Want to Be Heard During the Grammys? Maybe Stay Home

Recall the Style section article about John Lyndon (Johnny Rotten) from September where he was quoted: At concerts, “Row 1 to 30 would be Johnny Rotten imitators,” he said. “I thought, ‘This is going horribly wrong.’ I wasn’t doing this to create a new uniform that wasn’t any way near as good as what the Nazis had.”.... “That’s where punk and me separated,” he continued. “Punk wanted to maintain the cliché and the uniformity that it didn’t deserve. And I wanted to do new and different things, which is, to my mind, what punk is all about: Do it yourself, which means be true to yourself.”.... Punk, he said, became a “caricature,” rap a “perfect backdrop to sell a pair of sneakers.” That same sentiment sums up what was bad about the Grammys. Sure there were a few great new pieces, but so many (rap, country, and rock) are repeats of what has already been said and done. How many songs do we need to hear about how tough, cool and/or sexy you are, how difficult your life has been or how much your truck and tequila-drinking friends mean to you? Sure, I get it. The same things need to be said by each new generation, but at least try to do it in a new way; so many songs have already been done hundreds of times in the same style with the same beat and/or similar chord progressions. It's tiring.

Ugh. There are so many of these ‘pat on the back’ awards for the wealthy and already lucky performers. Enough. Suggest the advertisers put the $$ towards music and arts education. Maybe then the listening public will learn to APPRECIATE MUSIC and not just high (school) drama. Save that need for reality TV.

The Grammys are no longer relevant. Award shows are no longer relevant. We used to watch to see the stars come out. The stars are all over social media we don’t need to watch tv to see them. Lastly the stars usually lecture us about some politcrap if I wanted to watch that I would tune into CNN MSNBC or Fox.

I've read a number of people praising the fact that so many women performed. And yes, it was fabulous. But when I read about multiple male performers having turned down invitations to perform, am I the only one wondering if all those women would have performed at all if the men hadn't turned down the slots? Because they wouldn't have had time for all of them. Was it dominated by women only because so many men turned down invites?

The Grammys use music as an excuse to host what is actually a popularity contest galavanting as a music awards ceremony. Where in this article does it discuss the depth or sincerity of the music these people make? Honestly, the description of the Grammys in this article makes it seem like a high school event with everyone fawning over how they will look and how popular they will be perceived before, during, and after. It’s more important for the vast majority of major-label pop stars to use the existence of the Grammy’s to sell more records in a quest not for musical discovery or invention but for more money and followers on social media. It’s a superficial music-making that Capitalism helped create and that many artists, in a blind quest for money and popularity, have made worse. I applaud those artists who don’t participate in such an ostentatiously hubristic event.

My father, rest his soul, would have been absolutely floored to know, let alone see, these 'entertainers' and not just one of them, dancing atop grand piano's. And, sadly, I'd have to agree with him. The growing levels of flagrant, unabashed pretension that dominate these 'award' shows has become, for me anyway, a real nuisance. Much much too over-produced for my taste. The same pretty much goes for television as a whole. Far too many shows lacking the old Columbo or down to earth back- drop of real people. Instead we're bombarded with too much glitz and shine and pancake made-up females. It's a sad place in television right now.

ALL awards shows need to have ALL nominees submit a "gratitude list" of names and companies that can be turned into a scroll at the bottom of the screen. If they win, the scroll will start playing as they walk up to the stage and continue as they speak. This way, the winners can focus on speaking in the moment from the heart and not off a list; written or memorized. Problem solved. You're welcome.

If their mission is to promote current music, then why were there endless tributes to Dolly Parton and Motown. If it's an award show, why do they cut the winners speaking from the heart, and give a tribute to the very man who got all the women angry last year. If it's an awards show, why do they give away so few on the show, and so many off camera. They just sabotage themselves in every way, not only making the best artists angry, but the fans and TV audience, too.

I'm over the Grammys. The political posturing is wearing. I still don't understand why the former first lady was on stage.

I recorded this, even though I don't usually watch. I was annoyed that Drake was cut off. It's an authentic moment from this artist being honored, and I wanted to hear him continue his thought (which was a thought, not a rambling of endless miscellaneous names.) I used to watch it every year growing up, and was dying to hear from the people I loved in a real moment and see them perform live. I agree with the article that it's ridiculous to cut off the people the ceremony is supposed to honor. (at least when they are under a few minutes and actually making a point of some kind.)

If the Grammys was any representation of the current state of pop music, the state is dismal.

I am no fan of rap or hip-hop. But my generation's parents hated rock, their parents hated Sinatra, and so on. Our kids will hate our grandchildren's music. And on and on. Just as rock dominated the Grammys decades ago and rap & hip-hop dominate now, in the future a new music form will arise, and the "older" generation will find it to be boring, offensive and/or primitive.

This is network television which lost its ability to innovate years ago, especially when it comes to awards shows (actually, just about any show). By the time the networks catch up the culture has moved on and what's left of the culture are clinging to their half-hour nightly news and signing up for the pharma prescriptions that monopolize its advertising. I'd just as soon scrub award shows altogether or maybe use the Publishers Clearing House model and ring the doorbells of the winners when they're at home and surprise them with their award.

I didn't bother to watch or care because I had never heard of or knew of the nominees and winners. Additionally I have never considered rap to be music. To me monotonous voices, obscene poetry, programmed drumming and bass licks played repetitively is just noise. I would only put it on if I had to mask out my neighbors leaf blowers and ongoing construction noise.

Stay home and don't watch.

And Drake was spot on.

Very good take, Caramanica, can't gainsay a word. I semi-boycotted the ceremony by not actually watching it and now I'm sorry.

I was a voting member at one time of both NARAS and LARAS Grammy Awards. I dropped out when it became painfully obvious that this is little more than a glorified popularity contest based on name recognition, blatant self promotion and "buzz." The Grammy Awards should be a celebration of excellence, but judging music, unlike athletic events, is subjective, not objective. That's why the lowest common denominator pop culture "values" dominate. Congrats to those who won awards, but let's be honest about how they got there.

I was delighted to see actual change and unpredictability this year. They may have politically overcompensated more than a little, but this article makes the point that awards are about honor and dignity a little more than they are about representation. If representation is what is wanted the listeners are finding that out for themselves every day.