#470: Awards

GETTING MORE TALE #470: Awards

Do you watch award shows?  I don’t — not anymore, anyway.  In the Record Store days,we had to keep an eye on this sort of thing.  If somebody swept the Grammys, we had to be prepared with inventory.   The day after an award show, the requests would circle around the winners and headline-makers.  The same still happens today, with much of the post-show sales being downloads.  Adele is most grateful.

As a child I was aware that award shows didn’t seem to recognize any music that I liked, but I also knew that didn’t mean squat.  It’s nice when a talented artist is honoured for their music, but the Grammys are the same organization who awarded Milli Vanilli with “best new artist”.  To even call such commercial product “art” at all is such a deception.  They were manufactured from the ground up as a money-making endeavour and nothing more.  That was 1990, but the year before was another titanic embarrassment for the besieged awards.

I didn’t watch the ’89 awards but I heard all about it the next day.  The following morning, my mom asked me, “Who is Jethro Tull?”  I had to confess I didn’t really know.  Old guys.  “They won best heavy metal,” my mom explained.  Who?  I was a metal fanatic but I never heard any of their music.

The actual category was best “Hard Rock/Metal” and it was introduced in 1989.  The nominees included a couple actual hard rock and heavy metal artists:  AC/DC, Tull, Metallica, Jane’s Addiction, and Iggy Pop.  Of those bands, I think only two can be consider unambiguously “hard rock” or “heavy metal”.  I’m sure the members of Jane’s Addiction didn’t consider themselves either.  God knows what Iggy Pop thinks of his music as, since he’s been all over the board.  With the benefit of hindsight, we know today that the most important album historically in that category was …And Justice For All by Metallica followed by Jane’s Nothing’s Shocking.  Tull’s Crest of a Knave was a good, solid return but hardly “hard rock”.  Ian Anderson was gracious but befuddled by it all.  Metal fans declared it highway robbery.  To them, Metallica was clearly the only band who deserved that trophy that year, and with all due respect to AC/DC and Jane’s Addiction, it is hard to argue with that.  …And Justice For All was one of the most challenging albums for the genre, real art, yet it sold millions.  Not to mention overcoming the personal tragedy of losing Cliff Burton in that crash a few years before.  Plainly, Metallica deserved that award.  Fans were livid.

The Grammys furthered their embarrassment by contritely awarding Metallica the “best metal” award for the three years in a row that followed, even when it was not deserved.  In 1990 they split “hard rock” and “metal” into two awards, and gave Metallica a trophy for “One”.  The real head-shaker was 1991, when Metallica won again for a cover of Queen’s “Stone Cold Crazy” (from Rubáiyát: Elektra’s 40th Anniversary).  This little-heard cover beat out stunning new albums by Judas Priest, Anthrax and Megadeth.  A single Metallica cover from an obscure compilation CD beat Rust in Peace by Megadeth?  Yeah, right.  You could not take this seriously.  Their streak continued into 1992, when they won the prize for the Black album, Metallica, once again beating Anthrax and Megadeth (and Motorhead and Soundgarden).

Here are some other stunningly bad decisions the Grammys  made that you may not be as familiar with.  The same year of the Tull debocle, the awards introduced a “best rap” category, but chose not to air them.  The Fresh Prince Will Smith compared it to graduating high school but not being allowed on stage to accept your diploma.  Not to mention, the “best new artist” award is often a curse.  Just ask Hootie and the Blowfish, Debby Boone, Marc Cohn or Milli Vanilli.  Then there was the year that Steely Dan beat Radiohead’s Kid A and the Marshall Mathers LP.

What you may not realize is that the Grammy awards were never designed to recognize the raucous and rebellious artists of rock and roll.  In fact, they were created to stem the tide.  In order to protect “quality” and tradition against the rockers of the 1950’s, the Grammys were created in the mold of the Oscars.  And on their very first night, their mission to promote and honour quality music was blown spectacularly.  Check out this tale from my Uncle John’s desktop calendar:

IMG_20160219_154927_edit

Hey, at least Frankie won.  But the awards remain as troubled today as when they began.

It’s nice to see artists and albums that you like win awards for their work.  Ultimately however the impact is zero.  How the music makes you feel is everything.

Advertisements

21 comments

  1. Thanks for the history lesson! I haven’t watched the Grammys forever! When I was much younger, my sis and I used to watch it to scan the audience for Duran Duran.

    By the way, I couldn’t help but LOL when I saw that Gene Simmons owns the trademark on the image of a moneybag with a $ on it. All these years doodling the image of a moneybag with a $ on it, and I was infringing trademark without even knowing it. (WTH, What an asshole!)

    Liked by 3 people

    1. And he’s (pun very intended!) cashed in on that trademark investment too, Mike I think you were the one who brought the Teenage Fanclub Bandwagonesque album cover/Simmons trademark settlement to my attention.
      I find I like awards nominations more than the awards themselves – so I like the idea of the Oscars, highlighting a handful of deserving pictures/performances. But given behind the scenes campaigning/other influences on voting, I don’t know if I’d agree with ‘winner’ = ‘best’

      Liked by 2 people

    2. You owe Gene a lot of money!

      According to a 1988 MuchMusic interview, Gene Simmons discovered some time in the late 70’s that nobody owned that symbol. So he trademarked it, and when he signed Van Halen, that was the logo for the label they signed to. He later used it for Simmons Records in the 90’s.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Nice post, Mike. Didn’t know that about the Grammys. I think Alvin & Co. have more of those things than most proper acts!

    Anyhoo, I’m not a fan of the whole awards thing either. ‘Winner of three Grammys’ (or Brit Award or whatever) on the front of an album means absolutely nothing to me. In fact, it’s likely to result in me ignoring what I’m looking at, unless it’s a band I already like.

    I actually had a chuckle when I spotted a bunch of STP fans on the internet blowing their top cause there wasn’t a big Scott Weiland tribute at this year’s Grammys. I know he won a couple (with STP and VR), but to think that folks who like STP would actually give a hoots about the Grammys was just hilarious. Nutters.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. In a year as tragic as the last one, I can forgive the Grammy’s for not doing a huge Weiland tribute. Perhaps STP will end up doing that with their new singer.

      Let’s not get into that new singer business right now…

      ANyway I don’t know how many albums I own have won Grammys. Crest of a Knave and the Black Album, there’s two….

      Like

  3. I’d like to take the Oscars and the Grammys and roll them all up in a carpet and throw them off a bridge. What a waste of time. The one everyone thinks should win never wins, and the winner is always a WTF. It’s all vanity and garbage and corporate manipulation of popular opinion. Sorry, I don’t have any time for those navel-gazing bs shows. Not worth the dynamite to blow them up.

    Liked by 1 person

Rock a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s