I just saw an update on Entertainment Weekly that got me very riled up because it comes across as rude, ignorant and insulting. Let me provide the entire letter for your perusal before I point out how flawed it is.
An Open Letter to Neil Portnow, NARAS and the Grammy Awards
Over the course of my 20-year history as an executive in the music business and as the owner of a firm that specializes in in-culture advertising, I have come to the conclusion that the Grammy Awards have clearly lost touch with contemporary popular culture. My being a music fan has left me with an even greater and deeper sense of dismay — so much so that I feel compelled to write this letter. Where I think that the Grammys fail stems from two key sources: (1) over-zealousness to produce a popular show that is at odds with its own system of voting and (2) fundamental disrespect of cultural shifts as being viable and artistic.
As an institution that celebrates artistic works of musicians, singers, songwriters, producers and technical specialists, we have come to expect that the Grammys upholds all of the values that reflect the very best in music that is born from our culture. Unfortunately, the awards show has become a series of hypocrisies and contradictions, leaving me to question why any contemporary popular artist would even participate. How is it possible that in 2001 The Marshall Mathers LP — an album by Eminem that ushered in the Bob Dylan of our time — was beaten out by Steely Dan (no disrespect) for Album Of The Year? While we cannot solely utilize album sales as the barometer, this was certainly not the case.
Not only is Eminem the best-selling artist of the last decade, but The Marshall Mathers LP was a critical and commercial success that sold over 10 million albums in the United States (19 million worldwide), while Steely Dan sold less than 10% of that amount and came and went as quietly as a church mouse. Or consider even that in 2008 at the 50th Annual Grammy Awards, after going into the night as the most-nominated artist, Kanye West’s Graduation was beaten out for Album Of The Year by Herbie Hancock’s River: The Joni Letters. (This was the first time in 43 years that a jazz album won this category.) While there is no doubt in my mind of the artistic talents of Steely Dan or Herbie Hancock, we must acknowledge the massive cultural impact of Eminem and Kanye West and how their music is shaping, influencing and defining the voice of a generation. It is this same cultural impact that acknowledged the commercial and critical success of Michael Jackson’s Thriller in 1984.
Just so that I’m not showing partiality to hip-hop artists (although it would be an entirely different letter as to how hip-hop music has been totally diminished as an art form by this organization), how is it that Justin Bieber, an artist that defines what it means to be a modern artist, did not win Best New Artist? Again, his cultural impact and success are even more quantifiable if you factor in his YouTube and Vevo viewership — the fact that he was a talent born entirely of the digital age whose story was crafted in the most humble method of being “discovered” purely for his singing ability (and it should be noted that Justin Bieber plays piano and guitar, as evidenced on his early viral videos).
So while these very artists that the public acknowledges as being worthy of their money and fandom are snubbed year after year at the Grammys, the awards show has absolutely no qualms in inviting these same artists to perform. At first I thought that you were not paying attention to the fact that the mental complexion of the world is becoming tanned, that multiculturalism and poly-ethnicity are driving new meaning as to what is culturally relevant. Interesting that the Grammys understands cultural relevance when it comes to using Eminem’s, Kanye West’s or Justin Bieber’s name in the billing to ensure viewership and to deliver the all-too-important ratings for its advertisers.
What truly inspired the writing of this letter was that this most recent show fed my suspicions. As the show was coming to a close and just prior to presenting the award for Album Of The Year, the band Arcade Fire performed “Month of May” — only to… surprise… win the category and, in a moment of sheer coincidence, happened to be prepared to perform “Ready to Start.”
Does the Grammys intentionally use artists for their celebrity, popularity and cultural appeal when they already know the winners and then program a show against this expectation? Meanwhile the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences hides behind the “peer” voting system to escape culpability for not even rethinking its approach.
And I imagine that next year there will be another televised super-close-up of an astonished front-runner as they come to the realization before a national audience… that he or she was used.
You are being called to task at this very moment, NARAS.
And to all of the artists that attend the Grammys: Stop accepting the invitation to be the upset of the year and demand that this body upholds its mission for advocacy and support of artistry as culture evolves.
Demand that they change this system and truly reflect and truly acknowledge your art.
Steve Stoute
Mr Steve Stoute does provide compelling arguments initially and I will not object to those purely because I lack the experience and knowledge. However, whatever weight and credibility his words carry in the first half of the letter was severely marred by the second half where he defines Justin Bieber as a "modern artist" who was snubbed because he did not win Best New Artist. Oh, then he went on to chastise the Grammys for "intentionally using" artists to draw in viewers by capitalising on their "celebrity, popularity and cultural appeal".
Pray tell Mr Stoute, exactly what part of Bieber screams "modern artist"? Do you even know what "artist" is? Just because you have a good singing voice, can play a couple of instruments (or 2, in the case of Bieber) and co-written teen-pop songs which just revolve around love and girls (both of which I doubt he has experienced), does not an artist make. Have you heard of Joshua Radin? Or Anya Marina?
Oh, not mainstream enough? How about Ingrid Michaelson? Still not enough for you? Let's go even more mainstream then. David Cook? Kris Allen? Adam Lambert? Ring any bells? Those singers are more than twice the artist Bieber will ever be. Justin is rude and ignorant and to compare him to real "artists" is so demeaning to them.
At 16, he apparently doesn't know where Germany is, produces meaningless teen-pop songs, gropes girls who look like they could be his babysitter or his mum and produces a movie. Seriously? What horrible, unspeakable tragedies could he have experienced within SIXTEEN years that warrants a film out of his life story? Oh sorry, "less than a quarter" of his life and of what others have experienced. If he can make a movie, I should totally be making one. In fact, all of us should make a lifetime movie because I can guarantee that easily half of us have gone through more in the first 16 years of our lives. And if that is not enough, he goes and puts his name to bedsheets and nail polish.
He disses Lady Gaga's fashion with snarky comments like "you have meat on you" and "you're an egg" and thinks he's funny. Lady Gaga, mind you. Perhaps one of the most celebrated artists in recent times who has contributed so much musically and socially. And what has Bieber done? Besides plastering his face to bedsheets and his name to bottles of nail polish?
By the way, the Grammys are about excellence. It celebrates and rewards the singer's talent and artistry and musicality. Not album sales or fan reception and certainly not being a teenybopper idol. Like Simon Jester commented on the EW message boards, this ain't the People's Choice Awards. And might I point out that a huge majority of Bieber's fans are screaming teen girls who really don't know how to appreciate true talent even if it hit them in the face? So what "popularity and cultural appeal" do you think the Grammys are trying to exploit? A million screaming teen girls? Seriously?
And your definition of "artist" is so cheap. Let me explain. Bieber is your definition of a "modern artist". Bieber was just a nobody who filmed himself playing instruments and singing and then posted these videos on YouTube before being "discovered". So by your definition, as long as I break out my guitar, sing a few tunes, film myself and put it on YouTube and get signed by a record label, I'm an "artist"? Really?
So before Mr Stoute makes such bold claims and harsh critiques, I implore him to open his eyes and expose himself to other genres of music and see for himself what a true "artist" is. Even if he is unable to do so because he has been pigeonholed into the Hiphop/Rap genre for 25 years, mainstream "artists" like David Cook and Kris Allen and Adam Lambert hold so much more artistry than that SIXTEEN year old can ever hope to attain. And lastly, if Mr Stoute's 25 years of experience in the music industry leads him to conclude that Bieber is the definition of a "modern artist" and truly deserving of a Grammy -despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary- then I really worry for the future of our music industry.