Underrated: The Terribleness of the 2008 Grammys

Sometimes, I'm completely the man...

I was gonna write a post bitching and moaning about the 2008 Grammys; oh, believe me, I was. But what's the point? It's sort of after the fact (happened two whole days ago) and people have moved on. More importantly, the Grammys themselves will never change, no matter how much criticism they receive for being completely disconnected from the rest of the universe. The fact that the Grammys exist in its own nebulous where Alicia Keys is holy and everything can be solved with a interpretive-dance tribute concerns me none. Frankly, I think it's sad and a little pathetic that the U.S. does not have a valid award for musicians. Think about it. Despite what a lot of people think, the Oscars seem to get it right a lot, especially this year when two of 2007's greatest films, "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood", are up for Best Picture. Even the Emmys have been pretty spot-on as of late; how else to explain the worthiness of winners like "30 Rock" and "The Sopranos"? Sure, some of the indie favorites get passed over, from "The Wire" to Wes Anderson's career, but at least there's a common denominator between critics and the awards for these mediums.

The Grammys, in comparison, are ass-backwards. They nominate popular artists because "popular" means "best" to them, but not BAD popular like Hinder or Nickelback, only GOOD popular, John Legend and Feist, the artists you can take home to mom. Obviously the Grammys are geared toward an older generation for viewership, which is why John Fogerty, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Little Richard scared the bejesus out of everyone with the night's final performance. But then what the hell is this? An awards show based around old-timey viewers? The nominations are already uninformed, why must we blindly pick musical performers as well? I mean... I have major beef(s) with LCD Soundsystem, but seriously, how in the name of fuck how can they appear in EVERY SINGLE TOP 10 LIST this year and not get one single nomination from what's supposed to be the quintessential music awards? That's the closest I'm getting into a rant, but I think that's a valid question. If nothing else, it forces even the most casual music fan to see a wild disconnect between the Grammys and the rest of the human world.

But enough of that. Even if I just inadvertently bitched and moaned, let's now turn to happier times: a list of four things about the 2008 Grammys that made me smile. In no particular order:

-- Daft Punk. That's right, somebody came up with a GENIUS idea to bring DP and Kanye together on stage for "Stronger", and I guess the thought had just never occurred to me up until I saw Mr. West dancing around that brooding French pyramid, but it was still pretty inspired. You gotta wonder how people like Bonnie Raitt and Ringo Starr reacted when they saw the pyramid open up and those two knucklehead robots doing their thing; I hope Bonnie's mind was fucking blown, and I hope Ringo was envious to be a part of that collective. The fact that they were just pressing random squares on a keypad, as if they were controlling every inch of music when they clearly were not, was pretty sweet too. Would anybody have minded if Kanye left the stage and they broke into some "Digital Love"?

-- That mind-warping gospel performance. The combination of Aretha Franklin's monstrous dress, that one guy who was waving a trombone around and clapping a lot, and the general air of "...okay, wait, what's this all about?" was one for the ages. What this nine-minute tribute to a irrelevant genre to the Grammys lacked in subtlety, it made up for in Israel and New Breed, and the Clark Sisters, and Trin-i-Tee 5:7, and about 78 other people. I couldn't help but smile as nothing made sense.

-- The guy who holds up the mirror so Morris Day can see how pretty he is, mid-performance. Poetic.

-- Herbie Hancock winning Album of the Year. I'm not even gonna relish in the fact that I PREDICTED THIS, on this here very blog, and felt very very smart when I heard the gasps and saw that old S.O.B. skip toward the stage. I just thought, "Good for Herbie Hancock. He proved that he could win Album of the Year with an album no one has ever heard of." What went down at the Grammys was an act of mischievous wonder: Hancock cracked the code. He exposed the Grammy's prejudice against new and interesting music. He proved that all you need is a fail-safe concept for your album (tribute to another great artist), the "classic" reputation, and a sprinkle of fairy dust, and you will have the year's Best Album. Will anyone take this award seriously after this, arguably a more ludicrous win than that one Steely Dan album and the 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' soundtrack? Herbie Hancock has just imploded the Grammys. I bet he's still laughing. How can you not admire the guy?