 off your back. Monday, February 12, 2007 did you watch the grammys? i always seem to watch the spectacle. i was jerked up on american bandstand, soul train and the like. i loved, as a kid, watching music shows. being raised by my grandparents gave me a strange foundation in music appreciation. while the rest of the world was listening to zeppelin, the beatles and simon and garfunkel, i was spinning chuck berry, chubby checker, jerry lee lewis and the king on my drop top turntable. on weekends, when my dad decided occasionally wanted to pretend to be my dad, i heard alice cooper, uriah heep and the allman bros. if that wasn't weird enough, my grandfather and i would drive my mom 15 miles and drop her off at one of a handful of honky tonks where she fronted various country cover bands, so we were constantly listening to tammy wynette, lynn anderson and loretta lynn on the radio or 8-track. this eclectic mix or should i say, barrage, of various genres and sensibilities pummelled my young sponge of a brain into mush--musically. and i say, sponge, because it was. along with bandstand and the train, i also saw porter wagoner, the wilburn brothers and heehaw. when i say i saw these shows, i mean i saw all of these shows, all of them. we just didn't miss any time there was any sort of music on the television. easy to see why a young kid growing up in a dry county, his head full of musical tv cheese might see being a 'rock star' as a way out of his white trash existence. funny thing, i remember thinking all the way back then that the grammys were out of touch. nothing has changed. there is still no quarter given to any music slightly independent, artistic or unknown. even bandstand gave us a peek at acts like the psychedelic furs, bow wow wow, public image ltd. and rem while unleashing eddie rabbitt, rupert holmes and leif garrett on the drivel sucking masses. sure justin timberlake is a very talented pop star, but could we have had one less song by him to squeeze in wolfmother or deathcab for cutie (surprisingly, they were both nominees in different categories)? more depressing though is the fact that anything 'rock' doesn't even make it on the air. it truly is a sad that there seems to be little appeal for giving a rock band a fair shake at prime time. sure, the peppers were saved to the end to give some sort of smash, weird, wild finish to the whole thing...and they did a ballad. and this just in--anthony kiedis cannot sing, nor has he ever been able to. bands like mastodon, the flaming lips, artic monkeys, lamb of god and artists like beck and neil young all got nods in categories that are important to actual music listeners as opposed the folks more consumed by who wore what and who is screwing who at the sundance film festival. hell, they couldn't even spare 5 minutes to cover 'best rock song?' on the air? best rock song! seriously, not big enough, best rock song, it is rock and roll after all, not some fucking category like best string arrangement in a baroque hoedown. and get this, the peppers (btw i'm no hater, they deserve anything they get, for the staying power of their one trick if nothing else) beat out, snow patrol, (great song, no where near what i would classify as 'rock') the killers (overplayed, overhyped but still a great modern version of duran duran) neil young and bob dylan....yes, that neil young and that bob dylan. i love them--but caucasian, please--come on. on the cusp of the mainstream were bands with actual great 'rock' songs and they were hardly scary choices for the cracker-ass grammy committee. artic monkeys (strangely nominated for 'best instrumental?'), tv on the radio, the raconteurs...and the category most would guess that was made for these bands--alternative--won by gnarls barkley, whose song was on every radio station in the country 10 times a day. alternative to what, bringing sexy back? the yeah yeah yeahs did get a wave in that category as did radiohead's thom yorke, commendable, i guess, but again, gnarls barkley has a platinum single and it's classified as alternative? there just needs to be some credibility police for the grammys. but this year is no different than any other on the 'huh?' meter. think about some of these award-winners... bobby russell’s “little green apples,” song of the year, 1968. of course, it was much better than the other songs in the category...otis redding’s “sittin’ on the dock of the bay,” the rolling stones’ “sympathy for the devil,” and the beatles’ “helter skelter.” starland vocal band, best new artist, 1976. fuck you ramones and the sex pistols, you punks will add up to nothing, afternoon delight is timeless! dj jazzy jeff and the fresh prince, “parents just don’t understand,” best rap performance, 1988. juvenile, dumb and embarrassing to have these two teeny boppers beat eric. b. and rakim and public enemy in what was a banner year of hip hop. milli vanilli, best new artist of 1990. ahem. all i am saying is seriously, if these awards are supposedly based upon talent and not sales or popularity then why isn't more edge evidenced in the grammys? with the internet, tons of great music zines online and off and at least 5 video networks and tons of satellite radio choices it seems that the grammys would at some point, mature. but an old friend of mine said it best, when alternative music was beginning to go mainstream in the nirvana haze where for a moment there were rock bands on the grammys...'the underground just needs to stay underground.' my response was 'yep, by they time 'they' get it we've already begun to hate it.' if you like good music, or for that matter, bad music, you can find it. just get off your back and look around, it worked for me some 30 odd years ago. on back, pre-snow angel. Diana (Mark L clone). Kodak Porta 400 UC. Donate. Nominate. Comment (9) | Permalink |
