallica must be deemed unqualified for anymore awards!
The Rock awards ignore a huge number of artists, many of which are fronted by females! Halestorm, In This Moment, Evanescence to name but three hugely popular female led bands, that get no respect.
And the whole "Indie band" genre, while the label is ridiculous, only scrapes the top of that very deep barrel.
And those genres that defy labels get zero attention.
The Grammys is nothing but a industry self-aggrandizement, that includes only the top 20 most popular acts on the POP-music billboards. Its all about what teen girls and boys listen to, and are forced fed, and what keeps the Hollywood elites on their pedestals.
The Grammys should be nothing but 3 hours of performances. With only a few awards actually being formally handed out. Performances of POP-popular music being the lesser amount of performances, while all the hard working bands and soloists making waves out on tours, being the bulk.
2
Nothing could be more irrelevant to a music lover than the Grammy Awards. Talk about strictly commercial.... who cares.
5
The only awards show worth watching is the Tony’s. The Grammy’s encompass too many genres, many of which I don’t care for. I suspect that is the case with many people. Too long, too boring, to many self-aggrandizing bores.
2
As Duke Ellington said, "If it sounds good it is good." He oughtta know.
And he should have given more credit to Billy Strayhorn.
4
I don't know which is more tedious: the show, the whining about diversity, or most of the music itself.
8
Who cares about all of these awards shows?
Show me someone that can solve this huge climate change crisis ruining the planet. Show me someone or a group of people that have eradicated poverty or created a health care system that works for everyone. Show me someone that can eradicate mass shootings or just senseless shootings.
I'll tune in for that awards show.
Another artist getting an award? Nah.
5
Brandi Carlile has six nominations for an excellent album she has released independently. She is a lesbian with an album tightly aligned with country rock genre that has homophobic roots. That the author could not mention that over Gaga and Cardi B shows how little they know about good musicianship and full fledged diversity themselves. I have no use for the Grammys but I’m afraid I have little use for this article either. There is a wealth of incredible music out there that largely goes unrecognized (with some notable exceptions) by the Grammys (or is relegated to categories that go unbroascast - Like Americana) because it’s a largely industry shill rather than a reflection of actual art.
4
Another celebrity award show where celebrities give celebrity awards to other celebrities.
4
The Grammy’s (or “Grannies”) have always been at least 20 years behind the times.
It’s no wonder that most major performers either never won it or only received “lifetime awards” way past their primes.
It’s an irrelevant award.
3
As to whether rap is music, doesn't that go back to what is art? Yes it relies on samples, but as a 50yo surbuban white guy (who gets music every year as an xmas present from his kids) it's rap that I have playing on the turntable of my mind. I understand that kanye came out with five albums on five consecutive weeks, each featuring a different lead performer. And of the two I have, I find them both very listenable and memorable. The Yasir album has seven songs, one for each of the seven deadly sins. Is this worthless? I'd suggest if you want to find interesting music, listen to lots of new things, maybe including rap. And shoutout to local radio, KEXP in my case.
1
Answer: Probably Not.
1
The rating are horrible , the network would be better off running it on YouTube.
3
IS diversity the issue here? I thought quality was supposed to be.
4
Stevie Wonder EWF, Michael Jackson etc. no diversity?
1
"...last year, Bruno Mars won the top prize over more adventurous albums by Kendrick Lamar, Lorde, Jay-Z and Childish Gambino." Where is the lack of diversity exactly?
2
RAP MUSIC? Not so sure it is. Oh and the Spoken Word on many Rap tracks are demeaning to women!
2
It's clear that the Grammy's are racist against Asians. About the only person of Chinese descent who has won is Yo-Yo Ma.
As usual, Hollywood is so righteous on one hand and so sleazy on the other hand.
2
Winner for Best Impression of “This is Spinal Tap” goes to, envelope please: The Grammy Awards!
It’s a parody of itself.
2
Lack of women, diversity? What are you talking about? I quit watching after they gave a Grammy to Whitney Houston for belting out some stupid song that sold a zillion copies. But lack of diversity? If a dog sold enough records it would get a Grammy. Give me a break. Doesn’t the NYTs and establishment Democrats have anything better to do than bemoan the generally non-existent lack of diversity in the US? Consider higher ed. Only women and minorities are especially encouraged to apply for work. But they don’t discriminate. Again, give me a break!
2
Yet another award program bites the dust.
