Obviously, I'm not watching as, just as obviously, I'm writing this piece instead.
First, let me come clean.
I have, through the years, been nominated for, and in some cases been given, a variety of awards.
Various writing awards, various "acknowledgements" and/or "honorable mentions" as a result of producing and hosting a successful radio show in several different parts of the country over a period of years.
At one time, multiple "ADDY" Awards bestowed for achievement in writing and composing commercials and commercial jingles.
And more than a few years ago, I was, in fact, nominated for a Grammy, having co-written a song that appeared on bluegrass artist Claire Lynch's Grammy nominated album "Lamplighter".
When an album is nominated, all the songs are considered part of the whole, ergo the writers of said songs are considered nominees, as well.
I would be lying if I said that I haven't done my share of mentioning/boasting/bragging on my own bad self with regards to the aforementioned recognition.
That said...in my heart of hearts, I am not now, nor have I ever been, much of an award fan.
Possibly because I'm genetically predisposed to be cynical about most things in the first place.
Probably because I long ago formed an opinion about most awards that hasn't changed much since the days my gray turning to white hair was a lush, lovely brown.
They are, for the most part, bullshit.
And the Grammys, increasingly, exemplify the excremental example.
"Artistic achievement" is, has been and will always be, in the best of cases, a purely subjective determination.
And more and more in recent years, the Grammys which still insist on calling themselves "awards for artistic achievement" have ended up being given, with a few, minor, token exceptions to the singers and/or writers who are the hottest of the hot in any given award year.
Put simply...popularity contests.
Sell the most CD's and you're most likely to win a Grammy.
Well, shit...good job selling CD's...I mean, seriously, congrats!
But artistic achievement?
No, not so much, necessarily.
Commercial achievement?
Now you're talking.
George C. Scott infamously refused to acknowledge either the nomination or eventually winning of an Oscar in the 70's for his amazing performance as the title character in the classic film, "Patton".
His logic, while admittedly buzzkilling, was undeniably legitimate.
Saying one actor was better than another was like saying one fruit is better than another.
Apples and oranges.
Grammy is the audio first cousin of Oscar.
And the whole Grammy Awards show, like the CMA Show and the ACM show, et al is really nothing more than a three hour infomercial for the applicable industry and/or group of performers.
Should they go away?
Hell, no. Who can't enjoy an evening complete with Gaga climbing out of a big ass egg?
But, let's get real, gang.
Genuine artistic achievement trumping the top ten selling singers at the Grammys has the same chance of happening as the presidents of the audio/visual and chess clubs being chosen homecoming king and queen.
It's an honor just to be nominated.
But it's also no big deal.
No comments:
Post a Comment