Wednesday, February 14, 2007

The Oscars vs. The Grammys

Joseph Barsabbas posted a brief rant about the Grammys, which I reproduce here:

Besides the Police, I dabbled very little into the actual awards show, because the Grammys are generally a joke. Justin Timberlake may be the hottest thing going, but I think he puts out drivel. Meanwhile, deserving artists like Neko Case or the Decemberists, that is, the truly best artists out there today are nowhere to be found. I liked the Dixie Chicks song "Not Ready to Make Nice" and I guess they were somewhat vindicated for winning five Grammys, but the fact that the Grammys are useless makes it a fairly hollow vindication. After all, these are music awards, not "free speech" awards, but if it makes 'em feel better, then more power to 'em. The right wingers will still insist that it's liberals voting for liberals anyway.

This got me to thinking a little bit, and here's the comment that I posted:

Agreed on the Grammys, and the Decemberists.

I used to get pissed whenever the Oscar nominees were announced, because I'd hardly seen (or in many cases heard of) the movies that got nominated. In particular I remember whatever year it was that The English Patient had come out and everyone was all giddy that so many independent films had been nominated. Meanwhile, I'd spent the summer watching Independence Day, Twister, and Mission: Impossible. And I couldn't believe none of them got nominated.

Of course, I get it now. The Academy looks for talent and depth and performances that stretch an actor and draw the audience in.

The Grammys don't look for that. If they did, The Crane Wife would certainly have snagged some nominations. But instead we get Justin Timberlake and John Mayer and James Blunt (seriously...James Blunt) while much deeper, more finely crafted music that no one's ever heard of stays unknown.

Elitist? You betcha. James Blunt sucks.