(crowd murmuring) - I'll be real with you all, I didn't wanna make this
video for the longest time. Mostly because, what's left
to say about the Grammys? - [Announcer] Let's hear it
for leaving them stunned. - Since 1959, the National Academy for Recording Arts and Sciences has honored achievements in
music with the Grammy Awards, a ceremony that has become
the music industry's most prestigious award. This year's ceremony will be
airing this coming Sunday, after it was delayed to prevent
any severe spread of COVID. In fact, the only thing more certain than the Grammys each year is the thrashing the ceremony
gets by the public each year. 2021's ceremony has been
met with a wave of backlash and outrage that was only
bested by the wave of backlash and outrage it received last year. It's cyclical ya know, and this isn't my first Grammys
rodeo, I know how this goes. Nominations come out, people get peeved at who
was and wasn't nominated. - Best pop solo performance,
"Yummy" from Justin Bieber. I will shoot myself in
the face in front of your- - The ceremony happens
a month or so later, some performances are good, most are meh, the whole thing is too damn long, everyone gets mad about who gets awards, the think pieces roll out, and then we all forget
until the next year. It's a process as old
as Simon Cowell himself, and I didn't think there was
much of value that I could add. And then I saw this list. And I had feelings and thoughts. So join me as we look back on the Grammys, their history, their process
and try to uncover... why? (audience cheering) Part 1: How the Grammys Started. Once upon a time, there was a sidewalk. In 1955, the Hollywood
Beautification Committee was working on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and they reached out to
several music executives to see which artists should get a star. These five men would
meet regularly to discuss who would get their own slab of concrete, but eventually realized
there were too many people they wanted to honor. And then they had an idea, what if they made an award, one that would honor
everyone they wanted to, one that would celebrate
artistic achievement in the sonic sphere? And so, in 1957, the National Academy of
Recording Arts and Sciences was born, and with it,
the Grammophone Award. Their mission was eventually
laid on in the Grammy Credo, written by satirist Stan
Freberg, and it stated: "We shall judge a record on
the basis of sheer artistry, and artistry alone; sales and mass popularity
are the yardsticks of the record business. They are not the
yardsticks of this Academy. We are concerned here
with the phonograph record as an art form. If the record industry is to
grow, not decline in stature, if it is to foster a greater
striving for excellence in its own field, if it is to discourage mediocrity
and encourage greatness, we, as its spokesmen, can
accept no other Credo." But there's more to the mission
that this new academy had. You see, these executives had created the first major organization and award to celebrate music. It would stand to reason, then, that they had a certain
idea of what good music was and what it wasn't. And they sure knew what it wasn't because there was a
genre of music out there, a genre that was crass
and dirty and rebellious and debaucherous, infecting radio waves
with degenerate sounds. That genre was rock n' roll. ♪ You ain't nothin' but a hound dog ♪ - [Narrator] That's right,
the musical craze of the time was despised by most
members of the Academy, and the last thing they wanted to do was celebrate musicians
like Little Richard, Chuck Berry, and especially Elvis Presley. They somehow believed rock n' roll was both a passing fad
and a holistic assault on quote unquote "good music", which they defined as
artists like Frank Sinatra, Henry Mancini, and Ella Fitzgerald. By establishing awards to
honor said "good music", they hoped to keep the music
industry from becoming, as Billboard Magazine phrased it in 1957, "a slave to the enthusiasms
of teenage girls." Boy I'm sure glad that didn't happen. I want to emphasize this
because it's gonna matter later, the initial purpose of the Grammys was explicitly to award
the Academy's definition of good music and implicitly fend off
what was truly popular. The first Grammy Awards
took place in Los Angeles in May 1959. Big winners included Ella
Fitzgerald, Count Basie, Henry Mancini, and
Alvin and the Chipmunks. "Sheer artistry, and artistry alone." Surprisingly, Frank Sinatra, the music industry's golden goose, was snubbed from any major wins, taking home only one trophy
for Best Album Cover. The award ceremony would
take place every year from then on out, though it wouldn't be
televised live until 1971. There were these Best on Record specials that would air in the '60s, but they were closer to variety specials. Like this one where they chat with these four mopheaded
blokes from England that all the kids were into. Even though the ceremonies
began to air live in the '70s, they didn't really transform into how we imagine them
today until C. Michael Greene stepped in as the head
of the Academy in 1988. He was the one who spearheaded a massive expansion in Academy membership, an overhaul of the live ceremony, and the misuse of funds
from the Academy's charity to pay for it while giving himself the highest salary of any
non-profit CEO at the time. Also alleged sexual harassment! He would eventually step
down in the early 2000s, and would be succeeded by Neil Portnow, who we'll get back to in a little bit. The point is, the Academy has handed
