2011 Grammy Awards: When Did Mediocrity and Banality Become Something to Strive For?

[ICWS]

I haven't been a big fan of the Grammy Awards here in the U.S. for the most part of my life, but I wasn't completely bothered with who and what types of music were being awarded during certain years it was hosted. But after reading the nominees for the upcoming Grammy Awards several days ago, I almost bludgeond myself with a one of my guitars. Seriously, this is the worst list of nominees I've ever seen. Justin Bieber is nominated for Best New Artist, Katy Perry is nominated for Best Album, Lady Antebellum is nominated for Song of the Year... you get the point. Really, these are the absolute best people in music as of 2010? Why do these mediocre and banal hacks get to be considered amongst the best musicians of the year when there is so much better music, both in style and substance, out there? What makes it worse is that these people who get nominated use that as a validation as to why they're are good at what they do and why they consider themselves "artists".

Here, have a look at the list yourselves and try to resist banging your heads against your desk in disgust (Fortunately, people like Arcade Fire and Norah Jones are nominated, but I have a feeling they'll be overlooked): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Grammy_Awards#Pop

This is just a continuation of the darkest period of music quality in history that has occured since about 2003 (probably earlier than that). Oh well, at least two of my favorite bands (Tool and System of a Down) are off their hiatuses next year and hopefully they can make new albums soon. I also heard Rage Against the Machine may make a new one soon as well. I also hope guys like Aphex Twin, Nine Inch Nails, Faith No More, Wu-Tang Clan, Massive Attack, Primus, etc. make new albums soon, and bring the spirit from the late 1980s-mid 1990s back into mainstream music and cause a massive shift towards "real alternative music". I hope for this because originality is strongly lacking in most music today, so a revival in the spirit from people like these guys can hopefully cause other musicians that are lesser known or starting to become professional musicians to be influenced towards making original and passionate music themselves, and not fall into the trap of recycling the garbage that alot of these new mainstream musicians are making today.

[Bolton Midnight]

Katy Perry

Bet she's a reet goer mind, I would

Re: When Did Mediocrity and Banality Become Something to Strive For?

It's the new way, it helps all those who are ****ing useless feel good about themselves

[ICWS]

Re: When Did Mediocrity and Banality Become Something to Strive For?

It's the new way, it helps all those who are ****ing useless feel good about themselves

Do you think liberalism is at fault for that?

[Tazio]

Greetings and salutations,
I don't put any credence in the Grammy Awards
I know what types of popular music I like and the artists that perform it regardless how they are graded by these so called experts. A while back I mentioned to a friend that I wasn't overly enamored with Sting. I know a lot of people were, and are. But that really is of no importance to me. This person went ballistic: "How can you say that after all the awards he has won" I went on to say: "I don't dislike his music. I am just not inspired by it" As I stated in another thread, the appreciation of art is subjective. I don't begrudge anyone the awards that they receive, nor do I care if a movie I hold in high regard is "god forbid" only rated 3 stars. I really don't see why this is an issue. At least it is not one with me.

[AndySpeed]

Well I genuinely think that Lady Gaga is extremely talented and her nomination for best female pop vocal performance is very merited. Just to add - I don't usually listen to much 'pop' music (my last.fm profile - http://www.last.fm/user/AndySpeed) but I do enjoy a bit of Gaga. :up:

[ICWS]

Greetings and salutations,
I don't put any credence in the Grammy Awards
I know what types of popular music I like and the artists that perform it regardless how they are graded by these so called experts. A while back I mentioned to a friend that I wasn't overly enamored with Sting. I know a lot of people were, and are. But that really is of no importance to me. This person went ballistic: "How can you say that after all the awards he has won" I went on to say: "I don't dislike his music. I am just not inspired by it" As I stated in another thread, the appreciation of art is subjective. I don't begrudge anyone the awards that they receive, nor do I care if a movie I hold in high regard is "god forbid" only rated 3 stars. I really don't see why this is an issue. At least it is not one with me.

But the point I was making is that a lot of these musicians seem to be recycling the same type of music other people have done a couple years before over and over again, yet they somehow get credited for being "original, artistic, deep, meaningful, brilliant, etc.". And these musicians get awarded as well by the self-proclaimed experts of music. I pretty much realize that the Grammy Awards, and other award shows like that, is simply a manufactured celebration of the industry itself and it allows those involved in the industry to pat themselves on the back for making millions of dollars each year they do the awards show.

