What the hell was up with the Grammys last night? I missed the first 45 minutes watching a movie, but got to see the rest of it. I understand it was the 50th anniversary, but is it really necessary to trot out near-corpses who can no longer perform to authenticate how important the music industry is? Have we finally reached a point where each genre needs their own awards show, much like the CMA's? Does anyone really want to see an 81-year old Andy Williams being led around by attractive women as if they are orderlies at the retirement village, or a 70-something Keely Smith ask "aren't we supposed to introduce them?" after the introductions just occurred, or an arthritic Tina Turner looking like she's being tasered just to see if the White Stripes can steal the alternative music Grammy from the much more deserving Arcade Fire? Do we have to endure Kanye thinking his dead mama is important enough to hold up the proceedings? And the pairings! Kid Rock with Keely Smith. Why not just stab me in the eyes and ears with forks instead? And how 'bout the legitimately talented John Legend being relegated to back-up for the hot but near talentless Fergie? And someone tell me if Alicia Keys was trying to look like an oompa-loompa. Was there a Charlie and the Chocolate Factory theme introduction earlier in the show that I missed? Let's not forget the seemingly endless gospel show, made more tedious by the gratingly up-beat Israel telling the crowd to "wave your hands like this" and then "now sing 'Praise Him.'" Did this just turn into a worship service? And are you really trying to get the crowd of mostly pagans to do an impromptu hallel for the Big Guy? And someone please tell Bruce Springsteen that he actually died five years ago, but before you do, tell John Fogerty that if he has one more surgery on his face, his skin will officially become translucent. And poor Aretha. Honey, are they paying you in trips to the buffet these days? She's got so much fat around her neck now that her vocal chords are incapable of producing anything but a keening warble.
To be fair, Amy Winehouse was awesome, and good for her. I was happy just to see Wilco mentioned. Feist did a very good job, but someone needs to tell these people that she's not really a new artist. Do you have to have a major label release to qualify as "new artist?" I'm not convinced that Kanye isn't just fucking with us. Every time someone made a dig at him (Ludacris, Vince Gill), he took it with good humor. That seems to say he's less of an egomaniac than he appears to be, but he's smart enough and talented enough to fool us all, so who knows. That's it for fair. Pretty much everything else sucked. Perhaps the worst Grammys I've ever seen. Thank God the writers' strike is almost over. Nelly Furtado let slip how dependent these people are on the writers when she said, "We'll be sure that she (Amy Winehouse) gets her Grammy." Uh, thanks, Nelly. I always thought that they had to be present to win...
Aw man, you're beatin' on Bruce? I think he's one of the old dudes that is still delivering the goods. Dylan has come back around with 3 fine albums in a row. Neil Young still delivers about every other album. None of them is breaking new ground, but neither are they merely derivative of their past success (ala Aerosmith, the Stones, and too many others).
Bruce's new album is good, not nearly as good as The Rising, but very solid. And he tackles some important social issues in a broad disillusion with societal complacency over our leaders.
Posted by: Zossima | February 11, 2008 at 10:48 AM
I missed the Best Rock Album award. Was Wilco present, or just mentioned?
Posted by: awall | February 11, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Just mentioned.
Posted by: greg | February 11, 2008 at 12:58 PM
I have to side with Zossima on this one. Have to admit that I put Springsteen up on a pedestal thanks to Nebraska and Ghost of Tom Joad, so I'm a little biased with everything else he does. Bruce is never going to break any new ground stylistically before he dies, but he continually manages to pack as much feeling and poetic integrity into his songs as anyone I've ever listened to. The last two albums with the E-Street band have definitely not been his crowning achievements, but the modern musical landscape would still be much worse off without them. I do find it interesting that he just discovered hair gel this year. By the way, not sure I've ever disliked a rock band as much as I dislike Foo Fighters ... bringing in the string section to magically make their music important. Ick.
Posted by: j-fo | February 11, 2008 at 01:21 PM
While I understand and appreciate the passion for Springsteen and Dylan, and while I acknowledge them both as uniquely gifted songwriters, I think they both sing like an old drunk, passed out in an alley, being simultaneously poked in the ass with a sharp stick and forced to recite poetry.
Posted by: greg | February 11, 2008 at 02:06 PM
Like with so many other topics, I'm with you on this one Greg.
Does Dylan actually sing? I mean if you call that singing then my dog sings too.
Springsteen on the other hand did one of my favorite songs ever - "Born to Run." Oddly, most of his other stuff (to me) tries hard to be worth the time but often falls short and his political/celebrity mantra "I'm more informed than you because I'm famous" seems to make everyone feel sorry for him and cut him some slack because he's trying so hard but it just makes his lack of listenability that much more glaring.
