SOUL-POLL: Lowest-Rated Grammys Ever?

chaka-khan-ap.jpgAccording to Variety, this year's Grammy telecast averaged only 17.5 million viewers, although CBS won the night in ratings. This would be the third lowest ratings average for the ceremony, only beating out 1995 (17.3m) and 2006 (17m). Out of the entire 30-something years of the televised ceremony, what made this year and others so different from the rest? Why didn't it draw as many viewers as it could've?

Enter conjecture:

  • The Grammys are irrelevant. A popularity contest that only exists as a tool for the recording industry. We don't take it seriously.
  • The Grammys happened Sunday? They need to advertise it better.
  • The Writer's Strike jinxed it.
  • Mary J. Blige and Michael Jackson weren't there. Why should I watch?
  • I decided to wait for the YouTube highlights. Who watches TV anymore?
  • Why bother? 2007 was an awful year in music.

Vote after the bounce.

[Photo: Gawker/AP]

Grammys Hit a Low Note [Variety]

TAGS:  ,

8 Responses

  1. We need to add "All of the above" to the poll. LOL

  2. The whole thing was a mess. A crack whore sweeps this year, a bunch of so-so performances ... it was generally a celebration of an extremely lackluster year. And can someone PLEASE tell me why the hell Alicia Keys gets two and three spots every year? Does J Records own NARAS or something? It's annoying as hell. But maybe I am a hater. Who knows?
    The only saving grace was Herbie Hancock's win. At least real art got some props.

  3. My power went out during the first half. I watched the second half and it was just so boring, honestly. A. Keys' performance was great, but that was the single standout for me, or at least of what I saw.
    Various thoughts: Half of the stupid show is waiting in between stupid ads, including watching Mary's "Just Fine" video footage being cheaply copied and pasted to a car commercial. Then the majority of the rest of the show is spent by stalling and stalling to the awards and performances we've been waiting for; nine times out of ten, the result will disappoint. The thing is something like 3 hours, every genre under the sun has a category, yet they only can fit ten to twenty (gasp) into that time? Then the rest are just a flash on the screen before commercial breaks.
    The whole "legend (s/he has won X amount of Grammys in our 50 year history!!) sings and/or introduces nominations with a youngster" concept was just annoying as all hell. Most ecnounters were awkward, uncomfortable, mismatched, and pretty boring. It felt very contrived and unnatural.
    Amy Winehouse's performance sucked major eggs. Some people are saying it was good and a highlight. Hell to the no! Her voice was not in good shape, she had the jitters (read: she got some of the good stuff before stepping on stage), and it was just all too dramatic for me. (The backup "singers" took the cake, though.) It was just overall bad. I don't think she deserved all the Grammys, but the reason is not because she is a crackwhore. (I don't understand what the big deal is... like a crackhead hasn't won a Grammy in the 50 (!!) years it has existed. Please.
    My reason: I just think she's being over-hyped. Is she talented? Yes. Does she make excellent albums and songs? Yes. What my problem is... where is she going to go from "Back to Black?" In my opinion, it was a concept album; trying to duplicate 60s soul girl groups. If she keeps up that sound the next album, it's going to sound gimmicky, and been-there-done-that. I don't know how to put it into words, but the main thing: where will she go from here? The drugs have nothing to do with it for me, even though I do look down upon that. I have trouble respecting her.
    I was disappointed with the winners in general. Umbrella... really? It's a catchy diddy, but come on. I was so excited when the nominations were announced. The underdogs were finally getting some shine (I was really rooting for Chrisette, Ledisi, and Jill). But no. The Grammys are a tease and they will never change. They will always choose the safe choice. They may nominate people who are surprising, but they will never have a chance.
    Also, I love how they only nominated Alicia Keys for two this year, but then used her picture (next to Stevie Wonder) in nationwide magazine advertisements speaking about "longevity in the business" after her album went three times platinum following the announcement of nominees.
    The Grammys is about sales and the music industry patting itself on the back, saying "look at all we've accomplished. Look at all the great music we've made. So now go praise it, buy it, and eat it up without questions. Because it won a Grammy, and that means it's good."
    All in all, the Grammys fell simply because... it's the Grammys. The jig is up. People are begininning to realize it for the joke it is and it's boring as hell, to boot!
    There's my rant for today. 🙂

  4. P.S.: I just saw the Tina/Beyonce performance on YouTube. It was excellent, I enjoyed it a lot.

  5. Nobody said a crackhead has not won Grammys (Natalie Cole, Whitney ... the list goes on and on). The fact of the matter is, in this case, the reason she is hyped and praised is because she is being propped up as rock's next tragic figure. If that chick dies tomorrow, it will do wonders for the industry's bottom line and that certainly is not lost on them. It's obvious. Her music is average at best ... it's her allure that is helping her win acclaim and that is a problem for me, especially when many other deserving artists got snubbed entirely in this year's ceremony. I promise you, if she was not getting all this press for her drama, she wouldn't be on a lot of people's radars and she would not have won five Grammys. Nobody can tell me otherwise.
    So yes, I am bothered that a crack whore is being praised as the new Queen of Soul (which she was called in either Rolling Stone or Spin, I don't remember) and swept the Grammys, because she is more known for love of the pipe than her art.

  6. Avatar

    What happened to judging someone on their talent?! Would we whether have someone win singing ella ella eh eh?!

  7. I was disappointed Mary did not perform. Supposedly Aretha was scared of being out sung by the younger star. SMH.


Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!