Dispatches by Hank Kalet: Grammy Awards reflect the sad current state of music industry
By: Hank Kalet
I’ve never been fan of the big award shows.
I don’t watch the Oscars, hate the Emmys and the Tonys and have a healthy distaste with everything associated with the Grammys.
I tend to view the awards process the same way that Woody Allen always has. Despite winning two awards (directing for "Annie Hall" and screenplay for "Hannah and Her Sisters") and being nominated 20 times, the director and actor has chosen to play his clarinet in a jazz band at Caroline’s in New York City rather than fly to Los Angeles for the annual awards ceremony. His reason: He hates the notion of artistic competition. (He did attend the 2002 Oscar ceremony to help lead a tribute to New York, the first awards granted following the terror attacks of 2001.)
I’d have to agree. The notion that Bruce Springsteen, Norah Jones and the Dixie Chicks are facing off in the same way that the Raiders and the Buccaneers did or that the Lakers and the Nets did seems absurd on its face.
(And yes, I feel the same way about the New Jersey Press Association Better Newspaper Contest, which we’ve had tremendous success in over the years. We enter, we win, but aside from the two weeks of the year when we’re sorting through entries, it rarely enters my mind. And that’s as it should be we are not in this business for awards, but to get information out to our readers. But that’s another column for another day.)
Another issue I have with the major awards shows and the Grammys in particular is that they rarely recognize the best or most unusual work of the past year. Rather, the awards go to the more mainstream releases "A Beautiful Mind" and "Gladiator," for instance, or "Shakespeare in Love." "Titanic," "The English Patient" and the supreme snooze-fest, "Dances With Wolves." All of these films have a couple of things in common: They were big box-office winners and either were elaborately costumed or filmed or were considered "literate." "A Beautiful Mind," last year’s winner, was a wonderful film, but I liked "Chocolat" better.
This year’s Grammy nominees are no exception. Bruce Springsteen was nominated for Song of the Year for "The Rising," a great song. The problem, however, is that "The Rising" was not among the five best songs released in 2002 it wasn’t even the best song on his wonderful disc (my vote goes to "My City in Ruins," "You’re Missing" and "Nothing Man," but that changes with every listen).
And Alan Jackson’s "Where Were You (When the World Stopped Turning)" is a treacly bit of schmaltz, a sentimental ode to America in the wake of Sept. 11.
I will probably tune into the Grammys on Sunday, but only to catch Springsteen perform "The Rising," not to see whether the Recording Industry Association of America validates the long career of James Taylor with an award (he won one in 1983 for Best Children’s Album).
Reviewing this year’s Grammy list, it is hard not to become depressed at the current state of the record industry. The big nominees were lightweights like Avril Lavigne ("Sk8ter Boi," nominated for Best Female Rock Vocal Performance, can best be described as "baby punk," a vapid teeny-bopper ditty that sold well but should never be confused with rock and roll) and Nelly (whose not-so convincing blend of R&B and hip hop sounds cold and calculating).
And what is Robert Plant doing on this list? He hasn’t released anything worth listening to since "The Honeydrippers."
And where was Wilco’s "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot"? And "White Blood Cells" by the White Stripes, easily one of the best discs of the year? Or the Red Hot Chili Peppers’ "By the Way"?
And why was "Cruel Smile," an album of outtakes and alternate mixes by Elvis Costello from the "When I Was Cruel" sessions nominated for Best Alternative Album?
And alternative to what? Which brings me to one last complaint I could go on, really, but I do have limited space. Why the inane need to carve up the music world into smaller and smaller chunks? The Grammys now recognizes 28 "general fields," 18 of which are meant to recognize new music. Of the 18, eight recognize variations of pop music forms. There is pop and dance and traditional pop. There’s rock and alternative and R&B and hip hop and country. And what differentiates between pop and traditional pop? (Apparently, you need to either be old or have released some old songs to qualify under Traditional Pop.)
And what’s the difference between dance and everything else? No Doubt has been nominated for Best Pop Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal for "Hey Baby" and for Best Dance Recording for "Hella Good," both of which are heavy dance tracks from their disc "Rock Steady."
And what about the rock and alternative fields? Elvis Costello, Creed, Coldplay isn’t it all just rock and roll.
And what about Mary J. Blige doesn’t she cross over the hip hop and R&B lines? And don’t many of the R&B nominees owe some debt to hip hop and vice versa?
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
The reality is that these award shows are about hype, about the buzz of the moment and should not be taken seriously. Remember Milli Vanilli won Best New Artist in 1990. Need I say more.
Hank Kalet is managing editor of The Cranbury Press. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

