Newcomer
Norah Jones upsets Bruce Springsteen at the
Grammy Awards. In the eternal words of Elvis
Costello, "I used to be disgusted, now
I try to be amused."
Norah
Jones beating "The Boss" isn't as
bad as Hillary
Clinton or Milli Vanilli winning Grammys,
but The
Rising should have won Album of the
Year. I thought it would. It deserved to. I
also thought the voters would have taken the
opportunity to correct a mistake they made 18
years ago when Lionel Richie's Can't
Slow Down was recognized as Best Album
over Springsteen's Born
in the USA.
Some
of the 9/11 images The Rising conjures
are obvious, but others are evocative snapshots
of ordinary people struggling with the events
of extraordinary times. Reunited with the E
Street Band, Springsteen resurrects an old energy.
It doesn't just tries to sound "important."
It is challenging.
Jones
has an excellent voice. Her singing is superior
and Come
Away With Me is technically proficient.
She probably deserved to win in nearly every
category she was nominated in, though I think
Alan Jackson's "Where Were You When the
World Stopped Turning" would have been
a worthy Song of the Year winner. But, will
Jones's be a classic?
I
don't think so. Tony Bennett says that he loved
the fact that the Jones won: "It's great
that young artists are starting to recognize
tradition. Bennett, of course, won for a similar
album a few years back (Unplugged).
The industry knows there is a niche for "tradition-oriented"
music (i.e. last year Oh,
Brother Where Art Thou won over U2's
All
That You Can't Leave Behind) and works
to exploit it. This is the perfect market for
a Norah Jones.
There
may also be an identity politics issue at work.
The industry may have a problem with "message"
music by men? Over the space of ten years, only
two albums by male singer-songwriters have been
recognized as album of the year.
Selecting
Norah Jones over Bruce Springsteen makes a lot
of contemporary political sense. Jones seems
to have few political opinions to espouse. Springsteen,
for all his working man themes, is pretty much
a liberal. He might have said something at the
podium.
But, should the music be allowed to "do
the talking?" Should artists be recognized
for creating honest songs that speak to a certain
time? Good songwriters can speak to the times
in interesting and entertaining ways. One doesn't
have to accept the politics of Crosby, Stills,
Nash and Young's "Ohio" to recognize
that it's good writing. Neil Young, who wrote
it, also crafted the much different "Let's
Roll" last year in the wake of 9/11. It's
not one of his best songs, but it demonstrates
that he has an ear for speaking to what is going
on in the world at a certain time.
This is the second year in a row that the Grammys
have sent a message that "Chicks with Pianos"
beat "Dudes with Guitars." Last year,
Alicia Keys was in the keyboard-driven melodic-pop
niche that Norah Jones currently occupies. Keys
won five awards though not album of the
year.
Keys
and Jones are clearly producing the music that
the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences
wants to recognize post-9/11. Perhaps more personal
and "timeless" melodic product is
the wave of the future. Perhaps there is a thought
that the average listener doesn't want to be
stimulated lyrically as well as musically.
I
admit my bias towards songs and albums that
have something to say lyrically as well as musically.
Based on the last couple of years (as far as
recognizing outstanding albums), that's not
the direction NARAS is going on. Whether that's
good in the long run for the music industry
is open to question. Regardless, Bruce Springsteen
has nothing to apologize for.
Robert A. George
is an editorial writer for the New
York Post who
has done time as a professional DJ (and amateur
comedian).