 |
| Dumb Ass of the Week |
If you would like to read the letter in it's full form without my comments (that way you can form your own thoughts) go here.
In this Sunday's New York Times, I have purchased a full-page ad as an open letter to Neil Portnow, NARAS and the Grammy Awards. Here's why.
It's estimated that the add cost $40,000 to run. Wonder if Steve is trying to make a name for himself, I've never fucking heard of him before.
Over the course of my 20-year history as an executive in the music business and as the owner of a firm that specializes in in-culture advertising, I have come to the conclusion that the Grammy Awards have clearly lost touch with contemporary popular culture. Where have you been Steve, they never had a firm grip on contemporary pop culture, probably cause many of them are older and pop culture is constantly changing. My being a music fan has left me with an even greater and deeper sense of dismay – so much so that I feel compelled to write this letter. Where I think that the Grammys fail stems from two key sources: (1) over-zealousness to produce a popular show that is at odds with its own system of voting and (2) fundamental disrespect of cultural shifts as being viable and artistic.
The performances have little to do with the voting idiot, besides the fact that they showcase nominees. While they may miss out on showing new cultural shifts (electro's never gotten any love) it's often hard to identify and celebrate new art forms as they begin and grow to fruition. No one knows the true grandeur or impact of an art form until some time has passed and we can look back on it's influences. Though slow at times, the Grammys have acknowledged more and more developing prominent forms of music. Probably the reason the number of categories has swelled to cover 109 categories.
As an institution that celebrates artistic works of musicians, singers, songwriters, producers and technical specialists, we have come to expect that the Grammys upholds all of the values that reflect the very best in music that is born from our culture. No one expects this. Unfortunately, the awards show has become a series of hypocrisies and contradictions, leaving me to question why any contemporary popular artist would even participate. Hmmm, how about exposure to a wide audience on national TV. Coverage of the even before and after in magazines, blogs, newspapers, etc. with your name attached. Think before you writ. How is it possible that in 2001 The Marshall Mathers LP – an album by Eminem that ushered in the Bob Dylan of our time Wow, did you really just say Eminem is the Bob Dylan of our time? I don't even know where to begin in explaining how fucking retarded that statement is. Obviously you know very little about Mr. Dylan, his music, his impact, or his cultural relevancy in the 60s and now.– was beaten out by Steely Dan (no disrespect) for Album Of The Year? While we cannot solely utilize album sales as the barometer, this was certainly not the case. Not only is Eminem the best-selling artist of the last decade, but The Marshall Mathers LP was a critical and commercial success that sold over 10 million albums in the United States (19 million worldwide), while Steely Dan sold less than 10% of that amount and came and went as quietly as a church mouse. Though you said "no disrespect" you are in fact insulting Steely Dan. Apparently Eminem has the better album because he sold more copies. That's your whole argument here, Eminem sold more copies that year and later in his career, so he should win Best Album. I thought you cared about art and appreciating musicianship, but you talk like a fucking record executive and only care about $$$$$$$$$$$.Or consider even that in 2008 at the 50th Annual Grammy Awards, after going into the night as the most-nominated artist, Kanye West’s Graduation was beaten out for Album Of The Year by Herbie Hancock’s River: The Joni Letters. (This was the first time in 43 years that a jazz album won this category.) 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. So the award should reflect which artist is the most popular in the "pop" culture world that year. Somebody call Vanilla Ice we owe him a Grammy apparently, better get Billy Ray Cyrus on the phone too since he did have the best selling album of 1992. Sounds like you want a popularity contest, no an award show that awards great contributions to music. Oh no, a fucking Jazz record won Album of the Year over Mr. Kanye West, boo hoo. What would it have changed if Kanye would have won instead of Herbie? Kanye's ego gets a little bigger, and he can think he made the best album that year (ya right), and a great album gets pushed aside to recognize a more popular one.It is this same cultural impact that acknowledged the commercial and critical success of Michael Jackson’s Thriller in 1984. Nice to see your giving props to the Grammys for getting one year right.
Just so that I’m not showing partiality to hip-hop artists (although it would be an entirely different letter as to how hip-hop music has been totally diminished as an art form by this organization), Lol, yep the Grammys never recognize hip-hop as an artform. Maybe you should take a look at the nominees again in several of the most prized awards, I think you'll see hip-hop is pretty well represented. how is it that Justin Bieber, an artist that defines what it means to be a modern artist Wow, while I'm sure the tweens have your back on this statement, I really don't think Justin in any way represents what it means to be a modern artist. I guess from an executive position he might, he's cute, can dance, earns you guys lots of money, but has he really added anything special or new to our culture musically? Nope., 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 whose story was crafted in the most humble method of being “discovered” purely for his singing ability (and it should be noted that Justin Bieber plays piano and guitar, as evidenced on his early viral videos). Bieber should win because he got popular using a modern day medium, has a cute story, and oh ya, he can play the piano. What the fuck does that have to do with his musical contribution, isn't that the point of the award, to honor great music. I don't think it's to sell out awards to this year's teen throb, or should we go back in time and make sure David Cassidy gets his Grammy gold. He had hit records too, and was also on the cover of Rolling Stone Magazine.