If America wants to see a group of self absorbed, out of touch, leftist millionaires who think they are better and smarter than everyone else, tune in tonight to the grammy's and torture yourself for as long as your brain can withstand it.
3
I'll Tivo it and fast forward through the dreck, which is 90% of what's popular these days.
1
I often watch (or listen to, or follow online) the pre-telecast awards more than the TV show. That's where musicians I like in blues, Americana, etc. can get awards that can result in sales & exposure that can help keep their careers afloat.
And these awards seem to suffer less from their televised counterpart's tendency for older artists to win over newer, more groundbreaking ones (though you can still find better-known artists winning out over newcomers).
I usually skip in & out of the Grammy's telecast during the night, depending on who or what is on the screen at a given time.
Forcefully engineering "diversity" will be looked back on in 25 years as the crux of liberal political failure that led us to illiberal backlash and authoritarianism, and the worst effect of the modern academy of university intellectuals in the early 21st Century.
This is not rocket science, and that the academy and it's petty trainees in the media and punditry cannot see that this sort of soft social totalitarianism is ruinous, is testimony to Upton Sinclair's warning, "It is difficult to get a careerist to admit to understanding something when his salary depends upon their not understanding it."
Don't take my word for it, review the excellent lectures on the mishandling of Western success by the liberal elite, by historian Stephen Kotkin available on Youtube.
4
Jon Pareles wrote:
"In 1967, Frank Sinatra’s “A Man and His Music” beat the Beatles’ “Revolver.”"
Right. And "A Man and His Music" is a fabulous album, if a retrospective of a long career, using material that had been recorded over a couple of years.
I used to be a voting member of NARAS (the National Academy for the Recording Arts and Sciences) in the years when I worked in what we used to call the record business. I joined NARAS solely to get good prices on new LPs (which the labels made available to members so that they would have some basis to eventually vote on them). The actual voting process was always deeply problematic.
I was a classical music person being asked to vote on pop recordings that I had never heard - and had no interest in ever hearing. I usually refused to do, unless it was something really important to the parent company. And there were obviously pop people voting on classical recordings that they had never heard (or had limited ability to appreciate) - which is perhaps how Sir Georg Solti won so many classical Grammys...
2
The Grammys have always been reactionary when it comes to new and newly accepted musical genres. The most notable example that comes to mind was when Jethro Tull won the inaugural Grammy in the Heavy Metal category. Other than that it’s mostly a popularity contest when it comes to the major categories although some will point of that that is the point. Quality and innovation are often recognized long after the fact if at all.
1
How is it “reparations” to have Alicia Keys host and Diana Ross perform? Suspect choice of words.
I have watched the Grammys consistently but I will pass from now on. Too many “singers” on the show. Today is Motown Appreciation Day and I will listen to the original songs and probably throw in some Stax too.
1
The biggest problem the Grammys have to escape is the lack of talent. Some genres, although popular, produce little in the way of providing a memorable contribution to music.
9
There's a lot to criticize in Grammys over the years, but a lot has improved. Justified or not do we really have to rehash the same critiques at this point? They've missed atrociously in the past and will do so again no doubt. That said, there is defiantly more diversity by race style and gender to acknowledge. Part of the problem is vote splitting when there's more than one entry in a gendre. The other problem is that the mass audience, and majority of Grammy voters, doesn't always get cutting edge as quickly as cutting edge listeners. I listen to commercial radio with dismay sometimes but that's the way it is, what's the more discerning listener to do? One solution for Grammy voting would be one of the several alternative voting systems available such as ranked choice among others. (On a side note alternative voting systems could vastly improve primary outcomes with multiple candidates running.) Also a shout out to the many live performance pairings that have been going on for a few seasons now. They don't always work but there have been some great ones. Earth, Wind & Fire and OutKast performing together comes to mind. A solo gem a few years back was Mick Jagger closing out the show. Just watch with low disengaged expectations and hopefully there will be some pleasant surprises!
1
Another rule of thumb: The winners of big awards use the most studio time and mount tours employing musicians and technicians. Who also happen to be a big block of voters. I'd have a hard time voting for someone working alone on the laptop too in their place.
1
The Grammy's have always been a middle of road pop music joke. We should remember the "Academy" only came to fruition as a backlash against the emergence R & B music better known as Rock & Roll. The Grammy's are nothing more than a publicity stunt for a very narrow slice of music that being created around the world.
A trophy handed out once a year, doesn't give credence to the pursuit of excellence. What is good music? Anything that brings joy and moves you.
