So the Grammy's were Sunday night. Amy Winehouse made a near sweep. I think it was deserving, however I do think that Springsteen's "Magic" was overlooked in a lot of nomination categories. ML got beat out by Carrie (surprise). I was a little surprised that Dierks didn't take home a Grammy, he was nominated for four. I thought he kind of skewed towards Grammy voters...commercially viable but still holding on to artistic integrity. The Grammy's, in my mind, have always been somewhat cool in that sense. They would vote Bob Dylan for record of the year over a Justin Timberlake or vote Allison Krauss over Martina McBride, etc. I guess it hasn't really happened that way in a while (except for the Herbie Hancock thing for Record of the Year). It used to be the award of the underdog, now it's almost just another popularity award with an occasional upset.
I will preach on one thing that the Grammy's opened my eyes to. Actually, two things, but let's start with number 1. I've seen a shift in females in music over the last several years. I think the Dixie Chicks and Sheryl Crow had a whole lot to do with this. They became women singer-songwriters who were artistically sound, played their own instruments, made great music, put on a good show and could sell tickets. Since then, we've had an explosion of females in both country and other formats that have followed this formula to paydirt (or are well on their way). Look at the success of Amy Winehouse, Colbie Caillat, Alicia Keys, Kelly Clarkson and Miranda. Honestly, I've bought about 20 records in the last six weeks and about 14 have been by females. Of the other six, four of them were made before 1984. The male singer-songwriter guys are having a much tougher time breaking through to the same level the females are. You can't really count Justin Timberlake because of his boy-band success that followed him, but honestly who was the last male singer songwriter that burst onto the scene and really made waves both commercially and artistically? Ryan Adams? Keith Urban? The former has trouble selling out theater gigs and doesn't break more than 100,000 in sales of a record. The latter definitely fills arenas and goes multi-platinum, but I'm sure there would be people who argue his artistic integrity (though after touring with him I would aid in his defense as a staunch supporter). Really, there's a ton of Matt Kearneys and Jon McLaughlins and Josh Rouses, but none of those guys make it to the next level. They're stuck in a male singer songwriter purgatory. I guess this female spawn is the answer to Willie, Waylon, Petty, Springsteen, James Taylor, Cat Stevens, Steve Earle and John Prine's revolution of the 70's and 80's. Females had their Emmylous and Joni Mitchells then, but they were surely fewer than their male counterparts.
OK, now point two that I wanted to make. Since when did Grammy performers command so much power as to be able to perform two songs each. Sunday night saw Kanye, Winehouse, Fogerty, Tina Turner/Beyonce all get the chance to do multiple tunes. How about a good old fashioned award show where everyone gets one song and you have time for more performances? Really, how bad was the Grammy show? Appeal to more people by having more performances and help do your part to launch other genres and artists, don't just appeal to advertisers by giving the big names the most time. In essence, the Grammy's have indeed become corporate.
So I'm off tomorrow to Canada (EH!) and then back stateside for a couple shows. Nothing like a 559 mile bus ride in between gigs in two different countries. God, I love booking agents. Never met one I didn't like. =)
No comments:
Post a Comment