What comes to mind when you think of the phrase “peak musical stardom”? Millions of fans? Radio hits? To the public eye, there is no greater display of musical success and status than the Grammys. As a musician and someone heavily involved in the ins and outs of the industry, I have always found it rather unusual to think that someone would subjugate their art to compete for the esteem of titles such as “Album of the Year”, or “Best (genre) Album” (non-contemporary, of course). How could something so personal, so subjective like music, be graded and categorized with such divine objectivity and impunity by someone else? Further, should music fans accept the Grammys to be the standard of influence for the general public to contextualize an artist’s industry success?
As a festering bitterness for closed-voting award shows such as the Grammys exponentially grows with younger audiences, the central qualms lie in the lack of both inaccurate perceptions of the popular music landscape, as well as on-the-nose, senseless snubs that do little to shine any light westward of the insipid winners circle that the corporatized music industry, and subsequent Recording Academy, have in their respective rosters. As a young music fan in this demographic, time and time again, the Grammys have seemingly shot themselves in the foot with its stale, reoccurring performances and nominations each year. Now, in 2020, many fear that the Recording Academy specifically, is drifting farther and farther away from delivering to the music fan, and instead, pandering to a separate agenda altogether, conjuring up a 2-hour marketing performance, rather than a true celebration of the arts.
From the Oscars, to the Emmys, almost every artistic medium today has a respective award ceremony to celebrate technical excellence within their field. Award ceremonies were originally spearheaded by the Academy Awards, which were first broadcast via radio in the 1930s, and then later televised in 1953. In fact, the top four major American award shows in place today were established between 1940-1959. Since the birth of the Academy Awards, every other industry, from television to music, derivatized a system mirroring the Oscars. From then on, the model for award shows was born.
Of every industry today, however, the one with most abundant award show selection is the music industry. This may appear relatively trivial, but it raises the question as to why so much emphasis is being placed on criticizing and analyzing music, specifically. One may point to it being just as categorically negligible as, say, voting for a “best sports team”, but music has historically played a significant role in establishing status among a group.
While the evolution of Western (geographically, not regionally) music has helped guide us up to this point in terms of referencing who is listening to what, sociologists found more links as to how and why we consume the music that we do. A 2001 study on the sociological connections between music and status “found a folk factor, characterized by a very strong negative effect of level of education, and a pop factor that is preferred by younger respondents. These tastes, or factors, differ both in breadth and in content, and…it allows us to take these two aspects into account simultaneously”. That said, it is imperative in understanding the sociological, sometimes pre-determined, innate influence that music has on us, and why it then should warrant more protection, and less spotlight, from third party interference, such as the closed-voting system of the Grammys. With this system in place, the public can only have a mere second-hand influence on a panel who decides each award that is distributed, and not a direct say in who gets to win what award. Given the ability for corporations to target advertisements specifically to each viewer, modern award shows now walk a thin line between representation and manipulation.
When establishing the “now” of music, and what is and is not deserving of laudation, it is difficult to navigate the field transparently when virtually all commercially released music is owned and distributed by 3 major record labels (Universal, Sony, and Warner Brothers). Further, the Recording Academy has recently come under fire for bullying allegations, as well as voting fraud, bias, and sexism in their decision-making process. Since then, its main alleger, and former-CEO, Deborah Dugan, who spearheaded investigations into the unethical practices of the Grammys, has been removed, only raising more questions regarding the legitimacy of a company determining the “best” and “worst” on behalf of an entire country. In a report by NPR, Dugan “alleged that the Grammy nominating and voting process itself was ‘rigged’ and ‘corrupt’”. With these understood, it seems as though the lines for objectivity are becoming progressively more distorted, and rapidly more for-profit, as the foundation for “success” is dilapidating at its own roots. Since when did an artform solely based on individual expressionism become so hedonistically exploited for corporate takeaway? Perhaps the question lies in the why. If a panel has a standard for success that they abide by, why should it be a problem that hard-working musicians at the top of their craft be recognized for their achievements?
Between the outpour of boycotting from celebrities, and the tone-deaf responses from the academy, the reputation of the Grammys has plummeted in recent years. Artists such as Beyonce and Frank Ocean have recently renounced the Recording Academy for its bias and misrepresentation, as well as its failing to recognize all areas and aspects of music equally, especially regarding race. Just as recently as 2020, the Recording Academy has had to halt the use of the word “urban” in describing music stemming from black roots, following a boycott from many popular black artists refusing to continue submitting their works for recognition. Let’s not forget, for the first time ever in 2018 (read that again, 2018), R&B/Hip-Hop music became the most popular music genre in the country. Originating in a time of great segregation and historical robbing of black music, the Recording Academy has refused to alter the ways at which it categorizes music, still placing umbrella terminology over vastly complex, and culturally establishing, music. With this said however, the Recording Academy has started opening up performances to more black artists and POC, notably welcoming more than half of their performing ticket in 2020 to non-white acts such as Lizzo, Tyler, the Creator, Charlie Wilson, and more. However, for an institution that determines the most common denomination of popular music and broadcasts it to the masses, the problem with celebrating the artists who have made it to the “top” is the realization that there were countless artists vetted and prejudiced in the process, likely for reasons outside of their art, and for that reason, again, we must rethink how we value the Grammys as a whole in terms of establishing true transparency in popular and commercially successful music, when the everyday music fan cannot even vote for their favorite artist to qualify.
Nielson Music, a prominent tracking system designed to track sales of music, reported that in 2018, “collectively, Grammy performers experienced a 328% gain in song sales in the U.S. on the day of the show, according to initial sales reports from Nielsen Music”. If a biased system is determining who should perform and win awards, then this subsequent monetary success should not be celebrated or esteemed to the same caliber as those who garnered it organically.
But what options are there for an artist looking to circumvent the Grammys, while still amassing genuine “commercial” success? One might argue that in this day and age, a music label is the only doorway into fame. Prior to the internet, this sentiment could not have been met with more objectivity. However, with the introduction of self-streaming services such as SoundCloud becoming popular in the early 2000s, any music artist could upload their material and cement it into the cosmos for anyone to enjoy. Following this catalyst technological evolution in the music industry, no longer did an artist need to have any record label connections or affiliations to achieve the same amount of stream success as their favorite artists. This concept has picked up steam with the Recording Academy recently, with the latest installment of the Grammy Awards being swept by a once independent SoundCloud artist, Billie Eilish. As music fans, this is the first window that the academy has constructed within their partition between commercial and independent music. With the academy’s back against the wall, there is not a better time for an independent musician to release music, as these two worlds of commercial and independent are soon going to be forced to collide.
The Recording Academy itself has a long way to go before it can re-establish itself as a leading voice for music and recorded arts in pop-culture. With tensions growing between fans and the academy, the Grammys are progressively being forced further outside of the mold and standard that they have so gracefully established. I am not certain where the future of the Grammys, or any closed-voting system for that matter, are headed. One way or another, the system of pandering to marketing campaigns and top-dollar advertisers has already peaked, and if the Grammy’s want any chance of staying afloat, the academy will have to repel from its 10-foot throne, and keep its ear low to the ground. I do know though, that the standards at which we prioritize and hierarchize music is due for a revolution, and I have a feeling that that is right around the corner.
