1. The Academy Gives Out Too Few Awards During The Broadcast
Up until this year, there were 109 categories in the Grammy Awards. This year’s rule change that combined
Adele holding her six Grammys. Too bad we only got to see her win three of them.
male and female vocal performance awards (and even group performances in some categories) has whittled the awards down to a mere 78 categories. Now, I’ll agree that 109 — and even 78 — awards are too many to give out in one prime time evening, but the Academy and CBS have taken it too far and give out too few awards during the broadcast these days.
Over the last several years, the Grammy Awards have focused more on performances and commercials (it’s high time for a sponsor to pony up for “limited commercial interruption” on an awards show) and less on actual awards. The result: viewers witness a dozen or fewer award presentations.
The Academy has traditionally had to give out the majority of the awards prior to the actual broadcast, because even the most hardcore fans don’t care to see awards like Best Polka Album, Best Spoken Word Album (past winners include Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama — twice) and Best Surround Sound Album. But there are other awards worth giving out on the show that most people never get to see.
The producers of the show used to include quick announcements and screen crawls listing the winners from the pre-broadcast ceremony — until last year. Those who cared about the other awards had to break out the laptop or smartphone to keep up. Of course, I guess that gives us something to do when Neil Portnow comes out to speak.
I counted a measly nine awards on this year’s Grammy broadcast, compared with 18 performances and production numbers. If NARAS and CBS really cared, they’d give out more awards — after all, it’s the Grammy AWARDS show, and I can’t help but imagine that the actual awards are what plenty of viewers want to see.
The 2012 Grammys gave us everything that’s right and wrong about the awards broadcast every year. There were special moments that will live on for a long time — like Adele’s triumphant return to singing, Jennifer Hudson’s heartrending memorial to Whitney Houston, and Paul McCartney’s lovely performance with an orchestra. On the other hand, the bad moments were more prevalent — like Nicki Minaj’s head-scratching melisma, Bruce Springsteen appearing to pass a kidney stone during the opening number, and McCartney doing no justice to his own “Golden Slumbers” medley from Abbey Road.
The Recording Academy hypes the Grammy as “the most prestigious and only peer-recognized award in music.” As long as the Grammy broadcast centers on a party vibe, its class quotient decreases. It’s time the Academy started putting its money where its mouth is and focusing on the prestige and the honor of the awards show itself. Save the overblown theatrics and celebrity preening for the lesser awards — all of it would fit perfectly on MTV or the People’s Choice Awards.
Categories: Music, PJ Lifestyle Columns, Television
Tags: Adele, Arcade Fire, Aretha Franklin, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Blake Shelton, Bon Iver, Bruce Springsteen, CBS, Cee-Lo Green, Chris Brown, David Guetta, Deadmau5, Elton John, Foo Fighters, Foster The People, Glen Campbell, Grammy Awards, Green Day, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Hudson, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Jimmy Carter, Joss Stone, Justin Bieber, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, LL Cool J, Maroon 5, Neil Patrick Harris, Neil Portnow, Nicki Minaj, Patricia Arquette, Paul McCartney, Pauley Perrette, Sly Stone, Steven Tyler, Taraji P. Henson, The Band Perry, The Beach Boys, Usher, Whitney Houston, will.i.am
Prestige and honor? I love how the Simpsons skewered that aspect when Homer won an album for best Barbershop album, and then couldn’t even give his award away. “Oh, it’s a GRAMMY …”
The only reason to watch the Grammys is the same reason for watching NASCAR. The crash and burn, baby, the crash and burn.
I think the Grammys are good at picking nominees and winners compared to the Oscars. If you look at past Grammy winners and nominees, they actually makes sense and the music still holds up today and are actually important works that have had a long time impact on the music scene. Somehow the Grammys are good at weeding out the hyped acts. On the other hand if I look at past Oscar winners, It’s mostly a big WTF, why did this win?
If you follow the link above to the “Best Spoken Word Album” and check out the past winners, you find a lot of Democrat politicians (Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Obama twice, Jimmy Carter, and general leftists like Al Franken, Jon Stewart, Michael J. Fox, Maya Angelou). I dare you to find someone from the center-to-right of the aisle. Another award that is a giveaway to friends of Hollywood.
Wait… William Shatner didnt take it every year? Blasphemy!!!
I stopped watching the Grammys, the Emmys, the whole bunch of them years ago. Just a bunch of left wingers getting up and patting each others back.
Exactly. A total bore-fest. Yawn.
Blogging and/or sleep is a far better use for my time.
I never understood why we bothered paying attention to the Oscars and Emmys. You would think that watching the movies and shows that would be award enough for actors. But, apparently we have to make sure that their fragile little egos are stroked even more by presenting them awards and a grandiose ceremony that treats them like royalty.
Then of course, we throw a parade for people who win at playing a child’s game, but don’t throw one for men and women coming home from battle.
I don’t watch these award shows at all. THe awardees are not people I care to even acknowledge let alone celebrate. Their accomplishments are really little better than nothing.
I think we should have an award show for decorated soldiers–now that would be significant.
I think it was interesting that someone that just stands up there and sings, and doesn’t rely on an elaborately staged production with dancers, pyrotecnics, costumes, etc, won the most awards. And did it without offending anyone, to boot!
Quit watching Grammys years ago as the majority of contemporary “artists” stink. No memorable tunes, no clever lyrics, performers who look the same and perform the same tasteless moves. Bleech!
The grammar of music is not present in these productions;it’s all theater.Not much real music;rather lack luster performances;not very good writing…not much to talk about…..unless your a sexy thing.
Set the Wayback Machine to 1989. Jethro Tull wins Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance.
That was all I needed to pretty much discount them for all future awards. Sort of like the Nobel Peace Prize after Arafat got it in 94.
However, there may still be some redeeming qualities. Apparently I’m more of a hermit than I realized as of late, not having heard of Adele before. (I’m not the last….there’s still one hermit hiding in Alaska’s interior). Started Youtube searching, starting with “Rolling in the Deep”. I have to admit, I’m impressed. I don’t think I’ve heard a female vocalist that strong since early Aretha Franklin or Katie Webster. I was a bit less impressed with the small selection that I checked out after that, but the strength of “Deep” showed me what she could do with a strong backing band.
One thing that bugs the heck out of me is that all the videos seem to be of her from odd angles or wearing dark clothes on a black background. I guess they still don’t think that a non-scrawny woman can be attractive. More fools them.
Maybe you need an intervention to help you stop watching. I use to watch them back when Stevie Wonder would win them all. But I stopped the year Elvis Costello did not win best new artist. Of course, over the years Costello has proven to be a duch-bag elitist. Boogie-oogie-oogie, indeed.