Do you know where the term Grammy comes from?
From Wikipedia:
A Grammy Award (originally called Gramophone Award) – or Grammy – is an accolade by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences of the United States to recognize outstanding achievement in the music industry. The annual presentation ceremony features performances by prominent artists, and some of the awards of more popular interest are presented in a widely viewed televised ceremony. It is the music equivalent to the Emmy Awards for television, the Tony Awards for stage performances, and the Academy Awards for motion pictures.
My husband and I have regularly watched the Grammys – going back to when we were dating long-distance. We watched in real time & texted about what we saw, who we enjoyed, who gave a disappointing performances & who shouldn’t have been there at all. It became a kind of tradition. We were newlyweds the first time we watched the Grammys in the same room, and enjoyed all the same banter in person this time. The performances were so lacking that year, the hubs (an audio professional, who has done everything from installation & troubleshooting/repair all the way to running live musical events) started identifying the microphones the ‘artists’ were using as a reason to continue watching. He posted an interesting one on Facebook & got such a reaction, he continued posting throughout the telecast. Being a trained musician & a former choral music teacher, it should no surprise that every year, I got Facebook posts, texts or emails from friends & former students asking for my take on different Grammy performances. Eventually, I just started posting those observations on Facebook as well. It’s become part of our tradition, and other than the hubs’ SIL saying that she had to turn off our Facebook notifications so she could sleep, we haven’t heard much negative backlash about it.
Until last night.
I saw a multitude of people posting things like: ‘I’m getting tired of all this Grammy crap in my newsfeed.’ ‘This is ridiculous – I’m not watching the Grammys and I don’t care’ or even people posting videos of ‘real music’ – operatic icons like Maria Callas & Joan Sutherland – and urging us to remember where our pop music came from or to watch real news. I don’t believe that the posting we saw last night during the Grammys differed much from the sports related posts we see any given Sunday (and now, Monday & Thursday, too), or during other award shows, like Oscars or Golden Globes, especially as cameo performances & musical acts continue to permeate those events.
While you will never hear me dogging Maria Callas, the parallel surprised me a bit. Music, like culture, evolves. And if last night’s presentation was indicative of the direction of our culture, perhaps we should take a closer look at that.
One comment particularly stung. I posted the following after Daft Punk won their 2nd (televised) Grammy & accepted the award in total silence:
I don’t care for Daft Punk. I think that Get Lucky isn’t a good song. The lyrics are unimaginative & the vocals aren’t anything impressive. It’s repetitive & tacky.
But not nearly as tacky as Daft Punk winning 2 Grammy awards and not even so much as signing “Thank you.”
Please don’t think I’m morally opposed to songs about sex; I have no fundamental problem with that. But at least do so in a way that shows artistry, musicality or even a little creativity. Take a page from Marvin Gaye’s book here – that’s all I’m saying.
The comment that got me was the first:
I’m starting to notice you don’t care much for any of them.
Ouch.
Before I responded, I thought about all the posts I had made on Facebook that night – and it’s true that at least half of them were negative. We all know that Facebook likes to display things with lots of likes & comments ad nauseam. People love snarky criticism (or at least most of my friends do) and snark draws comments. Honestly, it’s safe to assume that of the posts this friend had seen, it may have come across that way. I didn’t take offense to it. Instead, I explained myself a bit:
There were a lot of solid performers who were nominated who didn’t get the chance to perform.
P!nk, Taylor Swift, Sara Bareilles & Carole King, Blake Shelton & the Highwaymen, John Legend all did a good job (and I posted about most of them – they just didn’t get as many comments, so Facebook’s news algorithm isn’t showing those…).
Several people liked my explanation & it didn’t bother me any more.
But then it did.
I’m a music lover – anyone who knows me knows this. Did I really come off as someone who didn’t like anything that was lauded as ‘the best of the industry’? Lots of my friends & former colleagues in the music profession, people whose opinions I value, were right there with me, wondering why someone was rapping about tater tots on a night that was supposed to represent the best the industry has to offer. Then I realized something: the Grammy presentation isn’t about the music industry – it’s about the spectacle that will bring ratings, appeal to the masses & get people talking. Their goal isn’t purely about music. When we award spectacle for spectacle’s sake, that’s when I get critical.
