People have been making fun of the Grammys for years. It's been called out of touch, irrelevant, worthless and stupid by both pros and joes, and this has been going on for so long that the very debate about the Grammys' relevance is itself irrelevant.
So why has the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS) suddenly started trying to tackle the criticism?
Yesterday, Grammy president Neil Portnow and music executive Steve Stoute issued a joint statement proclaiming that “expanding constructive and positive ways to...incorporate generational and artistic diversity in the Academy's development" was NARAS's top priority.
“We have come together in a collaborative manner to discuss how the Recording Academy can continue to evolve in an ever-changing cultural environment," the statement continues. “We invite others who share this agenda to join us in these discussions."
This was essentially the result of a full-page ad Stoute took out in in the New York Times to attack the Grammys' cultural tone-deafness. Stoute's letter, which was basically just a coded advertisement for his new company's artist management services, was mostly derided.
But “incorporate generational and artistic diversity" is code for “pander to the kids," and if NARAS is smart, they will do no such thing. The Grammys cannot possibly appeal to everybody, and attempting to create a music awards show that taps every segment of the population is a waste of time. No matter what anybody thought of this year's award recipients, the general consensus was that the show—the speech-light, spectacle-heavy, medley-filled show—was more enjoyable and engaging than anything NARAS had done in a while, precisely because they minimized the ceremony's role as an industry bellwether.
If Stoute or Portnow wants to dramatically expand or reduce NARAS's membership, that's one thing. But issuing a statement like this just sets both parties up for further scorn next year, when the awards inevitably fails to be all things to all people.
So why has the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS) suddenly started trying to tackle the criticism?
Yesterday, Grammy president Neil Portnow and music executive Steve Stoute issued a joint statement proclaiming that “expanding constructive and positive ways to...incorporate generational and artistic diversity in the Academy's development" was NARAS's top priority.
“We have come together in a collaborative manner to discuss how the Recording Academy can continue to evolve in an ever-changing cultural environment," the statement continues. “We invite others who share this agenda to join us in these discussions."
This was essentially the result of a full-page ad Stoute took out in in the New York Times to attack the Grammys' cultural tone-deafness. Stoute's letter, which was basically just a coded advertisement for his new company's artist management services, was mostly derided.
But “incorporate generational and artistic diversity" is code for “pander to the kids," and if NARAS is smart, they will do no such thing. The Grammys cannot possibly appeal to everybody, and attempting to create a music awards show that taps every segment of the population is a waste of time. No matter what anybody thought of this year's award recipients, the general consensus was that the show—the speech-light, spectacle-heavy, medley-filled show—was more enjoyable and engaging than anything NARAS had done in a while, precisely because they minimized the ceremony's role as an industry bellwether.
If Stoute or Portnow wants to dramatically expand or reduce NARAS's membership, that's one thing. But issuing a statement like this just sets both parties up for further scorn next year, when the awards inevitably fails to be all things to all people.