Art is certainly subjective, as you pointed out. But to me there is a rather obvious distinction between those who make art for the purpose of appealing to their own and potentially other people's emotions, senses, and intellect, and those who make art for the purpose of commerce and commercialism. In the case of music, some musicians have the ability to include both purposes when making their music, but most musicians tend to fall into one or the other purposes. I really do think the Grammy Awards, 98% of the time, put the spotlight those who make music for the primary purpose of making lots of money. And to me, that's where those musicians' art becomes meaningless, shallow, mediocre, banal, and goes against what art was originally meant to function as.

[ICWS]

Well I genuinely think that Lady Gaga is extremely talented and her nomination for best female pop vocal performance is very merited. Just to add - I don't usually listen to much 'pop' music (my last.fm profile - http://www.last.fm/user/AndySpeed) but I do enjoy a bit of Gaga. :up:

In your opinion, what makes her talented? Is it because she went to an art school? Because she plays the piano? Or is it something else?

Because in my opinion, she isn't that talented in comparison to somebody like Norah Jones, and I don't really think the music she does is fresh or original considering lots of other pop muscians do the same type of music. There's too much of that electropop/dancepop music out there already, and plenty of it came out before and around the same time she came around. Black Eyed Peas, Katy Perry, Usher, Beyonce, Rihanna, etc. all came before she did and they all do essentially the same kind of music, which is pathetic considering they are rip-offs of Britney Spears, Paula Abdul, Madonna, Janet Jackson, etc. You could say she's better than others who fall under that style of music, but it's not anything unique, great, or special to me. I also don't hear that much progression in her music, which leads me to believe that she's a trend and will eventually fade away like most other pop musicians.

Once again, that's all my opinion, and I would appreciate your feedback and I'm curious as to why you think she's talented.

[anthonyvop]

I haven't been a big fan of the Grammy Awards here in the U.S. for the most part of my life, but I wasn't completely bothered with who and what types of music were being awarded during certain years it was hosted. But after reading the nominees for the upcoming Grammy Awards several days ago, I almost bludgeond myself with a one of my guitars. Seriously, this is the worst list of nominees I've ever seen. Justin Bieber is nominated for Best New Artist, Katy Perry is nominated for Best Album, Lady Antebellum is nominated for Song of the Year... you get the point. Really, these are the absolute best people in music as of 2010? Why do these mediocre and banal hacks get to be considered amongst the best musicians of the year when there is so much better music, both in style and substance, out there? What makes it worse is that these people who get nominated use that as a validation as to why they're are good at what they do and why they consider themselves "artists".

Here, have a look at the list yourselves and try to resist banging your heads against your desk in disgust (Fortunately, people like Arcade Fire and Norah Jones are nominated, but I have a feeling they'll be overlooked): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Grammy_Awards#Pop

This is just a continuation of the darkest period of music quality in history that has occured since about 2003 (probably earlier than that). Oh well, at least two of my favorite bands (Tool and System of a Down) are off their hiatuses next year and hopefully they can make new albums soon. I also heard Rage Against the Machine may make a new one soon as well. I also hope guys like Aphex Twin, Nine Inch Nails, Faith No More, Wu-Tang Clan, Massive Attack, Primus, etc. make new albums soon, and bring the spirit from the late 1980s-mid 1990s back into mainstream music and cause a massive shift towards "real alternative music". I hope for this because originality is strongly lacking in most music today, so a revival in the spirit from people like these guys can hopefully cause other musicians that are lesser known or starting to become professional musicians to be influenced towards making original and passionate music themselves, and not fall into the trap of recycling the garbage that alot of these new mainstream musicians are making today.

2 words.......Millie Vanillie!!!

[F1boat]

Well I genuinely think that Lady Gaga is extremely talented and her nomination for best female pop vocal performance is very merited. Just to add - I don't usually listen to much 'pop' music (my last.fm profile - http://www.last.fm/user/AndySpeed) but I do enjoy a bit of Gaga. :up:

I too enjoy her music. In my opinion she is very entertaining and has catchy songs. But I am not an expert to explain whether she is talented or not. I simply enjoy her songs.

[F1boat]

Bet she's a reet goer mind, I would

Re: When Did Mediocrity and Banality Become Something to Strive For?

It's the new way, it helps all those who are ****ing useless feel good about themselves

I think that these are simply the most popular stars. The alternative is to be like the Academy Awards, which usually are given to movies which are completely unknown to the general viewer.

