Krissy dissects this year's GRAMMY nominations, which are, frankly, as depressing as ever.
Not only are the albums & bands nominated as ridiculously boring & obvious as ever—it's almost as if they have a list of artists who they'll give GRAMMYs too, and they go down that list, saying "did he release anything this year? Nope. Did she release anything? Yep, she's nominated!"—but it's just all so fucking soulless.
It's as if they've taken music, squeezed all the life out of it, & then judged it on a set of computerized rules. Note that I'm not anti-computer, obviously. But music awards in general have always struck me as particularly useless—in fact, their only use for me is in finding things I may have missed during the year. For example, Stylus Magazine's Top 50 Singles of 2005 list, which contains a lot of stuff I've already got, and a lot I don't and would probably like. So that's interesting to me.
But when you take a set of awards like the GRAMMYs, which are geared at essentially making music recommendations for the most boring people in the world, that's just so very dull.
I mean, it's apparent just in their published criteria for the individual categories. For example, this note for a bunch of their "Best Album" awards:
(For albums containing 51% or more playing time of VOCAL tracks.)
Do they actually measure it, do you think?
Comments