out thousands of awards, some to pieces of music
that were well deserved and have stood the test of time, and others that are Bobby
Russell's "Little Green Apples." Here's a quick rundown of some of the Grammys'
most noteworthy decisions: A John F Kennedy
impressionist's comedy album winning Album of the Year in 1963. The New Vaudeville Band's
"Winchester Cathedral" winning Best Contemporary Song over "Eleanor Rigby"
and "Good Vibrations." Bobby Russell's "Little Green Apples" winning Song of the Year over "Hey Jude" and "Mrs. Robinson." Blood Sweat and Tears's self-titled winning Album of the
Year over "Abbey Road" and "At San Quentin." Motown Records only winning one Grammy over the course of the entire '60s. Christopher Cross sweeping
the Big 4 awards in 1981, and being the only artist to do that up until Billie Eilish in 2020. The Police's "Every Breath You Take" winning Song of the Year over Michael Jackson's "Beat It," though in fairness, MJ and "Thriller" did sweep the rest of
the awards that year. Jethro Tull winning the first ever Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance
Grammy over Metallica. Lionel Ritchie's "Can't Slow
Down" winning Album of the Year over "Born in the USA" and "Purple Rain." Milli Vanilli winning Best New Artist, shortly before their lipsyncing scandal, though it did lead to
the only time in history that the Recording
Academy revoked a Grammy. Eric Clapton's re-recording of "Layla," which at that point was 20 years old, winning Best Rock Song over Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit." The entire 1995 Album
of the Year category, which I'll come back to later. Steely Dan winning Album of the Year over Kid A and the Marshall Mathers LP. Ray Charles' posthumous
Starbucks-exclusive guest-heavy covers album
winning Album of the Year over Kanye West, Green Day,
Usher, and Alicia Keys. "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy" not being nominated for Album of the Year. Mumford & Sons winning Album
of the Year over Frank Ocean. Macklemore & Ryan Lewis
winning Best Rap Album and Best New Artist over Kendrick Lamar. Beck's Morning Phase
winning Album of the Year over Beyonce's self-titled. - Come back. - Taylor Swift's 1989
winning Album of the Year over Kendrick Lamar's
"To Pimp a Butterfly." Adele's "25" winning Album of the Year over Beyonce's "Lemonade." In addition, here are
a whole host of artists who have never won a Grammy. (cheerful music) So the Grammys have had a checkered past when it comes to awarding music, but in order to understand why their picks can be so baffling, we should look at how music gets nominated in the first place. So enjoy this title card and while you do, I'm gonna down a few Red Bulls. Part 2: The Grammy Voting Process. Okay, I've chugged four Red Bulls, the room shakes when my heart
beats, and I can see sound. I am in the required state to explain how confusing the Grammy
voting process is. Let's start off with defining what makes a piece of music
eligible for an award, and what makes an individual eligible for Academy membership. First, a piece of music has to be released within the eligibility window. For this upcoming ceremony, that window is September 1st,
2019 to August 31st, 2020. I'm gonna put a pin in that and I'm gonna come back to it in a moment. Second, the music has to be released via what the Academy defines
as general distribution. That's the main criteria, though other categories have
additional requirements. For example, for album categories, the Academy defines an album
as five different tracks and 15 minutes in length, or any number of tracks
and at least 30 minutes. It must also contain quote
"greater than 50% playing time of newly recorded, within five
years of the release date, previously unreleased recordings." And for specific genre categories, an album must contain quote
"at least 51% playing time of the genre specified by the field." Put a pin in that one too. Next, membership requirements. The Academy's website lists that all you need to do
to become a voting member is A, have two peers in
the industry recommend you, and B, fill out a profile. This Vox article from a few years ago lists more detailed criteria such as having a certain
number of musical credits, so yeah, being an active
member of the music industry is one of those implicit rules, go figure. So with those two defined, let's walk through the Grammy process from submission to win. Members as well as record labels can submit music within two periods, one to cover most of what came out in the eligibility window, and one to cover whatever
happens to come out after that first period. Submissions are then screened to make sure they have been submitted
into relevant categories. Next is the first round of voting, and ballots get sent out to
active members in good standing. Members can vote in up to
15 different categories, plus the Big 4, Record,
Song and Album of the Year, plus Best New Artist. Also, because I know some people will ask, the difference between Song and Record is that Song awards songwriting, and Record awards production. Members are instructed, but not required, to vote in the areas they
are knowledgeable about, put a pin in it. Once their ballot is complete, it's sent to a third party accounting firm who tally the first round votes. Now this is where it gets tricky. For some categories, these
ones, the results are counted, a handful of nominees are determined, and that list is sent
back to voting members for the second round of voting, which I'll get to in a moment. For these categories, the
