2022 Grammy Award Show?

I'm maybe interested in 10% of the music. That's not enough content for me, I passed. 

If you dive into the grammy site, you can fidn th3e best of the best from the last year in every category you can think of:

 2022 GRAMMYs Awards Show: Complete Winners & Nominations List

Look under "General Field"

I thought there was a nice diversity of music, seemed much better than recent years with mostly crap.  My college age daughter agreed. 

What I learned:

Billie Eilish  and BTS have talent. Jon Batiste had a great performance and acceptance speech. Justin Beiber can't sing or dance.

Silk Sonic--you guys are not as great as you think. Awful acceptance speech. Very good  performance of a song that seemed more of a rip off than a tribute to Red Hot Chili Peppers and James Brown.

LMFAO

I haven't watched this tribute to marketing creations train wreck in many years. This  show, like American Idol, The Voice and all the other idiot box schlock fest disasters treat music as a commodity and devalue had dishonored it for an adoring public that has no idea what constitutes what singing and music - real music - even is. In no way whatsoever does it embody or represent the world of music. In a junk society that worships mediocrity, Tik Tok sensations and mindless conformity, the lure of a show that appeals to the absolute lowest common denominator like The Grammy Awards is just too tempting for the least discerning among us to resist.

It was an enjoyable show. I agree with @gpgr4blu overall. Billie and Jon are true talents.  

In a junk society that worships mediocrity, Tik Tok sensations and mindless conformity, the lure of a show that appeals to the absolute lowest common denominator like The Grammy Awards is just too tempting for the least discerning among us to resist.

I didn’t watch it this year, but in a recent previous year I too thought this is LCD stuff. American awards such as these will continue as long as there remain one or two worthy recipients. I’m in a judgmental but generous mood.

Even during my 10 years in the music business in the 70's/80's, I never paid attention to the Grammies, but then I don't watch any other awards shows, either.

It's not about whether I like the music or not, and I probably would like most of the music - it's that Art is not a contest!!

I don't care about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, either. I've got my own rock and roll hall of fame! 

+1 @larsman 

Wow 2chFreak:

That was a dark, cynical post: if I don’t like it, its worthless junk? I am not sure what American Idol or the Voice has to do with the Recording Academy (the entity behind the Grammy Awards). The Academy’s mission is to elevate quality standards and recognize achievement (in the recording industry not the music industry). When you are hired to track, mix or master a record, you aren’t arguing with the artist you are recording as what the songs are or should be. Your job is to make it sound as good as you can. The Grammy’s judge that process, not the music itself.

Brad

@2chfreak As I agree with the whole marketing and commercialization of the business but it is an avenue for new talent to get recognized. Google Dominique Fils-Amie, listen to he song “Birds” and tell me she has no talent. She was a finalist on “The Voice”. While I don’t necessarily watch these shows they do have a place in the media, IMO.

@lonemountain - you can bet that the people at home watching the awards and every record company exec will certainly think the judgement is about the music.

Record companies don't promote their albums as 'Grammy winners' because they are selling people on 'achievement in the recording industry'.

As for the RIAA, they are shills; I was in the record business for 10 years, and I'm sorry, but I had to laugh when I read that the academy's 'mission is to elevate quality standards and recognize achievement (in the recording industry, not the music industry)'. During the 70's, its mission seemed to be to get as much cocaine up people's noses as possible, going by what some of the biggest stars were then! 🤣

Must be a coincidence that most of the biggest winners also happen to be the biggest sellers! 

I certainly do agree though about that 'if I don't like it, it's worthless junk' attitude that is so prevalent on so many forums (or bar discussions, for that matter!). I could never understand that. 

I debated watching the Grammys because I no longer like what is generally considered popular music. But instead of turning away, I thought I should watch so that I don’t become too "removed" from the best sellers on the contemporary scene. I concluded that it was mostly but not all bad.

I’m glad I watched as I now know better what passes for music today but sad to see how "unmusical" it is. Nevertheless, I’m glad to see that a few bright lights--even if not my style--still exist. This is not to say that the Grammys ever represented the best in music at any time.

gpgr4blu: I think your answer is the answer i expected from most here.  I work in professional and hi fi circles so I know many of the people behind these records, even a few at the Academy.  I used to ask how could Katy Perry win a grammy for Firework?  Its mixed awful, sounds awful- at least on a high rez system etc.  I was told the "pop" committee felt the recording affected more people than any other, so that's why it won.  Make sense, I think that's right.  You could turn on the radio without hearing it for years.     

The record I was curious about was Doja Cat.  There is a major MAJOR money invested in that one, they hired some top people to mix some of those songs.   It sounds good, has a tons of bottom end in it.  Compressed and a bit sweet, the recording is the heart of the pop "sound" right now.  Some good songs, not sure I love the arrangements in all cases but its a very impressive body of work. 

Chris Stapleton got record of the year in Country, that record sounds very good.  George Massenburg won in multichannel/surround mixes for Alicia Keys.  He's a master, did Famous Blue Raincoat so long ago and Joshua Judges Ruth- both great "audiophile" records.

Brad 

Larsman

Wow you are right about 10 years ago! 20 years ago it was different yet again. The tour used to be the marketing for the record sales; now its completely flipped: the money is in the tour, not the record. So many artists self fund records now to sell tickets for a tour. I wonder if most people know the big artists often rent the arena and operate "the show" themselves? From posts in this forum, I can see many people are under the illusion that its like it 30 years ago when Record Companies where in control of everything, including the tour, the record, the songs on the record, the mix engineer, the mastering etc. That was a long long time ago. While most people in the business are happy those times are gone, the development money for new artists is gone too. So now only the top sellers have cash.  Rick Rubin is still out there funding new artists.  He has found some good ones and made some some sounding records I think.

Brad

@lonemountain + 1 - and totally agree with you about Rick Rubin, Brad!