There's something distressing about awards shows. They're absurdly elitist, at least it feels that way. The pre-red carpet shows followed by the actual red carpet shows leading to what is typically a tepid, nauseating 3 hours plus of performances & bumbling acceptance speeches. Of course, The Grammys are also chock full of surprises. This year's show didn't disappoint on any of those fronts. I don't intend on wasting space with yet another Grammy review. No, I won't bore you with insightful comments about how odd it was to see well dressed people pretending to enjoy AC/DC or how irritating it must be to sit within a 10 foot radius around Taylor Swift. The truth of the matter is I didn't watch from start to finish (I had to watch Shameless, RHOA, Girls etc.). But what I did see, with little interest, started a constant refrain in my head, 'This isn't for me.'
But as that refrain--that definitive statement--dogged my cranium while I dodged (unsuccessfully) staring into the abyss of Madonna's crotch, I wondered, 'If this isn't for me then who the hell is it for?' And why would anyone of any age, much less 56, insist on so much gratuitous leg splitting? Madge never ceases to inspire wonder. I digress. I'm a 47 year old male. I obviously have a passion for music and much like any passionate music fan I have biases. In my case, I love Alternative Music. Now that's a broad umbrella, but I've yet to find a better term or phrase that catches all of the music genres I espouse. How can you reply when someone asks you your music preferences with, 'I like Indie, Industrial, New Wave, Darkwave, Power-Pop, Punk, Post-Punk, Goth, Britpop, Ska, Electro...did I forget anything?' So to keep it simple I say Alternative. Since 1991 the Grammy's has awarded a gramophone plaque for best Alternative Music Album or something in that spirit. The name has changed over the years but not the intent. So maybe, in small part, the Grammy's are for me? Watching Sunday night I didn't get that feeling. I certainly don't want to take anything away from this year's winner, St. Vincent.
I'm sure she was deserving. She donned the cover of my Under The Radar Magazine. I'm listening to her now. They (Annie Clark & band) sound like a slightly more sane Bjork & "Birth In Reverse" is...good. Nevertheless, even when The Grammy's introduced the Alternative Music award, it was never intended for me. Again, who is this shindig actually for? While watching with disinterest as Kayne offered up his angsty 'art spectacle' standing on the stage in the dark save for an up-light beaming between his legs & spitting inane Kanye 'truth'--it hit me. The Grammy's are for the MUSIC INDUSTRY. Sam Smith took most of the hardware handed out that night while Tom Petty smiled. Beck won LP of the year & best Rock(?) album because that's the hubris of The Grammy's & the music industry. I've heard more 'Rock' listening to Tibetan chants! I'm sure Metallica & Jethro Tull are both scratching their collective heads wondering how a pastoral piece of work like Morning Phase was deemed 'Rock'? I dare you to ask anyone off the street to name a single track on Morning Phase & get a correct answer. I'll daringly say that the cognoscenti that make up the Grammy committee who vote for these nominations & winners can either. As an aside, I would like to say 'thank you' for getting Annie Lennox out of the mothballs. Let's look at her now & then. I love you Annie.
So that's who this whole Grammy thing is for. It's an industry insider 'circle jerk'. For decades the music industry has propped up specific 'artists' & bands for their own benefit. Of course this is only after that artist, band or performer attains some sort of traction through industry help or on their own. Beck, 22 years ago, unexpectedly won over the Alternative & pop music listeners with "Loser". Since then, absconded by the 'luminaries' of Rock & Pop music's taste makers since that 'hit', Beck could release an album of his farts set to violin & he would get rave reviews from Rolling Stone & a nomination from The Grammys. I'm just using Beck as an example. Similar tales come from the likes of Katy Perry, Adele & this year's big winner Sam Smith. There's nothing wrong with it as long as you realize what it is. The Grammys are awards given by the music industry to 'acts' that still keep the 'old guard' solvent or who did at one point in time. How else can you explain the real winner of the 2015 Grammys...............Madonna's crotch!
The cleavage & the shoes are interesting as well. I don't have an ounce of the talent Beck possesses. This is in not a slagging of his talents, accomplishments or ability. It just so happens that this was his year & I figured out what the Grammys really are & what they'll probably continue to be. It's a play to the masses while also indulging insider whimsy. I hope I'm alive 20 years from now when a 76 year old Madonna can grace my 3D immersive (glassless by then of course) TV with more of her flailing body parts. My hopes for copulating with a star realized in 3D. I'm sure by then a new group of Grammy leaders will still be spoon feeding us the best that popular music has to offer. For now, I'm going to sleep listening to the Best Rock Album of 2014. Those Grammys, ever the pranksters.