Thursday, February 7, 2013

A Grammy to the Highest Bidder...



Here's a list of the Grammy award winners of "Best Album of the Year," along with its RIAA Certification based on how many units it sold. Don't pore over it if you are in a rush, just glance at the right-hand column as you scroll down.

Gold: 500,000 units
Platinum: 1,000,000 units
Diamond: 10,000,000 units

 Platinum
Gold
Gold
Gold
Gold
Gold
Gold
Gold
Platinum
11x Platinum
Platinum
4x Platinum
8x Platinum
10x Platinum
George Harrison & Friends
Gold
 N/A
 N/A
Gold
10x Platinum
19x Platinum
Bee Gees/Various artists
15x Platinum
7x Platinum
5x Platinum
3x Platinum
3x Platinum
29x Platinum
Diamond
12x Platinum
5x Platinum
Diamond
Diamond
Diamond
Platinum
7x Platinum
Diamond
17x Platinum
Platinum
16x Platinum
11x Platinum
Platinum
8x Platinum
15x Platinum
2x Platinum
8x Platinum
Diamond
11x Platinum
Ray Charles and Various Artists
3x Platinum
3x Platinum
2x Platinum
 N/A
Platinum
6x Platinum
Gold
Diamond

Note: These statistics are units sold inside the United States only; many of these albums were even more successful globally.



I don't plan to comment much on these statistics. I just want to draw attention to the overwhelming majority of “Best Album of the Year” Grammys which were awarded after huge commercial success. I can imagine two possible explanations:

            1. The American people's taste in music is so good that we are naturally attracted to music worthy of awards and we buy it for the same reasons that it was nominated for the Grammy.

-or-

            2. An underlying requirement of this award is that the artist and album be well-known enough that the American public won’t be left scratching their heads asking “Who?”



I am more inclined to believe in the second explanation. For one, the other nominations almost always fall into the same category of household-name artists with a commercially successful album. Also, the Grammy awards are perpetuated by the American public who, frankly, don't usually like to try new things; were the Grammys overloaded with unknown indy artists foreign to the mainstream ear, the award would likely lose popularity, rather than spreading fame to the newcomers. Because many utilize music as an accompaniment in the background of life, rather than an independent art form to be appreciated in itself, we only have the capacity to opine on musics that are thrust upon us through the radio, MTV, and Spotify ads.

There is a third possibility- only commercially successful artists have the money necessary to create effective music, the sort that wins Grammys, a hypothesis supported by the extremely low number of breakout albums that are even nominated for this award. But this I refuse to believe.

So, if we assume that an album has to have enough renown to have made some money (or vice versa) to win “Best Album of the Year,” then the prize because somewhat less impressive because the competition is much less steep. Back in 1959, judging between every album released that year would have meant choosing between a few hundred records; only looking at the certified Gold albums, on the other hand (which does include all of the 1959 nominations), drained the pool down to a mere 30 (a). This strainer effect is even more drastic nowadays. In 2009 an estimated 98,000 albums were released onto the market (b), yet only 1,200 sold more than 10,000 copies which, according to the hypothesis, doesn't even qualify them for the running.

I'm not honestly suggesting that the Grammy committee endeavor to listen to every single synthesized smooth-jazz arrangement of Christmas tunes that comes out every year, nor I am I trying to sap the fun out of the Grammys. I guess I just want everyone to remember that the term "Best Album of the Year" should be taken with a big cube of salt since music is one of the most subjective art forms on the planet.

So dang the man, don't let him tell you what's good! Pick your own best albums, whatever makes you feel alive.

No comments:

Post a Comment