Note: I wrote this blog post one week ago, but because I have been having computer issues, I haven't been able to access the draft. Regardless, I think it's a pretty informative post. Enjoy.If you were anywhere within the proximity of any social media network on Sunday night, then you already know most of the details about the 52nd Annual Grammy Awards. Luckily for you, I'm not writing this blog post to recap any of the night's events, because frankly, I didn't tune in.
It should come as no surprise to you if you read this blog and understand my taste in music that I do not have a favorable opinion of the Grammy Awards. While I certainly support the idea of honoring the musical accomplishments of bands and artists, I don't think that the process that has been in place for the past 52 years has accurately recognized some of the biggest achievements within the music industry. The Grammy committee seems to be almost completely out of touch. While some of their nominations may be on point, most of them seem to be justified based only on the name of the artist or group or album sales. These shouldn't be the factors that define musical accomplishment. Proven artists don't always produce quality albums, and just because an album makes a lot of money doesn't necessarily make it a musical accomplishment. The Grammy Awards should reward musicianship and musical innovation, and not just hand out statues to the flavors of the week.
To prove how inaccurately the Grammy Awards reflect the accomplishments of the music industry, I've done some research and assembled three jaw-dropping facts that I believe serve as the strongest exhibits to my case.
1. Until Sunday night, Neil Young had never won a Grammy Award
You've got to be kidding me! When I saw someone tweet this while I wasn't watching the awards show, I immediately looked into it and confirmed this seemingly unbelievable fact. Neil Young has not only composed some songwriting masterpieces, he has written several albums that are worthy of the Grammy committee's recognition, or at least more worthy than some of the garbage they have deemed worthy as of late.As if that weren't bad enough, I've compiled a list of legendary bands and artists who have NEVER WON a Grammy Award. Prepare to have your mind blown:
- Bob Marley
- Diana Ross
- The Supremes
- The Who
- The Doors
- Jimi Hendrix
- Led Zeppelin
- Buddy Holly
- David Bowie (Won a Lifetime Achievement Award, but no Grammy)
- Queen
- The Four Tops
- Grateful Dead
- Janis Joplin
- Lynyrd Skynyrd
Disgusted yet? How about this fact:
2. Michael Jackson's "Thriller" won 8 out of 12 Grammy nominations, whereas U2's "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb" won 9 out of 9 nominations
Usually, when you do a comparison of Grammy wins between two albums separated by a time-span of 20 years, one could usually make the argument that the Grammy Committee has been consistently adding new categories over the years, so newer albums might look more successful. However, because Michael Jackson's legendary "Thriller" album actually received 12 nominations as compared to the 9 nominations given to U2's mediocre effort "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb," that argument is essentially null and void..png)
I don't think there is any plausible argument that could be made that "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb" is a better album than "Thriller", yet the Grammy Awards have deemed it so by awarding 9 out of 9 Grammy nominations to the Irish lads for a piece that is a long way away from their best work, though certainly not their worst. By awarding an album 9 out of 9 Grammy Awards, you are essentially deeming it flawless and making a statement that no other album in the field could surpass it's greatness in any sense. It's like having a perfect QB rating or getting a perfect score in any judged Olympic event: it's just something that should happen unless it is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, and in this case, it's far from the truth. Don't get me wrong, "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb" isn't a terrible album by any stretch of the imagination, but the Grammy Awards have made it stand out as a beacon of achievement for the music industry, and that is something that it is not. "Thriller" should be that beacon! "Thriller" deserves that perfect score!
This fact serves as a prime example of how far the Grammy Awards have been willing to reach in present years in order to justify musical achievement out of mediocrity. What's worse is that while the Grammy committee tries to manufacture false achievement, they seem to completely ignore the true achievement produced by independent artists, secluding these artists to one sole category, "Best Alternative Album." What does that even mean? How do you define "alternative?"
The final fact that I will present should make you wonder, "Was the Grammy Committee even trying?"
3. Lenny Kravitz won the Grammy Award for Best Male Rock Vocal Performance Four Years in a Row (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002)
I'm completely serious. Go ahead, open up a new tab in your browser and take a look if you don't believe me. I wasn't even sure if Lenny Kravitz had released four singles within those four years. Apparently, he did, and according to the Grammy committee, they were all pure gold. One of these singles, "American Woman" was a COVER of a Guess Who classic.
I just can't see how one single artist could win this category for four years in a row, unless somehow all of the other nominees got sex changes and were technically disqualified. Let's take a look at a list of some of the other nominees so we can officially rule out that possibility.
- Jeff Buckley
- John Fogerty
- John Mellencamp
- John Hiatt
- Chris Cornell
- Everlast
- Bruce Springsteen
- Tom Waits
- Ryan Adams
- Eric Clapton
- Bob Dylan
Wow, so, Lenny Kravitz produced rock vocal performances that were so consistently spectacular, that none of these incredible artists were able to respectively compare for four years? I think not.
As usual, I'd like for the reader to draw their own conclusions based on the data and facts I have presented. I'm not so naive to think that my opinions and presentation of facts will convince everyone that the Grammy Awards are irrelevant, but I'd like to think that some people will take a second look into their history and draw their own conclusions.
