Grammys fail to push boundaries

I swore off the Grammys a long time ago.

But, like many other things I’ve sworn off in the… I swore off the Grammys a long time ago.

But, like many other things I’ve sworn off in the past, including the band Phish, the Grammys are back in my life. So why ever would I spew unkind words toward the biggest award show in the music business?

Well, as I’ve believed for years, the Grammys are just that – the award show for the music business, not for the music itself. Arguably, the Grammys have long given honors to the records that are often the most commercially successful instead of work that pushes music forward, breaking new ground.

In other words, too often one can predict Grammy nominees by looking at the top of the Billboard charts. Case in point: Milli Vanilli won Best New Artist in 1990. They sold a lot of records, yes, but they were also absolutely terrible. Girl, you know it’s true.

The Grammys also have this nasty habit of giving pity awards, or honoring bands for their most recent record to make up for the fact that they were ignored in the past.

The perfect example here is Bob Dylan. Aside from his 1972 live album, none of Dylan’s classic records were ever winners. Nope, not even Blonde on Blonde. So in 1997, Dylan’s Time Out of Mind finally won Best Album of the Year. A great album? Sure, but it doesn’t nearly stack up with his best. The honor was deserved, but still stank of “Hope this makes up for when we robbed you in ’65 and ’66.”

So, when I was a high-schooler who was convinced that any music loved by more than 10 people must be made by sellouts and posers, I’m sure you can understand how the Grammys were not at the top of my list of things to watch on a Sunday night. Even Sunday-night football was higher, and that’s saying a lot – I didn’t know who was in the Super Bowl last Sunday until just after halftime.

I was a bit surprised at myself, then, that I was not vehemently against most of the nominations this year. That is not to say I’m at all happy – most of the year’s best records got snubbed completely – but, for the first time in years, I may just tune in. Here’s the run-down:

The Recording Academy, which consists of the folks voting on the winners, played it safe with the Album of the Year category, with five mainstream records which were all very successful commercially. Surprisingly, these albums also didn’t suck.

Like their political views or not, The Dixie Chicks’ Taking the Long Way Home is a great country bluegrass record that maintains a lot more integrity than that “Goodbye Earl” song afforded them. John Mayer’s Continuum is a solid rock record in his chain of solid rock records, and Justin Timberlake’s FutureSex/LoveSounds is a solid pop record in his chain of, well, you get the point. The Red Hot Chili Peppers’ Stadium Arcadium is their best in years, and Gnarls Barkley’s St. Elsewhere – clearly the oddball pick here – is fantastic.

So, why am I not satisfied, but not fuming?

Well, I can’t hate too hard because all these albums are really, really good. But at the same time, are they the best albums of the year? Who’s to say? By picking mainstream, well-known albums that are great, the Grammys effectively increase their viewers by making the show interesting to more people (we want to see what we know), but, at the same time successfully brush aside countless albums of 2006 that were mind-blowing, just not as well-known.

While the award show could embrace lesser-known bands for their amazing talent and thereby make them more accessible by exposing them to a huge audience, it chooses to take the easy, safe way out and honor albums that everyone and his mom have already heard. No one can refute the winner if it’s an album everyone loves, right?

There is an obvious schism here between popularity and credibility, as well as two defined sides. One argues that the best albums are lesser-known (and not nominated) – but this is just because they are too, say, “cutting edge” and are appreciated by fewer people. The other argues that popular records are great because people wouldn’t make them popular if they weren’t, explaining why some of the best-selling records get nominated.

The thing is, I can’t take either side, because sometimes I agree with one, and sometimes the other. Oh, Grammys, why must you do this to me?

That said, Gnarls Barkley or Red Hot Chili Peppers should win, but John Mayer or the Dixie Chicks probably will. After all, at the Grammys, it’s safety first, and the only thing safer than praising John Mayer is admiring Bono for being such a good guy.

The Grammys are a tricky awards show because, unlike the Oscars, there seems to be a clear and constant sense that the industry and the selling of albums play a pivotal role in who gets recognized.

Were this not the case, I’d hope that bands like the Decemberists, The Hold Steady and TV on the Radio would have been nominated.

Really, as long as that god-awful “You’re Beautiful” song doesn’t win anything, I’ll be just fine.

To tell Justin he’s wrong and that James Blunt is a genius, please e-mail him at jhj11@pitt.edu.