Our Top Story: Heading into the Grammys, the awards show is even more of a mess than usual. The now former head of the Academy has been forced out amid allegations of improper conduct, but there is a more interesting wrinkle to the story. As she is burning bridges that will never again be crossed, accusations are being leveled that there is widespread cheating and corruption in the voting committees. Notably, she says that at least one nominee for Song Of The Year finished 18th in the balloting, and was given a nomination anyway because the artist served on the board making those decisions, as well as one of their representatives.
This doesn't come out of nowhere. The Grammys have been treated like a joke for ages. It's been roughly twenty years since Homer Simpson threw away his Grammy, stating it's not actually an award. The prospect of their being corruption among the Academy is not in the least bit surprising. What does come a bit out of the blue is the stupidity of the remaining members, who didn't forsee a spurned member going public with insider information. Like them or not (and I would almost always argue not), this is why NDAs have become so widespread. A competently run organization would have locked up a potential dissident in an agreement to protect their secrets. The fact that no one here did that is wildly incompetent.
But let's get back to the issue of music for a moment. What do we make of the fact that we know have information in the public telling us that some (many?) of the nominees being celebrated this year were judged even by the committees to not be worthy? For everyone who has written off the Grammys over the years, as they have shifted from being an awards show to being a televised concert, we now have something we can consider proof that it's all a scam, that the record companies are giving awards to the people whose records they are trying hardest to sell.
That may or may not be true, but the story points out a glaring flaw that inhabits just about every pursuit; people are stupid. Any system that includes the people involved in what is going to be awarded is inevitably going to fall apart. Artists cannot be in any way responsible for honoring their peers. Not only is their conflict when they make their own music, but there is conflict whenever a friend (or nemesis) is considered for a nomination. Also, people who do something are often the worst judges, because they are so involved in their own career and their own music that they hear far less than we, the general public, do.
The same thing is true for anyone else who works behind the scenes, as either a producer, agent, or record company executive. They all have self-interest they can't completely shut off, and the people they already know and/or have an investment in will get all the attention. The only way for an award to be considered the least bit genuine is if there is independence for the people handing them out. If it's nothing but the industry patting itself on the back, of course there won't be any respect. Self high fives don't count.
How did no one see this coming?
In Other News: Speaking of the Grammys, Aerosmith will be performing, and they are embroiled in an equally ugly situation. Drummer Joey Kramer was injured last year, and needed time off from performing to heal up. When he says he was ready to come back, the band disagreed, and forced him to audition and prove he was up to the job, after which they denied his re-entry to the band in time for several honors coming to them this weekend.
I'm not sure I can think of another example, off the top of my head, of a member of a band not being allowed to take back his or her rightful spot. This isn't a situation where someone is trying to rejoin after leaving a band. Kramer has always been the drummer of Aerosmith, and the other members have simply told him he can't play. Members who all, at various times, have either left the band or held them up, with no repercussions. Joe Perry left Aerosmith, yet he was welcomed back. Steven Tyler put the band on hold while he did American Idol, then publicly tried to start a solo career, only to return when it was clear no one gave a damn about him without the band. So why is Kramer being singled out and treated like this?
The simple answer is because they can get away with it. Drummers are almost always the most anonymous members of a band, and can easily be replaced without many people noticing or caring. To most people, Aerosmith is Tyler and Perry, and if they can save a few bucks with someone else playing drums, it's not a surprise they would try to put a few more bucks in their own pockets. It isn't a secret that a lot of bands their age are nothing more than business arrangements, where the members only see each other on stage. If that's the reality you live in, screwing someone over is simply monetary policy. They may not see it as screwing a friend. Fifty years in the band doesn't mean much if the 'band' is looked at as a corporation.
There's no getting around stating facts; this is a shitty way to treat a band member. If fifty years in a band gets you that little respect, perhaps the rest of us have to reconsider how much respect to give the resrt of the band.
No comments:
Post a Comment