PDA

View Full Version : Grammys slammed as out of touch with pop


test

jobeterob
02-21-2011, 07:59 PM
STORY



Grammys slammed as out of touch with pop

21/02/2011 2:22:02 PM

CBC News
A U.S. record executive took out a full-page ad in the Sunday New York Times to challenge Grammy organizers as being out of touch with popular culture.


Steve Stoute, a 20-year veteran of the music business who managed hip-hop artist Nas, took the Grammys to task for snubbing artists such as Eminem and Justin Bieber who are genuine pop hitmakers.

"While these very artists that the public acknowledges as being worthy of their money and fandom are snubbed year after year at the Grammys, the awards show has absolutely no qualms in inviting these same artists to perform," he wrote in an open letter to the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, organizers of the Grammys.








"Interesting that the Grammys understands cultural relevance when it comes to using Eminem's, Kanye West's or Justin Bieber's name in the billing [but not when giving out awards]."

Canadian-born Bieber lost out in the breakthrough artist category to Seattle jazz singer Esperanza Spalding, while Eminem, despite 10 nominations, took home only two, neither of them high-profile awards.

However both artists performed for the Grammy broadcast, which drew 26 million viewers.

Stoute said the Grammys seems to have a "fundamental disrespect of cultural shifts as being viable and artistic."

This is particularly notable in hip hop being overlooked for major awards, he said, citing Eminem's The Marshall Mathers LP losing out in 2001 to Steely Dan and Kanye West's Graduation beaten in 2008 by Hancock's River: The Joni Letters.

"While there is no doubt in my mind of the artistic talents of Steely Dan or Herbie Hancock, we must acknowledge the massive cultural impact of Eminem and Kanye West and how their music is shaping, influencing and defining the voice of a generation," Stoute wrote in the full-page ad.

Bieber also failed to get his due, he asked. "How is it that Justin Bieber, an artist that defines what it means to be a modern artist, did not win best new artist? Again, his cultural impact and success are even more quantifiable if you factor in his YouTube and Vevo viewership - the fact that he was a talent born entirely of the digital age?"

Stoute said he was suspicious of the way Montreal's Arcade Fire was showcased at the 2011 Grammys, suggesting Grammy organizers may have known of the win in advance.

"As the show was coming to a close and just prior to presenting the award for album of the year, the band Arcade Fire performed Month of May - only to ... surprise ... win the category and, in a moment of sheer coincidence, happened to be prepared to perform Ready to Start."

"Does the Grammys intentionally use artists for their celebrity, popularity and cultural appeal when they already know the winners and then program a show against this expectation?" he asked.

Stoute is calling on all artists to pressure Grammy organizers to change the system to "truly reflect and truly acknowledge your art."

The Recording Academy has not commented on Stoute's criticism.

Doug-Morgan
02-21-2011, 08:39 PM
Is this something new? It's kind of like saying The New Vaudeville Band really deserved the Grammy in '67 as "Best Contemporary [[R&R) Recording".....the official title.....for "Winchester Cathedral". Next someone will tell me the R&RHoF nominating process is rigged......

smark21
02-21-2011, 08:44 PM
Of course what is the writer of the ad suggesting: that Grammys should only be awarded to the act that gets the most sales? Bieber should never have been nominated for Best New Artist and he only got the nomination because of sales. While the Grammys could do a better job with rewarding based on merit, it certainly shouldn't become the Billboard Awards, which is justifiably about sales, or the American Music Awards, which is based on sales and a popularity poll.

jobeterob
02-21-2011, 09:12 PM
Both of you make good points. The Billboard Awards reward sales; the American Music Awards reward popularity. God knows exactly what the Grammys reward~I guess they reward the artists who the Grammy members think should get it; sometimes it coincides with sales and popularity; sometimes it is "just the same old people again and again"; sometimes it's a total fuckup. These days they give awards in so many categories that the award almost becomes meaningless. And in the past, they have relatively few awards.

It is pretty hard to reward "merit" because merit is in the eye of the beholder; the few hundred Grammy members do their best to reward merit but their version and ours and the publics doesn't always match.

And the Grammys are regarded more highly than the RnRHoF, right??? There was a day when the American Music Awards were watched much more than the Grammys and more highly regarded, but I think those days are gone, right????

marv2
02-21-2011, 09:27 PM
The American Music Awards were NEVER more regarded than the Grammy Awards! At least not in the U.S.

