Published on February 8th, 2015 | by Alan Cross14
7 Grammy Wins That Underscore How the Grammys Suck
I’ll say it one more time: the Grammys are designed as a mass-appeal prime-time TV broadcast that seeks to appeal to the greatest number of mainstream (read: passive) music fans possible. The target is the kind of person that buys three CDs a year at the counter at Starbucks. All they care about is a good beat and a singable chorus.
If you’re a hardcore music fan–and if you’re reading this post, chances are you are–you have no right to expect that the Grammys won’t suck. Yeah, there was that time Arcade Fire cleaned up, but that was a total fluke. This year’s broadcast will have high ratings and bad music.
But the Grammys have brought on their reputation of suck themselves, too. Here are examples of winners who shouldn’t have won under any circumstances.
1. 1967: Frank Sinatra wins Album of the Year
Sure, A Man and His Music is an okay record. But I’m going to bet that more people own the Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. Although I could be wrong.
2. 1979: A Taste of Honey wins Best New Artist
Who? Exactly. But you probably remember other nominees Elvis Costello and The Cars, right?
3. 1981: Christopher Cross wins Album of the Year
Yeah, Pink Floyd’s The Wall really sucked.
4. 1985: Lionel Richie wins Album of the Year
Yeah, it’s better than Prince’s Purple Rain.
5. 1989: Jethro Tull wins Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance.
Imagine Metallica’s reaction when …And Justice for All didn’t win. How was that even possible?
6. 1992: Eric Clapton wins Best Rock Song
His mellow acoustic re-recorded version of “Layla” was judged better than some punk song called “Smells Like Teen Spirit.”
7. 2001: Steely Dan wins Album Over the Year
Their Two Against Nature was a better album than Eminem’s Marshall Mathers LP? Apparently.
The Grammy suck. Enjoy the broadcast.