Welcome back! Last week’s post was centered around Billboard and it’s debated “Hot 100.” Remaining in the realm of the music industry”s controversial facets, I decided to take on a topic arguably more polarizing than the Charts – The GRAMMY’s. Since it’s inception in the 1950s, the GRAMMY’s were simply intended to recognize outstanding musical achievement by prominent artists. Recent years have seen these intentions questioned, however, sparking debate over whether or not the GRAMMY’s ever actually accomplish this goal. If so, do they really matter?
The National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, colloquially known as “The Recording Academy,” was founded in 1957. The Recording Academy intended to operate as an organization of professional musicians, though came to include comedy, spoken word and music videos later on. It was headed by Columbia executive Paul Weston, who took point on various decisions that would come to define the GRAMMY’s as we know it. Alongside other early members, Weston played key roles in devising the concept of an award ceremony for music that parallels those of movies and TV shows (the established Oscars and Emmys). He once stated that “the academy has been under discussion for years now,” and that he and his constituents “feel its about time the record industry grows up and gets a little recognition for its part in the entertainment industry.” Ultimately, these early ambitions would come to fruition as the 1st Annual GRAMMY Awards in 1959.
On May 4th, 1959, the first ceremony commenced in two locations simultaneously, with Academy members gathering at the Grand Ballroom of the Beverly Hilton in California and the Park Sheraton Hotel in New York. Many of the industry’s leading figureheads gathered for the historic proceedings, including the likes of Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr., and Dean Martin. Following introductions, with comedy acts and musical skits segueing into the LA venue’s ceremonies, the night went off without a hitch. 28 GRAMMY’s were given out for 28 different categories, among these including the first Record of the Year and Song of the Year for “Nel Blu Dipinto Di Blu (Volare)” by Domenico Modugno. Album of the Year was awarded to The Music from Peter Gunn by Henry Mancini, and Best Vocal Performance, Female, and Best Jazz Performance, Individual was awarded to Ella Fitzgerald. The night was hailed as a success by various publications, with The Billboard (awfully familiar) notably running headlines such as “Academy Smoothly Moves Into Orbit: First Awards Well-Organized Affair As Top Stars Go On Parade,” making favorable comparisons to the Oscars and Emmys.
Sinatra at the podium following his win.
Peggy Lee at the 1st GRAMMY Awards
The praise, although mostly positive, was not universal. Suprisingly, Frank Sinatra was widely expected to walk away leading in awards, though only led in nominations (six). Sinatra walked away with a single GRAMMY not for his vocal work, but for Best Album Cover as an art director for his own Only The Lonely. Three awards – Best Comedy Performance and Best Recording For Children, and Best Engineered Record—Non Classical – were controversially awarded to “The Chipmunk Song,” sparking outrage among music critics who felt that the music industry was refusing to acknowledge the then-recent rise of Rock n’ Roll. Such critiques and seemingly non-sensical decisions by the voting committee members came to prefigure ongoing debates over the GRAMMY’s validity and integrity in coming years. However, this would not occur before the evolution of the GRAMMY’s from 1959 onward.
