Thanks for following up with this, Glen.

I have to agree with you that the line between the AMAs and the Grammys is blurring. And what once honored the best, now seems to focus on hot and pop.

I hope you will be one who will come back on February 12 with a follow up. Remind us of your predictions and how close you were to naming what actually wins.

Consider it a date Connie. And thanks for the comment.

-Glen

Well done, Glen. I don't know how they manage to do it year after year but somehow these nominations always manage to piss me off. Mission, once again, accomplished. Justin Timberlake and The Chicks With Dicks - this is the best we have to offer. Riiiight. What rubbish.

Thanx DJR. I was a little reluctant to run with this because I thought Tim had pretty much already nailed it with his piece. But I once I got started, it flew out of me. No freaking Dylan for Best Album? What Rubbish indeed. Thanx for the comment (and for pushing me to do this article) DJR. I'm pretty happy with the way it turned out actually.

-Glen

The Grammys are a popularity contest with weak pretentions to meritocracy. I long since gave up being upset by who wins and loses or doesn't get nominated.

I agree with you completely about the Dylan record, it should have been nominated.

But I think you've overlooked something very obvious: To the vast majority of the American public the Grammys are a TV show - and that's it nothing else. Now if the nominees for album of the year were Bob Dylan, Neil Young, and Springsteen can you really see those ad execs getting all giddy over selling their automobiles, potato chips and acne medication? I'm sure you're thinking "hey that would be great I'd watch" but unfortunately like me, you're in the wrong demographic for primetime TV targeted advertising. Maybe at one time the Grammys were a representation of artistic merit, but those days are long gone and I think that's what really should be taken issue with, not who and who isn't nominated.

Points well taken Jon and Joey. But if this is the case, and if the Grammys are going to carry pretensions of being at least somewhat credible, don't you think they should at least try to live up to it?

I understand that in theory these awards shows are more about pimping cars and soft drinks than they are about honoring artistic merit. But if Grammy is going to pawn itself off as being closer in spirit to the Oscars than it is to the Superbowl--it should walk the walk as well as talk to talk (with all those self-congradulatory speeches and all)

Nominating Timberlake over Dylan is kind of like nominating whoever made The Dukes of Hazzard over Scorsese.

As I said, thats why God (or his half brother Dick Clark anyway) created the AMAs.

Thanx for the comments guys.

-Glen

"But if Grammy is going to pawn itself off as being closer in spirit to the Oscars than it is to the Superbowl"

Get real. You act like The Oscars isn't popularity and politics as well. The Oscars is the most watched infomercial with its awards voted on by a body that mainly consists of AARP members. They constantly get it wrong. Don't make me break out the list.

And as a writer, I'm surprised you didn't show some love and name the songwriters nominated for Best Song. tsk tsk.

"And what once honored the best, now seems to focus on hot and pop." Connie, when was that?

Guilty as charged on the lapse about the songwriters El Bicho. Strictly a matter of expediency I guess since most readers tend to identify the song with the singer and not the writer.

Also, I realize that Oscar gets it wrong nearly as often as Grammy does. But at least they try to hit the standard they aspire to. A lot of times Grammy can't even get the genre right. Witness the Jethro Tull "metal" fiasco, or even this years nomination of Dylan's Modern Times for folk album (but not Album Of The Year or even Rock Album).

Scorsese may be the Oscars perennial bridesmaid, but he always at least gets the nomination. Dylan not getting his for the best reviewed record he's done since the classic Blood On The Tracks (when an entertaining and yes, popular, but artistically lacking Justin Timberlake does) is ridiculous.

Thanx for the comment Mr. Bicho (and say hi to Jimbo for me next time you see him).

-Glen

The exercise of pretending to honor artistic achievements -- movies, music, painting, poetry, writing, graffiti, gardening, whatever -- should be dispensed with altogether. It's completely misguided, it's cynical, it's a ruse, and the details of who gets nominated and who "wins" should not be taken seriously by ANYONE (except corporate sponsors, as pointed out by Joey V, and record companies).

Now, go watch the show, and have fun. Screw arguments over Dylan, Springsteen, Timberlake, and all the rest of the pop artists. They inhabit the surface of a deep musical pond.

Bah!
I'll never give my support to any institution that would place Timberlake's pseudo-pop bullshit over things like the Dylan album, or the overlooked 10,000 Days.

I feel your pain. Springsteen did get nominated in the traditional folk category along with Linda Rondstadt & Ann Savoy's excellent Adieu False Heart. Dylan was nominated in the contemporary folk category. Rosanne Cash's Black Cadillac was also nominated in the latter category. I feel it also deserves an album of the year nomination.

I remember the Tull/Metallica fiasco - I think it was a glaring example of the real issues with the Grammys - it's a case of trying so hard to be hip that you're square (thanks, Huey!). Kinda like when you were a kid, busy listening to that Uriah Heep album, and your dad says, "You call that music? You shoulda seen Fabian back in the day!" Sure, Dad. So let them be arbitrer of all things square - who cares?

I've got a more esoteric point to make, but I'll save that for now. Great blog, Glen - I woould've gone over to your site to read it anyways, but I'm still glad it was run here.

Vern,

Actually this isn't on my blog yet (it will be later this weekend), so I'm glad you were able to see it here first Vern.

Love your reference to Uriah Heep. They were one of the great forgotten bands that everybody loved but no one would admit to. Probably the main inspiration for Spinal Tap too.

Anyway, I Appreciate the comment.

And to Ben and D'Oh -- well, thanks for agreeing with me on this. I suspect theres a lot more of us out there too.

Thanx all.

-Glen

Good article Glen.

Neil Youngs nominations, if he wins this time around, will be written off as simply a long overdue nod to a very deserving artist, or more of the liberal lefts infiltration of anything considered entertainment.