[Tazio]

But the point I was making is that a lot of these musicians seem to be recycling the same type of music other people have done a couple years before over and over again, yet they somehow get credited for being "original, artistic, deep, meaningful, brilliant, etc.". And these musicians get awarded as well by the self-proclaimed experts of music. I pretty much realize that the Grammy Awards, and other award shows like that, is simply a manufactured celebration of the industry itself and it allows those involved in the industry to pat themselves on the back for making millions of dollars each year they do the awards show.
Art is certainly subjective, as you pointed out. But to me there is a rather obvious distinction between those who make art for the purpose of appealing to their own and potentially other people's emotions, senses, and intellect, and those who make art for the purpose of commerce and commercialism. In the case of music, some musicians have the ability to include both purposes when making their music, but most musicians tend to fall into one or the other purposes. I really do think the Grammy Awards, 98% of the time, put the spotlight those who make music for the primary purpose of making lots of money. And to me, that's where those musicians' art becomes meaningless, shallow, mediocre, banal, and goes against what art was originally meant to function as. You certainly make some very astute observations.


a lot of these musicians seem to be recycling the same type of music other people have done a couple years before over and over again, yet they somehow get credited for being "original, artistic, deep, meaningful, brilliant, etc.". ]. This has been going on since the advent of Rock genre, somthing that I am almost old enough to remember. The performers should get very little credit for this, and none for creative originality.
But there are a few notable exceptions that changed the song substancially enough to warrant some merit "Summertime", composed by George Gershwin For "Porgy and Bess" in 1933, and recorded numorous times by high profile stars received it's highest acclaim in the Rock/R&B Era in 1966 by Billy Stewart.( a version that I really enjoy) "Bobbi McGee" is a Kris Kristopherson composition and recording, as is Joni Mitchell's "Woodstock" And Jackson Browne's "Take it Easy" ( although Glen Frey is listed as a co-writer because he added the lyrics about Winslow Arizona) and "Rock me on the water" Linda Ronstadt received a lot of acclaim for her version
I could list more but I think these will get my point across.


it allows those involved in the industry to pat themselves on the back for making millions of dollars each year they do the awards show

Sucks doesn't it?

But to me there is a rather obvious distinction between those who make art for the purpose of appealing to their own and potentially other people's emotions, senses, and intellect, and those who make art for the purpose of commerce and commercialism. In the case of music
It really always has been that way. I remember an interview I saw with Joni Mitchell (who by all accounts was a very talented muscian, also brilliant, original and creative) said that "Raised on Robbery" was written as a direct response to her Record Co. insisting she had a song that was near or at the top of the charts. That one was not that obvious because she was so original, and it was true to her style somewhat
most musicians tend to fall into one or the other purposes. I really do think the Grammy Awards, 98% of the time, put the spotlight those who make music for the primary purpose of making lots of money. And to me, that's where those musicians' art becomes meaningless, shallow, mediocre, banal, and goes against what art was originally meant to function as.
Amen Brother! They are a complete waste of time IMHO

Everybody has music out there now including my own daughter. It's all original but she isn't that talented and I was very glad that she got her BS in "Acoustics and Sound Production", and is currently employed as a Recording Engineer.

[ICWS]

I think that these are simply the most popular stars. The alternative is to be like the Academy Awards, which usually are given to movies which are completely unknown to the general viewer.

Good point about the Academy Awards. The most recent ones validate what you said; with the best example of The Hurt Locker winning Best Picture over the far more commercially successful Avatar. I think that's a good thing, personally, because that can increase the viewership of a film like The Hurt Locker and allows those viewers to open themselves up more to films that display different plots, points of view, emotions, etc. than they are accustomed to with more commercial films.

It would be great if the Grammy Awards and other music award shows could do the same thing, but clearly they aren't and probably won't unless the consumers of music outright tell them so. But that is also very unlikely because it seems most American consumers of music only listen to music they are told to listen to via contemporary music channels (both radio and T.V.), so they think that's the only music out there and by not liking it, there must be something wrong with them.

I'm glad that on this forum that people are open and unashamed of liking the music they like to listen to, on the "Currently Listening To..." board. A lot of people my age (early-20s) who hang out with me or attend college tend to be the typical American consumer of music I talked about, and some of them think I'm weird for liking people like Tool, Aphex Twin, Butthole Surfers, etc. because they've never heard it on the mainstream music radio/T.V. channels. But I feel that these people have some secret musical tastes of their own that are not as commercial as other music, but they keep it to themselves and not openly admit they like their secret preferences so they don't get looked at as being weird by the herd.

