Can the Grammys get indie? Plus, Eddie Vedder news

Tonight, the Recording Academy will pat itself on the back by airing "My Night at the Grammys." The CBS special will run down the top 25 moments in Grammy history, at least according to the fans who voted online.

An earlier post had a little fun with the Grammy special. This will be a little (emphasis on little) more serious.

When the Grammys air in February, the Recording Academy will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the awards gala. The big five-o will certainly be the excuse for a large marketing campaign, of which tonight's special will be just the beginning.

But here's hoping it also marks the end of an era.

Just as the Internet + file-sharing + iTunes + the decline in CD sales + CD burning have all served to make record labels look behind-the-times (and this must-read Wired interview with UMG CEO Doug Morris doesn't provide convincing evidence that the record labels have caught up), the Grammys face the risk of quickly becoming out-of-date/irrelevant. Though the Grammys have moderately improved in recent years, they''re still a reflection of sales + record label marketing campaigns.

Look at last year's album of the year contenders: the Dixie Chicks' "Taking the Long Way," Justin Timberlake's "FutureSex/LoveSounds," Red Hot Chili Peppers' "Stadium Arcadium," John Mayer's "Continuum" and Gnarls Barkley's "St. Elsewhere."

With the exception of Gnarls Barkley, who ended up with the surprise single of the year in "Crazy," there wasn't an already proven superstar in the bunch. Timberlake created a fine pop album, but it was more  flavor of the moment than an album of the year, and the Dixie Chicks didn't have a song as good as their back story. Mayer is little more than an adult pop trifle -- this generation's Sting -- and the Red Hot Chili Peppers' bid for seriousness only created a bloated album.

Two of the five albums were in the top 20 on Idolator's year-end critic's poll (Gnarls Barkley and Timberlake), and only one (Gnarls) made the top 20 on the Village Voice poll.

There's a disconnect between what's nominated and the music that's making an impact, and it's only going to get wider as album sales continue to decline. No longer are lesser-known artists confined solely to the world of music geekdom.

Independent artists who would have never had been able to make the top 10 of the U.S. pop charts 10 years ago are now regularly appearing in the upper echelon of the tally, be it the Shins (pictured) or the Arcade Fire or Bright Eyes. 

Those albums don't deserve to be nominated on the account of them being independent -- although I'd argue the Shins' "Wincing the Night Away" is worthy of some consideration. But the Grammys will only look like a relic from another era if they continue to deny that independent artists are making a bigger impact on the marketplace.

It's not asking for too much. Music fans simply deserve an awards show that takes some risks.

After all, why should the Oscars be edgier than one focused on rock 'n' roll? Independent films have practically dominated the best picture field (see "Little Miss Sunshine," "The Queen," "Brokeback Mountain" and "Crash," among others) the past two years.

By venturing just a bit outside the mainstream, and by having the guts to honor films that aren't blockbusters, the Academy Awards have had a much greater potential of turning fans onto films that they wouldn't normally have checked out.

The Grammys, however, are still sticking to conservative (top-selling) choices. But as today's superstar artists sell less and less, Grammy omissions will only become more glaring.

RANDOM:

Look for Eddie Vedder's video for "Guaranteed" from the "Into the Wild" soundtrack to debut in the next week or two.

Randy Spendlove, Paramount's president of music, says the clip is being edited this week. "We shot it on film with [Vedder] on a stool," Spendlove said. "There are images of the film that come in and out. It's a real moment to take you back to the movie. It's being cut right now."

Just in time to give the cut an even heavier Oscar-season push.

(Photo courtesy Sub Pop)
 

Comments

[Dynasty]

Do you plan on making Grammy predictions before there are announced this coming Thursday?

[-TM]

Hi Dynasty,

I do indeed. Thanks for asking. I've been formalizing a list, and keeping track of the lists people have submitted via the comments sections of this blog, and will re-post those as well, so if you have any you'd like to add, please post.

[Dynasty]

Record of the Year
Beyoncé, "Irreplaceable"
Alicia Keys, "No One"
Maroon 5, "Makes Me Wonder"
Rihanna f/ Jay-Z, "Umbrella"
Amy Winehouse, "Rehab"

Album of the Year
Daughtry, Daughtry
Maroon 5, It Won't Be Soon Before Long
Bruce Springsteen, Magic
Kanye West, Graduation
Amy Winehouse, Back to Black

]Song of the Year
"Before He Cheats," Josh Kear & Chris Tompkins (Carrie Underwood)
"Big Girls Don't Cry," Stacy Ferguson & Tony Gad (Fergie)
"No One," Kerry Brothers, Jr., George M. Harry & Alicia Keys (Alicia Keys)
"Rehab," Amy Winehouse (Amy Winehouse)
"Umbrella," Shawn Carter, Kuk Harrell, Terius Nash & Christopher Stewart (Rihanna f/ Jay-Z)

Best New Artist
Lily Allen
Daughtry
Feist
Taylor Swift
Amy Winehouse

[M. deSanti]

Slightly off-topic, but I think your sentences "There's a disconnect between what's nominated and the music that's making an impact" and "No longer are lesser-known artists confined solely to the world of music geekdom" contradict each other. How can "artists confined solely to the world of music geekdom" be "making an impact"? The Grammys have a choice of working either with what's really selling in the real world or with indie music that no one really cares that much about. (The Strokes ruled the indie world until about 4 years ago, and where are they now?) If they decide to start giving out awards to "hip" artists to try and look equally "hip", it's probably going to be worse than waiting for the market to sort itself out in light of MP3 + illegal d/l etc, etc, and then reflecting what that new market turns out to be.

[-TM]

Hi M. deSanti,

I hear you on the contradiction. I guess I was just saying it's going to keep getting harder and harder for voters to ignore the kind of non mainstream and/or superstar artists they have in the past, but there are parts that probably should be clearer.

And I still think the Strokes' "Is This It" was slighted for not getting a rock nom, and the band should have received a Best New Artist nod as well. Even if they're not receiving much press attention these days, "Is This It" still stands as a terrific record.

It's tough -- it's a certainly a challenge and a balance, and no matter what the Grammys do, we'll all debate it. I just wish the major categories did a better job of representing all of what's happening in music -- as opposed to just what's happening on the charts in a given year.

[CL]

I feel that music is so subjective that it's really hard to judge. What are the criteria? Isn't it personal taste to a large degree? I agree with some of your favorites and not with others. Personally, I love music that makes me feel and inspires me. Just like those indie Oscar movies you mentioned above, the Dixie Chicks' album inspired me and the same with Springsteen. Amy Winehouse also has something that connects with me. Music by Maroon 5, Justin Timberlake, etc. is fun, but it doesn't stick. Which should the Grammys reward? Barkley's Crazy? Fun song, but it won't give you chills in concert like Not Ready to Make Nice.

I think the Grammys find it easier to stick with major labels because it narrows it down. Unlike great indie movies, music is so much more subjective. Feist may be a great artist by someone's standards, but I can't stand her music. Allowing every person who puts a video on YouTube or MySpace to compete for a Grammy - the thought gives me a headache.

[sheeba101]

What a pretentious jerk.Do you really believe you are the god of cool?