On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Mark J. <[email protected]> wrote:
> One again, Paul's post is not showing here. > > What I'm going for and the guy who made the protest seems to be going > for is not that the Grammys supports "art" over "commerce" or vice > versa, but that when given the choice between someone new or > relatively new that's popular with the kids that supposedly still buy > most of the music, even if it's from iTunes, and someone that's > familiar or plays familiar music, they'll go for the familiar. Hence, > Esperanza Spaulding over Justin Bieber, since Spaulding plays "old > people's music" while Bieber's a (highly commercialized) hip-hop guy. > The thoroughly conventional Lady Antebellum over sneering Detroit > white rapper Eminem. Jethro Tull over Metallica. And back in the 70s, > the clean-cut pop quartet (and two married couples!) over the long- > haired prog rockers (even if the prog rockers turned out to be much > more commercially successful and have more staying power than the > clean-cut pop quartet) and the symbol of a trend that the old farts at > NARAS wanted to support over two New Wavers (and, ironcially, the > ultimate soulless session musician band). In that case, while Taste > of Honey had exactly one hit record (and not until a few years after > DJs coast-to-coast started imitating Steve Dahl), the Cars were a hit > machine in the 80s, while Elvis Costello wasn't. Today, he and Mrs. > Costello are exactly the symbols of what NARAS likes to support: The > totally familiar. And if you had told him that in 1979, his response > would be "bollocks." > > Which is why the Arcade Fire win was such a surprise. But even then, > following that great tradition in indie rock, the hipster gatekeepers > are now taking away the band's indie cred and calling them the love of > middle-brow NPR-listening (as in WFUV, KCRW, XPN, the Current) yuppie > sellouts. You can't win with the hipsters. > I see - so it is less of a "commercial vs artistic" debate than an "old people's music vs young people's music" debate - as when "Little Green Apples" beat out "Hey Jude" for song of the year. I think the Arcade Fire example illustrates the flaw in this kind of argument, as you kind of allude to - any Grammy winner is by virtue of the fact discounted as a credible voice of its generation - while apparently Justin Bieber earns immediate street cred by getting disssed. Can't we just assume that conventional awards shows are just that, conventional? The Oscars are tuned to the tastes of the middle brow, and a film like The King's Speech is right in its wheel house. I won't have much patience when it is bashed after winning Best Picture by champions of some avante garde alternative. I found Lady Antebellum to be the least threatening, most comfortable and familiar music at the Grammy's this year, even though I am not a fan of the genre, which I guess confirms your point that they are some form of old people's music. Young people can play that kind of music, and if they want that kind of recognition they should do that. If instead they want to be too hip for the Grammys, they can do that too, but I don't think they should be so obnoxious about it. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
