Illustration by Gina Ledor
At the 60th annual Grammy Awards, Bruno Mars’ album, 24k Magic, won Album of the Year. Yes, you read that right. He managed to beat favorites to win like Kendrick Lamar’s DAMN., and Lorde’s Melodrama. His win confused many, as people thought the album wasn’t deserving of the award in comparison to the other nominees. However, should they be surprised about this? Last year, Adele’s 25 beat Beyonce’s Lemonade and Adele spent the majority of the speech telling Beyonce that Lemonade was the better album. The year before that, Taylor Swift’s 1989 beat Kendrick Lamar’s To Pimp a Butterfly. People were outraged by these wins, noticing a trend of inequality in who The Grammys award awards to. All of these upsets bring to question: do award shows even matter anymore?
Award shows exist in a strange universe consisting of showmanship and seriousness. So much content is created in music that it would be impossible to go through every single piece of music. As a result, the Grammy Awards choose to focus on popular music, creating a situation in which artists who focus on strong social messages rather than success are ousted out of the running. The use of popular music makes viewers more interested, but it calls into question the quality of the winners chosen. Bruno Mars was probably the most well known of all the candidates, but he definitely didn’t deserve to win compared to the innovation showcased by some of the other artists.
Not only do awards shows have to focus on the quality of the music, they must also be conscious of political climate in which they exist. Due to the press coverage these events get, movements like Time’s Up and #MeToo are able to be publicly endorsed by celebrities. But where should the line be drawn between including a diverse group of nominations, and making sure the best work of art gets the award? Nominating artists in minority groups isn’t enough.
Oftentimes the person in the minority group made a better album, yet didn’t win. This year saw some of the most diverse nominations, yet in many major categories, awards were given to the typical winners, even if their art wasn’t even that good.
Take for example Alessia Cara’s win over SZA for Best New Artist. Alessia Cara’s last album was made in 2015 and the most noteworthy thing she accomplished this year was being a feature on Logic’s 1-800-273-8255. The resounding majority agreed that SZA, a woman of color who added a new perspective to historically white genre, should’ve won that award. SZA’s presence in 2017 was far more relevant then Alessia Cara’s.
This year, many people noticed Lorde’s notable absence as a performer at the Grammy Awards. People found this to be sexist because they felt that more female performers should be showcased. She was the only artist nominated for that category to not perform, and the only female artist nominated for Album of the Year. The New York Times found that, “Of the 889 people nominated in the last six Grammy Awards, only nine percent were women.” Apparently, Lorde wanted to perform but the Grammy Awards wouldn’t grant her a slot, unlike every other male artist in that category. Not giving Lorde her own time slot to perform just shows that you have to hold the Grammy Awards accountable until they become more diverse.
Obviously not everyone is going to get what they want. Who people want to win is a matter of personal taste. I’m sure that somebody somewhere screamed when Alessia Cara got her Grammy. When you take the consensus of a group of voters, the safest choice is most likely going to get chosen. Most of this years winners had some significant airplay on the radio. While these shows do matter as they represent the music industry, they don’t really impact people’s appreciation of the music. People will continue listening to their favorite music, no matter who wins. I think that as a society we need to recognize that award shows are just that, shows.