http://rapradar.com/2011/...mmy-family/

In the Style section of today’s New York Times, “The Commissioner” Steve Stoute took out a full page ad and critiqued the National Arts of Recording and Sciences for this year’s Grammy’s Awards. Below is a transcription of the note courtesy of the life files.

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

Is this guy defeding real musicians or artists who sells a lot of records? I'm so confused.

crokey20 said:

Is this guy defeding real musicians or artists who sells a lot of records? I'm so confused.

The latter.

I think that he has a point. How many people heard those Steely Dan or Herbie Hancock albums? Sales shouldn't be the only factor but they should be a factor. It's also a little odd to award best new artist in the year 2011 to someone who released their debut album in the year 2006.

I'm just glad that youtube exists for those rare occasions when there is a Grammy related performance that interests me.

I read about this somewhere else earlier this week and thought that dude kind of makes a fool of himself if you ask me. You'd think he was talking about the Dick Clark's American Music Awards or something. It reads like it wasn't well thought out.

How could he take out a full page ad only to advocate for Biebs? But hey, that's another man's money, not mine. Do what you like.

I'm still reeling from the sentence wherein he attempted to compare an Eminem album to the work of Bob Dylan.

^^^ I know right?! How about this one, "we must acknowledge the massive cultural impact," that = popularity to me. I don't care how he tries to slice it, the Grammy's aren't supposed to be persuaded by how popular an act is or how many followers they got on Twitter. Are you kidding me?

I'm not defending the Grammy's or nothing because we all know how jacked up their system is. I do know that it all supposed to be based on artistic merit.

Identity said:

I'm still reeling from the sentence wherein he attempted to compare an Eminem album to the work of Bob Dylan.

and call me crazy,but I'd rather see Steely Dan and Herbie Hancock win these awards instead of giving them to the lame 'artists' of today.

I'm starting to think freedom of speech should be limited in some occasions.

I saw his ad about this in the New York Times and I did not understand his point at all. It seems to me he was upset because a style of music he didn't like, the alternative rock of Arcade Fire won Album of the Year instead of his hip/hop and rap acts. He should understand not everyone likes what he likes. Some people were happy to see a rock act win something when rock has been on the decline commercially.