GRAMMY Redux


02.13.12

Aside from the spectacle of the GRAMMY awards, I find little use for them as a consumer of music. They frequently reward established artists, which is to say, it’s essentially a popularity contest. But, everyone knows that. So I watch to see Dave Grohl eschew computers in music and then play with a completely synthesized-music group.1 I still don’t understand the Adele phenomenon; but, it sounds like she’s singing with healthier technique. So there’s that.

There’s also The GRAMMY Awards you didn’t see, which, if you didn’t know, include sixty-eight awards presented in the afternoon before the televised portion.2 Therein lies my, and likely your, main area of focus: the classical, recording/production, and jazz awards. It’s unfortunate that the networks won’t televise this part of the day too. And the rich get richer, etc., etc., etc..

My final impression regarding the music that matters (to me) is that I fondly recall the days when the NAXOS label was producing budget-friendly discs of music outside the normal cannon. Today they do all that; but, they win GRAMMYs for it.


  1. This should not undermine Grohl’s larger point, with which I completely agree. Grohl said:

    To me this award means a lot because it shows that the human element of music is what’s important. Singing into a microphone and learning to play an instrument and learning to do your craft, that’s the most important thing for people to do.

    It’s not about being perfect, it’s not about sounding absolutely correct, it’s not about what goes on in a computer. It’s about what goes on in here [your heart] and what goes on in here [your head].

  2. The full list of winners is available on the GRAMMY website