Say hello to the slimmer, svelter Grammys.
What, you didn’t notice? The annual awards — taking place on Sunday in Los Angeles — have eliminated 31 categories, scaling back from 109 to 78.
And it’s still way too big.
Yes, a Grammy is still the highest honor bestowed in the record industry, but the cutback isn’t enough to help the annual awards shake a decades-long reputation for feeling bloated past the point of meaning. If those little gramophone statuettes ever hope to hold as much cultural prestige as, say, an Oscar, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS) needs to keep slashing, even if it rankles genre underdogs who protest that the Lady Gagas of the world already enjoy enough acclaim.
That protest has been loud and passionate. Two weeks ago, Jesse Jackson penned a letter to NARAS President Neil Portnow to say that he was considering a boycott of the awards ceremony for stamping out categories noted for racial and cultural diversity. “Music, of all arts, should be expansive and inclusive,” Jackson told the Associated Press. “So much talent comes from the base of poverty and those in the margins. You limit the base, you miss too much talent.”
The cuts don’t exclude anyone — they just force artists of certain genres to compete in broader, consolidated categories. But Jackson is right about there being too much talent out there. There’s far too much. An immeasurable number of recordings were made this year, and more than 17,500 were submitted for Grammy consideration.
So instead of trying to wrap its arms around the entirety of recorded music — an impossible task — shouldn’t the Grammys celebrate very best of the very best? It’s time to ditch the every-kid-gets-a-trophy approach. Reduce and consolidate more categories. Exclude no one, raise the bar and let the Grammys thrive on competitive zeal.
It’s doable. “There’s nothing in stone about our process,” says Portnow over the phone from Los Angeles. “That’s the beauty of it.”
Portnow also says that the recording academy understands that the world of music is increasingly fluid, and each year NARAS evaluates its awards structure to help the Grammys better reflect reality. This historic overhaul is a little different, though. It came after a two-year review of the entire Grammy infrastructure out of concern that the awards had become diluted. “In 2011, we had 109 categories,” says Portnow. “Does that mean in five years it’s 150, and in 10 years its 200?”
This year’s big reduction is a shrewd step in the right direction, but it’s still just a step. Additional cuts would result in more artists competing for fewer awards, bringing the Grammys closer to establishing meaningful standards of excellence in a sprawling pop music landscape that longs for shape and definition.
A rock-skipping contest
Last year, Arcade Fire provided Grammy night’s biggest shock by winning album of the year. Instead of the evening’s biggest honor going to a previously overlooked veteran or a high-sales favorite, it went to an indie rock band in the prime of its relevance. After decades of ignoring landmark records from Bob Dylan, Marvin Gaye, the Rolling Stones and others, the recording academy had provoked a sort of inverse gasp. The Grammys felt a little more in touch.
Loading...
Comments