11
@Trina so well said! Great music spreads up from the people, organically. It spreads faster now than it did when I was a kid, when I heard about a band from England from a friend’s cousin who had a little ep record by the Beatles. Word of mouth has way more impact than those little trophies.
3
It is a shame that the Grammy Awards must be subjected to politically correct scrutiny and criticism. The Grammys have created categories over the years to accommodate diversity and new musical trends. When will the diversity and politically correct police stop harassing American institutions? I am tired of it! And I am sure other Americans are as well! Thank you.
16
There is no “best” music, much like there is no “best” oil painting. The objective criteria to select the best in those categories does not exist. It is all subjective, and thus open to fair debate.
To demand that the judges of what is the “best” music be free from personal bias is a goal no more likely achievable than getting a family of five on a road trip to agree unanimously on what to listen on the radio. The key is to have a representative panel of judges who can reach a worthy plurality decision.
3
If the music represented on the Grammys wasn't mostly absolutely awful more people would care. It is a celebrity du jour-fest. A decrepit industry trying to milk a new star or two. The best music being made, vital music of unimaginable variety, unfettered by market forces, is being made all over the country in thousands of places and most of it will not be heard or known by the masses. If the masses want to tune into the Grammys, they are only ever going to hear middle of the road pablum--no matter who is being represented.
19
@Tal Birdsey
Perfectly said!! If one is willing to put some effort into it, one can find amazing artists doing their own thing. Music produced at home or on a local level that is blessedly free of the generic, bland, soul-damaging corporate 'sound of the moment'. I challenge all true music lovers to get out there and find the good stuff!
8
@Tal Birdsey:Agree lot of local Jersey stuff I hear is great and never gets national but that just the business C'mon. The Grammys are national and International based on Commercial popularity and will never, ever please everybody so don't watch but I will at least to see the hot dancers galore. There are millions of US performers and millions more great foreign performers from let's for example (Egypt/Mongolia etc.) that never get a chance over here.
@Tal Birdsey As far as I'm concerned the Grammy Awards have been a non-event for years. Today's music as featured on the telecast is bland, generic and the presenters and award winners are often narcissistic and rude.
It's time to acknowledge that there is music and there is spoken word. Rap may be admirable and expertly performed, even over music, but it is not music in the same way that catsup is not a vegetable despite being made from one. Oh, wait a minute - a tomato is actually a fruit, isn't it?
Break them apart: two awards. Or better yet, none, since artistry is not a win-lose zero-sum game and artistic borders are flexible at least, non-existent at best. (But without an awards show the Grammys couldn't self-perpetuate their narrowly focused ego trips, could they?)
13
@CP
I disagree. All music has a relation to rhythm. Rap is verbal rhythm and flow and exists at the confluence of poetry and music.
2
@CP
The great sounding and new label that is " Spoken Word " masks the truth and the fact that the preponderance of Rap Lyrics are simple rhymes that require no talent and the synthesis of existing sounds and creative art stolen from real musicians . This label seeks to raise this simplistic undertaking to a form of real art and therefore justify its existence and growth .
Rap Music has only grown because of the low cost to produce it. The World loses . Art and Creativity lose with its growth and in the same way that dropping a camera into a beauty parlor , or pawn shop and calling it a television show does .
I have left off the harmful influence Rap Music has had by bombarding young people with the boldest sexaul images and lyrics and for popularizing gangsterism and antisocial behavior to avoid being off topic , but I have to believe that there are only three kinds of people who defend it .
Those who profit from it . Those who unfortunately have not been blessed to know great music , and those blind to its negative influences .
11
@VB, the term "spoken word" goes back to my earliest days of recorded awareness and encompasses such things as "poetry out loud" and what we used to call "choral reading." I submit that rap fits under that umbrella. It is not my place or point to debate its social value or lack thereof, or the ethics of sampling, although I think we would agree on some of your positions and vigorously disagree on others.
Beyoncé's Lemonade won 1) NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Album, 2) Grammy Award for Best Urban Contemporary Album, 3) Billboard Music Award for Top R&B Album, 4) Soul Train Award for Album of the Year, and 5) BET Album of the Year Award to name a few. You can't win 'me all. Adele's album out-sold Lemonade. All that said, who cares? I'm pretty sure Beyoncé and Adele have moved on.
