The Grammy's Still Suck
 I wasn't going to get into this, but enough people asked me for my thoughts on last night's Grammy Awards that I'll just go ahead and rant here a little.
Frankly, the Grammy's are next to worthless. Before you ask, no, I didn't really watch it. I meant to not watch any of it, but I was flipping channels and I caught the beginning of Coldplay's performance. Being a big fan, I watched that and thought they were outstanding.
Why did I not watch the rest? Because I'd already read the list of nominees. As usual, many of the nominations are complete jokes. "Complicated" by Avril Lavigne up for Best Song? Huh?? Best Song for who? Twelve year old girls with bad taste in music? Nellyville for Album of the Year? Yes, we want "Hot in Herre" to go down in history as one of the great songs of all time. Please. Avril up for Best New Artist? Am I the only one who recognizes she doesn't remotely resemble the definition of "artist"? "How You Remind Me" by Nickleback up for Record of the Year? Catchy song, but again, twenty years from now do we want to be explaining to our children or granchildren how THAT was the best this generation could come up with?
My point is, there are plenty of much more worthy songs, albums, and true artists that could have been represented both in the nominations and on the show. To prove my point, eight "artists" were nominated FORTY times! Are you convinced that last year's music scene was dominated by just eight people? And I'll admit to not owning the Norah Jones album, but was it so absolutely spectacular that nothing else compared and she had to sweep every category she was in? That's a major gripe I have with the Grammy's (and the Oscars, for that matter). Seems like every year some band or "artist" just rakes in the awards as if nobody else that year really mattered. Santana a couple of years ago. Lauryn Hill a few years back. Hell, Eric Clapton won six Grammy's ten years ago today. Yet Wilco's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot topped many critics' lists for top album of last year, but I didn't see it nominated for jack. That album is truly outstanding, and if you don't own it, run out and get it. But still every year, the Grammy's try to shove down our throats that one group or artist just dominated that year and no one else was worth rewarding. Fortunately for Norah Jones, she just happens to be the flavor of the month. Hope she enjoys her fifteen minutes.
And for the love of all that is good in the world, get rid of the "Best Alternative" categories. The term "alternative" lost all meaning years ago.
But maybe my standards are just too high for the Grammy's. After all, this is the awards show that a few years back gave the best Metal Performance award to Jethro Tull rather than Metallica. For those of you clueless in musical history, Jethro Tull features a flute player. Heavy Metal, it ain't. If the voters couldn't get that one right (and the voters don't change much each year), do you expect their knowledge or taste to be much different today?
So congratulations Norah Jones, I guess. Maybe your career will now take off like Lauryn Hill's has.
Oops.
8:41:57 PM  |
|
|
![Subscribe to "[ random acts of alex ]" in Radio UserLand.](http://radio.weblogs.com/0117496/images/xmlCoffeeCup.gif){kind=small}
It's Monday, so that means the highlight of your day is sure to be 
