Why the 2012 Grammys Sucked

Posted in: Blog, Music | 1 Comment | Posted on February 14, 2012 by Jeff Schulman

• Tweet

• Tweet

There is always, and will always be a massive hate-fest the day following the Grammys; be-it from internet trolls, to jealous artists, snubbed industry folks, to evenly-keeled lovers of music throughout the blogosphere.

In NARAS [the Recording Academy’s] defense, you can’t please everyone.. At the end of the day, “music’s biggest night” is still just another annual time slot designed to pull in the highest ratings possible, while grappling to maintain a sense of nostalgic credibility.

With that said.. personally, I think this year sucked.

I take no issue with the nominations or winners. Adele deserved to clean up. She’s a talented, true artist that deserved the recognition. The night being an homage to Whitney Houston is understandable and predictable…

The Problem:

The performance roster was lack-luster given the kind of year we had for music.

More and more, for ratings sake, they seem to be eliminating the number of televised nominations and replacing them with performances. Now, the show is basically like flipping through the Palladia channel. That’s well and good.. but if you’re going to make the Grammys centered around performances, it needs to reflect what people would care to see LIVE.

Here’s my take on this year’s performances:

Coldplay was the most notable, followed by Adele, Tony Bennett, Deadmau5, and perhaps Chris Brown. I felt everything else was pretty forgettable and/or sh**ty, which is why I was surprised to see them parading the same acts up two, sometimes THREE times throughout the main telecast.

For some reason, according to the Academy, the Foo Fighters must be the only rock band in existence. Fact: Skrillex could’ve collaborated with any of the nominated acts and it would’ve made the show at least 12% more interesting. Minaj swung and missed on creating a Lady Gaga-like buzz. Taylor Swift made me yawn twice before I could
even pick up the remote to fast-forward. Katy Perry gave us a new song that sounded like a track that would have not made the album two years ago. A Glen Campbell tribute.. ? Not relevant. And Bruno Mars seems to be stuck in a 1950’s time warp that translates to neither younger nor older generations.

Instead of just pointing out the problems, I will give an ACTUAL solution…

To make the show better, half of the performances can still be the usual top-selling nominees, homages to the older artists, random collabs, etc. The other half of performances should be derived from perhaps polls of the best voted acts, taken at say.. Coachella, or SXSW or any other major music festival. This keeps the nominations and performances fresh, and will insure the Grammys will stand the test of time, and not loose whatever credibility they have left at this point.

Also.. they go WAY too overboard on the time intervals for commercials. It’s practically doubled. If you didn’t Tivo and watch later, you’ll likely want to find a sharp utensil and begin slowly dismembering yourself. They need easily cut the show down at least an hour.

And there it is…

Now I’m just waiting for NARAS to appoint me as head chairman…