20
There is so much great music out there but the Grammys chooses to ignore the vast majority of it in favor of the mediocre stagnant offerings of pop culture. To me it has become about as interesting musically as last week's Superbowl half-time show... that is, not interesting at all, silly childish stuff. The show could dare diversify beyond the endless and exhausting male/female disparity debate to include the many different genres of music and truly amazing musicianship that many of us now experience on outlets like Youtube. In doing so they might broaden the musical audience by showcasing music beyond just what is popular to the young people. True music fans can easily find so much truly inspiring musical art not concerned with fitting a pop culture formula and making money for the "music industry." Why can't the ultimate music celebration show do the same? Music is after all an art form, not an industry. The Grammys would benefit from reflecting on that. The show and ultimately the industry would be better for it. I love music, but I won't be watching the Grammys.
14
Where contemporary pop music is concerned, the Western world is, and has been for at least the last 20 years, mired in the Dark Ages.
8
Ive been to The Grammys a few times. The production staff does an amazing job scurrying around between commercials to make the events appear seamless to the at home audience. But lets be honest. Other than the production jobs who cares? Your favorite recording belongs to you. Someone else may not like it at all.
Music is about personal taste for the performer and the listener. The Grammys is a made for TV production designed as a clever way to make the "suits" more money.
8
I’ve always found the practice of ultra rich celebrities awarding themselves to be an ostentatious event not worth watching.
34
To satisfy those viewers whose interests lie outside of the "pop" genre, the Grammy awards used to present its obligatory Classical performance by Yo Yo Ma, performing unaccompanied Bach on the cello. We can't even look forward to that any more. How about getting Yo Yo Ma's Silk Road Ensemble on the show. That would spice things up! How about having Grammy winners, The Klezmatics perform, to show that there are other worlds of music out there that have a beat, amazing rhythm and fabulous lyrics (sometimes in English). Or, the exciting New York based orchestra, The Knights playing something that hasn't been heard before! The Grammy box is soooooo small and the music world outside of it is enormous!
17
Music is a personal taste. It does not have to be popular, or sell millions of units to be enjoyed. I remember when Motown was popular and the Beatles were changing the recording process resulting in changes that are still in existence over 50 years. During that time the Grammys were still into Andy Williams. I'd like to know their criteria for nominations.
6
The only awards show I watch is the Grammys. Less awards and more performances is an evening of entertainment unlike speech after speech of other awards shows with recipients unable to leave the stage even when the light music tells them to go.
Record the show and start around 45 minutes into it and breeze through the ads to catch up with the live ending of the show.
2
“Fewer” awards.
The accompanying photos say it all: The Grammy show doesn't celebrate actual music or musicians and hasn't for a long time; maybe never. It's all wow-heavy, color-coordinated show, carefully constructed by production people, with mostly meagerly talented musicians serving as convenient place-holders.
None of it to be confused with art; there wouldn't have been an Art Awards show ( "And the winner is...Pablo Picasso, for Guernica!") because art isn't a contest. This is strictly commercial enterprise. Pareles knows this and chafes against the constraints, but for naught.
29
Isn't part of the issue with all awards shows for music and film, that people want to back a winner rather than develop their own taste? I usually watch a little bit of the Grammys. I like spectacle. I have attended the show. It's a big production; I really enjoyed it. A lot of people worked hard on it, industry people seemed to enjoy their big night out.
I really don't care who wins because I have my own taste (and an excellent radio station that helps me expand it; thank you, WTMD). Why does everyone care so much? I say the Grammys are a member organization, they do their thing. The Voice is a show, people who care to vote do their thing. I suppose complaining about their choices, along with the Oscars', is a lot of people's thing, but if it's painful, don't watch, and spend more time on visual art, dance, and opera which don't "do" awards shows.
3
I hope someone uses the Grammy stage to inform people of the blatant piracy of Spotify, and the bloated glut of unrestricted free music on youtube. It's not a debate- it wrong. And many people are getting rich, except the artists.
12
I have never considered the Grammys to be any more relevant , or indicator of the best artist or music any more than the Oscars are for movies . They both represent the votes and opinion of small clubs with their inherent biases and I stopped watching or paying attention to both long ago .
For me the day the Color Purple lost mightily was the last night I paid notice of the Oscars and I venture when seminal early work produced by artists like Musiq , or Joe , of Jill Scott's amazing " Who Is Jill Scott " failed to win awards I realized how limited even nominations much less winning is for the Grammys .