So 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. Its a win for them commercially whether they win or not fuckface, don't you know anything about marketing. At first I thought that you were not paying attention to the fact that the mental complexion of the world is becoming tanned, that multiculturalism and poly-ethnicity are driving new meaning as to what is culturally relevant Smart and snobbish way of saying that the Grammys are racist. Fuck off dude, I seem to remember a fair number of darker toned individuals at 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 to ensure viewership and to deliver the all-too-important ratings for its advertisers. I don't know why you keep mentioning Kanye West, he wasn't there because his new record was released outside of the Grammy calendar for consideration, he'll probably have a number of nominations next year. Again, this artist were all nominated and benefited from being their (look at the Billboard charts this week and you'll see who the real winners were; since all you seem to care about is record sales).
What truly inspired the writing of this letter was that this most recent show fed my suspicions. 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.” Arcade Fire had no idea they were going to win, super obvious if you watch the show. They too figured one of the big name less talented (just my opinion) stars would win. They decided to perform cause their musicians and that's what they do, they were prepared only in the sense that their equipment was still on stage from the last song. Normally the Grammys do not end on a performance, and his years ran a little long because of Acade Fire's reaction. Maybe you can say that the Grammys knew they were going to win (duh it's their show of course they know going in who already won) and had Arcade Fire perform last so they could perform again, but I really doubt it man.
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? Do artist, agents, record executives use the Grammys to promote their industry, products, and performers to garnish interest and sales? Yes.Meanwhile the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences hides behind the “peer” voting system to escape culpability for not even rethinking its approach. Umm...how exactly are they hiding behind their voting system? Is is because they can be like "oh Bieber lost, well don't blame us blame the voters", if so then ya aren't they suppose to? Or would you rather they altered results so bigger names could win awards? Seems to be what you're implying here.
And I imagine that next year there will be another televised super-close-up of an astonished front-runner as they come to the realization before a national audience... that he or she was used. Utter nonsense. Oh no the Grammys are disrespecting millionaire performing artist for letting them perform hit songs on live TV, and than not saying their the best with little awards. Cry me a fucking river.
You are being called to task at this very moment, NARAS. By some nut-job trying to use this incident to promote himself. Please respond with a full page add in the New York Times saying "fuck off Steve". Or be smarter than
And to all of the artists that attend the Grammys: Stop accepting the invitation to be the upset of the year and demand that this body upholds its mission for advocacy and support of artistry as culture evolves. You should re-phrase this because you're not actually talking to all the artist, you're actually only talking to a select few artist; those who sell millions of records and are recognized the world over by individuals who might never have heard a song by them. You're talking to Beiber, Kanye, Jay-Z, and Eminem, not Arcade Fire, The Black Keys, Lady Antebellum, and the grand majority of artist nominated. By 'culture', he only means popular.
Demand that they change this system and truly reflect and truly acknowledge your art. Demand the New York Times not publish the work of idiots.
So that's Stevey's letter, and as you proably can tell I disagree with him strongly. He's right only on the lowest point, the Grammys do make mistakes and they can look foolish somtimes on the artist they choose for certain awards. But how can they possibly ever get it right, its a single organization trying to award musical accomplishments across the board in so many different categories and styles. People are always going to disagree and criticize because music is ultimately just one's own personal opinion. To me Eminem can't hold a candle to Bob Dylan, but to others he may be the most profound lyricist ever. Everyone gets unhappy with the Grammys to some extend metal fans, rap fans, indie fans, pop fans, but we should recognize that they're can be no real Best Album of the Year, and instead so the Grammys as a night to celebrate great music, see great performances, and honor some of the year's best (a nomination in some cases as worthy as the gold itself). We shouldn't want what Steve wants, another MTV music awards ceremony where the most popular acts get all the recognition. I'm not saying that being Eminem or Lady Ga Ga doesn't mean that you aren't talented, but it also certainly doesn't mean you're the most talented either. Besides these mega artist have so many great things going for them, should they really even care that a little known Jazz singer beat one of them for Best New Artist? I don't think so.
If you want to read more about Steve and his moronic ideas go here, or if you want to read an article from Spin Magazine's rap critic saying the Grammys are racist go here.
No comments:
Post a Comment