[harvick#1]

I never take any award shows seriously, I know whats good and whats total crap, I dont need an expert telling me this because quite frankly, everyone has a different opinion to music and movies.


award shows are so watered down now, I mean there are about 5 Country music award shows, 15 music awards, 5 movie awards, I mean what is this, the everyone gets a trophy thing we were all taught when we were 5, give me a break

[ICWS]

I never take any award shows seriously, I know whats good and whats total crap, I dont need an expert telling me this because quite frankly, everyone has a different opinion to music and movies.


award shows are so watered down now, I mean there are about 5 Country music award shows, 15 music awards, 5 movie awards, I mean what is this, the everyone gets a trophy thing we were all taught when we were 5, give me a break

Yeah, I didn't think about that until you posted what you said. It does seem these shows are created to make these all of these people feel like they're winners in some regard.

And even though you're right in not needing an awards show to help you decide whether if someone's music is good or not, the fact is that Grammy Awards get a significant T.V. audience. Last year's broadcast got a 9.8 Nielsen net rating, and an average audience of 25.8 million. This seems to mean, to me at least, that at least 25 million people needed to have an awards show to help them realize who's music is good and who's music isn't.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm a rather pessimestic person in regards to how people from the ages of 18-35 years old know about music as a whole (including both commercial music and non-commercial music) and what is good music versus mediocre music. As you could probably tell, I take music very seriously, and I'm upset with the current state of music at the mass level. Maybe that's because I play music as a hobby myself (without recording it), and have developed a taste in music that for the most part isn't concurrent with popular music today.

In my opinion, one of the best ways to determine whether certain music is good or not is if it encourages/inspires the common listener to make music themselves. I think Ralph Waldo Emerson said something like that in regards to art in general. I, and a few other people I know who play music, have been inspired by people like Opeth, Mesuggah, Tool, System of a Down, Rage Against the Machine, King Crimson, Dream Theater, Metallica, Slayer, Elton John, David Bowie, Nine Inch Nails, Ministry, Primus, Jaco Pastorius, Aphex Twin, Norah Jones, Butthole Surfers, Faith No More, Oasis, Midnight Oil, Offspring, Wu-Tang Clan, Public Enemy, A Tribe Called Quest, Victor Wooten, Massive Attack, Alice In Chains, Bad Religion, Beethoven, Kronos Quartet, Mozart, J.S. Bach, etc. So in our opinions, those people make good, if not great, music since we were inspired to create music of our own and examine the meaning of lyrics with the influence of those people.

From what I know, I don't see any common listeners of Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, Lil Wayne, Lady Antebellum, Katy Perry, Alicia Keys, Drake, Rihanna, Chris Brown, etc. being inspired to make music themselves. Those guys' and gals' music actually seems to encourage listeners to not make music themselves and instead simply listen/sing along in a car on the way to work and/or listen and dance in a club to those guys' and gals' music.

[janneppi]

As you could probably tell, I take music very seriously, and I'm upset with the current state of music at the mass level. Maybe that's because I play music as a hobby myself (without recording it), and have developed a taste in music that for the most part isn't concurrent with popular music today.


So, basically you're just like everyone else, if you don't like particular type music or artist, it's crap. ;)

There was a funny comment in a Finnish humor site few years ago about comparing music.
“Toisaalta esimerkiksi 2 Unlimitedin No Limitsin vertaaminen johonkin Bachin fuugaan on tosi epäreilua, koska Bach ei osannut räpätä ja biisistä puuttuu kertosäe”
which roughly translates as follows:
On the other hand comparing No Limit by 2unlimited to something like Bach's Fugue is really unfair because Bach could't rap and the song lacks chorus.

[AndySpeed]

From what I know, I don't see any common listeners of Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, Lil Wayne, Lady Antebellum, Katy Perry, Alicia Keys, Drake, Rihanna, Chris Brown, etc. being inspired to make music themselves.

When you've got so many listeners, it's easier for you to make such sweeping statements. I feel you've seen listeners who perhaps are a bit apathetic, consumerist towards their listening to these artists and assume they represent all listeners. What you don't seem to have considered is that you just may not have met the others. If anything I would assume that you're a bit miffed that not more people listen to the music that you love.


Those guys' and gals' music actually seems to encourage listeners to not make music themselves and instead simply listen/sing along in a car on the way to work and/or listen and dance in a club to those guys' and gals' music.