However , despite the problem with recognizing female artists I think the Grammys and the industry has two greater problems . Perhap the larger may be the electronic production of music done by computer and not requiring real musicians and the second would be the growth and incursion of the most corrupt form ( corrupt meaning no talent or special artistry required ) of so called music ever created that is Rap Music . For this piece I will ignore Rap's destructive influence ( brazen sexual imagery , denigration of women , promotion of violence and anger ) on its very young listeners and point out how its growth limits airtime for some of the greatest American Music that is R&B and Jazz .
For the Grammys though the increased recognition of the false art that is Rap is the opposite way to go . Easy money has given us Reality TV and Rap Music .
13
@VB, as a real musician (Juilliard and a music major in college), how one uses a computer makes a difference - or maybe it shouldn't. For me, it's a recording studio, so that I can make more and better music with "practicetime" in a home studio that would be unaffordable otherwise. And for some, it can be an instrument in itself. Yes, many will only cut and paste existing samples. patches and sounds and claim it as original, but remember that in every era and every genre there were both hacks and virtuosi, both untrained geniuses and trained but soulless performers. It's all about how the individual uses the tools at their disposal within the limits of their talents, and in the end it's the listener who decides if they like the results or not. The computer is just a tool, a means to, but not, the finished product.
6
@CP
For you and others like you synthesizers are a tool and not the whole creative process . My comments were about the industry trend and usage not the exceptions .
As for Rap Music we have never had any musical art that did not require extraordinary talent of some level whether that was playing an instrument , or reading and writing music , or vocal qualities , and or performance .
Rap is the first that anyone without any gift or knowledge can do and is created through synthesis and the theft of art that already exists. As I alluded to it exists and has multiplied because it can be produced relatively cheaply just like Reality TV and afford greater profit opportunities .
Putting aside the destructive influence that Rap has caused the big losers are our ears , our eyes and the enjoyment of audiences around the World as precious listening and creative time is stolen by these developments .
5
@VB
s/b or Jill Scott's amazing " Who Is Jill Scott " .
The Grammy's , the Oscars, the SAG Awards, represent the last vestiges of the Jerry Lewis Telethon era. That era was pre-internet. No one knew anything, TV and radio were the preferred advert medium to spoon feed consumers information, and movies were watched at theaters, in the dark, with sticky floors littered with garbage. The studio contract system anointed certain people as "stars" and they got old, were put out to pasture, maybe seen on Carson, died and were replaced. The awards shows replaced the fireside chat, Huntley and Brinkley were kings, Steve Allen was seen as some kind of cultural icon, Jack Parr was revered, Cronkite droned on, and no knew who Matt Lauer was. Those days are over.
3
The Grammys have never been a reliable barometer of artistic achievement.
The awards always reward sales and business first, and only bump against artistic excellence if it happens to be along for the ride. It's just more subtle about how it comes to those decision than, say, the American Music Awards, or other awards that are shaped by popular opinion.
In other words: they get it right every once in a while, but for the most part, it's been a popularity award for years.
12
It gets worse every year. Horrifying. The creation of music isn't a contest-and even if it was a contest, the RIAA members would be among the least qualified people to judge. In Ariana's absence, Portnow should Step Up to perform "Thank U Next".
1
A thought- the headline says that music lives in the present. Perhaps the only part where that is true is the music BUSINESS. The music I enjoy, whether from yesterday or from decades or centuries ago, does not live because of the business, or the Grammies, or (forgive me) due to people paid to write about music for a newspaper. These things create an urgency that might be interesting, or entertaining, but is not necessary for the enjoyment of music. It took me a while, but I have realized that keeping up with what is new isn’t necessary. And what’s new is often great, but it’s not great just because it’s new. And it will be great by the time I get around to hearing it, and will be great when I listen to it again, and again.
6
Year after year, critics and pundits write about the Grammy Awards, and year after year I wonder why. I don't know anyone who watches, despite the fact that my social circle includes mostly musicians and music obsessives.
I will admit to browsing the winners list the next day. I'm usually curious to see who won the jazz and classical categories, knowing that those genres get so little attention from mainstream media that a Grammy can sometimes actually give a deserving artist a career boost. Unfortunately, even there, the academy's choices seem to be based on reputation, and the most deserving artists are rarely even nominated.
Now that we can watch video performances of all the nominees (and practically everyone else) online whenever we like, there is even less motivation to sit through the ceremonial opening of envelopes and cliched speeches.
19
How about fixing last years grammy by letting Lorde do her thing.
1
Time to give these "award shows" a rest.
