Friday, February 08, 2008

The Grammys Stink

Anyone who knows me well, knows that I generally don't like the awards shows - Oscars, Emmys, Grammys, VMAs etc.

There are lots of reasons, but one of the biggest is that it's rare when artists I feel are truly deserving are even nominated, much less do they ever win.

Then I see the latest big winners go through their choreographed dance steps while lip syncing their latest lite beer commercial (thanks to Tom Petty for THAT line) and it just makes me angry and then I have to scream at the TV and things go downhill from there.

This year the big question isn't who is going to win but who is going to be able to get sprung from jail or rehab to pick up their awards. Yawn. Please give some more deserving artists the kudos, please. Oh well, the whole music industry is going to hell and this fraternal glad-handling is part of the reason. Whatever.

My buddy from the Floydian Slips sent me this really funny overview of why The Grammys are so wrong. It's classic! Give it a read here.


VoxMoose said...

I agree that the Grammy's are easy to ignore. The most popular and heavily advertised categories are usually full of the latest boring fluff. However, there are a LOT of categories -- and I think you may be surprised at who gets nominated. For example, our old buddy King Diamond was given a nod this year (!!??).

If you are looking for a minor distraction, check out my recent rambling blog entry on Rush' Grammy nomination for Malignant Narcissism, a piece off of this year’s Snakes and Arrows album. This is their 5th nomination. They've never won, and I suspect, sadly, that trend will continue.

Isorski said...

Wow, I totally missed that post. How could I miss that one?

I think it's great, except you have gotta be kidding about Metallica not being metal. I read somewhere that Zeppelin and Sabbath invented metal but Metallica perfected it and I have to agree.

I know compared to the Ozzfest era death metal bands, Metallica is tame. But you can't get around it - they're metal dude!

And Tull, as much a I love them (and especially Crest of A Nave) should NOT have won that Grammy. Maybe the award for the most rocking flautist, but best Metal band? No way. If they were going to go there, why not Maiden or Priest, who are much more metal than Tull? Snubbed! But at least a cool band won something! I will give you that.

Let's hope Rush takes it this year!

Barbara said...

That was great - I linked to it (and you) too. Funny but SAD at the same time!

Dr. John said...

I too was suprised at some of the folks that got nominated for Grammy awards: Porcupine Tree, Rush, King Diamond, Heaven and Hell (a.k.a. Dio era Sabbath), Tool, to name a few. The whole concept though is one big love fest between the music industry and the mass media that tell us what we should listen to, and generally turns me off.

VoxMoose said...

I will fully admit, Isorski, that Metallica is metal (somewhat Metal-lite compared to King Diamond and Slayer). But what would the blosphere be without a little hyperbole? :)

I won't deny that the Tull win in '88 was pretty unpopular, but the category was Hard Rock/Heavy Metal, not just metal. Also, people forget it was the first time heavy metal had even been mentioned at the Grammy's. I know I'm not holding a popular position here, but I still believe it was Metallica who was the odd man out. I also liked it because it violated that love-fest mentality Dr. John mentioned between the mass media and the music industry.

In fact, I'm starting to believe I'm the only one on the planet who still thinks the Tull win made some sense (and that includes members of Jethro Tull). Prior to that, U2 was the heaviest band to have won a Grammy in the Hard Rock category with Yes, The Police, and The Eagles right behind. Tull is certainly more in line with that trend than Metallica.

I don't want to sound like I'm defending the Grammy's here. But I view the Grammy's like I view any awards ceremony. Most of it will be bogus, and some of it will be honest, but it is all subjective. Much of it is driven by music business politics, but some of it is a real nod to legitimate accomplishments.

Isorski said...

Well spoken, Voxmoose. Dr John, I actually had no idea those killer artists were nominated. Probably in categories they run through during the commercial breaks, but what the heck - still cool. Thanks for chiming in!

Dr. John said...

You're welcome, Isorski. You can see the entire nominee list at
Porcupine Tree got nominated for best surroud sound album (I would LOVE to hear FOABP in 5.1)
Rush for rock instrumental (as well as Joe Satriani, Steve Vai, and Metallica, but I bet Bruce Springsteen, the other nominee, wins it)
King Diamond for best heavy metal (along with Slayer, Shadows Fall, Machine Head, and As I Lay Dying)
Tool ("The Pot" from 10,000 Days)
for best hard rock performance (as well as Ozzy and Foo Fighters).

I agree, though, that these will NOT be televised (though seeing Rush perform "Mal Nar" would be just flippin' AWESOME!). Wonder if there is some online way to watch these categories get awarded? Would be nice to have a running scroll at the bottom of the screen like they do on ESPN with all the winners...

harmolodic said...

"Oh yeah, the Grammys..." That's pretty much how I react to it these days. But I have to say, I'm rooting for Herbie Hancock for album of the year, and not just because "River: The Joni Letters" was also my own pick for best album of the year. I'm glad he was nominated, though I doubt he'll win. I rooted for Diana Krall when she got the same nomination 2 or three years ago or whenever that was. They gotta give it to a jazz cat one of these days!

judakris said...

Watching The Grammys has been ritualized in the sense that I just keep doing it without really knowing why.
I was really happy to see on the list that Flight of the Conchords won best comedy album. Those guys do a mean David Bowie.