Category | Op Ed

The Grammy Awards: Still irrelevant

Published on February 9, 2010 by Matt Nix

In the world of self-congratulatory, indulgent awards shows, there is no award show more self-congratulatory and indulgent than the Grammys.

Whatever credibility and grandeur the awards had in previous years has been lost to the creeping realization that the old business model of the music industry is slowly going obsolete like typewriters and ska music.

In this brave new world of iTunes, YouTube and social networking, unsigned artists now have access to many of the same resources and exposure once reserved only to major labels.

The Grammy Awards now stand alone as the last remaining vestige of a once-great empire, a time long past when radio reigned supreme, and if we really wanted to be exposed to anything besides what we were force fed through MTV or the airwaves, we would be required to make a trip to Little Five Points and scour through the indie record store.

In the wake of new media, the Grammys now resemble a collection of dinosaurs gathering in one room, dousing themselves in glitter and naively trying to convince themselves that they’re still relevant while Lil Wayne sings about dropping the world on our heads. Frankly, I think the future looks grim.

You can’t tell me with an ounce of conviction that Taylor Swift crafted the best album of the year. I’m not sure she even made the best album of the week, let alone month. “Fearless” was the epitome of safe radio twang-pop, easily marketable to persuadable teenagers who needed a soundtrack when their tenth grade boyfriend dumped them for the cheerleading captain.

How did “Fearless” challenge worldviews or the musical establishment? What was its message? How did it redefine a genre? Even fellow nominees Dave Matthews Band would’ve been more deserving of that recognition, and that isn’t saying much.

On another note, how was Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” the song of the year? Shockingly, it was written by four different people, which is apparently what it takes to craft a tune that repeats “If you like it, then you should’ve put a ring on it!” 400 times in a row.
So goes the Grammy awards, because in reality, the last thing it recognizes is artistic merit. The awards ceremony is a vehicle that bases success off big media visibility and sales, the latter of which is becoming less and less attainable for big labels.

Taylor Swift was crowned the darling of the music industry this year with no help from Kanye West, and there will undoubtedly be another darling of the music industry emerging next year. With no intention of sounding conspiratorial, these poster children are marketed, packaged and carefully assembled via a team of top-notch producers and songwriters for your easily digestible listening pleasure. Consider these prepackaged radio stars to be the musical equivalent of candy: easily digestible, tastes good, but does absolutely nothing to satisfy you on a long term basis. Challenge yourself-there is amazing music out there.
What happens to the status of ‘celebrity’ when this metaphorical ship finally hits the proverbial iceberg? Big labels can’t sustain themselves forever-especially when more and more independent artists are making a name for themselves without any aid from them whatsoever.

The culture of YouTube has single-handedly demolished the very schematics of music marketing. In its wake, maybe we’ll eventually see less glitzy award shows and more displays of what music is really about-passion and raw expression. The music industry can keep the Grammy Awards. If I want to award a band, I’ll do something rare in these days-I’ll actually buy their album.