To summarize it: I couldn't give shi...cra...any special attention to these awards. Why, you ask? You'll figure it out (I hope) at the end of this post. Next question that comes to mind is: then, what's different this year? Well, let's go back in time.
First there was nothing. Then the Big Bang boomed, the dinosaurs kaboomed, the humans evolved and then the primates showed up (or was it the other way around?). Then there was the Roman Empire, the 100 Year War, then the Age of Discovery, Napolean, a few more world incidents; Dream Theater's A Dramatic Turn of Events, Dream Theater's In The Back of Angels nominated for Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance Award and finally Foo Fighters winning....wait let's go back a little...Dream Theater's In The Back of Angels nominated for Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance Award. Wait what? When did that happen? Well, it seems this album was really well received by critics and the general public.
Ok, great, then I'm missing something somewhere because in my humble opinion, this is not, at all, their best record so far, nor is it a "masterpiece" like some have pointed out in their reviews. I've listened to this album several times (and that song in particular) and I couldn't shake the feeling that there was something missing, that there was lacking what others didn't. It's technically admirable like all their previous work, it's well produced and all, but it lacks a bit of feeling and balls.
Anyway, I'm not here to talk about this album and I'm happy for them to finally get some well deserved recognition. But come on, why now? Pull Me Under is a great piece that was radio-friendly at its time and it didn't receive any special treatment.
So, this just brings me to the next point and unveils what I've always known. At the risk of probably sounding like a broken record, I'm gonna say: the Grammy Awards are no more nor less than a beauty/popularity contest where "Miss USA" turns "Miss Rap" and "Miss England" turns "Miss Rock".
Before moving on, let's see the definition of "best" - surpassing all others in excellence, achievement, or quality.
So, who or what decides who's best of anything? The top-selling album? That seems a bit unfair, as great unknown-to-public bands don't sell as much because they don't have this auto-selling-machine supporting them. Also, in my opinion, it doesn't fall into the definition.
So, is it quality? As far as I'm concerned, quality is a very subjective thing as it depends alot on the background of the listener.
Then, what defines what is best? I think there's no "best" and that's why (and going Eddie Vedder on you) these Grammy Awards are meaningless. This "best" label depends alot on the opinion of the listener which, again, I point out: it's subjective. Even today me and RRR were discussing about the Buckley family; while he prefered Tim Buckley (father), I prefered Jeff Buckley (son). Also, this exact post is proof of that: "Ok, great, then I'm missing something somewhere because in my humble opinion, this is not, at all, their best record".
To conclude, a few days ago I was speaking to a friend of mine about writing and art in general and at the end we pointed out the following: art in general is the expression of the self and shouldn't be objectified. Let me had: nor quantified. And that's exactly what the Awards do. It's objectifying and quantifying what is supposed to be an abstract representation and expression of self.
No comments:
Post a Comment