first round votes are sent to what are called Craft Committees, the members of which are actively working in their respective niches. In fact, for these, there
isn't even a first round, the craft committees just
make the list outright. And for these categories,
including the Big 4, the ballots are sent to
Nominations Review Committees, put a big ol' pin in that one. These committees sort
through the nominations, create the final nominee list, and send them out to voting members. After all that, the second
round of voting begins, members vote on their preferred
pick from the nominee list and send it back, the third party firm counts the votes, and the results are revealed live, either during the main award ceremony that airs on television, or the earlier ceremony where the vast majority
of awards are handed out. Okay, the caffeine rush
is starting to wear down, let's go back to some of these pins. First off, what the hell
is that eligibility period! I think it's fair to say that most people place music within the
year it was released, January to January, or something similar like how
the Oscars do it with films. But with this window, not only do you lose relevant
music from later in the year, but you include records that may have long since exited the public consciousness. Be honest, when I put up the
Album of the Year list earlier, did you notice "Everyday Life"
by Coldplay wasn't on it? Probably not, because that
record came out in November 2019, and the main reaction
to their nomination was. - "Everyday Life" by Coldplay? They released an album? Girl! - [Narrator] It can
also lead to situations where music from a year and a half ago can win over something that
was far more noteworthy at the time of the ceremony, see "1989" winning over
"To Pimp a Butterfly," or "25" winning over "Lemonade." - The "Lemonade" album was
just so monumental, Beyonce. - Next, genre categories. This one is more of a little silly thing, but how do you compute if an album is 51% or more of a given genre? Like, what do you focus
on, chord structures, melodies, instrumentation? If you're listening to an R&B album and they throw in a banjo, does that dock it by 10% or something? I figure this is one of those
"you know it when you hear it" kind of things, but it can lead to a
disturbing sort of division that I'll touch on later. Up next, how members can vote. Not requiring members to vote on what categories they're familiar with strikes me as... very sketchy. I feel like there should
be more rules in place than just saying "Hey! Don't be voting in categories you don't know jack heck about, you naughty lil Grammy voter you!" Complex interviewed an anonymous
voting member back in 2014, and regarding this part of
the process, he said this: "Bottom line, the vast
majority of the nominations are chosen by people who
have little real expertise in a given field. I refrained from voting in
heavy metal and classical because I know very
little about those genres. But I could have if I wanted to, and that strikes me as a problem." Finally, (sighs) the
nominations review committees. Okay so, the first NRC was formed in 1989 for the Classical categories, in an attempt to spice up the nominees and prevent the same people from getting nominated
over and over again. A committee for the jazz
categories was created soon after, but it wasn't until
after the 1995 ceremony when NRCs were established for the Big 4. The main impetus was an egregious Album of the Year category, at a time in which
Illmatic, Enter the Wu Tang, Live Through This, Grace, Superunknown and Definitely Maybe were eligible, the Academy recognized Seal,
Bonnie Raitt, Eric Clapton, the Three Tenors in Concert,
and the artist that won, Tony Bennett with his
"MTV Unplugged" record. Following the uproar, specifically how that
Three Tenors live album was considered a joke even
to the classical community, NRCs were created for the Big 4 and several other major categories over the course of the
following two decades. So how do they work? Basically, members of these committees, whose identities are kept
anonymous to the general public, fly out to California, and meet up in person to go
through the ballot submissions and decide which music should
make the final nominee list. After a few days of
listening and debating, these members vote via secret ballot. And the votes are sent and tallied for the aforementioned
second round of voting. In addition, for most of these categories, except the Big 4, committees can actually change up to two of the 15 initial submissions
with their own picks. On one hand, the Academy
says that this allows for a more up-to-date list of picks, but on the other hand, it
can lead to certain artists or songs being unfairly excluded. Billboard interviewed one insider on the rock committee who said, "A lot of the people in the room that year were either crusty old metal dudes or indie-rock guys who
hate anything successful, and they took that year's
biggest-selling rock album and knocked it off the ballot because they thought
it was too commercial." The most frustrating thing
about this clause, though, is that we have no way of
knowing when it's been used. The only morsel of info I could find was an interview with an
anonymous committee member for the LA Times in 1999, where they gave the "Macarena"
as an example of a song that would've been written
out of the final list. Man, could you imagine a world where the "Macarena" got
nominated for a Grammy? At this point, I feel
