penpusher: (iTunes)
It's Grammy Day... And I always state that for an award, the Grammys have tended to be the most out of touch with their field. Granted, there are literally over eighty Grammys that will be presented today, and that doesn't even cover the Latin Grammys, which are typically presented in the Fall with another forty-eight categories represented there.

Why hasn't the Grammys gotten it right? Well, the point is, they're finally starting to... Back in the day, The Voters for the Grammy Awards were people that didn't care for some forms of music, notably Rock music, and so those songs and albums tended to be overlooked for a very long time. Just as an example, the winner of the "Best Rock N Roll Recording" in 1963 was (drumroll please...) "Alley Cat" or according to the label displayed on that disc The Alleycat by Bent Fabric. Now, I know that this is still pre-British Invasion, but this does suggest that something was wrong with the process.

I eventually found out first hand why the Grammy voting board had problems, even into the 1980s and 90s from a person involved in the process: All voters in all music genres submitted nominees for all categories. That meant you had country music people nominating rap, you had classical music people nominating rock. In short, you had people who had no business nominating things for categories they didn't understand or maybe didn't even listen to, and that created a lot of questionable choices for the awards.

Eventually, as the Grammy board started letting more performers in, people who produced and recorded hip-hop, heavy metal, world music, started to be both represented and voted on by people who were experts in those fields. That automatically made the nominating process more accurate.

The Grammys used to be my big day to criticize everything that was wrong with both the music industry and the people running (ruining?) it, but there's been less to complain about more recently. And the Grammy Ceremony has been a pretty great show, for the most part, for the last several years, since Whitney Houston's shocking and saddening death, the night before the 2012 ceremony. Hard to believe it's been six years since then, but in an odd way, it somehow also seems like it's been about twenty or so.

The industry has been trying to find its feet for a number of years since the Napster issues of file sharing became a rallying cry against fans that acquired music from others - this though stores constantly sold blank audio cassettes and rewritable blank CDs as a part of their inventory.

Now, it seems there is a new, somewhat stable and properly functioning system for the artists and producers to get their due, and for listeners to get their music. Platforms like Pandora and Spotify and outlets like iTunes and Amazon seem to be working better, after some earlier problems. The record labels cut away a lot of the fat, people on the payroll who weren't really contributing to the cause are now gone, because these labels can't just sit back on their laurels and watch the money come in. Everybody is working hard to do the best they can because the process isn't as guaranteed as it was, even as recently as the early 2000s.

And that brings me to my altered challenge for today. My point in doing this meme, this month, was that the Grammys were back in NYC, at Madison Square Garden, for the first time since 2003. So, of course I'm doing a special Grammy Challenge as part of it.

The "Record of the Year" category is sometimes confused with the "Song of the Year." But, they're easily discerned. Song of the Year is presented to the Songwriter. In other words, it's a celebration of that piece of music. Record of the Year is presented to the recording artist. So, that award goes to the particular recording of that song. And it's appropriate to choose "Record of the Year" nominees because we are picking particular recordings of songs with this challenge. Of course, "Song of the Year" and "Record of the Year" frequently go to the same recording, but not always.

To me, the best sort of "Record of the Year" lives up to the double meaning of that phrase. It is a great performance, but it also is a cultural touchstone that places both it and us at a particular moment, a specific point in history, one that both clearly delineates and acts as a marker for our collective experiences, making it an actual "record" of that particular year.

Music can do a lot of great stuff. It can make us happy. It can help us channel anger in a positive way. It can soothe us or challenge us or inspire us, music has a lot of benefits. That's why we love it. And helping a charitable cause is one of those elements that music has the power to do.

The movement that led to the song I selected really began with another song: "Do They Know It's Christmas" was written by Boomtown Rats frontman Bob Geldof, in response to the scenes of famine in Ethiopia he viewed on British TV in 1984. Geldof gathered a bunch of recording artists to sing the tune and released it as a charity effort to help support relief for the Ethiopian people. It was an enormous success.

That led to Live Aid, a massive concert featuring performers in both London and Philiadelphia, with drummer/singer Phil Collins taking the Concorde "across the pond" to play at both Wembley Stadium and JFK Stadium on that incredible day. This massive effort produced a massive fundraiser and that set off more...

Like Farm Aid was to help America's farmers stay solvent as they fed the country.

Later, the series of Very Special Christmas albums helped to support the Special Olympics

But sandwiched between those came USA For Africa, an effort by Americans to contribute to famine relief, as the Brits had previously done.