There are a few other widely recognized performers who just puzzle me by their combined popularity yet lack of talent. Oh well - too each his/her own.
If you like the simplicity of Dylan but want someone much easier to listen to, I suggest Nick Drake - He's dead (died in '74 at the age of 26) but he may be the most incredible songwriter of our lifetime.
Posted by: Dallas Tim | February 11, 2008 at 03:43 PM
"I think they both sing like an old drunk, passed out in an alley, being simultaneously poked in the ass with a sharp stick and forced to recite poetry."
That's why I love them so.
Posted by: j-fo | February 11, 2008 at 04:45 PM
Tim, funny, I hadn't heard Bruce state that as his mantra. Been listening to el-Rushbo again? I guess a celebrity having an opinion is only a problem when the celebrity in question isn't advocating torture.
Greg, one of the things I like most about Springsteen and one of the things I appreciate more as I get older is the undercurrent of redemption. His early stuff is about the challenges of adolesence and the blue collar life; his middle period is about love and loss and loving again; and his later work becomes more overtly political. While many would (correctly) identify that his whole body of work centers on the (loss of) the American dream, I think the broader them in it all is that of redemption.
Bruce brings a very earthy understanding of redemption. He has little use for religiosity or future promises. He wants redemption now, and he searches for it (early career) in friends, music, the symbols of youth like cars, rebellion, running away, and yes, the girl.
In his decades-long exploration of redemption, one of the interesting transformations I have observed in Springsteen is from the young man in search of redemption to the elder statesman offering it. (e.g., "Land of Hope and Dreams".) It doesn't come across as arrogant to me, but rather strikes me as very Nouwen-esque (the "wounded healer"). He realizes that redemption is found in the music, the girl, the friend, the birth of a child ("Living Proof"), the sacrifice of a fireman on 9/11 ("The Rising"), etc., even if momentary and fleeting, and now sings about the power of those things.
Okay, that's a sappy fan tribute, but I love the man's music.
Posted by: Zossima | February 11, 2008 at 09:16 PM
Z,
I do too. I just want someone else to sing it.
Posted by: greg | February 11, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Thanks, Greg. Springsteen fanboys aside, you were spot on, and I just p--d myself a little.
Posted by: Paul Stokell | February 12, 2008 at 06:47 AM
Zossima,
Here's another one...
"Like a river that don't know where it's flowin', I took a wrong turn and I just keep goin'..."
-B. Stringsteen
The "Right" thing is as relative to Springsteen as it is to anyone else.
And sometimes (as Greg's already mentioned), listening to Springsteen is torture.
Posted by: Dallas Tim | February 12, 2008 at 10:41 AM
"Greg, one of the things I like most about Springsteen and one of the things I appreciate more as I get older is the undercurrent of redemption. His early stuff is about the challenges of adolesence and the blue collar life; his middle period is about love and loss and loving again; and his later work becomes more overtly political. While many would (correctly) identify that his whole body of work centers on the (loss of) the American dream, I think the broader them in it all is that of redemption.
Bruce brings a very earthy understanding of redemption. He has little use for religiosity or future promises. He wants redemption now, and he searches for it (early career) in friends, music, the symbols of youth like cars, rebellion, running away, and yes, the girl.
In his decades-long exploration of redemption, one of the interesting transformations I have observed in Springsteen is from the young man in search of redemption to the elder statesman offering it. (e.g., "Land of Hope and Dreams".) It doesn't come across as arrogant to me, but rather strikes me as very Nouwen-esque (the "wounded healer"). He realizes that redemption is found in the music, the girl, the friend, the birth of a child ("Living Proof"), the sacrifice of a fireman on 9/11 ("The Rising"), etc., even if momentary and fleeting, and now sings about the power of those things."
I could have sat down trying to think of a way to describe Springsteen's music, and would have never come up with that in 50 years. Stated brilliantly.
Springsteen's voice is perfect for that type of music, as is Dylan's. It portrays pain and weariness, which is perfect for the content. (I personally happen to think Springsteen has a very good voice). It comes across as very dishonest if Josh Groban or Mariah Carey or (God forbid) Michael Buble sing about the "loss of the American Dream."
I came across the Grammys while channel-surfing, and didn't stay long. I came across the award presented to Best Female Performance. When I discovered that I had never heard of any of those songs, and had barely heard of any of the artists, I quickly continued on channel-surfing. Apparently, I don't listen to enough KJ-103.
Posted by: Jay | February 12, 2008 at 10:49 AM
I also came across the Grammy's while channel surfing. Unfortunately, it was during the praise and worship service. I didn't even know it was the Grammy's so I kept on surfing.
Posted by: Miss W | February 13, 2008 at 12:49 AM