it's worth mentioning who makes up the actual
membership of the Academy, a report by its own Task Force
on Diversity stated that, for a good chunk of the 2010s, the Academy skewed
older, whiter and male-r. Speaking as someone who's two of those, I'd want there to be a more
diverse array of people awarding and celebrating music, since that would bring in
a wider range of cultures, life experiences, and tastes to the table. You know who had a really
insightful point about this issue? John Legend. You see, the Academy was still
doing voting by mail in 2017 which (grunts). They did transition to
online voting that same year, but before that change, Legend said this about the voting base, "Of all the academies in the world musicians are probably the most transient. And you send us a paper ballot and expect us to return it in a few weeks, and we might be on tour. So sometimes a voting body
might not reflect those artists who are at the height of
their careers, out touring, instead it could be
artists who are retired, more conservative." So then a question arises, has the Academy done
anything in recent years to try to diversify its membership body? The answer is yes! There's only one problem. Part 3: The Deborah Dugan Situation. There was another reason why I didn't wanna make
a Grammys video before, and it was because of the situation involving former Academy
CEO Deborah Dugan, her sudden removal from the Academy, and her allegations towards NARAS. Let me paint the scene, Neil Portnow, who I mentioned earlier, stepped down as CEO in 2019, mostly due to backlash
from a comment he made after 2018's ceremony, during which only one woman won a Grammy during the
entire televised portion. There was also a study from the University of Southern California released before the awards showing that only 9%
of the 899 nominations over the six years prior were women. I'm going to read
Portnow's comment in full while displaying some
albums that were released during the 2018 ceremony's
eligibility window. "It has to begin with women who have the creativity
in their hearts and souls, who want to be musicians, who want to be engineers, producers, and want to be part of the
industry on the executive level. They need to step up because
I think they would be welcome. I don't have personal experience of those kinds of brick
walls that you face but I think it's upon
us, us as an industry, to make the welcome mat very obvious, breeding opportunities for all people who want to be creative
and paying it forward and creating that next
generation of artists." Anyway, Portnow stepped down
and Dugan took his place. With her appointment, she announced a number of goals she had that if achieved would diversify
the Academy's membership. Great news, the Academy is fixed! Except jump to January 2020, a week before that year's ceremony, and she was suddenly placed
on administrative leave. A few days later, Dugan filed
a bombshell of a complaint to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commision, alleging several accusations
towards the Academy. These allegations included: severe racial and gender
discrimination by the Academy, including the fact that
Dugan was being paid far less than Portnow while doing the same job; Dugan being sexually assaulted in 2019 by a lawyer who acted as
general council to the Academy; Portnow sexually assaulting
an Academy member after a performance at Carnegie Hall; Portnow misusing funds from MusiCares, the Academy's charity, to
pay for Grammy ceremonies, wait that happened a second time? The Academy asking Dugan to
bring Portnow on as a consultant after he left his position, and asking her to pay him $750,000; the Academy retaining legal professionals who themselves had close
relationships with artists, adding a conflict of interest; shady dealings within the
Nominations Review Committees, with the complaint alleging
that Academy members pick artists based on their personal
relationships with them; a particular instance where an artist towards the bottom of
the first round of 2020 Song of the Year nominees was not only able to get their
song to make the final cut, bumping out artists like Ed
Sheeran and Ariana Grande, but was even allowed to sit in on the NRC. So after all of that last year, I wanted to hold off on making a video because I wanted to see
what else would happen and how things would change
at the Grammys as a result. And after just over a year
since, nothing's really changed. The allegations weren't addressed
during the 2020 ceremony, though there were arguably overshadowed by the tragic death of Kobe Bryant which happened just hours before. In March 2020, Dugan was
formally fired from the Academy. She filed an additional complaint, the biggest allegation from it being that former show
producer Ken Ehrlich had the power to change the nominations depending on who he wanted
to have on the show, Ehrlich denied that allegation. And that's been it? And that sucks? Not only does the lack
of any real action suck, but the reaction by most of the public towards this news wasn't shock, but a mild confirmation of
things they'd already assumed? And that also sucks? There's one more pervasive
issue regarding the Grammys that I want to touch on, and I'm gonna go back to the
beginning to illustrate it. From its start, the Academy
was focused on rewarding what it deemed good music and quietly shunning
what it deemed lesser. Oftentimes, the people
who made "good music" looked like this, and the people who
didn't looked like this. Part 4: A Concerning Kind of Laziness. From its outset, the