Recorded around the time of another ceremony, that year's American Music Awards, it featured an all-star lineup of vocalists to sing the song, which became an international sensation, as well as the video which let you see a bit of what the recording session was all about, an additional album with more tracks, and a whole line of merchandise.

Thanks to the still operating WEBSITE, we have a collection of PHOTOS of the massive recording session. They are certainly worth seeing, or seeing again.

So, my selection on this Grammy Day, Day 27, is the Grammy Award Record of the Year winner for 1986: USA For Africa - "We Are The World"

penpusher: (CD)
I didn't do a "Grammy" post this year. Maybe I should have, considering they didn't get everything completely wrong - Esperanza Spalding winning Best New Artist (the first Jazz performer to ever win that award, if you can believe it) was one of the things they got right this time, despite all of the angst and anger from Bieber Nation. And not all of the performances laid an egg, so the show was pretty entertaining... including Cee Lo's Eltonesque performance of his Grammy winning "The Song Otherwise Known as 'Forget You'" with apparent Best New Artist candidate for next year's awards: Gwyneth Paltrow.

But today a friend linked me to this article about how the music industry is in dire straits at this point, and of course the piece and the ensuing comments from other readers started me thinking about the whole concept of where music is going nowadays, and here's basically what I said in response to the article (which if you don't want to follow the link basically states that things are much more difficult for the industry as a whole now than people even realize, based on the stats of CD sales and music downloads.)

If you know your history, you'll know that "recorded music" was actually looked down on in the ancient days of big band sound and concert orchestras. In fact, musicians actually resisted it for a while before finally starting to record material on 78s and eventually LPs and 45s. See, that was because musicians wanted people to attend their concerts and hear them live, but then realized that the people that didn't hear them and know who they were wouldn't bother traveling to Memphis or New York or Chattanooga to see them when they came into those towns. Recordings allowed their music to go where they never did, and also preserved their performances for future generations.

In addition, the people who ran the record labels were visionaries: they recognized great talent when they saw it, and matched up great songwriters with them... the "Brill Building" era was similar to the Henry Ford era for automobiles, with folks like Burt Bacharach and Hal David, Ellie Greenwich, Neil Diamond, Laura Nyro, Lieber & Stoller, Carole King and Gerry Goffin and a bunch more crafting great, meaningful songs for the brilliant interpreters of their work. In a way, The Beatles' biggest impact was that Lennon & McCartney were self-contained... they could write and play and to my mind it's no coincidence that as The Beatles topped the charts with hit after hit, The Brill Building era came to a close, especially as the songwriters started recording their own material in earnest too, as Carole King and Neil Diamond eventually did.

But the question is where are the suits that have that same vision? Is American Idol the only hope for finding "talent?" And really, it seems as if the standard has become find someone young enough to mold into an "image," and "market" that to the kids who will buy it. Inherently, people know when they're being fed a bill of goods, and this hurts not just the sales for that performer, but the industry as a whole. Too often, it's not about "finding talent," as much as "cashing in" on a trend.

But people are somewhat angry at the music industry. In the 1970s there was a "vinyl shortage" claimed, and that was the cause of a hike in prices for albums. Really? Yes, really. And I'm sure anyone born before 1980 bought an album of songs for one track that was good, and 8-10 that you never play. Albums were a big money maker for the labels, but as music grew into the 1970s, this quality control ever so slightly started to erode the base, the foundation of the industry. Oh and then there was the small matter of rebuying: If you wanted Dark Side of the Moon on vinyl, then 8 track, then cassette, then CD, you bought the same album 4 times!

But it was the industry response to Napster that was a major turning point in how the public felt about the music business. When lawsuits were filed against individuals for file sharing, that was appalling. It's funny because record stores used to sell blank cassettes right in the same aisle as the recorded music, allowing anyone to create mix tapes, so certainly the message was, at best, unclear. Why punish the users for doing what they were already doing?

What I see is that the music industry had it pretty easy up until that point. And then, when they actually had to actively do something, their response was exactly wrong. They tried to stuff that Napster genie back in the bottle, rather than embrace the new tech for what it is: a part of the scene. Had they done so immediately, maybe the numbers might have been better from the late 1990s to now. And then they came out with "write-protected" CDs that you couldn't rip to your computer as mp3s. It just wasn't smart.

Finally, let's remember the two factors that have nothing to do with music itself: the economy and other services. Everything is changing now: television and film are also going through the same sort of process that the music industry is experiencing, so don't feel like it's just music that needs to adapt a new approach. The question is what will that be?

Profile

penpusher: (Default)
penpusher

January 2023

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
2223 2425262728
293031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 14th, 2025 07:31 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios