Stevie Wonder and the Jonas Brothers -- just one of the Grammys' endless mash-ups.
Last night, as the 51st Annual Grammy Awards were
airing, I was staring intently at the screen. Not the television, my laptop, so
I could keep up to date on the latest breaking news on Chris Brown and Rihanna.
It's a bad sign with the most interesting people at the Grammys are the ones
who didn't show up. Soy Bomb, where have you gone? I miss you Ol' Dirty
Bastard. Wu-Tang is, indeed, for the children. Somehow, this year's Grammys
managed to span a numbingly dull three-hours-and-change without a single such water-cooler
moment to justify its existence. The music industry has been on a downward
spiral for years, and now the biggest night in music is beginning to reflect
that joylessness. Can the show be fixed? Should I give up? Or should I keep on
chasing pavements, even if it leads nowhere? I don't know if the Grammys can be
great, but I know they can be better, if next year's producers follow my simple
six-point plan.
1. Bring Back the Hosts
For years, award shows have been creeping towards using a
disembodied voice to replace a host. The Grammys have gone hostless for four
years straight, with Queen Latifah being the last to hold the reins for the 47th
annual show. Sure, comedian hosts can be hit-or-miss. But having an emcee, one
who lends his or her voice and sensibility to the entire show, lends a
continuity that can make a show of interminable length seem brisk. It might
seem a little old-fashioned, but there's a reason awards shows have had hosts for so
long: because they're better that way.
2. More Banter Between Presenters
Anyone who's ever watched an awards show knows: celebrities
hate reading jokes from a teleprompter. But that's always been part of the fun.
It's hilarious to see the dissonance created when a famous person tries to
balance a desire to be professional with a desire not to look stupid in
delivering a rotten joke. So they stumble, or ad-lib, or curse, and it's
invariably awesome. Why, then, do the Grammy presenters dryly praise each other
before announcing the award winners? If they have to read a script anyway, can't
it at least be an entertaining one?
3. No More Blind-Date Duets
There's simply no logical reason why Sugarland's "Stay"
should dovetail into Adele's "Chasing Pavements." So why fuse them
together? It's
certainly not more efficient – the award to performance ratio seemed
entirely
off last night– and if anything, it just makes for a longer performance
as the
awkward mash-up builds to its crescendo. There's simply no way to
squeeze every
hit song into a three-hour telecast. Occasionally, someone's going to
have to
get benched. My vote is for Katy Perry, because "I Kissed a Girl"
sounds terrible live, and because I get confused when she and Zooey
Deschanel are in close proximity.
4. No History for Its Own Sake…
Most of the odd performance pairings come from a desire to
blend the old with the new, as all awards shows try to do. But if it's already
going to be difficult enough to represent all the current music being honored,
is it really a good use of time to trot out Neil Diamond to perform "Sweet
Caroline?" I love the Four Tops as much as anyone, but why am I watching Ne-Yo
perform a Four Tops medley instead of a song from "Year of the Gentleman," his
current Album of the Year nominee?
5. …or Anything Too New
And for that matter, what's the use of having U2 on to
perform a song no one has heard before? The new song "Get On Your Boots" is far
from the band's best, and even if it had been another "One" or "Beautiful Day,"
it's hard to get a crowd (or a home audience) geeked about something they're
hearing for the very first time.
6. Stop Killing the Suspense
Even just following this one bit of advice could go a long
way. For years it's been the rule on music awards shows that people get to
collect trophies after they've just finished performing. This is the absolute
worst possible way to give someone a Grammy. Every year, in the Album of the
Year category, there are new, fresh, edgy records that don't have a chance in
hell of winning after the fusty voters have their say (see: Lil Wayne,
Radiohead, Ne-Yo.) But let's say I'm a Weezy fan, and I'm holding out hope that
he could pull it out. After I see Robert Plant and Alison Krauss perform at ten
'til the hour, I know I can go to bed. And in addition to snuffing out the
suspense, it's just no fun to watch someone walk from backstage to collect an
award. It's fun to see the shock on the winner's face, the shock of those
around them, that overwhelming walk up to the podium. If it's going to be this
predictable and boring, just mail them to people's houses and be done with it.