boywonder
02-21-2011, 09:40 PM
I couldn't care less who gets backslapped for being culturally important, havin high-sales or for being flavour of the moment. I love soul music. The best soul music is from the sixties. It still sells. Its still relevant. People still love it, including everyone who was at my wedding, young and old alike. I'm obsessed and others are too. For those who aren't obsessed, well anyone Joe knows My Girl and all the greats. Is anyone going to be still listening, or is any new generations going to discover the music of Beiber, Eminem or the glorified cover artist Kanye West? Really? Take away the hype, the MTV skits, the marketing, the models they pay to appear in their videos and do you have anything of long-term value? Music that in twenty, thirty or fourty years time will have relevance to the next generation of music listeners? The answer, I believe, will be a big fat 'no'. I'm not saying the only music which is last will be sixties soul, many others have stood the test of time. For example, the Beatles [[and yes I know at the time many thought they were just a 'pop' group, but lets not compare the tat of the likes of Beiber to any Beatles record). Even Oasis have had a lasting impact on groups like Coldplay and as someone who teaches at Uni, even new generations are finding their music. I think part of this is that people use to write at least some songs which meant something to people or which they could relate to. I can relate to the love songs of Motown and the swagger of Stax. For every Revolution 9, the Beatles had a Let it Be, and for every Rock N Roll Star, Oasis had songs like Masterplan. When music is written about your ego as an individual [[as most Kany West or Eminem lyrics are), what do people relate to? And while Beiber can sing about love or whatever [[I'm guessing he does, I do not know much about him to be honest), I'm not going to relate to a wet behind the ears kid. Maybe Im too cynical. Im surely not yet too old [[still on the right side of 30!) Modern music is irrelevant to me. Its tiresome, boring and soulless. I find solice in Motown, Stax, Atco, Chess, Brunswick, Vee Jay, King and all the other great labels. I don't need to hear these new artists because it souds like a watering down of the music I truly love. I know things are subjective, but I think I have made the point. None of this music today is relevant to me, and I don't think it will be to future generations. That includes the one's who win Grammy awards and those who don't.

soulster
02-21-2011, 10:00 PM
Bingo!

This year, there were a LOT of good contenders, and the best ones didn't always win. But, that's always been the case. I mean did he expect Beiber to sweep every single category he was nominated for? Such crazy expectations! Spread the love! That's what happened this year. A lot of people won something. And, it isn't a popularity contest. The Grammy's are about excellence. Leave the popular/fan vote to the AMA.

If someone wants to argue about how the best pop songs/artists didn't win, just take a look at Cee Lo Green! Do you know that it's been almost six months and "F**k You" is still on iTunes top 10? And I mean both the explicit and clean versions! Katy Perry now has a fourth single from her "Teenage Dream" album on the top 10. Eminem did pretty well, as usual, though.

Of course, all the old guys here are happy their kind of music won...

selbmarsh2000
02-21-2011, 10:10 PM
Out of touch w/ pop culture? Good!

tsull1
02-22-2011, 07:26 PM
Donny Osmond wasn't nominated for a grammy when he was a teen idol, why should Bieber be? And Osmond [[who may have received a nomination for a recent smooth jazz album) has tons more talent than Bieber. If it's only about album sales, where's Lou Bega?

arrr&bee
02-23-2011, 03:46 PM
i couldn't care less who gets backslapped for being culturally important, havin high-sales or for being flavour of the moment. I love soul music. The best soul music is from the sixties. It still sells. Its still relevant. People still love it, including everyone who was at my wedding, young and old alike. I'm obsessed and others are too. For those who aren't obsessed, well anyone joe knows my girl and all the greats. Is anyone going to be still listening, or is any new generations going to discover the music of beiber, eminem or the glorified cover artist kanye west? Really? Take away the hype, the mtv skits, the marketing, the models they pay to appear in their videos and do you have anything of long-term value? Music that in twenty, thirty or fourty years time will have relevance to the next generation of music listeners? The answer, i believe, will be a big fat 'no'. I'm not saying the only music which is last will be sixties soul, many others have stood the test of time. For example, the beatles [[and yes i know at the time many thought they were just a 'pop' group, but lets not compare the tat of the likes of beiber to any beatles record). Even oasis have had a lasting impact on groups like coldplay and as someone who teaches at uni, even new generations are finding their music. I think part of this is that people use to write at least some songs which meant something to people or which they could relate to. I can relate to the love songs of motown and the swagger of stax. For every revolution 9, the beatles had a let it be, and for every rock n roll star, oasis had songs like masterplan. When music is written about your ego as an individual [[as most kany west or eminem lyrics are), what do people relate to? And while beiber can sing about love or whatever [[i'm guessing he does, i do not know much about him to be honest), i'm not going to relate to a wet behind the ears kid. Maybe im too cynical. Im surely not yet too old [[still on the right side of 30!) modern music is irrelevant to me. Its tiresome, boring and soulless. I find solice in motown, stax, atco, chess, brunswick, vee jay, king and all the other great labels. I don't need to hear these new artists because it souds like a watering down of the music i truly love. I know things are subjective, but i think i have made the point. None of this music today is relevant to me, and i don't think it will be to future generations. That includes the one's who win grammy awards and those who don't.i'm sending you a case of my best hooch,i haven't watched the grammys since[1968].