Academy was vehemently against a genre of music
pioneered by black musicians, and granted, most of their
ire was towards Elvis but, I don't know, is
it a controversial thing to say that Elvis heavily borrowed from people like Little Richard? I don't think so. Throughout its history, the Recording Academy has
moved at a glacial pace to recognize genres of black music, and by the time they do, the rest of the world has
moved on to something else. They were slow to accept
rock, to accept jazz, to accept R&B, which they
and the rest of the industry deemed "urban" music in its infancy, and most recently, to accept rap. The first rap categories
were awarded in 1989, almost a full decade after
Rapper's Delight debuted. Now there isn't any
footage of those categories being handed out, because
they weren't televised. But even if they were, there
wouldn't be much to show, because all of the nominees
in those categories boycotted the Grammys. Ever since, the Grammys have
had a contentious relationship with rap and black music in general. The last time a rap album won
Album of the Year was in 2004, with OutKast's
"Speakerboxxx/The Love Below." The last time any black person
won that award was in 2008. Now take a second to guess what album won, take a second, maybe
leave it in the comments what you think it was. Just see what you can come up with. Okay, if you said Herbie Hancock's Joni Mitchell covers album, then you're right and how did
you get into my Google Drive? Only five black artists
have won Album of the Year in the past 20 years, and as Rembert Browne wrote for Vulture, they basically had to create nothing short of career-defining masterworks
in order to get it. And yes, you can find
outliers throughout history, the early Academy loved Ella Fitzgerald, Stevie Wonder was showered
in Grammys during the '70s, Quincy Jones is the
second most awarded person in Grammy history, but again, they're outliers. Not only that but when you
start looking at categories outside of the Big 4, you notice that disturbing
sort of division I brought up earlier. In 2013, the category for Best Urban
Contemporary Album was created. What does Urban Contemporary even mean? Well, it's supposed to represent music that quote "includes the more
contemporary elements of R&B and may incorporate production
elements found in urban pop, urban Euro-pop, urban rock,
and urban alternative." Don't you love it when
the definition of a word includes the word it's defining? There's also the controversy
of who gets nominated in the R&B and rap categories, and who gets nominated in the Pop field. - It sucks that whenever we, and I mean guys that look like me, do anything that's genre-bending
or that's anything, they always put it in a
rap or urban category, which is, and I don't
like that urban word, it's just a politically correct way to say the n-word to me. - Look, when you got Sufjan Stevens coming out of the Tumblr woodwork and smacking your decision, then you know you done messed up. So what do we make of this issue? Let me put it like this, I think there is a fundamental disconnect between what the Academy
says it champions, and what the actual nominees and winners reflect about the organization. Look at the Recording
Academy's social media, you'll see posts for BTS, Rosalia, A Tribe Called Quest, Elvis, events focused on women in music, spotlights on Latin American artists. I do believe that there are
people within the Academy who want to push the organization towards being more diverse
and tuned into the zeitgeist, but I mean when you look at this and then see who actually
gets nominated and wins, this public face the Academy
wears is at best well-meaning and at worst utterly performative. Here's a example: during 2018's ceremony, Kesha sang her song "Praying," which many have linked to her legal battle with her alleged assaulter, Dr. Luke. She was joined by several other women, and it was a powerful moment
where it felt like the industry was taking a stand against
misogyny in their workplace. Now I was reading all
of that with this eye, with this eye, I was looking at the
Song of the Year nominees for this year, and there's a name here
that I don't recognize. Tyson Trax, who worked
on Doja Cat's "Say So." After a quick bit of research, it turns out that Tyson Trax is Dr. Luke. Two years after a song that
was allegedly about him was performed at the Grammys, he is being nominated for a Grammy. Basically, when viewed as a whole, I think these trends we
see the Academy following display a concerning kind of laziness, a firm grip on the past
and a reluctance to adapt to what's new and current. Any racism or misogyny or
bigotry that's perceptible is, I want to believe, less
to do with the beliefs of the individual members, and more to do with ingrained
mindsets that might mean well but ultimately reinforce an adherence to how things have been,
for better or worse. I wish there was a word for that. Part 5: The 2021 Nominations. I suppose, with all of that being said, I should finally circle back to my impetus for even making this
video in the first place, the 2021 Album of the Year nominees. What the hell is this list? I don't think any of these
albums are bad necessarily, I like a good number of them. It's just, what the hell is this list? Let me run through these right quick. "Folklore," great album, might be one of the definitive albums when we look back on 2020 and quarantine. For the first time maybe ever, I'd be happy with Taylor
taking this one home. "Future Nostalgia,"
