Although such declamations are hardly conventional, this article had better begin with full disclosure on two accounts: I did not watch the 2013 Grammys, and, before writing this, I did not know anything about the Grammy Awards in general. This look is from a newbie. It is not my intention provide a comprehensive list of the winners and reactions; such an angle would be both stale and, from my perspective, ill-informed. I will, instead, try to bring some things that I do know to the 2013 Grammy Awards.
For those not familiar, pitchfork.com is a Chicago area music blog publication, which offers reviews, exclusives, interviews, breaking news, video releases, and
recommendations. Off the record, it is only fair to mention that Pitchfork is, in some sense, analogous with snobbery. Such criticism is neither ill deserved nor a secret. Keeping this reputation in mind, ponder this pattern: the worse the Pitchfork review, the better the Grammy reception.
After absolutely lambasting the 2010 “Sigh No More” release, nowhere does Pitchfork even utter the name of the 2013 Grammy-winning “Album of the Year,” Mumford and Son’s “Babel.” And although the winner for “Best Alternative Album,” Goyte’s “Making Mirrors,” is given time of day for a review, Pitchfork actually rated it lower than three of the four losing Grammy nominations, two of which appear on the website tagged under “best new music.” A Pitchfork search for Bonnie Raitt, the 2013 Grammy winner for “Best Americana Album” will only yield a Bon Iver cover of one of her songs. Artists take note; if Pitchfork slights you, you may be in for a golden statue.
Some readers familiar with both Pitchfork and the Grammys may take issue with the above juxtapositions: isn’t it obvious that the two are after different things? Let’s find out. The tagline to Pitchfork’s website reads, “the essential guide to independent music and beyond.” The Grammys, on the other hand, are charged with “honoring achievements in the recording arts and supporting the music community,” as “The Recording Academy” section of official website states.
If both of these claims are to be taken seriously, then the relationship between the two is actually pretty clear. Pitchfork operates within a specific, small, dry spot underneath the umbrella of “the music community;” it is within precisely this genre-niche that the three Awards discussed in the previous paragraph belong. The question, then, is should we take both claims seriously? Is one unforgiving but honest, and the other, while ostensibly broad, much less open-minded than service to the “the music community” ought to demand?
Consider the Rolling Stone’s review of “Babel” on September 10, 2012. Apart from suggesting a lot of things that I don’t pretend to understand, including the implications of the group doubling down on “the ‘ole time religion” and the complications of using ‘church flavor’ to supersize and complicate love songs,” the article does bring some interesting observations to the forefront.
The reviewer gives Mumford and Sons praise for a “shinier, punchier, more arena-scale” performance. He twice compares the new sound to U2 and suggests that the accompanying lyrics are full of “Biblical metaphors swirling like detritus in a Christopher Nolan film.” Whatever original or unique elements that, three years ago, squeaked “Sigh No More” painfully onto Pitchfork have since been completely replaced with a new, homogenized amalgamation of Batman and Bono. Music that once belonged, however tenuously, in the realm of indie is now awarded for having become something else.
This is not meant to be an indictment of the Grammys. The point is not to praise the obscure and denigrate the popular. The issue lies in addressing a broken promise. Despite its own proclamation, the Grammys are about performance and popularity. The Award Show is a reproduction of the radio punctuated by mini-Super-Bowl halftime shows. Some genres are elevated and others, such as the small and shrinking categories devoted to alternative, americana, and folk, are neglected. What should, according to its own standards, support the “music community” actually and simply reinforces the music industry.