Sailing Down the Grammy Awards Toilet
Consider, if you will, a world where this year’s Oscars rewarded Captain America: Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy as the best movies, and the nominees – and perhaps even winners – for best acting categories were composed of performers like Chris Evans and Mark Wahlberg. You would think there’s something wrong, wouldn’t you? Not that there is anything particularly awful with them (I personally really enjoyed Guardians), but one can hardly say that Chris and Mark’s performances this year were worthy of the highest praise, enjoyable as they may have been. No, those honors should justly be reserved for an artistry on the level of Boyhood or Birdman, and their respective casts.
And yet, ladies and gentleman, it will perhaps come as no surprise to you that the Oscars’ musical equivalent (in fame anyway) constantly reserves its best prizes for popular, blockbuster musicians over anything of worth, or remotely close to talent. For example, do not forget the nominees for best record this year are Iggy Azalea, Sam Smith, Sia, Taylor Swift and Meghan Trainor… a list that might as well have been made by the random polling of Santa Monica sixteen year olds – instead of supposed experts. Well? Shouldn’t anyone at least point out (repeatedly, if possible) the Grammys’ absolute worthlessness in artistic matters, and campaign in ridding them of their undeserved and ridiculous reputation? A few have, but not nearly enough.
No, I don’t know either.
One does feel for the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS), their history being one of constant struggle between appealing to the masses ensuring its survival, and the tasteless, embittered industry folk who would in 1995 nominate the 3 Tenors live and reward Tony Bennett in the best album category. It quickly becomes clear that between these two evils actual art can only be but lost.
And lost it is: since then, the Grammys have become, if anything, a dictatorship of the proletariat fitted to society’s highest form of creation. A look at how the awards work reveals that a choice was made, after 1995 (incidentally), to favor the people and retain the public’s support, relegating the old guard back to the depths from whence they came… or at least somewhat closer to them (unfortunately things aren’t particularly explicit on the matter).
To join the voting class, one needs an application form and at least 6 credits on official music releases, in any form: from songwriter to technician. So far, no problem (though one has to wonder how an art director is expected to successfully rate musical ability, but we’ll skip that point). Complications arise when it becomes clear that academy members can choose nominees in fields that are far beyond their individual expertise – the final voting process allowing each the chance to cast their ballot in 24 categories. Yes, this is indeed all even before a general vote determines the winners. At least the reasons why popular stars are infinitely more likely to win in major competitions, and recognizable names are similarly favored in specific ones (think of Marley and reggae), need no further explanation. If you can’t see anything wrong with that, then you may need your cavities checked.
The changes brought on after 1995 added a ‘secret committee’ composed of unknown agents to make sure the voting process didn’t yield anything too catastrophic (like, you know, Tony Bennett). The idiocy here is, well, folded twice. While Complex’s Rob Kenner does make a valid argument (“they can’t do much worse” than voters), he forgets that the shadow council’s allegiance is not really with music, but rather with popularity. What NARAS wants out of the awards is money, and the only way to do that is to ensure that crowds tune in. The end result is thus the substitution of odd, tasteless and unpopular choices for odd, tasteless and popular ones. Perhaps the industry executives who started the Grammys and whose descendants are, for all I know, on that sinister committee would do well to revise their problem solving skills… unless music business’ natural cynicism dominates.
For the sake of contrast, let me offer a quick peek at the machinery behind our good friend Oscar’s relative success. Here, Academy Award nominees are chosen only by those members in the same field (my, what a marvelous idea!), and eventual winners by – potentially – every voter. In addition, the process of becoming a dignified Academy fellow is significantly harder for those with more technical jobs than it is for NARAS, as there the number of active years is used instead of just credits. This makes the entire Oscars voting pool count around 5000, while the Grammys’ are at 21000. Oh, and there are no secret committees in the former.
While of course the Academy Awards are themselves occasionally prone to sensational mistakes (looking at you, Argo), those are exceptions. Consider that, if you may, along with the realization that meanwhile the Grammys’ only exceptions are its good decisions (no need to disgrace the point with an example). So please, enough of this nonsense: music is an art too, and like every art its value is independent of popularity. Here Wilde must not be forgotten: “the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or dishonest tradesman.” Restated, in case there ever was any doubt: no, NARAS does not reward musicians.
I will be, in pompous protest, at the NY Philharmonic on the weekend of the awards, partly against the Grammy’s pointlessness, and partly because Rachmaninov is master over all that matters (and that’s including Birdman). I urge you to join in similar endeavors. Stay strong!