i thought these promo posters for the grammies were shameful. they highlight how far music awards have moved from rewarding talent and artistry on its own merit to capatilizing on popularity. taylor, gaga and beyonce represent the 3 most popular music artists of the past year. when did the grammies become the billboard music awards?!?!? there was a time when there was a vast difference between the two. not to mention that with the exception of gaga, the work of the other 2 ladies is artistically mediocre, at best. and even gaga's dazzling pop album, is lyrically superficial and shallow. the grammies, were once an instiutution that artists who produced quality work could get recognized even if they didn't have a slew of endorsement deals.
lol well the definition of pop music is to be "popular", hence the name. i do agree that these artists have been awarded in part for their commercial success. however, i don't think that the Grammy Awards have suddenly shifted. The Grammy Awards telecast has always leaned toward what is popular. "good" music is relative to the listener. i for one don't love taylor swift but she has a huge following and has made a mark on country music. as for Gaga's lyrical content, pop is pop. We should let it be. 70s disco, 80s hair bands, and 90s house music were HARDLY deep. as for beyonce, she has proven her place in pop. she is no flash in the pan with no talent. i don't expect her to sweep this show, despite her staggering amount of nominations. but she is a fixture in the industry. she has won both commercial and critical acclaim. the notable music organizations (ASCAP, Billboard, NARAS, etc) have been recognizing her talent for almost a decade now. her success is no fluke. if people take issue with her it should be due to personal preference, but her talent and industry shrewdness can not be dismissed. awards shows are not the sole defining moment in an artist's career and the credibility has not shifted only recently. Milli Vanilli even won a Grammy. They are partly based on recognition of talent but also recognition of commercial success. Artists should be a blend of both. After all, it is the music "business".
the grammies aren't a "pop music" awars show and i am aware of the definition of pop. i agree with much of what you state, however your comments don't address the concerns i raised. i stand by my comments. i never claimed beyonce was void of talent :-) furthermore, the entire music industry has shifted, so why would the grammies not be affected?!? the grammies telecast has NOT always leaned towards the popular. that is inaccurate. i can provide several examples to support this, but you surely can look it up for yourself. the grammies are nominated and voted on by members of an academy. they don't reflect record sales or chart status, such as the billboard awards. this is not to say that a commerically successful album can't and doesn't win a grammy (such as michael's thriller). of course, all art is relative to the listener...but if we go to far down that road, george, then one must question how anything so subjective can be rated and judged to begin with.....my ORIGINAL point restated: it appears that the grammies are making a calculated and concerted effort through their advertising (i.e. these posters) and marketing to capitalize on the POPULARITY of a handle of recornding artists to sell their show and make money. this is troubling to me, as it should be to you.
i do agree that the Grammys have shifted. there are very specific reasons for which beyoncé won six grammys last night, not entirely based on her talent. "shameful" may be a stretch. grammy voters are swayed in the same way that Academy Award voters are. many times the choices are political or based on favoritism. jennifer hudson's performance in Dreamgirls was rewarded not because she was the best actress in the category. she was fresh, new, and at the center of a cinderella story. the same thing goes for taylor swift. the music world has shifted dramatically toward image and marketing since the 90s explosion of booming voices, organic talents, and power ballads. however, it's not the first time. the 80s were a very superficial decade, carried by emerging music videos and artists with images. madonna, much like gaga, capitalized on her image rather than talent. of course i do find her to be talented, but other talented artists such as michael and janet were boosted by images. michael's glove had as much to do with his fame as his voice. one could argue that artists of these days don't back up the image with talent but that is relative. stars with real talent such as norah jones, herbie hancock, and amy winehouse have been rewarded recently by the grammys. it's not only about the glitz. we are in an image driven era. i do agree that music is subjective as any art is. it becomes complicated when we try to measure the success of artists. but i also stand by what i said. music is about personal preference. each generation feels like the following generation produces something that isn't as great as what came before. music goes in trends and cycles. soul of the 60s and 70s led to the image driven disco and 80s which again led to rich talent of late 80s then the 90s. now we have image driven again. the "real" music will come back. in the meantime, invest in some earplugs. :)
i chuckle every time your pull this "generational" card......first, im younger than you and second, this isn't an old versus young argument. i'm not saying that madonna is better than gaga (i'm also not saying madonna is not better)....what i'm saying is that 15 years ago, madonna would have NEVER been nominated for 8 grammies in an evening. nor would mariah carey, janet jackson or prince. the grammies THEN made a clear statement by in essence shutting out these "image-driven" pop phenoms, that their criteria for honoring artists was rooted in something different. they aimed to create a platform, where lesser known, image-handicapped artists could be recognized for their contributions to the industry and the world. A platform where the hairography, sequins and dazzle didn't over-shadow the talent, craft and message of legitimate musicians. The posters the grammy organization went with in 2010, show a completely different attitude.
Post a Comment