Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Awards, Part I
So, the Oscar nominations were announced today, giving me the perfect opportunity to discuss them a bit. But, before I delve into some of my opinions about the Oscars in general (I'd like to try to stay away from just "I liked this movie, I didn't like that movie", but it is kinda tempting), I want to express something about the Oscars vs. other awards shows.
Despite my clear fondness for some crappy television (see my post below about reality shows), I really have grown disgusted with awards shows lately. Most of them mean nothing. The sheer number of awards for music is astounding, but what's worse is that the music selected is always the lowest common denominator. For some reason, that doesn't seem to be the case with the Oscars. Say what you will about all the politicking (is there a "k" in there? does it matter?), but at least the movies that win Oscars are usually widely regarded as quality movies. At the very least, not many people dislike them, which is tough to claim about the recipients of music awards.
When talking about music awards, let's use the Grammys as an example. It's kind of sad, but they're usually regarded as the most prestigious. Stunning, I know, when compared to the People's Choice Awards, the Blockbuster Entertainment Awards, and the Billboard Music Awards. Let's look at the current nominees list for this year's awards, which occur on February 6th. Just take a gander. We have the White Stripes, Justin Timberlake, Evanescence, Missy Elliott, Eminem, Christina Aguilera, and Avril frickin' Lavigne. Did a goddamn 12-year old girl make these decisions? I'm not even saying that I don't like some of these artists. Some of their songs are very catchy. But let's look at what the Grammys claim to be all about:
"The recording industry's most prestigious award, the GRAMMY, is presented annually by the Recording Academy. A GRAMMY is awarded by the Recording Academy's voting membership to honor excellence in the recording arts and sciences. It is truly a peer honor, awarded by and to artists and technical professionals for artistic or technical achievement, not sales or chart positions (GRAMMY Awards Process)."
Not sales or chart positions? Really? Then please explain how Justin Timberlake appears on this list. You're telling me that he's one of the most talented musicians in the world? That his album is potentially the pinnacle of musical artistic achievement? No, clearly not. And, as much as you may like them, neither is Avril Lavigne, or Christina Aguilera, or any number of other nominees. Hell, those three can't even play instruments! So, let's just chalk this us to being one big lie. Thousands (not hundreds) of albums are released in a year. These are not the best, at least not on an musical basis. Sorry.
Some of these artists are breaking new ground and accomplishing interesting things. Eminem, for instance, no matter what you think of him, has clearly done something new and different. OutKast, as well. But, by and large, you could just turn on your local top 40 radio, pick out the first 10 songs you'd hear, and probably come up with just as qualified a group. So, why has it come to this? Well, because, I don't believe that you can come up with a list of the Best Albums of the Year and have it make sense. I could ask 100 different people their favorite album released in the last year, and I believe that I'd get 100 different answers. I could ask 100 different people for the most original album released in the last year, and I'd also get 100 different answers. BUT, if I asked them to limit their choices to ones that were at least gold records, or ones that were played on the top 40 radio stations, well, maybe I'd get some overlap. Especially if we're talking about radio, which has essentially become a place where creativity in music goes to die.
So, I don't believe that you can come up with objective criteria by which to judge music. But that's not a bad thing. It's only bad when you try to rank things objectively, which the Grammys do, and that's why the Grammys have become a complete farce. I believe that music is a deeply personal experience. It's somewhat indescribable that feeling you get when you hear a song you like, that somehow connects with you and sticks in your brain. Maybe it's a fun song that make you want to shake yo big funky ass. Maybe it's a nostalgic song that reminds you of a certain mood or a certain place. Maybe you have no idea why you like it, but you just do. And trying to compare and contrast the opinions, nay, the emotions of hundreds of people about thousands of albums, even if they are "music professionals" in order to come up with an overarching list of the "best" is just stupid. And that's why the Grammys are worthless.
What should be done instead? Well, I'm not sure. It seems that what happens is when you take the tastes of 200 million people and combine them and turn them into a poll (which essentially is what you're doing by eliminating those albums that don't sell well), you don't get the best and the brightest, you get the music that is the least offensive to the most people - the lamest common denominator.
Unfortunately, the people who vote can't really listen to every album put out in a year. It'd be nice if the Grammys, or some award show, tried to expose people to new music, though, much like how the Oscars usually result in a lot of people becoming aware of a movie they had never even considered before. Of course, the Grammys would first need some legitimacy. Maybe the should BAN any record that was gold or above. That might increase the quality a bit. And maybe the categories should change. Have something for everyone: "Best Nirvana Ripoff", "Best Talentless Teeny-bopper Fodder", "Best Creative Use Of Explicit Lyrics", "Lifetime Achievement In Misogyny", etc.
