Grammy Awards / The music industry’s last-ditch effort to recover

About five years ago the organization behind the Grammy Awards was in complete disarray. The problems were countless and the awards had little to do with contemporary music. Diversity rates, both behind the scenes and on the winners, were dismal, with voting irregularities in the nomination process, outrageously high payments to lawyers, conflicts of interest among members, harassment and inexplicable bonuses to controversial board members who did not they had the slightest connection with music. Behind the scenes of what was described as “music’s biggest night” there was mismanagement and rot. Big names were officially staying away from the events, confirming long-standing criticism of the awards’ transparency. Suffice it to say that during the 2010s, an era in which hip hop and R&B dominated, only one non-white artist, Bruno Mars, won the Grammy for Album of the Year. In 2018 Lorde was the only female nominee for album of the year and was inexplicably not offered a place to perform live at the ceremony. The Academy’s attitude seemed hopelessly biased. Because of this, in 2016 Frank Ocean refused to submit his album of that year for an award. In general, non-white artists, female musicians, and artists coming from the worlds of soul and R&B are consistently marginalized and confined to their genre categories, excluded from the four major categories (Album, Song and Record of the Year and Best New Artist).

How the awards are given and what their recovery means

The Grammys are voted on by approximately 11,000 music professionals: performers, composers, producers and other musicians involved in the recordings. Voting members may nominate artists, but to be eligible recordings must have been released in general commercial distribution between October 1st of the previous year and September 30th of the current year, separated by genre (rap, country, jazz , rock, etc.). With the change of the Board of Directors and management, a relative improvement began to be observed after 2022. The Grammys, however, remain the most credible of the music industry’s awards, though admittedly there isn’t much competition: The American Music Awards are based on listener votes, the Billboard Awards are handed out based on sales, and the MTV Video Music Awards are for people who think MTV has anything to do with music. Nominations for the Grammys are made by a series of committees – for the major categories and some genre-specific – whose composition remains secret. These are multinational record label executives who actually promote specific names through connections. Behind the scenes, everyone knows the way the system preempts names and believes that if they just shut up, they might one day find themselves benefiting too.

Grammy Awards ratings were in freefall a few years ago. Things changed at this year’s ceremony, where viewership skyrocketed. The televised spectacle was of a decidedly better quality, with Tracy Chapman, Joni Mitchell, Stevie Wonder and Annie Lennox performing live, but it’s worth noting that there was a complete absence of political acceptance speeches. At a time that finds former President Donald Trump galloping toward the Republican nomination in the upcoming presidential election. Of course, the political references in the speeches were also absent at the Golden Globes and last month’s Emmys. Was it the absence of political messages that reassured the 17 million TV viewers?

The convenient useful won

In 2024, the music industry seems to have tamed the demon of technology, the chaotic regulation of streaming and the uncontrolled traffic of music files, which had destroyed it after 2000. Now, the turnovers of the major labels can be calculated again and this year’s revival of the Grammys it’s a first-class opportunity for the Music Academy to advertise its big cards and showcase the faces in the window. The awards were given to the most popular names because the record labels want to show once again that they have punch and appeal. Therefore, Taylor Swift is the ideal person to come forward to convince the credibility of the institution and the ability of the old system to make pop icons. Because she’s equally acceptable to both conservative and young audiences, and is as photogenic as she needs to be, as competent as she needs to be, and as harmless as the average youth pop household allows. Also, miley cyrus is the most promising person in the next few years, she hasn’t faltered or miscommunicated despite her “tramp” persona, and boygenius is pure guitar alternative rock that doesn’t threaten anyone and, most importantly, they have verses and choruses that can be heard fearlessly in every sprawling East Coast mall and every hip coffee shop in West Coast megacities.

As for the hypocritical stance of the revamped, inclusive and more socially relevant Grammys? In 1991 Sinead O’Connor became the first musician to publicly refuse the award, boycotting the ceremony. Last Sunday, the hall said goodbye to her with a standing ovation and tearful images on the television screen.

The most popular artists

Since sales of the physical product are negligible and revenues from streaming platforms and copyright exploitation remain an inextricable tangle that has yet to translate into convincing catalogs of hits, success and commercial appeal are primarily judged by film receipts. It seems unlikely, but among the most marketable names of the year is country singer Morgan Wallen. His tour with the general title “One night at a time” has grossed 260 million, while his music has never crossed the Atlantic. Warren’s dry, odorless and friendly sparkling country pop fills stadiums with blistering beats that European songwriters can’t come close to. A little more commercial is Harry Styles, who with “Love on tour” collected 338 million, staying a little behind the British Coldplay, who with their world tour “Music of the spheres” (the one planned for OAKA before if wear and tear on the Calatrava canopy occurs) they count 342 million so far. On the one hand the much-lauded love life of Harry Styles, who tries to emulate something of the gender bender charm of the old Mick Jagger on stage, and on the other hand the family and melodic atmosphere of Coldplay, who prove themselves capable of grandiose performances, are a surefire concert bet that translates into merchandise revenue and fueled viral content on social media.

Clearly more successful is Beyonce with the “Renaissance” tour, which thanks to the abundance of dancers and the multimedia spectacle reaches 570 million. But Taylor Swift with the tour “The Eras” broke the barrier of 1 billion. With U2 and Adele permanently playing to Las Vegas audiences, the cheapest ticket in the last few seats not easily falling below 300 euros, and Madonna setting new records for the next Grammys, the giant tours of the few , of today’s huge names and the dinosaurs of the post-1980 golden era are the heart of profit for the industry. So it is reasonable to wonder about the fate of rock names, the future of up-and-coming songwriters and the fate of independent musicians releasing new records. The cramming of multi-day summer festivals is a one-way street for any name with notable recordings, with print reviews discredited and radio stations unmoved by strict playlists, which in turn consult live box office and the Grammys. Golden tours for the few and chosen, mass congestion of hundreds of names in three summer months for everyone else who doesn’t have the gold contract and the necessary views to claim it.