By Alex MayfieldLet us face the fact that I am not what most would call a fan of the Grammy Awards. I feel that it perpetuates a lack of musicality while ignoring the musicians who really deserve to be awarded. The musicians that start off their career with the only goal of winning a Grammy are tainting music and what it should be. Music is an art form that allows people to express themselves and inspire others…sorry for the cliché. We look back at music from the past and enjoy it. Zeppelin, Count Basie, Beatles, Elton John, etc… this is music we still listen to that reminds us how great the past was. I have a hard time believing that the future is going to look back at 2009 and look at Lady GaGa and say, “That is the greatest music of all time.” Even besides that, I have other issues with the Grammy Awards. I know, what else could there be? Well, I will tell you.
Now, I am not going to talk about who won and who should of won, because we already know that 21st Century Breakdown by Green Day is a piece of trash anyways. (Rock album of the year, my ass!) Disregarding th
at, my issue lies in the eligibility of what can be awarded. For example, Kings of Leon released their latest album, Only by the Night, in August of 2008 (Which is not nearly as good as Because of the Times, but received much more consideration for awards). "Use Somebody," a track from Only by the Night, received several nominations and awards for the year 2009. Really now? At least the Oscars can get movies that were actually released in the year they are giving awards in. After researching the criteria for eligibility, I found that a song has to only be popular in the year, disregarding the year released. Am I the only one that has an issue with that? Slumdog Millionaire won best motion picture soundtrack of 2009. The album was released in November of 2008. And there are plenty others that fall into this same category. Now, I really dislike the Grammy Awards even more so than before. So, if someone wins an oscar, congratulations to them because they most likely deserve it. However, when you win a Grammy, you have been awarded nothing meaningful.
If you want real music, go to the $5 shows at local venues and watch people play music who get nothing for it. Go see the street musicians who play because they love playing. Go see 4 best friends who look like they would rather play a concert every night for little money as long as they can afford to get to the next venue. Listen to everything and form your own opinion. I am not telling you who to listen to or who to buy, what I am saying is that in my experience of going to concerts and listening to music, the best concerts that I have ever attended are played by the bands who get nothing, the bands who don’t get awards, the bands who play music because they love to play.
By not limiting the criteria, you skip all the bands that really did have great albums this year. You pass over the bands that don’t do it for the awards but would still enjoy getting some form of recognition. People are going to look back at this decade and realize that the Grammy Awards are worthless.
Now, I am not going to talk about who won and who should of won, because we already know that 21st Century Breakdown by Green Day is a piece of trash anyways. (Rock album of the year, my ass!) Disregarding th
at, my issue lies in the eligibility of what can be awarded. For example, Kings of Leon released their latest album, Only by the Night, in August of 2008 (Which is not nearly as good as Because of the Times, but received much more consideration for awards). "Use Somebody," a track from Only by the Night, received several nominations and awards for the year 2009. Really now? At least the Oscars can get movies that were actually released in the year they are giving awards in. After researching the criteria for eligibility, I found that a song has to only be popular in the year, disregarding the year released. Am I the only one that has an issue with that? Slumdog Millionaire won best motion picture soundtrack of 2009. The album was released in November of 2008. And there are plenty others that fall into this same category. Now, I really dislike the Grammy Awards even more so than before. So, if someone wins an oscar, congratulations to them because they most likely deserve it. However, when you win a Grammy, you have been awarded nothing meaningful.If you want real music, go to the $5 shows at local venues and watch people play music who get nothing for it. Go see the street musicians who play because they love playing. Go see 4 best friends who look like they would rather play a concert every night for little money as long as they can afford to get to the next venue. Listen to everything and form your own opinion. I am not telling you who to listen to or who to buy, what I am saying is that in my experience of going to concerts and listening to music, the best concerts that I have ever attended are played by the bands who get nothing, the bands who don’t get awards, the bands who play music because they love to play.
By not limiting the criteria, you skip all the bands that really did have great albums this year. You pass over the bands that don’t do it for the awards but would still enjoy getting some form of recognition. People are going to look back at this decade and realize that the Grammy Awards are worthless.
No comments:
Post a Comment