In 15 minutes of extensive research on the subject of GRAMMY Awards won by the greatest of rock’s greats, I was reminded that The Beatles won a GRAMMY as recently as 1996, for “Free As a Bird”, a patched together completion of a mid-70s John Lennon home demo, as envisioned by Jeff Lynne and John’s surviving bandmates. Unlike most of rock’s undeniable greats, at least The Beatles had been honored for work they – and history – can take pride in, including “A Hard Day’s Night” (Best Performance By A Vocal Group), an Album of the Year for Sgt. Pepper’s…, and an extremely rare, well-deserved Best New Artist in 1964.
Success would continue for the solo Beatles, except for poor Ringo.
- Along with a Best Pop Vocal Performance By A Duo, Group Or Chorus for “Band on the Run”, Paul McCartney and Wings won a Best Instrumental GRAMMY for the legendary “Rockestra Theme”.
- In 1981, John Lennon would have to settle for splitting an award with Yoko Ono for Double Fantasy.
- George Harrison took home Album of the Year for The Concert for Bangla Desh and also won an instrumental award for a track from his last album. Always the great collaborator of the Fabs, he also took home a piece of GRAMMY love for his work on the first Travelin’ Wilburys album.
Not even a stinking technical award for The Beach Boys, The Who, Led Zeppelin…
Typically, if a legend of rock ‘n roll ever wins a GRAMMY, it’s for work with barely a pulse, made long after the artist’s artistic peak. Bob Dylan broke his GRAMMY cherry with 1979’s “Gotta Serve Somebody”, a surprisingly controversial song about sublimating one’s ego in the service of the Lord. In 1997, he would win Album of the Year for 1997’s Time Out of Mind, a nice moment for possibly the worst-sung album to have ever won a GRAMMY. Technically speaking, that is, nerdlingers chomping at the bit to educate me on the man’s phrasing and gravitas.
In the 49-year history of the GRAMMYS, there is one award that cowers beneath all others in shame: The Best Rock Album award The Rolling Stones won for their 1994 release Voodoo Lounge. If ever those whose lives were saved by rock ‘n roll needed a good kick in the crotch while looking in the mirror, this was it. There was no joy for the long-overdue victory by the Stones. I wonder if the trophy even made it home with one of them. For shame!
I think that Steely Dan winning for Two Against Nature in 2000 and Springsteen winning for The Rising in 2002 are just as bad, if not worse, than the Stones winning for Voodoo Lounge (an album I seem to remember getting lots of good reviews at the time).
Matt, don’t go by the reviews of Voodoo Lounge. If the people who wrote those reviews had been doing their job, Rock Town Hall may not be needed. I can’t speak for the Steely Dan album – I would suspect industry voters were happy to grant an award to guys who looked as uncool as themselves – but The Rising helped the nation heal from the horrible events of 9/11. Voodoo Lounge was just another excuse for Mick and Keith to kiss, makeup, and hit the road.
Best Vocal Performance is a separate award. I’ll refrain from educating me about that album’s greatness.
For me one of the weird things about the Grammy award set-up is the way they separate into different categories the award for ‘song’ (to the songwriter), ‘record’ (to the producer(s)), ‘vocal performance’ (to the singer), and ‘instrumental performance’ (to the musician/band). I know it’s just a way to spread the gravy a little further, but as I read this year’s list of nominees it struck me as almost a music nerd’s approach to parceling out excellence. Like a bunch of guys (yeah guys) sitting around debating the relative merits of different recordings. “I’ll grant you that the singing is much better on x, but y has better production.” “Yeah, but the drumming is so much better on z.” “No, man I hate that reverb they used on z, though I think the songwriting is more consistent.”
I’d love to hear the conference calls that go into the creation of the lists of nominees.
One of the things that drives me nuts about the Grammys is when a particular album (or song from the album) will be nominated one year, then the following year a(nother) song from that album will be nominated. Notice how last year, McCartney’s latest album got some nods, and now this year a song from that album, “Jenny Wren” is nominated. I suppose it’s possible that song was released as a single during the parameters of this year’s awards (not that it burned up the charts), but I still think it’s really weird and kinda dumb. If the song was written, recorded and released during the parameters of a particular Grammy year, it should be nominated then and only then. That’s how I see it, anyway. Does anyone know an industry rationale for this practice that will floor me with its logic?
BigSteve wrote:
I suspect you made a slip here, but lord if that wasn’t a telling one!:)
Fritz needs his gravy too, you know.
Good points about the division of spoils. I hadn’t thought of it that way…It’s almost admirable.
I’ll assume you’re joking.
If I’ve got it correct, it’s actually a chaotic pre-runoff election kind of deal. Certain people are empowered to put names on the, if you will, pre-nomination ballot. Then, I believe, there’s a big vote.
A couple of years ago, a record-label/promotions guy here in Rhode Island was empowered to put names on the ballot. I am now beseiged annually by local bands who breathlessly inform me that they are “on the GRAMMY nominations ballot!” and I’m supposed to think that means they’ve been nominated for a GRAMMY.