|
Each year the professionals in the record industry decide
to honor its own with awards for the artists who made the best
music of the year. This is a decision that should not be premised
on record sales or popularity but based on the merits of the
music made by the artists. This award is suppose to be the music
industry's equivalent to the movie industry's Oscar awards. As
everyone knows "The Austin Powers" films are extremely
popular, but Mike Myers was not nominated for Actor of the Year.
However, for some reason the winners of the Grammy Awards,
the American Music Awards, and the Billboard Music Awards are
usually the same artists. The artist that sells the most records
during a given year will walk away with the lion's share of awards.
This is fine for the American Music Awards and the Billboard
Awards, since both award shows are marketed as a popularity contests.
But et tu, Grammies?
The Grammies have a selection committee of highbrow smart
asses who sit around and decide that "I Want It That Way"
(The Backstreet Boys) should be one of the five or six nominated
for Song of the Year. Why do you need a committee to decide what
Billboard Magazine and the American Music Awards has already
decided?
Selling a lot of records has little to do with the quality
of the music and a lot more to do with the quality/quantity of
the marketing and promotion that went into the record. If you
want to give an award to the Backstreet Boys (among others),
do it right; give the award to their management team and the
marketing and promotion departments of their record label. But
please don't insult my intelligence by equating record sells
with quality music, because they are not the same.
In the record industry, the Grammy Committee (or *RIAA) has
been given some authority to decide which records are the best
records during a given year. However, the RIAA has shirked its
responsibility and has decided to let the inmates run the asylum.
This has reduced the Grammies to yet another popularity contest
and not a means of exposing the public at large (the inmates)
to something other than what it has already digested.
I'm not saying that what is popular is never of high quality.
(Stevie Wonder's Songs in the Key of Life is an excellent
example of this.) In regards to the Grammies, however, this is
a coincidence that happens far too frequently.
I've listed a few things (in the sidebar) that would have
convinced of the Grammies' integrity. Things like these (in this
list) would have shown me that the Grammy Awards are truly about
trying to discern which records released in a given year were
of the highest quality. We may not all agree on the choices,
but at least we would feel like the selection committee did more
than pick up a copy of Billboard and watch MTV's countdown
of the best videos of the year.
Just once I would love to see the Grammies dominated by an
obscure artist. The Grammy Committee of industry luminaries should
be looking under rocks to find who they think are truly the best
quality artists. They are the experts, they have the best resources
to do so.
Now I know that the economic pressure of putting on a prime
time show demands that the most popular artists appear to ensure
a favorable TV rating share. And while this cannot be overlooked,
it still makes a hypocrisy out of the Grammies and all that the
award is suppose to stand for.
*Recording Industry Association of America |