38
"Hey hey, my my, rock and roll can never die." It's dead and buried. What happened to true musicianship? Singers and dancers performing to programmed, over produced music.
I'll pass.
23
@robert
The assessments you present (or suggest) are 'arguable' (and in some measure wrong) -- except the one about the death of rock-'n-roll.
Surely (and ever-so-sadly), Neil Young was wrong.
2
@robert
Put some effort in! There are amazing musicians all over the globe creating great stuff everyday. There are numerous websites (like progarchives.com if you are into progressive rock) that catalogue both existing and emergent artists across multiple genres. Go explore!
2
@Thomas Murray
Note to self: 'You' were born in 1949 -- so at 'your' age, 'you' should have referenced Danny & The Juniors. They mistakenly offered that rock & roll "will never die" long before Neil Young did … and 'you' bought the 'subject' single -- "Rock and Roll Is Here To Stay" -- in 1958.
2
There are over 12,000 eligible Grammy voters, and they aren't all 90 year old white men who like 'easy listening'. It's unfair to say, for instance, that they 'snubbed' Beyonce in favor of Adele, when in fact Adele's album was simply liked by more voters, and is, by the way, an excellent album. The other factor is that there are separate categories for R&B and rap and soul artists (Beyonce does have 22 Grammys, including a win for Song of the Year, despite your criticism). There is no category for "Best album by a white woman" so oftentimes I think voters are trying to spread the wealth by awarding an R&B album a win in that category and awarding the pop category to another, also deserving, artist. You are doing the winners a disservice by suggesting that their honor wasn't deserved even though they won. Of course, as time passes we realize how great an album is that didn't win; the same goes for movies, shows, books, etc., but that shouldn't take away from how voters feel in the moment.
18
I appreciate Pareles' remarks. As a singer/songwriter myself, who's been nominated and won and lost, I have more than a passing interest in the Grammys. When I went to my first ceremony at the age of 16, they didn't mean much. Now, they can double your fees (or more), give you credibility (with your own record company as well as promoters), and promote the illusion that your work is more worthy. Art isn't a contest.
I wish there'd been space for him to go into the really skewed years, when record companies could vote, and divvied up the spoils among their artists-so if 3 of theirs were nominated, they'd vote to give one best new, one best song, one best whatever etc.) I also wish it had been clear that icompeting with the Oscars (worse every year) and the like has made the behind-the-scenes awards non-existent to most of the world. Yet it's the engineers, musicians, arrangers who help create not just the hits, but the relevance and longevity. How hard can it be to find a network willing to broadcast those awards?
Much of the Grammy telecast has long been an embarrassment to many of us who vote. Creating more categories won't help. Shutting down Facebook groups won't help. Making it so an artist doesn't need millions in promotion behind them to get the ear of the public, diversifying radio playlists and finally, going back to the old FM mantra of "never mind if it's a hit, I'm playing it because I like it" WOULD.
You want to promote diversity? Start with radio.
58
@Janis ian - what a gratifying surprise and joy to read your valuable Comment. As a music fanatic, I have continued to rely on the same source for new music and the highest quality music for almost 40 years: college radio. Every possible genre I can imagine is played over the airwaves by the dozen or so college radio stations in my area, though Fordham University's WFUV is now mostly run by professionals, as is WPKN in Bridgeport. The local Staples High School radio station, 90.3 fm, is spectacular - young people learning how to broadcast and you can occasionally hear something wonderfully unexpected from them. These are the stations where Brandi Carlile's music is played, as well as everything from hip hop, EDM, and classical to Broadway show tunes.
16
@Janis ian
Always great to hear from you Janis. And yes, you're right--the Grammys haven't represented anything but glad-handing for a long time, if ever.
I will say, though, that there are places that play diverse music--but you have to spend a lot of time searching. (And over the air radio, with the exception of a few college stations, ain't them.)
6
You’re lucky you still have that option.
My undergraduate school had an award-winning campus radio station playing progressive music.
When upgrades were needed to the facility, rather than contacting the alumni, the school gave the license to a larger university so there could be a fourth station in the area broadcasting the same NPR programming. (I would gladly have paid for the upgrades along with a handful of other alumni who learned so much managing a radio station.)
The dilution of diversity on the airwaves is shameful. And while there are other options available, it still hurts the music industry.