Where on earth you've got this from is anybody's guess. If you're going to make these statements, at least try to back them up! It would be a bit like me smearing all those who listen to Tool as lazy, apathetic stoners just because I know a few people who are like that.

You'll note that I'm not a big listener to Gaga et al. But I'm defending their music because when I do listen to it or see it performed I enjoy it. And that's what music is about.

[ICWS]

So, basically you're just like everyone else, if you don't like particular type music or artist, it's crap. ;)

There was a funny comment in a Finnish humor site few years ago about comparing music.
which roughly translates as follows:
On the other hand comparing No Limit by 2unlimited to something like Bach's Fugue is really unfair because Bach could't rap and the song lacks chorus.

Yes, I'm indeed like everyone else. But I said in my posts that these things I was saying were my opinion, meaning that there existed a high level of subjectivity in what I said. I'm not saying anything of these things are the truth and nothing but the truth, but based off personal experience, I felt that I could validate my opinions to make good points about what I said.

[ICWS]

When you've got so many listeners, it's easier for you to make such sweeping statements. I feel you've seen listeners who perhaps are a bit apathetic, consumerist towards their listening to these artists and assume they represent all listeners. What you don't seem to have considered is that you just may not have met the others. If anything I would assume that you're a bit miffed that not more people listen to the music that you love.



Where on earth you've got this from is anybody's guess. If you're going to make these statements, at least try to back them up! It would be a bit like me smearing all those who listen to Tool as lazy, apathetic stoners just because I know a few people who are like that.

You'll note that I'm not a big listener to Gaga et al. But I'm defending their music because when I do listen to it or see it performed I enjoy it. And that's what music is about.

Personal experience is where I get my opinions from. I've hung out with different kinds of people from in my life: classmates, teammates, co-workers, family, neighbors, etc. And I know what most of their musical tastes are. And I know how they interpret the music they listen to and whether it motivates them to take up playing music themselves as a hobby.

I play bass guitar and have done jam sessions with some of these people; a few of them have degrees in music. And we all agree 99% of the time of what music is meaningful, inspiring, and creative. The people I play with come from a variety of backgrounds. A few are from the south, some grew up in poor neighborhoods, we come from different race and ethnicities, etc. Yet we all know a lot about the extreme variety of music available, and we know that plenty of it is not always played on the radio/music video channels.

And then there are those people I've met who listen to those Grammy musicians I listed. They only listen to music that is played on the mainstream radio stations that they have on when they are driving, and download that music on to their MP3s. They seem to lack a knowledge of the various genres of music that don't necessarily get played on the radio, and they don't seem to know much about music older than their generation: one of them couldn't tell the difference between The Who and Led Zeppelin, for example. They don't play instruments except for the Guitar Hero guitar or the the DJ Hero turntable. Also, most of them haven't read the lyrics of the people they listen to, so they're unaware of the depth or lack thereof of those musicians' lyrical content, which forms the backbone of pop music.

Once again, all my opinions on this thread are based off personal experience. I know many of you agree or disagree with what I said. But just remember that whatever I type in this thread is subjective, and I'm not trying to share my opinions as if they are the absolute truth.

[Tazio]

Once again, all my opinions on this thread are based off personal experience. I know many of you agree or disagree with what I said. But just remember that whatever I type in this thread is subjected, and I'm not trying to share my opinions as if they are the absolute truth.Let me know how that works out for you! :rolleyes: ;)

[ICWS]

Where on earth you've got this from is anybody's guess. If you're going to make these statements, at least try to back them up! It would be a bit like me smearing all those who listen to Tool as lazy, apathetic stoners just because I know a few people who are like that.

Actually, I know some Tool fans from the high school I went that seemed to be apathetic and lazy stoners :D . I wouldn't be suprised if here are a lot of Rage Against the Machine fans that are that way as well, except they would have shirts/posters that have Che Guevara, Malcolm X, etc. on them and possibly have Noam Chomsky books in their bedrooms.

[janneppi]

Yes, I'm indeed like everyone else. But I said in my posts that these things I was saying were my opinion, meaning that there existed a high level of subjectivity in what I said. I'm not saying anything of these things are the truth and nothing but the truth, but based off personal experience, I felt that I could validate my opinions to make good points about what I said.
They are indeed your opinions and you are more than welcome to have them and express them. :)
Just that they sound rather elitist to someone like me who likes to listen to the radio, or play Guitar Hero. It's not uncommon though, most people are a bit snobbish on a subject they practice or feel close to. On a bicycling forum I read bicycling there are occasional rants about people buying crap 500 Eur mountain bikes when in reality they should spent at least 1500-3000 Eur to get a proper bike. ;)

[A.F.F.]