There has been a lot of criticism directed at the Grammys over the years – by lots of artists, including winners. Of all the critical comments I found about the Grammys, Maynard James Keenan, lead singer of Tool, said it best in 2002:
I think the Grammys are nothing more than some gigantic promotional machine for the music industry. They cater to a low intellect and they feed the masses. They don’t honor the arts or the artist for what he created. It’s the music business celebrating itself. That’s basically what it’s all about.
While not everyone would think the front man for TOOL would be an expert on artistry, he makes a bold statement. While I never really got into their music, read a few lines of their lyrics and you’ll quickly see – these guys have something to say, even if you don’t like their medium for communicating it.
What we see in the telecast isn’t what the Grammys should really be about. The telecast itself has changed the direction of the entire institution. I don’t think everyone has forgotten why they are part of NARAS – the Grammy winning record is currently held by Georg Solti, an accomplished orchestral and operatic conductor and the most Grammy recognized female is Alison Krauss, who’s resin dust I’m not worthy to sweep up at the end of a recording session. But those awards aren’t shown anymore. No one sees the nominees for so many worthy categories. Why, in a 4 hour telecast, is the only classical musician invited to perform has to do so with Metallica? Sidenote: I like Metallica (and I liked last night’s performance, particularly the fist-bumping that happened on-stage afterwards). If you don’t like Metallica and prefer classical music, go to the library and rent Metallica’s S&M DVD, done in collaboration with the San Fransisco Symphony Orchestra. AMAZING.
Why are classical musicians only recognized when they can jam it out with other types of music?
I used to enjoy the Grammys when there was a glimpse of other genres than pop, rap & country (somewhat) represented. The Grammys used to give me new artists to learn about, new sounds to explore and sparked interest in genres I didn’t previously enjoy. Those glimpses that used to widen viewers’ horizons are gone, washed away in a nearly-4-hour spectacle that I couldn’t even finish in one sitting. The Grammys, as televised, don’t celebrate music anymore. They celebrate spectacle.
If you don’t believe me, guess how many of the 82 awards were presented on the live telecast. This play-at-home scorecard only estimates 12 will be presented live – and I believe one of those (Darius Rucker’s win for “Wagon Wheel”) was presented at the end of the un-televised portion, which we caught the end of via the Grammy app.
If you want to win me as an audience member, you’ve got to make your awards show about what the name of your organization implies – music. Show me performances that show artistry, talent, solid song-writing. Showcase artists who have consistently proven they can perform a song & tell a story, those artists who have something to say, something to express, not just those with the most scandalous costumes, best choreography & most-likely-to-physically-harm-someone pyrotechnics. Stop with the lip syncing & real-time auto-tuning. (TI: you get a pass on this one – auto-tuning is your whole schtick and I won’t rob you of that.) If you can’t perform live at the Grammys, you shouldn’t be there.
Before you start hating on me for that – think about this: there have always been performers who do all of the above, including the dance routines & the pyro. I give you Michael Jackson, Madonna, Lady Gaga, P!nk. The difference between these artists and the ‘artist’ who was pole-dancing on a broom during an unintelligible rap interlude last night is when you peel all the costuming, set pieces, choreography & make-up away, artists like those I named are telling a story – are singing in their own voices – are playing instruments – are contributing something musical to the world. They are using spectacle as the vehicle to get their music and message out there and noticed.
Our culture thrives on spectacle and as long as that’s the case, the Grammys will continue to serve only as that.
If you don’t want that to be the musical culture you live in, I have one piece of advice: vote with your credit card. Or your iTunes account. Or your patronage of a local music store. Expand your horizons, find musicians who are doing the things you like & support them. That’s the best way to ensure they’ll keep making music that will stand up to the test of time.
I’m pretty sure we all don’t want to listen to robots forever.
Donita Westman 