I see the Grammys, like the Oscars and the dozens of other popular cultural award shows as a celebration of the immediate culture. Beyond that it's up for grabs. What captures the imagination over the long term is only speculative in these shows. How can it be anything else? What burns into the collective imagination of a culture is a challenge of defining burning meteors from stars - one burns bright but fades quickly while the other is ever-present. So I look on these shows, and the Grammys and Oscars in particular, as little more than popularity contests. It's fun, but like middle school cultures, it's taken with far too much gravity and spectacle. Subsequently, it is often far too silly and pompous to watch for more than fifteen minutes.
3
I recall when in college the other students being upset that Metallica did not win the metal category. I asked them why they cared. They said that Metallica was clearly the better metal band at the time. I agreed and pointed out that the Stones and Led Zeppelin had never won a Grammy either, which was true at the time.
You can find a few artist you like in the grammies, but it's hardly worth watching or taking seriously. The music industry itself seems more interested in pushing what can be described as pop for children. I think they believe that only children buy music, which is probably why the industry struggles so much. Or, maybe they are part of the system that intends that the majority of people remain good child-like followers. Whatever it is, most of what they recognize as music is rather boring.
There is a lot of great music out there. I suggest you frequent your local clubs, or at least look at their line-ups and then view the bands on youtube. You'll see that there is a lot to like.
Also, Prince changed the industry. Many bands, like Prince, do it themselves and build loyal followings without ever being recognized by the mass media, without radio time, without TV appearances and without the music industry, which again seems slanted towards children as consumers.
7
I don't really see why we need these awards anyway. Making music is not an olympic discipline.
9
Wow! Diana Ross never won a Grammy till 2012, and it was honorary? Makes me wonder if awards reflect no more than the myopia of the moment (and that the grammy voters of the 60s were in desperate need of glasses - or perhaps hearing aids). As for Ross, she and the Supremes gave us songs that are a beat from perfection.
7
The inclusion of performances by Gillian Welch and Brandi Carlisle (multiple nominations) are a step in the right direction.
5
Every time you go into a business, restaurant, store, etc that plays music, it is something from the 80’s or maybe early 90’s. For 25 years, the music market has completely compartmented into silos with no crossover. People do not watch the Grammy’s except when Adele has a record because, no matter your preference, you will spend 75% of time listening to music you strongly dislike. Diversity is great. You just cannot expect to make a prime time hit show disappointing just about everybody watching for most of the show. These stars just need to be satisfied with their millions and forego the dubious claim that America loves them. We don’t. In fact most of us do not know who they are.
25
@Michael Blazin I work out in a university rec. center. I am 60 years old. The music being played is mostly my era's music. I want to tell those students, get your own music!!!
Interesting that the 2019 Grammy lifetime achievement awards goes to Black Sabbath and George Clinton / Parliament/Funkadelic among others.
It's well deserved since both groups are vitally important, influential bands releasing music that still holds up today, yet ignored by the Grammy establishment during their heyday.
So yes a nice gesture I suppose, but about 20 years too late.
8
If we're going to analyze race and fairness and representation, it would be interesting -- at this stage -- to analyze the nominees, winners, etc. What is the percentage of various "racial" categories (black, white, hispanic, asian, native, et al)... in the general population... And what is the percentage breakdown for each "racial" category in terms of nominees and winners.
Because frankly, this incessant obsession over 1-to-1 "fairness"... the push for apparent "mathematical" fairness at a symbolic awards show (versus real positive change for our African-American brothers and sisters)... It's getting old.
Can we please figure out what needs to happen and do it? If you, writer man, want an exact percentage breakdown along racial lines, please let us know what it is, and what will allow you to consider this issue more or less addressed... so we can move onto other less divisive things?
24
@Jay I agree, baby. The recent diversity demands in creative fields do not make any sense. Just like racial quotas, the idea leaves a bad taste. If pursued, diversity demands would place unqualified people into decision making ranks. It’s fashion and eye wash.
10
@Jay
Since there is only one biological DNA genetic evolutionary fit human race species that began in Africa 300,000 years ago it would be an ignorant stupid waste of time and effort to conduct the arithmetic that you propose.
Color aka race has everything to do with an evolutionary fit pigmented response to varying levels of solar radiation at altitudes and latitudes primarily related to producing Vitamin D and protecting genes from damaging mutations in ecologically isolated human populations.
1
The Grammys, the Oscars and the rest should be based on artistic merit not on the gender or race of the artist(s). And yet the producers of these award shows still wonder why their television ratings are dropping. Well, duh!!!!!!