Grammy Awards... the only show were everybody gets a trophy. :mark:

[ICWS]

They are indeed your opinions and you are more than welcome to have them and express them. :)
Just that they sound rather elitist to someone like me who likes to listen to the radio, or play Guitar Hero. It's not uncommon though, most people are a bit snobbish on a subject they practice or feel close to. On a bicycling forum I read bicycling there are occasional rants about people buying crap 500 Eur mountain bikes when in reality they should spent at least 1500-3000 Eur to get a proper bike. ;)

My apologies for mentioning Guitar Hero in a negative way. I was trying to say that from what I've seen, Guitar Hero/DJ Hero/Rock Band, etc. is as far as these listeners of those Grammy musicians go as far as taking up an instrument themselves. Once again, that's based off my personal experience of being around people who listen to that kind of music.

And yes, I'm a rather snobbish person when it comes to music. You aren't the first person that has told me that before. But I'm snobbish for the reason that you pointed out: that I practice/am close to music myself and so I feel that I have a strong passion for music in regards of determining whether a professional musician's music is good or not, and whether it's detrimental or not to the notion that it is an art.

I've come across snobby people in other fields in my life as well. For example, I also like to play sports (tennis, basketball, weight training, etc.), and have met very snobbish people in those hobbies. Tennis and weight training are the worse in this regard: the tennis players I've played with before think they are "the sh*t" simply because they practice with a private instructor and have Federer's or Nadal's retail racket. While these people are pretty good, I do get turned off by some of their elitist beliefs about what equipment is better, the best way to hold the racket, best way to practice, etc. It's a guilty pleasure of mine to play and beat these guys when we play due to that elitism they display. Weight training people are even worse, especially when discussing how many sets/repetitions you should do, what's the best supplements, how often you should train, what exercises to do, etc. I've learned it's bad to go to a gym with competitive friends, because they quickly starting working out in a way to lift more weight than each other, oftentimes compromising form and injuring themselves.

So yeah, I understand why you think I'm being snobbish and elitist when it comes to this discussion. But once again, I'm speaking on personal experience and I feel that I've met enough people in my life who listen to the the types of music I've been praising or criticizing in this thread, so I think that it's reasonable for me to think that my viewpoints are valid.

[ICWS]

Let me clarify somthing else...

It really doesn't bother me that people listen to Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Lil Wayne, Justin Bieber, Black Eyed Peas, Rihanna, etc. People can certainly listen to whatever music they choose to listen to. But the point of this thread I started is that I don't think these people's music are as high in originality and in artistic integrity and quality in comparison to a lot of musicians who were not nominated for Grammy Awards, and thus shouldn't be awarded or even praised.

Call me crazy if you will, but I thought the point of giving awards out in a particular field is to show respect and honor those who did the best work in that field in that particular year, regardless if they are popular to the masses or not. David Beckham may have sold more jerseys than any other player in football, but that doesn't automatically make him the best player in the world. FIFA knows that charisma and popularity doesn't make a football player the best, it is the quality of their skills and what they do with them that determines whether they're the best or not.

Clearly, to me, that isn't what the Grammys and other music awards shows, for the most part, try to do. To them, album sales is what makes musicians the best, regardless if the art they're producing is of the highest quality possible.

Once again, I think there is an obvious distinction between creating art (music in this case) for the primary purpose of appealing to your own and possibly others' senses, emotions and intellect, and creating art for the purpose of commerce and commercialism. And in my opinion, an artist should be awarded for doing the best they can do with the skills they have at hand and how well they use those skills to craft and appeal to their own senses, emotions and intellect in the most creative and entertaining way possible, and express that experience to others who choose to listen, read or view it.

I realize that music, film, and other mediums of art have come a long way thanks to technological advancements, so it's unreasonable to expect and force all art go back to simpler times. But I'm disappointed and offended when these mediums are being dumbed down and whored by big corporations for the purpose of making lots of money, and then get praised and awarded for being something they really aren't. This just creates lower quality art in general as the more true artists, because of this, may face becoming bankrupt and may be forced to either sell-out and dumb down their art in order to make a living, or stop creating art all together and be forced to take up a different job or career that may be unsatisfying to them and/or below their dignity in order to survive.