I didn’t watch the Grammies this year, but there’s something I find interesting that isn’t about the ceremony proper: namely, the interplay between the ongoing commercialism of the event, even compared to other awards, and the noted emphasis this year on “realism” and “seriousness” in the awards given. The Grammies are always a striking contrast to the Oscars. Whatever one’s gripes about the Academy Awards, they do not simply award big box office. Action films are routinely overlooked, and even when they have the requisite literary credentials and directorial ability (like LOTR), they get snubbed. As A.O. Scott noted a few weeks back, Hollywood seems content at present to divide its efforts between blockbusters and prestige pics. Oscars are both the reward and raison d’etre for the latter. Nothing comparable can be seen in the record industry. Yes, some labels keep multimillion-dollar contracts for past-prime talent that seems unlikely to pull a profit any time soon (Mariah Carey, Paul McCartney, Michael Jackson, Robbie Williams, the list goes on), but these artists are well-paid when they’re no longer critical favorites and have lapsed into self-parody. That’s why I look with some suspicion at talk of a new, serious Grammies. Even if industry voters clearly show a preference for traditional musicianship, a lack of frivolity, and even socially relevance, it’s impossible to imagine them granting a major prize to an act whose Soundscan numbers aren’t in the millions.
And as far as I can see, journalistic critics have little role in shaping the prestige market for popular music. Nor, despite the labels’ attempt to market Grammy winners, does an award seem to boost sales in the way an Oscar breathes boxoffice life into a film.
No comments have been added to this post yet.