The American Music Awards are the anti-Grammys and nothing proved that more than last night's ceremony in Los Angeles. While the Grammys are a venue for credited artists (cough: bands that critics like), producers, engineers and others inside the music industry to slap each other on the back and celebrate their own glory, the AMAs are simply a throw back to high school popularity contests.
"And the award for hottest barely legal piece of eye candy / prom queen wanna be goes to..... TAYLOR SWIFT!"
A friend of mine who is quite the movie buff said that Hollywood has two sets of people - the talented and the good looking. Someone like Tilda Swinton (his words - not mine) may be a good actress yet people like Angelina Jolie receive the glam and glitter. Same situation with the music business.
Last year's Grammy for best album went to the subtle yet brilliant Robert Plant and Alison Krauss duet Raising Sand. The entire affair was tailor made to take home a golden gramophone with two star studded - yet critically acclaimed - names singing rootsy blues folk while also being produced by master technician T-Bone Burnett. Grammys are for talented people.
Sure the music didn't receive much radio airplay and I'll bet $100 that almost 9 out of 10 of my Facebook friends had not even heard of such a record until they just read about it. But that didn't matter because critics and "cool indie" kids ate that shit up like it was never going to exist ever again.
The AMAs are for the beautiful people. Taylor Swift won 5 awards last night including the "prestigious" Artist of the Year trophy. Swift also won Best Female Artist for country AND pop/rock. It's true you can be both at the same time but to actually be nominated and win for both shows just how shallow the masses can be from time to time.
You think Swift is going to get the same kind of love and attention for the good old boys club that is the Grammys? Fat chance.
However the most puzzling surprise was when Michael Jackson won not 1 but 4 trophies including best Male Artist in both the soul and pop categories. I know that celebrities are often celebrated in the year of their death for the works they left behind, but this was complete nonsense.
Michael Jackson didn't release anything new worth celebrating this year. Jackson's last album of all new material came out in 2001 and was a complete failure commercially and critically. If the King of Pop really had lived to play his run of 50 shows in London, would he really have received so much attention tonight? Don't get me wrong I love Jackson's work and I'm glad that his music has found a new audience in the wake of his passing, but the AMAs used the singers name simply to boost ratings and put more money in their pocket.
Sure the Grammys will mention Jackson this coming January. He'll be mentioned during the annual segment where those within the industry who have died are remembered. He may even get his own segment dedicated to him - which he should. But I'll shave my head if he's nominated for anything besides best soundtrack or documentary film.
Speaking of soundtracks - you know how I know the AMAs are a failure at life. Twilight won for best soundtrack. Enough said.
No comments:
Post a Comment