stellar retro-pop album, Dua Lipa's breakthrough
moment and it's well deserved. I'm rooting for this one too. "Women in Music Part III," I was surprised to see this one make it, but I'm fine with it. I happen to think it's the Haim
sisters' best album to date. "Chilombo," really
surprised to see this one, but maybe that's because it was released in precedented times. Left-field pick, but you
know what, I respect it. "Hollywood's Bleeding," this one feels like a formality, like yeah Post is huge,
"Circles" was huge, he bridged the gap
between human and Pokemon when no one else could, it's whatever. "Everyday Life," look,
despite forgetting it existed, I did like this album
when it first came out. But I get why people are
miffed by its nomination. This one feels like the Academy honoring legacy over quality, like oh Coldplay haven't been nominated for Album of the Year
since "Viva La Vida," they've been around for 20 plus years, let's show them some love. What I'm saying is this
one is probably gonna win. "Djesse Vol. 3," okay how do I put this? Jacob Collier is a virtuoso
and a monumental talent. He's been instrumental in
getting more people interested in music theory and production
over the past decade, which to me is an absolute good. He seems like a really sweet guy. Those videos of him typing
out words in Logic are cute. He sounds great on that one SZA track. And I don't think this
album should be here. Vol 3 was a fine record, but "All I Need" aside
which is a total jam, nothing on here screams
Album of the Year material. (banjo playing) Well that's 10% deducted
from your R&B album. At my most pessimistic, I feel like this one is here
more because of his connections and the fact that he makes music that other musicians go gaga over. What I'm saying is this one
is also probably gonna win. Finally, "Black Pumas Deluxe."
This album came out in 2019. It came out in summer 2019, the deluxe version came
out in August 2020, a few days before the
eligibility period ended, and now it's nominated. Look, I know Black Pumas have their fans, and I don't think they're
untalented or anything, but between the late release and the addition of just enough
tracks to be considered new, man this nomination feels sketchy. Behind closed doors levels of sketchy. So not a horrible list. But what are you trying
to say with this list? 2020 had several landmark albums that spoke to what people
were going through, and some of them are on this list or represented in other categories. But you put them next to
Black Pumas and Coldplay and I'm left wondering, what message does the Academy
want to send with this list? There are two answers
that I imagine people have to that question, one
that I want to squash, and one that I want to explore. The first is, "Does the
Academy have to send a message with their lists? What if they just want
to celebrate good music and that's it?" To which I say, bullhonkey. The Academy has had motives for picking what they pick
ever since their inception. Plus, you don't get to call
yourself Music's Biggest Night and then put out a list
of milquetoast nominees and say "Yeah this is just
what we thought was cool, no big deal, it's fine." The other take would be something like, "Well does any list of
top albums mean anything? Music is subjective, no
matter what the Academy says, and (sighs). Yeah, I guess that's the wall you run into when you start overthinking
award ceremonies. Part 6: The Purpose of
a Music Awards Show. Here's a question for you, how do you think the
world should value music? Not how do you value it specifically, but how do you think the world
at large should value it? It's a big question, because we all value it
in our own unique way. That's what makes music and
engaging with music rewarding, but it also makes quantitating it and awarding it a minefield. Potential hot take time, even if I could snap my fingers and replace the Recording Academy with a bunch of cool
people who like Yves Tumor and autopanned shakers, I still think we'd see a
bunch of irate responses when nominations are announced. The specific issues that exist currently hopefully wouldn't be there, but there will always be
some level of pushback from the outside majority as long as there is one minority
picking and awarding music, whether that's the public
reacting to Grammy nominations or people in the comments
of my year-end list videos. So again I ask, how are we
supposed to award music? Do you base it on popularity? Because there are other
award shows that do that, the American Music Awards and the MTV Video Music
Awards give out honors based on popular vote. Is it based on sales? Then that's the Billboard Music Awards. Is it based on cultural impact? That's a really nebulous
concept to pin down, plus it's never set in
stone as the years go on. Is it based on how much
negative harmony it has? Well then Jacob Collier's
winning every award! The Grammys have an advantage
over other music award shows, it has the music industry's backing. The awards are effectively the industry awarding the industry,
which could be good, but then you realize that they're the industry
awarding the industry. A lot of people like
to harp on the Grammys, saying that they're out of touch or that they only reward what sells. But I don't think either
side is fully right, and to back my point, you just have to look at
this year's biggest snub. ♪ I said oh ♪ - The Weeknd's "After Hours" was a rarity, it sold incredibly well, and it received glowing praise
from fans and critics alike. Not to mention, "Blinding Lights" was
