Grammy: How it Sees the Universe

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I was just looking over a history of Grammy winners -- for Best Record and Best Album -- and two key turning points jumped out at me. Here are the record / album winners for the following years:

65: Stan Getz / Stan Getz
66: Herb Alpert / Frank Sinatra
67: Frank Sinatra / Frank Sinatra
68: The Fifth Dimension / The Beatles
69: Simon and Garfunkel / Glenn Campbell

If we assume the Academy to basically seek out the ultimate conventions of the American songwriting lineage -- starting in the Cole Porter or Irving Berlin sense and finding its most elaborate expression in those crooning or orchestral mid-60s pieces -- then 68 marks the point at which they "switched over," except switched over to precisely those representatives of "new styles" who slotted best into the critical thinking of the old styles (e.g. Simon and Garfunkel). Another way of putting this is that the Grammys were and are still completely rockist about a songwriting lineage that entirely predates rock.

The other turning point I see comes around 1974, which is when the Academy realized they could give Grammys to black people (signalling an unprecedented bonanaza for Stevie Wonder and Roberta Flack).

To quote the email I just sent (sorry): "Nu-soul, then, is basically one of the only types of music *left* wherein young people give any credit whatsoever to this old-school Virtuoso-Songcraft view of music that the Academy is built around -- without nu-soul we would eventually watch Grammy performances that consisted of 90-year-olds with grand pianos and acoustic guitars, with a bunch of scowling youngsters just waiting around to run up and collect their marginal-genre awards. . . . The Academy still thinks like it's 1974, which is exactly why they give awards to people who just *wish* it were."

It will be easier for me to figure out if I really mean this if you tell me what you think.

― Nitsuh, Thursday, 28 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

My intent, by the way, isn't the knock the particular lineage that the Grammys adhere to, only to note (a) how clearly and rigidly their decisions seem to adhere to it, and (b) how it progressively drags them toward obsolescence and forces them to basically grasp at straws (e.g. Alicia Keyes) to avoid admitting that their particular rockism is ill-suited for dealing with the current musical landscape.

― Nitsuh, Thursday, 28 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Except that this year in the "country" categories you had to sound like an old string band or bluegrass, otherwise you didn't rate, and you're punished for taking in the rock and pop tradition. (You might argue that this is just another variation on rockist, of course.)

― Frank Kogan, Thursday, 28 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The Grammy has absolutely no credibility whatsoever... it's become a marketing tool to boost sagging sales. They said the show was extended to three and a half hours because of all the performers that 'agreed' to perform... of course they 'agreed' to perform, it's a big fucking prime time commercial for a glossy, flaccid industry. Boo!

― Andy, Thursday, 28 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

if the grammies has no credibility whatever, why are sales boosted? (if they are)

― mark s, Thursday, 28 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The Fifth Dimension won a Grammy? That's fucked up.

― adam, Thursday, 28 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Well, Ravi Shankar, Billie Holiday, They Might Be Giants and Richard Pryor all won Grammys this year.

― A Nairn, Thursday, 28 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

But Nairn, I think those would all fall into the marginal-genres Nitsuh mentions (except perhaps Billie; I didn't watch it so I don't know for sure). I think what he's concerned with is the mainstream, Album/Artist winners. The model Grammy citizens who show all the other stragglers the true path.

― Xerxes, Thursday, 28 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

damn they were good years...

so where do steely dan last year and james taylor this year fit in? and did anyone realsie lionel ritchie was nominated this year? now that's scarieer than bono's jacket.

― Queen G, Thursday, 28 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

...except when you consider that Lionel Richie's Can't Slow Down won album of the year in 1984--you know, the BEST YEAR FOR POP MUSIC EVER. (and I even like that record, but COME ON!)

― M Matos, Friday, 1 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Outrageous!

― Kris, Friday, 1 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

ARGH. The memories, the memories!

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 1 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Ah Ned, in the year 2025 we'll fondly think back when Bono was kissing Britney Spears' hand while Lenny Kravitz won a Grammy. ;-)

― helenfordsdale, Friday, 1 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Can't Slow Down = best gatefold sleeve EVER

― Tracer Hand, Saturday, 2 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You know, I can't even remember what the hell the gatefold was. I remember the gatefold for the first solo album, ol' Lionel smokily looking at the camera...

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 2 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

TMBG got a grammy? Does this mean they a finally got the respect they deserve or does it mean they are officially no longer relevant?

― Lord Custos, Saturday, 2 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

nine years pass...

Less Grammy Awards next time. Here's their explanation of the changes:

http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/announcement/explanation-for-category-restructuring

― curmudgeon, Thursday, 7 April 2011 15:13 (fifteen years ago)

30 less categories and Male, female, and group awards for R&B performance have been merged

― curmudgeon, Thursday, 7 April 2011 15:14 (fifteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.