Grammy annoyance 'Taylor' made
Beth Clothier
Issue date: 2/5/10 Section: Opinion
Another Grammy ceremony has come and gone, yet the furor rages on. And just as it was with the MTV Music Awards, the artist at the center of it all is Taylor Swift.
T. Swift, as ardent mobs of teen girl fans call her, was awarded the ceremony's highest honor last Sunday night, picking up her first-ever Album of the Year win along with three other awards. She beat out other hopefuls Beyoncé, Lady Gaga, Dave Matthews Band and Black Eyed Peas, not an overly outstanding Grammy class to be sure.
From the moment Swift's name was called as the winner, the Internet has been ablaze with argument, with shots fired by supporters and critics alike. Viewers lambasted her performance with Stevie Nicks, calling her out for her tuneless, breathy singing. I'm going to admit I didn't watch the Grammys, but I can't help casting my vote with those who say that Taylor didn't deserve the award.
I know, as we all should, that the Grammys have long been on the decline as far as actual importance and a measure of achievement. I can recall the year the award for Best Metal Performance was introduced, and in an act of sheer idiocy it was awarded not to obvious favorite Metallica but to Jethro Tull. You know, that rock band that has a flute in it. Hey Aqualung!
However, that and other moments of insanity aside, this might possibly be one of the most shortsighted moves in Grammy history. Think about it. The institution that is supposed to measure artists by their skill and ingenuity gave its highest honor to a 20-year-old girl with a couple of albums of teen angst sob stories and bubblegum pop country under her belt. It's the musical equivalent of giving Zac Efron an Oscar for his latest performance. Or better yet, awarding Best Picture to one of those awful "Twilight" movies.
Taylor does have some pretty vocal supporters, however, most notably the head of her record label, Scott Borchetta, who was quoted in The Tennessean as saying: "Maybe she's not the best technical singer, but she's probably the best emotional singer because everybody else who gets up there and is technically perfect, people don't seem to want more of it. I think (the critics) are missing the whole voice of a generation that is happening right in front of them. … She's an extraordinary songwriter and her vocal performances are getting better. Everybody is not perfect on any given day."
The fact of the matter is that Taylor Swift hasn't done enough to deserve this award. It's not that she writes songs that speak mainly to teenagers experiencing their first crush, or that her voice isn't that well-trained. It's that in the scope of things, she's just not there yet. In the meantime, she and Kanye can duke it out over that whole "voice of a generation" thing.
T. Swift, as ardent mobs of teen girl fans call her, was awarded the ceremony's highest honor last Sunday night, picking up her first-ever Album of the Year win along with three other awards. She beat out other hopefuls Beyoncé, Lady Gaga, Dave Matthews Band and Black Eyed Peas, not an overly outstanding Grammy class to be sure.
From the moment Swift's name was called as the winner, the Internet has been ablaze with argument, with shots fired by supporters and critics alike. Viewers lambasted her performance with Stevie Nicks, calling her out for her tuneless, breathy singing. I'm going to admit I didn't watch the Grammys, but I can't help casting my vote with those who say that Taylor didn't deserve the award.
I know, as we all should, that the Grammys have long been on the decline as far as actual importance and a measure of achievement. I can recall the year the award for Best Metal Performance was introduced, and in an act of sheer idiocy it was awarded not to obvious favorite Metallica but to Jethro Tull. You know, that rock band that has a flute in it. Hey Aqualung!
However, that and other moments of insanity aside, this might possibly be one of the most shortsighted moves in Grammy history. Think about it. The institution that is supposed to measure artists by their skill and ingenuity gave its highest honor to a 20-year-old girl with a couple of albums of teen angst sob stories and bubblegum pop country under her belt. It's the musical equivalent of giving Zac Efron an Oscar for his latest performance. Or better yet, awarding Best Picture to one of those awful "Twilight" movies.
Taylor does have some pretty vocal supporters, however, most notably the head of her record label, Scott Borchetta, who was quoted in The Tennessean as saying: "Maybe she's not the best technical singer, but she's probably the best emotional singer because everybody else who gets up there and is technically perfect, people don't seem to want more of it. I think (the critics) are missing the whole voice of a generation that is happening right in front of them. … She's an extraordinary songwriter and her vocal performances are getting better. Everybody is not perfect on any given day."
The fact of the matter is that Taylor Swift hasn't done enough to deserve this award. It's not that she writes songs that speak mainly to teenagers experiencing their first crush, or that her voice isn't that well-trained. It's that in the scope of things, she's just not there yet. In the meantime, she and Kanye can duke it out over that whole "voice of a generation" thing.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Gloria
posted 2/05/10 @ 2:06 PM CST
Taylor Swift is emblematic of why the record industry in America is in such dire straits. The focus is on image not substance. Swift's inability to carry a note has been known in Nashville for years. (Continued…)
AJD
posted 2/05/10 @ 2:35 PM CST
But is it really the record industry's fault...or the public's? Think about it, the record companies are a business, they will make what sells. Obviously from the stats, her music has sold very well. (Continued…)
Post a Comment