the biggest song of 2020. And yet, nothing. No nominations. So how does that make sense? If the Grammys only reward what's popular, why not the most popular song of the year? And if they only reward
sheer artistic achievement, why no recognition for one of the most well-received
pop records of the year? No matter what lens you use,
his omission was baffling. But the reason is, allegedly, the Weeknd had also been
approached to perform at the Super Bowl, and the
Academy gave him an ultimatum, he can perform at one of the ceremonies, but he can't do both. And because he picked the Super Bowl, he was denied any nominations. For what it's worth, the
Academy have since denied that, saying that conversations with him about performing happened
well after voting was closed. So to say that the Grammys only reward uber-successful pop drivel or the highest of the
highbrow in sonic art doesn't ring true to me. You wanna know what the
Academy really awards? The things that make
the industry look good. It awards safety, legacy, and a commitment to the status quo, because if they were to award the music that's disrupting the system, then what does that say about the system? And those artists who do truly guide music in a new direction are often neglected during the height of their careers and awarded long into their
golden years or posthumously. Will the Weeknd ever get the recognition he wants from the Grammys? Maybe, but I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't until years in the future when he's part of the old guard making the same record every two years and people get mad because there are other younger,
more vital artists working. And that's when I realized. Part 7: The Grammys Are a Flat Circle. Nothing that we've been discussing regarding the 2021
Grammys is remotely new. I mentioned how the whole
rigamaroll of Grammy discourse is cyclical, but it's not just that. In his book about producing
the Grammy ceremony, Ken Ehrlich said Grammy-bashing quote, "would become a yearly pastime for television and music critics, to the point where it would seem as if they would just reprint
the same column every year, changing only the names." And you know what? He's right! Concerns about voting integrity? We've gotten controversies about that ever since the seconnd
Grammys were bogged down by accusations of bloc-voting
by Capitol and RCA. Artists feeling like they've
been unfairly snubbed? It's been going on since Sinatra left the first ceremony
with zero big wins. Heck, in the early 2000s, people felt like Alicia
Keys was being snubbed, jump ahead a few years and
she's hosting the dang thing. Not even drama about artists performing at the ceremony is new. Back in 2000, Dick Clark
sued C. Michael Greene for allegedly forcing artists to pick between performing
at the Grammys or the AMAs, and barring those who choose the AMAs. The issues I've brought up
here have plagued the Grammys in one way or another since its beginning, when five guys decided to make an award to honor the music that
was comfortable and safe and do what they could
to push back against what was new and inevitable. All of these issues that I've
brought up about the Grammys, they're not bugs in the
system, they're features. So have I done it? Have I laid out how for
its entire existence, the Grammys have represented a voting body that might mean well but remains steadfast in the music of the past and refuses to represent what's current, and that the only thing
that changes over the years is what kinds of music represent
the past and the current? But I don't want to be a
Debbie Downer for all of this, so let's ask. Part 8: Can the Grammys Be Fixed? By us common folk? Probably not. Could we all stop watching it? Well I mean, it's not like the ceremony brings in a ton of viewers anyway especially in the key demographics, but also boycotts like
that don't usually work over long periods of time. Plus, as long as famous people like to give each other awards, I think the Grammys will exist in some fashion no matter what. What else is there? I mean maybe all the
music subreddits team up with Rate Your Music to create a "We Are The
World" type charity single, and then that song wins a Grammy, and since that Vox article from earlier said one of the ways you
can become a voting member is by winning a Grammy, everyone in those online communities can become a member and vote? I can't tell if that'd
be horrible or amazing. For the Academy itself, there are some small tweaks
that I think would help, it'd be great if they made
the eligibility period closer to a typical
calendar year for example. In fact, if there's any benefit that might be reaped from pushing this year's Grammys to March, it's that it might inspire the Academy to keep the ceremony in March and push the eligibility
period back two months as well. For the NRCs, maybe the Academy could put out a list of whenever
they've used that clause to sub out a nomination in the past? Just to see. That one would just be for transparency. I'd also say boost efforts to broaden diversity
within the membership, but considering the last time they tried, I don't have much hope, though I'd love to be proven wrong. But the deeper issues within the Academy and the Grammys would likely only be fixed by a complete dismantling and rebuilding of at least the Academy and at most the entire music industry and... like if I'm free next week sure? I don't mean to come off as defeatist, but when we're talking about
