Monday, February 12, 2007

So I was watching the recent Grammy awards show, off and on while doing some other things, when I felt an overwhelming urge to double check the listings and make sure this wasn’t a rerun of a Democratic national convention. What, exactly, was going on with this awards show?

First, there’s Ludacris, a talented and extremely crude rap artist who has come under scrutiny from Bill O’Reilly about his lyrics. I’ve heard what these guys say in their music. Inappropriate doesn’t even begin to describe it, especially when you consider that the market for this stuff is black teens. Ludacris isn’t any different than any other gangster rapper, except that he had a major corporate sponsorship in Pepsi. O’Reilly pointed out to the Pepsi people what kind of music this guy makes, and Pepsi pulled their sponsorship. That’s the background. So, after being nominated multiple times in the past, finally Ludacris wins a Grammy – and he affectionately thanks Bill O’Reilly in his acceptance speech.

Then, there are the Dixie Chicks. They released their first album since their comments about the President Bush in 2003 that drew a lot of criticism. The album sales failed to meet expectations, and concert ticket sales were anemic – many dates were cancelled. It seems their country music fan base have exercised their freedom of commerce and decided to no longer support the Dixie Chicks. And so the music industry rewards their anti-Bushism with 5 Grammy awards and shows all those silly hick country music fans just how dumb they are for rejecting the Dixie Chicks. Now, I ask, is this because their album was that much better than the competition, or because of politics? Remember, they can’t win awards at the country music awards show (were they even nominated at the CMAs?), but the Grammy folks think this album is extraordinary(and,yes, I realize the CMAs may be political as well). What’s going on in this country? Can’t we have a simple awards show without politics getting involved? I’ve heard their song "Not Ready to Make Nice" which is basically a jab at their critics and it aint that good. Not to say the Dixie Chicks aren’t talented, they very much are, but 5 Grammy Awards? Come on. The timing is a little suspect. After the first 3 awards, it became obvious that the voters were making a statement – even the Chicks said so themselves. Great. And so our deep political division has now invaded the pinnacle of the music industry, and the credibility of the Grammy’s has now plummeted. I was waiting for a new category "The Greatest Album Ever Recorded or Sung or Played or Heard in all Mankind’s Eternity and History of the Universe Forever and Ever and Ever and Ever Infinity". And the winner is? The Dixie Chicks!

But who got the loudest ovation of the night? Was it Smokey Robinson? Lionel Richie? Don Henley? No. It was Al Gore. That’s right, crazy Al makes an appearance and gets more applause than anyone else even though he has absolutely nothing to do with the music industry and probably sings about as well as a German Sheppard getting neutered. That pretty much sealed the deal for me. This was not an awards show as much as it was a progressive "feel-good" convention. I’m surprised Carrie Underwood’s "Jesus Take the Wheel" wasn’t edited for inappropriate content. If this is any indication of things to come, then I won’t be watching the Oscars. They’ll probably perch Gore atop a golden throne and bow down to him with chants of worship as the god of global warming. No thanks.

Here’s an award for you: The Lamest Music Awards Show. Nominees anyone?


Anonymous said...

I have to say that I too watched the Grammy's last night. Sigh. I rarely watch these award type things. I am though a music lover.

I was enjoying many performers as I too was watching back and forth. I found many of the mainstay performers to be very entertaining. I was very frustrated as well. I was shocked at not only the nominations of the Dixie Chicks ( I was shocked even further to their wins) My point of frustration was at their Responses on stage. They looked and acted like idiots. I am well aware of their music. My daughter is a fan of theirs. She is a teen and is unaware of their political past statements.
When the little (shrub)Dixie Mouth came on stage and said 1/2 of America just changed the channel/or turned off their TV because I am talking. I actually had the same thought as she spoke.
And I did change the channel.

It ruined my Grammy experience.

And Yes Ms. Underwood did deserve her award. She is someone that my Daughter also enjoys. And Carrie is "A" List in my book. She's a Good Solid Girl. (* till hollywood takes her away)


John The Patriot said...

Well said, Bix, and yes Carrie Underwood can be a very good role model for young girls - unlike Brittany Spears. Thanks for stopping by and for the comment.

Anonymous said...

"I am not a role model." --Charles Barkley

Parents, preachers, and teachers should be role models. If you have to stoop to Hollywood and entertainment to find a role model, you're looking in the wrong direction.

If the Dixie Chicks' remarks at the Grammys made them sound like idiots, then why was so much made of their original comments? They're musicians not political commentators and should be treated as such. And there is a long list of musicians from all genres that have spoken their mind about politics with far less repercussions.

They're latest album is their most critically-acclaimed to date. I believe the wins were justified and they're absence at the CMA's is in large part due to their separation with the genre of country music. They are appealing to a different audience now. Besides, the last time I watched the CMA's a Republican National Convention broke out.

Maybe the Dixie Chicks should just start profiting from a few "red, white, and blue", "yay, Bush", "let's go to war" propaganda songs a la Toby Keith and all this hub-bub would go away.

As for O'Reilly, to say he merely "pointed out to Pepsi" what kind of music Ludacris records is an understatement. O'Reilly called for an all-out boycott of Pepsi products by all of his kool-aid drinking followers. Maybe Ludacris really did owe O'Reilly a word of thanks. Nobody knew who Ludacris was before that. It was that very fiasco that launched Ludacris into the spotlight and to the top of the charts. --Deano

John The Patriot said...


I personally don't care if someone likes the Dixie Chicks. The point of the post was to point out the obvious political bias of the Grammys. You may feel their rewards were justified, putting them at the same level as Eric Clapton and Bonnie Raitt. You may actually believe that their awards were based strictly on the merit of their music and not their prior political statement. That sort of naivety is common on the Left, and you call us Kool aid drinkers?

I don't care how many awards they got. The point is that the Grammys lost A LOT of credibility. Sorta like the Nobel Peace Prize. Crips founder and multi-murderer Tookie Williams was nominated for it. Yassar Arafat won it. And the award has lost all credibility. Such is the case with the Grammys. Even Natalie herself acknowledged the political motive behind their awards.

I don't recall Toby Keith ever releasing a "yay Bush" song. He did, however, release a song honoring the sacrifice of the American soldier and calling for the defeat of those responsible for 9/11. The Dixie Chicks had a problem with that, perhaps you do too, so be it.

And O'Reilly didn't call for a boycott. Do you actually watch his show? He called for Pepsi to terminate their contract with someone who advocates violence and serves as a poor role model for many fatherless black children. I suppose you have a problem with that as well.

And judging by record sales and concert sales, the Dixie Chicks don't really appeal to any audience, except for the Michael Moore's of the world (and apparently you as well). Unfortunately for them, those people don't listen to a whole lot of country music. They'd be better served by changing their name to The Leningrad Chicks. Watch the record sales surge!