The Not-MTV Awards
The Grammys finally got it right.

By Robert A. George, editorial page writer for the New York Post
February 24-25, 2001

he Grammys have received their share of abuse over the years — much of it deserved. How could we forget when the

Printer-Friendly

Starland Vocal Band won best new artist? Or when Milli Vanilli had to return an award when it was discovered that — Gasp — the duo didn't really sing their songs! How about Jethro Tull copping the best hard-rock statue? These kind of embarrassments never seemed to bedevil other awards shows.

Then again, the Grammys have always had competitive pressure that the other awards shows never faced. While the Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild have put on their own awards galas, the nature of the Oscar and the medium of cinema itself are such that "the Academy" is peerless when it comes to conferring status on the art of movie making.

But the very nature of the popular music beast is somewhat transitory. It's the only "art form" where "winners and losers" are tabulated on a weekly basis — Top Ten," "Top 40," "Hot 100." We expect our popular-music efforts to drift in and out of our consciousness. And the days of classical music retaining any sort of hold on our society are long gone.

But the biggest threat to the Grammy is without a doubt MTV. The video-music channel has overtaken radio as the preferred medium with which to "break" popular-music artists. Furthermore, while the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences has been exiled to Los Angeles for the last several years (the result of a feud between Mayor Rudy Giuliani and NARAS President Michael Green), MTV's annual awards show has literally taken over New York. During the last couple of years, street signs have been renamed after nominated artists.

Of course, the biggest problem with this is that popular music has been enveloped by the "cultural attitude" of MTV. That is, the attitude of rebellion. This gives license to presenters and performers to curse with abandon, to shock, and to generally find as many other ways as possible to be offensive.

The Grammys can't do that on their own. What to do? What to do? Surprisingly, this year's Grammys managed to showcase the cultural war in a manner that didn't completely cave in to the dubious tastes of MTV. The much-ballyhooed Eminem-Elton John duet was set up to create a faux

“If the Grammys continue mixing genuine attempts at art with popular commerce, the show will survive.”

controversy. Sure, the white rapper has uttered lots of offensive lyrics in reference to gays; Elton, the glittery '70s relic, is, of course, gay, but he still volunteered to sing Eminem's "Stan," a paean to a misunderstood fan. The song is, in fact, one of the better ones on the rapper's Marshal Mathers LP release. It is the one song that makes Eminem worthy of the hype.

Generally speaking, the show demonstrated a fair amount of quality. The teen-pop crowd of Brittany, Christina, and *NSYNC went home empty-headed — excuse me, empty-handed. Meanwhile, the fortyish-yet-still-youthful U2 picked up three statuettes for their hit song, "Beautiful Day." Now, for certain individuals of a "certain age," — let's say "thirtysomething," — this is most definitely good news. For one thing, the Irish group has put out quality rock for many years (including one "Album of the Year" a dozen years ago). On top of that, their performance at this year's Grammys was invigorating to anybody who enjoys hearing live human beings playing live instruments. How cool that they won for "best rock duo or group with vocal" right afterwards!

One can't say that youth was completely shut out. Eminem didn't get the "album of the year" award, but he did nab three awards (including "best rap album"). Furthermore, one need only look at rap maestro Dr. Dre's "Producer of the Year" honor to see that contemporary tastes were not ignored. That award was given out earlier in the evening, though Michael Green made sure to recognize Dre (who was given a standing ovation) later on in the broadcast.

Of course, the biggest tribute was paid to '70s survivors Steely Dan. The band snagged album of the year — a shocking win even to this particular reviewer, who fancies himself something of a music fan. Yours truly had been a radio and professional DJ in years past. I was convinced that Steely Dan (i.e., Walter Becker and Donald Fagen) had won Grammys in the past. But, no, this was the group's first — and the duo's comeback effort after a two-decade silence. What this demonstrates is that the baby-boomer tastes of the recording academy now carry some heft.

That's also the message in country/folk vocalist Shelby Lynne winning Best New Artist — even though she's been around for more than a decade. (She won, in fact, after the release of her sixth album.)

For this reviewer, the highpoint of the evening was the ensemble performance of Jill Scott, Moby, and Blue Man Group doing a rendition of "Natural Blues," Moby's folk-gospel song. This act proved that quality music can still be performed in the MTV era without resorting to offense or attitude. In other words, let the music do the talking.

That's ultimately why Eminem and Elton's performance fell flat. They couldn't manage to live up to the hype. That 's not to say they were technically poor or anything. It's just that MTV and the video-music awards are in the business of hype.

If the Grammys continue mixing genuine attempts at art with popular commerce, the show will survive. Yes, they'll still get their share of grief. Starland Vocal Bands and Jethro Tulls will continue to surprise us, but that's part of the fun. This year's show was, overall, one of the best. Maybe they've finally hit the right key.