systems and ways of life that have been ongoing for decades, it's not like there's one perfect remedy that will solve everything in a day. Real systemic change happens slowly, and I hope that change will
happen with the Grammys, even if it means figuratively
dragging the Academy kicking and screaming to do it. Or the internet charity single route. Part 9: Do the Grammys Matter? Not really! Not only do the Grammys not really matter when it comes to
recognizing impactful music, but not mattering is kind of in their DNA. The only tangible thing they can impact is a brief bump in sales or streams, but it's rare for that to transform an artist's
career in one moment. Plus, with certain awards, winning can sometimes
signify the end of a career. Otherwise? No, despite the claims of it
being Music's Biggest Night, it's more like Music's Biggest Why-t. But at the same time, just outright saying no left
me feeling a bit unfulfilled, so I'd like to modify my answer. The Grammys don't matter. But the Grammys matter to me. I know this might surprise
some of you, but I like music. I like engaging with it and unpacking what makes it work and why we as people value it so much. I want there to be places to
discuss music and our opinions on why certain music clicks
or doesn't click with us. And I want there to be an organization and award that truly
champions music as an artform, a vocation, and a profession. But after doing all this research
into the Recording Academy and the Grammys I realized I'm still waiting for that organization and award to be created. But, all that said, I'll be watching them this coming weekend. I'll be interested to see how they adapt to social distancing protocol, I'll be annoyed when
Coldplay or Jacob Collier win Album of the Year, I'll
read all the thinkpieces, I'll contribute my piece to
the almighty Discourse Void, and I'll be back next
year to do it all again. Cheers. ♪ She's up all night 'til the sun ♪ ♪ I'm up all night to get some ♪ - I'm not actually gonna drink this. ♪ She's up all night for good fun ♪ ♪ I'm up all night to get lucky ♪ ♪ We're up all night 'til the sun ♪ ♪ We're up all night to get some ♪ ♪ We're up all night for good fun ♪ ♪ We're up all night to get lucky ♪ ♪ We're up all night to get lucky ♪ ♪ We're up all night to get lucky ♪ ♪ We're up all night to get lucky ♪ ♪ We're up all night to get ♪
I love anti-clickbait thumbnails like this.
Adam Neely's really good for that as well.
I’m on mobile and opening the post and seeing the thumbnail after reading the title sent me
The thumbnail, gives us the answer.
Music is one of the more difficult art forms to gain consensus on what is “good”, IMO. People will always take issue with awards when the one they want doesn’t win or get nominated. So either they fade into obscurity because the public, media, and industry completely stop engaging with it or someone can take SOME steps to fix things. I think we all know which of those two are more likely:
Step 1: Eliminate this review committee that decides on nominations. Make it completely democratic with academy members and have the Big 4 categories based on ranked choice. This is similar to the Oscars model. People will still complain when their favorites don’t win but at least it completely eliminates this ridiculous shady dealing that can be done and divies up responsibility onto thousands of industry individuals rather than 20 people.
Really wish it felt more like this thread actually watched the video, which is phenomenal, and less like people just answering the very entry-level question the title asks, bringing up "favs", debating the definition of "good", etc. Not to mention, he addresses the subjectivity of taste in the video. It's literally one whole part of the video.
The troubles with the Grammys go so far beyond taste and far into accusations from the short-term chief of rigging, sexual assault, sexism and racism, ultimatums, and so on. There's so much good, thought-out discussion to be had from this video and I wish this was more of a place for it. It's a bummer seeing literally every top comment on here being low effort or a joke while every good piece of discussion is buried and untouched.
omg mic watches AjayII too
The last part really helped tease out my feelings towards the Grammys. If you care about music and want to see talented artists get recognized, the Grammys objectively suck, but what alternative awards/events are there really?
Really well made and thorough video, which for me added a bit of historical perspective on the early Grammys I hadn't heard before. They've always been about protecting the existing system, and therefore opposed to new genres and artists that challenge that system, from year 1.
I've said it before, but how I use the Grammys is to look at the nominations/winners, then look around the web for outrage about who got snubbed. Putting those lists together gives me a decent picture of the last year (or at least Sept to Sept period, as the video discusses) and once in a while I'll find a new artist I missed, generally in a genre I don't follow too closely.
Does anyone in America care about the Grammy's outside of those in the music industry?
People watch movies that won Oscars, but very few people here seem to listen to music because it won a Grammy.
love mic the snare. i suggest his deep dives like this video, great to binge if you like to talk music. it was interesting to learn the history. sometimes i think in the age of the internet, these award shows exist to also create moments that are later talked about or......meme'd.......ick. what a word.