Oscars vs. Grammys

The Oscars were last night.

I, like most of America (if Nielson ratings are still to be believed), prefer the Oscars to the Grammys. There are a few relatively obvious reasons for this. The spectacle itself is a bigger event, in terms of scope and spectacle; movie stars are on average more charismatic than musicians; people aren’t afraid to poke fun at the Academy, or each other, or themselves, which makes for more engaging television; and people are more aware of the number of people watching, making them more likely to use their platform in an intriguing way.

But all of that, in my opinion, is ancillary. The biggest reason the Oscars are bigger than the Grammys for people of all demographics is because the Oscars seem to nominate and award the art they’re evaluating based on merit in a more significant manner than the Grammys.

That is to say, Oscar winning movies are typically more respected– by critics, by viewers, by art buffs– than winning Grammy winning songs or albums.

More after the jump.




I don’t know if I understand what the reason for this is. On one hand, I’m sure the award committee of the Grammys do not want to award a song or album that no one has heard of, probably even less so after the “Who is Arcade Fire?” meme that popped up almost immediately. But it seems like they’re completely unaware of the simple fact that they are the only award body that routinely hands out awards to musicians that are among the least critically acclaimed of the year.

Back in 2000, Radiohead’s Kid A and Emineim’s The Marshall Mathers LP were nominated for album of the year, and the Grammys seemed relevant. At least until the actual award presentation; the album of the year ended up going to 70s group Steely Dan’s comeback album that no one knows the title of without Google.

Last night during the Oscars, I was rooting for David Fincher for Best Director and The Social Network for best movie of the year. Both lost their respective nominations to The King’s Speech. And my immediate reaction was to be upset about this.

When Arcade Fire, a band that has received critical acclaim, a band that had released one of the most impressive and widely loved albums of the year in critical circles, won a Grammy, my immediate reaction was to be snarky and unaffected.

The difference ultimately comes down to recognition. Seeing a sticker for “Oscar winner” on a movie means something to people outside of the voting committee. People are more likely to rent, watch, and even talk about movies that have won or been nominated for Oscars. When it comes to songs, though, the words “Grammy winning” rarely if ever influence anyone into listening.

Is there a fix? It seems like the board of voters for the Grammys tried to infuse a bit of relevancy into their selections this year, between Arcade Fire and Best New Artist winner Esperanza Spalding’s victory over Justin Bieber. But it will need to continue, especially in the face of so much criticism and so many conspiracy theories. The only way to pull the Grammys into relevancy is to recognize the music that is making an actual impact on listeners.

Will that work? It’s hard to say. It could be that mainstream viewers, the Grammys’ bread and butter, would leave in droves when non-mainstream music began winning major awards. But at this point, changing the formula is probably the only way to engage actual fans of the musical art form. The question then becomes if being watched by a smaller demographic of devoted music fans who are ultimately satisfied with the award show trumps a larger demographic turning the show on and off when records that no one– not radio listeners or music critics– care about win these awards.

The Oscars were last night.

Let’s make the Grammys the same kind of event.