4
@susan The ratings are dropping because many people dont see people that look like them on the show.
1
@Scott D Country music fans don't see anyone who looks like them, but that's probably not the group you care about...
1
@Scott D
I was on TV once. That was the only show I've ever watched that had someone who looked me.
I'll bet the NFL ratings would be better if the teams were made up of old, out of shape guys who drink beer.
3
Grammy is the only awards show I watch, getting long-form TV right while the others are soporific by comparison. The best is when a young pop star de jour who's made millions singing anodyne factory pulp turns out to be genuinely talented - who knew Gaga could sing with Tony Bennett (before she did the world's best-ever "Star Spangled Banner") or that Beyonce' can really do gospel music. And I wouldn't have ever seen or know I think well of Kendrick Lamar if it weren't for the Grammy Awards.
2
The Beatles have only 8 Grammy awards out of 25 nominations. This does not include the Lifetime Achievement Award they received in 2014. The Grammy voters have always been out of touch. Nothing has changed.
5
The Grammys have always had categories for nearly every kind of (commercial) music. Diversity has never been a big issue. The issue is their emphasis on commercial success rather than artistic quality and talent, and their disregard for art music (classical) because its a smaller segment. Getting nominations is a who-you-know kind of process, and likely involves many "favors." These are the problems with the Grammys. That, and a general lack of class. They bend over backwards to accommodate anything making money, but discount that which is not.
25
The following artists released their debut albums in 1967:
The Doors
Pink Floyd
The Grateful Dead
Dolly Parton
Sly And The Family Stone
Jefferson Airplane
David Bowie
The Velvet Underground
Janis Joplin (as Big Brother & The Holding Company)
Tammy Wynette
Traffic
The Grammy for Best New Artist went to Bobby Goldsboro.
76
@Charles, Goldsboro was a man of some talent but, in my opinion, nowhere near that of those you cite (even The Doors, about whom opinions will forever differ). You make the point exquisitely, which is why I will not tune in tonight.
3
@Charles excellent post. Thank you. It would be an article of immense interest if the writer did a similar review/comparison over a series of years.
3
@Charles
So what?
John Coltrane died July 17, 1967.
1
I think back to Esperanza Spalding winning Best New Artist a few years ago - thoroughly deserving - and finally jazz is recognised in the mainstream, but these movements to deliberately influence the result depending on gender? Just cancel the awards.
18
"Music-business strategists have long understood that a memorable prime-time performance pays off..."
Maybe in the old days (five years ago). The young people upon whose open wallets the industry relies are not likely to sit through even a portion of a network show these days. YouTube and Instagram are where the riches lie.
1
The Grammy's should get rid of all "best" connotations to categories and just be a showcase for the most innovative or popular music of the year.
1
It seems like musicians, performers, singers and the like (Oh, excuse me, "artists") are constantly giving themselves awards. I'm so tired of all the political agendas, identity politics, and moralizing. No wonder viewership is declining.
22
The Grammys are, and have been for a long time, a joke. Milli Vanilli got one (later rescinded because they were a fraud). Jethro Tull won the first Hard Rock/Metal Grammy over AC/DC, Metallica, and Janes Addiction.
The focus is on popular music, and many legendary artists from other genres and have been historically ignored. Sometimes they try to make up for those omissions with lifetime achievement awards, but it's clear they do not reward innovation. The Who first won in 1998. Led Zeppelin first won in 1999 (for Hall of Fame). The Cure has no Grammys, nor do New Order, Depeche Mode, or Velvet Underground. It's shameful, but at this point, I doubt those artists would see a Grammy as a dubious distinction.
If the Academy Awards operated on the same level, the Fast & Furious franchise would have netted several Oscars.
35
@Braden So true. I expect that Kate Bush, New Order, the Cure, Depeche Mode and so many other inspiring and pioneering artists would consider it almost an insult to win a Grammy now. They don't need this stamp of golden commerce.
I stopped watching this show years ago and would never watch it again. Why?
1
@Braden Yes there was a deception with Milli Vanilli but to their credit they put out a lot of telegenic fun and joy in their video performance, I think a major reason for their popularity. It was the handlers and producers that engineered the fraud but these two young kids paid a terrible price of vengeful public humiliation far in excess of the transgression that led to one of their deaths by overdose. With public cruelty over real, exaggerated and perceived transgression magnified exponentially by social media I think this tragic tale is worth reflection.
Hey... don’t discount Tull!