Grammy Awards
The usual "the Grammys don't matter" snark was all over the place last week. Most of it similar to what we hear when people say the Rock Hall is inconsequential.
But the Grammys do matter and always will to many of the people who win. I concede that getting to perform on the show is just as important. There is still a sizable chunk of people who only follow a certain genre that will get to see a variety of acts.
There is also that thing about getting a sales bump. I don't have hard data, but know from past headlines that most winners and performers get one.
Still, it's only the musical cynic that still believes that artists don't want to win an award, or get into the Rock Hall.
The Grammy voters have made some questionable decisions. But it's that age old showbiz word "exposure" that's the key with it and other musical awards shows. Reaching a larger pool of the public that don't buy many albums anymore.
The newest trend at the Grammys are the collaborations. So you get Chicago with Robin Thicke. Metallica with Lang Lang. Madonna on "Same Love". But too much means too much time wasted. The show almost it the 4 hour mark and foolishly cut off a Trent Reznor & Co. finale that was just picking up steam.
With its resurgence, the Grammy people don't when to stop or cut the fat. But in the age of DVR's it doesn't matter anyway, as you can skip through the dull parts.
And people are tuning in. 28 million this year which is the 2nd highest total since 1993. With its high ratings last year as well, its possible that the Grammys are becoming critic-proof when it comes to its telecast. Much like the Oscars. The public is going to tune in no matter what.
But put on a great, flawless show. Like the Oscars, the Grammys may never get there either.
But the Grammys do matter and always will to many of the people who win. I concede that getting to perform on the show is just as important. There is still a sizable chunk of people who only follow a certain genre that will get to see a variety of acts.
There is also that thing about getting a sales bump. I don't have hard data, but know from past headlines that most winners and performers get one.
Still, it's only the musical cynic that still believes that artists don't want to win an award, or get into the Rock Hall.
The Grammy voters have made some questionable decisions. But it's that age old showbiz word "exposure" that's the key with it and other musical awards shows. Reaching a larger pool of the public that don't buy many albums anymore.
The newest trend at the Grammys are the collaborations. So you get Chicago with Robin Thicke. Metallica with Lang Lang. Madonna on "Same Love". But too much means too much time wasted. The show almost it the 4 hour mark and foolishly cut off a Trent Reznor & Co. finale that was just picking up steam.
With its resurgence, the Grammy people don't when to stop or cut the fat. But in the age of DVR's it doesn't matter anyway, as you can skip through the dull parts.
And people are tuning in. 28 million this year which is the 2nd highest total since 1993. With its high ratings last year as well, its possible that the Grammys are becoming critic-proof when it comes to its telecast. Much like the Oscars. The public is going to tune in no matter what.
But put on a great, flawless show. Like the Oscars, the Grammys may never get there either.
posted by Tom Lane at 7:38 AM