Peace

I think the gratuitous "long overdue" nod would be closest to hitting the mark on that Marty. I hope he wins too, but I think the Chilis are gonna walk away with it myself.

Thanx for the comment Marty.

-Glen

Other than the writing and technical categories, the Oscars usually blow it. They are always giving out too many make-up awards, which defeats the whole thing.

"I think the Chilis are gonna walk away with it myself."

Think they'll share it with Tom Petty? Only seems fair.

At least Tull had a good laugh out of it. From an ad afterwards: "The flute is a heavy, metal instrument!"

I guarantee Dylan doesn't give a shit and neither did Metallica at the time, and if they do, then they definitely don't deserve it. What real artist would? Hey, Picasso, you are up for Best Painter of the Year.

Pick catergories for The Glennys and they will have just as much weight with me, although I'm guessing the award ceremony won't be as cool, no offense.

how about the year that Grammy chose Jethro Tull as Best Metal Act over then still trailblazing pioneers Metallica?

Cant take it no more with Mammys Grammys. Lets all sing. Mammy Mammy how I love ya my dear old mammy. The sun shines east, the sun shines west. Im comin mammy. Oh oh oh mammy. Id walk a million miles for one of your smiles. Mammy mammy. Who is Al Jolson? Friday night. Just some good rum, boxing and late night snakes. Dam life is good when your silver.

Tull wins Grammy offical site sez yes it did.

You'll notice that it doesn't say Tull won the Metal Grammy, which is one of those things that everybody remembers even though it's not true, like when "Danny Ainge bit Tree Rollins".
They won for Hard Rock back when it was a combined category, and it was completely appropriate.

The fact of the matter is this. The Grammys have never, ever honored artistic achievement. They honor commercial achievement. Look at the stats. If a recording just happened to be something that struck a nerve in the zeitgeist, and just happened to be something meaningful, it was only a happenstance relative to its commercial success.

That being said, I don't really see why anybody's surprised at the nominations.

Dave,

If my memory serves me correct this was the first year that the Grammys created a specific category with the intention of honoring heavy metal. I also believe that you are correct -- sorta. I think they actually caled the category "hard rock/ heavy metal." But the intent was clearly to acknowledge metal and set it apart from the more standard "rock" category, much as they did with so-called "alternative" a few years later.

Much as I do like Jethro Tull (and I do like them), picking them over competitors like Metallica was a gaffe that has gone down as historic. It rates right up there with the lip-synching Milli Vanilli getting the honor.

I stand by my statement.

Thanx for the comment.

-Glen

El Bicho,

The Glennys huh? maybe it's an idea whose time has finally come.

Thanx for the comment.

-Glen

Glen, Memory doesn't have to serve; just use Vern's link and see that it was a combined Hard Rock and Metal category -- each of which was being recognized for the first time that year. As a hard rock band, it was entirely appropriate for Tull to have won despite the fact that it upset the fans of the then-trendy Metallica.

I looked over the entire 108 categories in this year's list and the only things I know I've heard for certain are Saudades and the Cellar Door set.

Where's the nomination for Zappa's Imaginary Diseases? Snubbed again. Fargin' Bastidges.

Details, details.... I seem to remember that at least for a while around the Aqualung era album, Tull was considered "Heavy Metal" along with Sabbath, Deep Purple, Zeppelin, and pretty much anything loud, oddball or English.

Still, I'm sure Ian Anderson has his award hanging up somewhere at his salmon farm... Poisson d'Avril indeed!

Vern,

True enough. But that was at least ten years before Tull won the Grammy.

And Dave, again the point here is one of intent. Whatever they decided to call the actual category, the intent was to honor hard rock and heavy metal and as history bores out, Tull was not an appropriate winner for that type of music. Now if you had a "prog-rock" category for example, and Tull was up against say, Yes or Genesis or Marillion -- now that I could see.

Tull has simply never been a hard rock or a heavy metal band. Period. Even on their first three records before Aqualung, they were doing a sort of British blues-rock thing. It was basically Savoy Brown with a flute.

By the time they won the hard rock, heavy metal, or whatever the category was -- Tull was basically a prog-rock band with heavy english folk overtones. They were closer to somebody like the Strawbs or Fairport Convention then a hard rock band.

Again, I stand by my statement.

Thanx for the comment.

-Glen

Totally in agreement, Glen about Tull not ever actually being a metal band. But, for the sake of argument - if in the public's eye, you're a metal band (or whatever genre they think you are)... then, you are, aren't you? No... that's not right... I mean to say, at least the public thinks you are, and that's the section where they find your albums at Tower Rec... no, that's not right either.

Never mind. I don't care about the Grammys or their lack of taste anyway. They ought to just award eveything based on sales, and make sure they've got good bean counters. Sales stats are sometimes interesting at least.

Chicks with dicks? Geez.

The fact of the matter is this. The Grammys have never, ever honored artistic achievement. They honor commercial achievement. Look at the stats. If a recording just happened to be something that struck a nerve in the zeitgeist, and just happened to be something meaningful, it was only a happenstance relative to its commercial success.

That being said, I don't really see why anybody's surprised at the nominations.

I'm not totally thrilled about the Grammy nominations. I don't particularly like how there's always three or four artists that seem to get all the nominations. They should just rename the Grammys this year to "The Mary J. Blige Show". Not that I have anything against her, she's got a great voice, but I wish they'd spread the nominations out a little better. Nickelback wasn't nominated at all, and they've had a really good year. It doesn't really matter though cause I know I'll still end up watching the show!

trust me, justin definitely will "NOT" win album of the year. it is true that grammy gets "stupid" from time to time but it never gets that ridiculous and it won't. justin won't get the award.