Click Hear

Newsletter

Recently Reviewed

Unerworld Contest

Contests

Mutek

Music Exec Lambasts the Grammys in New York Times Ad

News breadcrumbsplit Feb 21 2011

Music Exec Lambasts the Grammys in New York Times Ad
By Josiah HughesOn Sunday (February 20), one full week after the Grammys, big-time music executive Steven Stoute took out a full page ad in the New York Times to express his discontent with the state of the annual awards ceremony.

As the CEO of the marketing company Translation, Stoute opens his letter saying, "Over the course of my 20-year history as an executive in the music business and as the owner of a firm that specializes in in-culture advertising, I have come to the conclusion that the Grammy Awards have clearly lost touch with contemporary popular culture."

Stoute goes on to accuse the Grammys of using celebrities to draw in an audience by nominating them for awards but leaving them empty-handed, citing Eminem and Kanye West as examples in previous years. "We must acknowledge the massive cultural impact of Eminem and Kanye West and how their music is shaping, influencing and defining the voice of a generation."

He goes on to chastise the National Academy of Recording Arts for denying Justin Bieber the Best New Artist award, saying, "How is it that Justin Bieber, an artist that defines what it means to be a modern artist, did not win Best New Artist?"


Finally, he states that Arcade Fire's Grammy win for Album of the Year and double performance proves that the organizers were not planning on giving the award to any other nominee, saying that the Grammy organizers "intentionally use artists for their celebrity, popularity and cultural appeal when they already know the winners and then program a show against this expectation."

Stoute is a little hard to stomach, as the same letter sees him calling Eminem "the Bob Dylan of our time." Similarly, his sore feelings about the Arcade Fire Grammy win makes him a lead contender for the Who is Arcade Fire??!!?? blog.

Stoute's full letter is available below via the Huffington Post.

Over the course of my 20-year history as an executive in the music business and as the owner of a firm that specializes in in-culture advertising, I have come to the conclusion that the Grammy Awards have clearly lost touch with contemporary popular culture. My being a music fan has left me with an even greater and deeper sense of dismay -- so much so that I feel compelled to write this letter. Where I think that the Grammys fail stems from two key sources: (1) over-zealousness to produce a popular show that is at odds with its own system of voting and (2) fundamental disrespect of cultural shifts as being viable and artistic.

As an institution that celebrates artistic works of musicians, singers, songwriters, producers and technical specialists, we have come to expect that the Grammys upholds all of the values that reflect the very best in music that is born from our culture. Unfortunately, the awards show has become a series of hypocrisies and contradictions, leaving me to question why any contemporary popular artist would even participate. How is it possible that in 2001 The Marshall Mathers LP -- an album by Eminem that ushered in the Bob Dylan of our time -- was beaten out by Steely Dan (no disrespect) for Album Of The Year? While we cannot solely utilize album sales as the barometer, this was certainly not the case. Not only is Eminem the best-selling artist of the last decade, but The Marshall Mathers LP was a critical and commercial success that sold over 10 million albums in the United States (19 million worldwide), while Steely Dan sold less than 10% of that amount and came and went as quietly as a church mouse. Or consider even that in 2008 at the 50th Annual Grammy Awards, after going into the night as the most-nominated artist, Kanye West's Graduation was beaten out for Album Of The Year by Herbie Hancock's River: The Joni Letters. (This was the first time in 43 years that a jazz album won this category.) While there is no doubt in my mind of the artistic talents of Steely Dan or Herbie Hancock, we must acknowledge the massive cultural impact of Eminem and Kanye West and how their music is shaping, influencing and defining the voice of a generation. It is this same cultural impact that acknowledged the commercial and critical success of Michael Jackson's Thriller in 1984.