As time passed, the GRAMMY Awards continued to evolve, later being telecast (November 29th, 1959) and eventually situated in one venue rather than two or three (late 60s – early 70s). Performances and introductions of artists and awards evolved over the past 60 years as well, becoming their own reason alone to tune into the GRAMMYs. In 2000, The Recording Academy launched The Latin GRAMMY Awards with a telecast on CBS, becoming the first primarily-Spanish language primetime program carried on Network Television. The Latin GRAMMY’s, similar to their U.S. counterpart, utilized the peer-voting system (simply musicians appointed to a voting committee to judge nominees) to recognize artistic/technical excellence in recordings. In its 19 years on air, The Latin GRAMMY’s have come to represent the same intended heights of achievement in the Latin music industry that the U.S. counterpart strives to make, though the 2010’s have not been agreeable to the latter’s goals
Logo for the 2000 Latin GRAMMY Awards
Most recent years have seen spikes in ongoing contentions that those both within and outside of the music industry have with the awards ceremony, increasingly contrasting those of the past. Earlier debate arose over lack of voters’ recognition of cultural icons such as Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin during their heydays. These artists would only go on to receive lifetime-esque awards in later years, though the cultural lag of the voter base remained under considerable scrutiny and accusation of giving certain artists the cold shoulder. The critiques still concern the aforementioned, though have morphed to mainly surround gender/race representation, as well as whether or not GRAMMY’s carry the prestige amongst musicians they used to. 2018’s ceremony drew heavy criticisms over only one woman receiving a solo award on the air, with incendiary comments by then-President Neil Portnow asserting that women need to “step up” to advance their careers only drastically worsening matters (Portnow was wise enough to step down after 2019’s GRAMMY’s). Unsurprisingly, 2019’s ceremony saw a far greater representation of not only female artists, but African Americans as well, though questions of the GRAMMY’s relevance and cultural significance still arose. Arguments over wins such as Cardi B’s “Invasion of Privacy” for Best Rap Album, and Kacey Musgraves “Golden Hour” for Album of the Year raised stern questions over whether or not the voting committee of The Recording Academy was truly in touch with the genre’s being judged.
Drake, one of several artists who chose not to attend or endorse past GRAMMY ceremonies due to a strong belief in the ceremony’s snubbing of artists¹, made an appearance to accept Best Rap Song for his hit “God’s Plan.” In a stunning feat of raw courage, Drake delivered a passive-aggressive takedown of the GRAMMY’s, noting how the industry is “a business where sometimes it’s up to a bunch of people that might not understand what a mixed race kid from Canada might have to say or a fly Spanish girl from New York.” Immediately following this already tension-raising statement, Drake pressed forward by boldly asserting that if “there’s people who have regular jobs who are coming out in the rain, in the snow, spending their hard earned money to buy tickets to come to your shows, you don’t need this right here, I promise you that. You already won.” Moments later, the broadcast inexplicably cut too commercial.
Everyone at the #GRAMMYs is a winner tonight according to @Drake. 🏆 pic.twitter.com/sQ1NqKXQ7m
— CBS (@CBS) February 11, 2019
Drake wasted no time in passionately though calmly highlighting the fact that success in music goes beyond the GRAMMYs.
It was eventually made clear that no cut-off was intended, as they believed Drake’s pause signaled and end to his speech and thus a cut to commercial. It was also publicized that Drake was offered to return post commercial to finish his thoughts, though Drake claimed he was happy with what he had said. Regardless, such new, odd controversies at the GRAMMY’s speak volumes of The Recording Academy’s undeniable growing pains with an increasingly politicized, changing music industry. In a divided industry now intertwined with identity politics as part of deep-seated culture, criticisms are undoubtedly bound to arise. Such an atmosphere is not entirely new, as even the pastime issues over rock icons, albeit rather more binary as time tells than today’s issues, are conceptually similar to those of today. Personally, I acknowledge that different complications as products of different time periods are what lead to the seemingly shaky decision making, though this hardly means I agree with it. I easily take the opposing side held by the likes of Drake and others on this matter. My consistency remains with previous statements of music being more than pursuits of superficial trappings (as Drake himself nodded to in his speech). A GRAMMY, or even a nomination, is still undeniably beneficial in a musicians career, but they are not the endgame. As Brandon Clark – a music copyright lawyer and Recording Academy member who regularly attends the Grammys – words it, “It’s something that most artists would like to have, but if they don’t, it’s not a big deal. It’s like homecoming court for high school kids: It’s cool but it doesn’t really matter in the whole scheme of things.”
A reason to stick around: The live performances of the GRAMMY’s can be outstanding, like one of my personal favorites above. Although not depicted, CBS cut to an amazed Prince giving John Mayer a standing ovation following the performance.
¹The GRAMMY’s may never shake the accusations of snubbing artists out of personal prejudices, whether they be musical or sociological. Some of the GRAMMYs most hotly contested “snubs” through the years include Tupac, Nas, Journey, Guns N’ Roses, Diana Ross, and Queen.