Well, that's a long enough post for now. Shortly, I'll discuss why the Oscars aren't necessarily similar.
Despite my clear fondness for some crappy television (see my post below about reality shows), I really have grown disgusted with awards shows lately. Most of them mean nothing. The sheer number of awards for music is astounding, but what's worse is that the music selected is always the lowest common denominator. For some reason, that doesn't seem to be the case with the Oscars. Say what you will about all the politicking (is there a "k" in there? does it matter?), but at least the movies that win Oscars are usually widely regarded as quality movies. At the very least, not many people dislike them, which is tough to claim about the recipients of music awards.
When talking about music awards, let's use the Grammys as an example. It's kind of sad, but they're usually regarded as the most prestigious. Stunning, I know, when compared to the People's Choice Awards, the Blockbuster Entertainment Awards, and the Billboard Music Awards. Let's look at the current nominees list for this year's awards, which occur on February 6th. Just take a gander. We have the White Stripes, Justin Timberlake, Evanescence, Missy Elliott, Eminem, Christina Aguilera, and Avril frickin' Lavigne. Did a goddamn 12-year old girl make these decisions? I'm not even saying that I don't like some of these artists. Some of their songs are very catchy. But let's look at what the Grammys claim to be all about:
"The recording industry's most prestigious award, the GRAMMY, is presented annually by the Recording Academy. A GRAMMY is awarded by the Recording Academy's voting membership to honor excellence in the recording arts and sciences. It is truly a peer honor, awarded by and to artists and technical professionals for artistic or technical achievement, not sales or chart positions (GRAMMY Awards Process)."
Not sales or chart positions? Really? Then please explain how Justin Timberlake appears on this list. You're telling me that he's one of the most talented musicians in the world? That his album is potentially the pinnacle of musical artistic achievement? No, clearly not. And, as much as you may like them, neither is Avril Lavigne, or Christina Aguilera, or any number of other nominees. Hell, those three can't even play instruments! So, let's just chalk this us to being one big lie. Thousands (not hundreds) of albums are released in a year. These are not the best, at least not on an musical basis. Sorry.
Some of these artists are breaking new ground and accomplishing interesting things. Eminem, for instance, no matter what you think of him, has clearly done something new and different. OutKast, as well. But, by and large, you could just turn on your local top 40 radio, pick out the first 10 songs you'd hear, and probably come up with just as qualified a group. So, why has it come to this? Well, because, I don't believe that you can come up with a list of the Best Albums of the Year and have it make sense. I could ask 100 different people their favorite album released in the last year, and I believe that I'd get 100 different answers. I could ask 100 different people for the most original album released in the last year, and I'd also get 100 different answers. BUT, if I asked them to limit their choices to ones that were at least gold records, or ones that were played on the top 40 radio stations, well, maybe I'd get some overlap. Especially if we're talking about radio, which has essentially become a place where creativity in music goes to die.
So, I don't believe that you can come up with objective criteria by which to judge music. But that's not a bad thing. It's only bad when you try to rank things objectively, which the Grammys do, and that's why the Grammys have become a complete farce. I believe that music is a deeply personal experience. It's somewhat indescribable that feeling you get when you hear a song you like, that somehow connects with you and sticks in your brain. Maybe it's a fun song that make you want to shake yo big funky ass. Maybe it's a nostalgic song that reminds you of a certain mood or a certain place. Maybe you have no idea why you like it, but you just do. And trying to compare and contrast the opinions, nay, the emotions of hundreds of people about thousands of albums, even if they are "music professionals" in order to come up with an overarching list of the "best" is just stupid. And that's why the Grammys are worthless.
What should be done instead? Well, I'm not sure. It seems that what happens is when you take the tastes of 200 million people and combine them and turn them into a poll (which essentially is what you're doing by eliminating those albums that don't sell well), you don't get the best and the brightest, you get the music that is the least offensive to the most people - the lamest common denominator.
Unfortunately, the people who vote can't really listen to every album put out in a year. It'd be nice if the Grammys, or some award show, tried to expose people to new music, though, much like how the Oscars usually result in a lot of people becoming aware of a movie they had never even considered before. Of course, the Grammys would first need some legitimacy. Maybe the should BAN any record that was gold or above. That might increase the quality a bit. And maybe the categories should change. Have something for everyone: "Best Nirvana Ripoff", "Best Talentless Teeny-bopper Fodder", "Best Creative Use Of Explicit Lyrics", "Lifetime Achievement In Misogyny", etc.
Well, that's a long enough post for now. Shortly, I'll discuss why the Oscars aren't necessarily similar.
Comments:
Post a Comment