Just so that I'm not showing partiality to hip-hop artists (although it would be an entirely different letter as to how hip-hop music has been totally diminished as an art form by this organization), how is it that Justin Bieber, an artist that defines what it means to be a modern artist, did not win Best New Artist? Again, his cultural impact and success are even more quantifiable if you factor in his YouTube and Vevo viewership -- the fact that he was a talent born entirely of the digital age whose story was crafted in the most humble method of being "discovered" purely for his singing ability (and it should be noted that Justin Bieber plays piano and guitar, as evidenced on his early viral videos).

So while these very artists that the public acknowledges as being worthy of their money and fandom are snubbed year after year at the Grammys, the awards show has absolutely no qualms in inviting these same artists to perform. At first I thought that you were not paying attention to the fact that the mental complexion of the world is becoming tanned, that multiculturalism and poly-ethnicity are driving new meaning as to what is culturally relevant. Interesting that the Grammys understands cultural relevance when it comes to using Eminem's, Kanye West's or Justin Bieber's name in the billing to ensure viewership and to deliver the all-too-important ratings for its advertisers.

What truly inspired the writing of this letter was that this most recent show fed my suspicions. As the show was coming to a close and just prior to presenting the award for Album Of The Year, the band Arcade Fire performed "Month of May" -- only to... surprise... win the category and, in a moment of sheer coincidence, happened to be prepared to perform "Ready to Start."

Does the Grammys intentionally use artists for their celebrity, popularity and cultural appeal when they already know the winners and then program a show against this expectation? Meanwhile the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences hides behind the "peer" voting system to escape culpability for not even rethinking its approach.

And I imagine that next year there will be another televised super-close-up of an astonished front-runner as they come to the realization before a national audience... that he or she was used.

You are being called to task at this very moment, NARAS.

And to all of the artists that attend the Grammys: Stop accepting the invitation to be the upset of the year and demand that this body upholds its mission for advocacy and support of artistry as culture evolves.

Demand that they change this system and truly reflect and truly acknowledge your art.



GET IT! News RSSMailing List SHARE IT! Google BookmarksEmailStumbleUponRedditTumblrTwitterFacebook
Posted by Nameless Poseur On 2011-02-21 13:17:55it's the execs who make the mainstream music industry (the music industry in general) such a joke.
Posted by Nameless Poseur On 2011-02-21 14:46:12For someone who has supposedly been in the industry for 20 years to not be able to make the distinction between the "awards" and the "show" is pretty sad. The show is clearly concocted (like most others) to attract viewers and generate advertising dollars. To fault them for this is unrealistic. To say they should not invite the most popular artists of the day is naive. And let's not overlook the fact that these artists, win or lose, get a great venue to promote themselves and their current single/album. And one would hope (possibly also naively?) that those who program the show itself have no foreknowledge of who will or will not win. They choose who will entertain the crowd and generate advertiser demand and network ratings. The "jury of their peers" selects the winners of the awards. That these two (popularity vs. peer recognition) will not always jibe is a given. In fact his only valid point seems to be that what is currently popular and what is critically acclaimed and/or recognized are often not one and the same, and the show reflects this. This is often true and I have no problem with this. Viewers get an entertaining show and interesting and important artists are recognized via the awards. Sure Justin Bieber is wildly popular but so are (were?) the Jonas Brothers and Hannah Montana. But are they more artistically or culturally deserving than Arcade Fire? The CARAS voters didn't think so, nor do a lot of others, even if they are in the minority. No voting system is perfect, and Jonas Bieber Montana still has many years to prove he isn't a flash in the pan.
Posted by Nameless Poseur On 2011-02-21 14:48:31And by CARAS I meant NARAS. . :-)
Posted by Nameless Poseur On 2011-02-21 18:55:17Stoute...you're such a douche bag hater!
Posted by Nameless Poseur On 2011-02-22 03:33:15funny. i took the grammy wins as a sign of hope
Login
Keep me logged in
Prove You Are Not a Robot
To remove this step go back and login.

More News

Most Popular Stories

Rdio May
Rockfest

Picks