I’ve been pooh-poohing the Grammys for years for being about as relevant to the music industry as Vinyls and CDs. Here, for example, is what I wrote five years ago in “The Grammys: a Friggin’ Snoozefest!” February 15, 2015:
____________________
Most performers apparently think the key to success is looking and behaving in a way off stage that makes what they do on stage seem almost irrelevant: Exhibits A and B: [Cardi B] and Nicki Minaj.
By sterling contrast, Adele not only sings like an angel, she might just be the music industry’s saving grace. Unfortunately, this [industry has] so little to do with musical talent these days that Adele performing [on any music awards show is] rather like Andrea Bocelli performing on So You Think You Can Dance.
(“2011 MTV Video Music Awards,” The iPINIONS Journal, August 30, 2011)
But this is just the most glaring reason the Grammys show has finally jumped the shark.
Alas, in these days of Twitter and Instagram, (mostly female) singers seem more interested in attracting followers than in selling records. In this sense, they aspire to be more the queen of social media than the queen of pop, soul, or hip-hop. Imagine the fate of a culture that celebrates [Kylie above Adele].
____________________
Now ditto Lizzo – because she seems more interested in being a freaking swimsuit model who twerks more than she sings. She seems to be aping that Lena Dunham Girls thing; you know, the reverse psychology of a fat girl dealing with body insecurities by constantly flaunting them. And that’s a damn shame because this girl can sing!
Unsurprisingly, most readers dismissed me back then as just dazed and confused. That’s why I was so heartened when no less an authority than Esquire echoed my criticisms in part as follows:
In recent years, the Grammys have continuously proved to be a rapidly fading institution — one that’s struggling to not only connect with audiences, but also with the very artists it recognizes. … That three of the most powerful artists in music are refusing to play and possibly not even attend the show is a crippling blow to the Grammys.
(February 8, 2019)
Given that, this unfolding development can only be seen as a middle finger to anyone idle-minded enough to watch this year’s show with an open mind:
After accusing the Recording Academy of a rigged Grammy Awards voting system on Good Morning America earlier today, ousted Academy chief Deborah Dugan headed to CBS This Morning to make a similar case. …
She further described the Academy’s nomination review committees as ‘a system that’s taking care of their own,’ adding that it is ‘mostly white, male.’
(Billboard, January 23, 2020)
Arguably, Dugan was destined to become the Susan B. Anthony of Grammy voting. In this, she was going to emulate Cheryl Boone Isaacs, the first black president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, who was purportedly becoming the Susan B. Anthony of Oscar voting.
The appointment of these female trailblazers came with great expectations that they would reform their respective industries old (white) boy voting systems. But Dugan lasted only five months – hardly long enough to even interview candidates to replace the good old white boys who had turned her Academy into their professional frat house.
And, truth be told, Isaacs isn’t faring much better. Five years ago, with much fanfare, she announced a five-year plan to rid her Academy of the #OscarsSoWhite meme that dogged it in 2015. Yet I had cause just last week to write “Ghosts of Nightmares Past: #OscarsSoWhite…Again!” January 14, 2020.
Reports are that Grammy grandees fired Dugan because she was moving too aggressively to rid their culture of its casual incidences of Harvey Weinstein-type sexual harassment.
Neil Portnow, Dugan’s predecessor who led the Recording Academy for more than 16 years, was accused of rape [and] Dugan says the board of trustees knew. … Dugan also alleges that Joel Katz, a lawyer for the Grammys, sexually harassed Dugan shortly after she was hired.
(The Atlantic, January 23, 2020)
Remarkably, Dugan alleges that the trustees are projecting trumped-up charges that she abused and bullied the female who used to serve as Portnoy’s executive assistant.
In any event, the Isaacs paradigm suggests that, even if she had enough time to change the Grammy’s rigged voting system, Dugan would only have arrived at the end of her five-year plan with a new rigged system. But at least her ouster exposes the reason for some of the biggest snubs in Grammy history, most notably those related to Mariah Carey, Kendrick Lamar, and Jay Z.
Hell, you’d be forgiven for thinking the voting system at issue is the rigged one that caused this notorious incident:
It was the moment in which Kanye West stormed the VMAs stage as Taylor Swift attempted to accept her award for Best Video by a Female Artist and told her, ‘I’mma let you finish, but Beyoncé had one of the best videos of all time! One of the best videos of all time!’
(Vox, August 26, 2019)
#GrammysSoWhite…?
In any event, if you watch tonight, do so for the fashion show. Because, as indicated above, the Grammy stage is no place to see your favorite artists perform – even in contrived collaborations with other artists.
More to the point, Dugan’s complaint makes clear that the awards will have more to do with politics than talent. This brings me to the prevailing point, which I’m embarrassed to admit neither I nor Esquire fully appreciated.
Because it turns out the reason the awards are so rigged is that winners can bank on an industry phenomenon known as the “Grammy bounce”:
Before winning a Grammy, producers on average charge $30,000 to $50,000 per track [after] that the starting figure is in the $75,000 area and super-producers like Timbaland and Pharrell can demand twice that. …
After winning his first Grammy, ‘Bruno Mars’ average nightly gross swelled from $130,000 to $202,000 (+55%),’ Esperanza Spalding went from $20,000 to $32,000 (+60%) and Taylor Swift jumped from $125,000 to $600,000 (+380%).
(Black Enterprise, February 10, 2019)
As it happens, I should have known better. After all, here is what I’ve been writing for years about what I suppose I can coin as the “Oscar bounce”:
It might surprise, if not disillusion, many of you to learn that studios covet the Oscar for Best Picture primarily because — as Sumner Redstone, the owner of Paramount, conceded in a moment of extraordinary candor — it guarantees millions more in box office receipts.
(“My Review of the 2008 Oscars,” The iPINIONS Journal, February 25, 2008)
Of course, it follows that producers and actors covet Oscars for the same reason producers and singers covet Grammys. I never thought I’d ever have cause to quote Puff Daddy, but
It’s All About the Benjamins.
In other words, the entertainment industry created awards shows as little more than a glitzy way for rich stars to excite even more money out of poor fans.
Given that, you should be even less interested in watching tonight’s Grammys or next month’s Oscars. This, especially given reports that all presenters and performers also get goodie swag bags that cost more than many Americans make in an entire year.
Related commentaries:
Grammys… Grammy rapfest snubs Jay-Z… OscarsSowhite…
Legacy Note: With over 5,600 posts spanning 20 years, I am easily the most prolific blogger on the most eclectic array of topics on the web. That makes The iPINIONS Journal an unparalleled archive of informed political and cultural commentary. Visit the ARCHIVES section in the sidebar or search by topic. You won’t find a more consistent, independent voice on world affairs.