pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

"Well any female country singer that isn't Kacey Musgraves is in that group, right?"

Maybe The Highwomen and Pistol Annies are the new version of Bad English / Damn Yankees.

Damn English

tbh it took me a second to register what was wrong with that tweet

tbf I don't think the actual article mentioned either The Highwomen or PA but it's a funny little self-own given the country/Americana community's years of griping with p4k.

US bands that you get mixed up with The Trashwomen

If they had made the mistake with Brandy Clark, at least there would have been a name similarity in play...

The High Annies

The 15 Best and Worst Moments of the 2021 Grammys

Being 19 is awkward for everybody, including Billie Eilish, who turned her Record of the Year acceptance speech into a clumsy, guilty gush about how Megan Thee Stallion was the one who really deserved it. “I think about you constantly,” she said at one point. (...) Eilish seemed genuinely surprised about the win – her second consecutive Record of the Year trophy – but it again opens up the deeper questions around the should’ve-won trope: If you really think someone else deserved the award, why not hand it off yourself?

Because a) you can't actually transfer an award - handing off the trophy would have just been a further extension of the gesture she's already making. And b) it would probably come off as condescending - what's Megan supposed to do with Billie's trophy? She doesn't need the pity move.

she could've withdrawn, as the children's album award nominees did
https://pitchfork.com/news/grammys-2021-childrens-music-nominees-ask-to-withdraw-from-category-protesting-lack-of-diversity/

the trend of "artist x really should have won" is a hollow and insincere gesture that needs to stop

Abolish the Grammys.

xxp That wouldn’t guarantee the award goes to Megan.

I kind of agree with Paul, tbh

it's not eilish's concern what the grammys choose to do if she withdraws from contention, it's a gesture that would've said he doesn't want to vie against an artist whose work she considers genuinely superior. choosing to not do that because it's financially enriching and spectacular publicity to both contend for the award and/or to win it, but then to genuflect toward an (arguably) more deserving recipient in the name of good PR and ally status rings hollow because it is. though in the words of F. Apple, i don't really care one way or the other although of course i do care but i don't care.

Hey, if Ving Rhames can give his Golden Globe (another door stopper piece of junk) to Jack Lemmon during a ceremony, Eilish could've done the same.

Honestly, her "I'm an awkward teenager" schtick is getting tiring, and she's an adult now.

she should get a job

jfc she's still only 19.

I totally understand the impetus behind this trend is to address the Grammys' historical racism and shoving aside performers of color, but I worry how it's going to evolve in an age of increasingly toxic and rabid online fan cultures when they are all insistent that their preferred favorite is "more deserving".

but it again opens up the deeper questions around the should’ve-won trope: If you really think someone else deserved the award, why not hand it off yourself?

https://media3.giphy.com/media/3o6MbiZfouAHx7WVR6/source.gif

I mean, it's such a subjective thing and, aside from the Macklemore/Kendrick thing, the coalescing behind one obviously more "deserving" artist than the other seems increasingly less likely.

it's not eilish's concern what the grammys choose to do if she withdraws from contention, it's a gesture that would've said he doesn't want to vie against an artist whose work she considers genuinely superior.

She could have done a lot of things, but this isn't something that almost anyone does, so why put this onus on her? What she did say - "I didn't expect to win, it should have been (x)" - is common in acceptance speeches, even though it may come off as somewhat insincere.

Billie Eilish is under no obligation to withdraw her name from consideration even if she thinks there are other artists in the category who are better or more deserving.

The actions of the nominees under children's music are striking and I appreciate them. The Academy responded by replacing zero nominees and giving the award to the white woman who kept her name under consideration. That woman, Joanie Leeds, also had no obligation to withdraw her nomination.

Pointing fingers at the people winning the awards instead of the people choosing the nominees and winners is extremely short-sighted.

Honestly, her "I'm an awkward teenager" schtick is getting tiring, and she's an adult now.

Yeah, and she should smile more.

Billie should of withdrawn because she also makes children's music

"This should have gone to Raffi."

fwiw, Fiona Apple won two awards, her public refusal to attend the ceremony notwithstanding.

why is everyone convinced megan thee stallion had a better record than billie eilish?

nothing against megan, but it's not self-evident. it's very different from mackelmore winning "best rap album" over kendrick.

feel like her reaction largely stemmed from "everything i wanted" having lost in the two previous categories in which it was nominated, whereas several songs nominated for record of the year had already won in different categories, including "savage" sweeping the rap noms + megan winning best new artist. i was equally shocked that she won, it just seemed like "everything i wanted" was a token nomination for a grammy favorite and that the awards were coalescing around different songs. i think she didn't expect to win for good reason and didn't know what to say and was just kind of stammering up there in not unfounded embarrassment that a semi-random single of hers usurped some other songs that had been celebrated over the previous several hours. her speech was a bit cringe but i don't really think it's that deep

tbc i am of the opinion that of course eilish can do whatever she wants to do but she is public figure (young and fragile yes but nevertheless) and her actions are going to incur criticism. that said i'm not so much criticizing eilish as a system where well meaning and thoughtful artists are bullied by fear of losing social, financial and industry capital into taking part in a corrupt parade of nonmeritocratic racist and misogynistic kingmaking. i don't like the weeknd at all and his reasons for not taking part in the awards were self-centered but if every a and b list celeb withdrew from the grammys until they had a fully transparent system that rebalanced toward a more honest reflection of the changes both in society and in the industry shit would change. same for the oscars and the golden globe and the WWE and whatever tbh.
i am looking forward to when a non-binary actor gets an undeniable best performer nod and the oscars have to figure that shit out.

https://www.vulture.com/2020/12/fiona-apple-dr-luke-grammy-bullshit.html

Apple also spoke about being part of a slate of all women nominated for Best Rock Performance. She said, after hearing the news, she wanted to make a T-shirt with the names of all the nominees to wear for her weekly Tumblr selfie, before deciding against it. “I felt like this is exactly what they want me to do: It’s better now! I got nominated! And it’s all women this year and the Grammys are great!” she said. Apple went on to describe how if she won the award, she “would just get up there with a sledgehammer and I wouldn’t say anything. I would take the Grammy and smash it into enough pieces to share, and I would invite all the ladies up” — although, she also wondered if she could convince the slate of nominees to “boycott this shit because of Dr Luke.”

like i have no issue with vince gill but him winning over brandy clark AND miranda lambert is right up there with Nas' kings disease (which is not a bad album!) being the best rap album in 2020 of all years
don't mind me, just yelling about the grammys in a corner. i've been doing this for forty years.

did vince gill thank jesus?

my novel opinion is that no one cares about the grammies except the industry and megafans of the megaartists who get meganominated

wait, i forgot that i learned that one grammy nomination for best forgotten music genre recorded in a shack can make a career for an artist, so it's not all for show

Karl: i would argue that the grammys matter far more to NONmusicfans and the moms who see eilish on CBS sunday morning. the grammy bump sells live performance tickets as much as it sells records. a "grammy winner" commands a bigger stage and higher ticket price because of a broader audience and general name recognition. Obviously COVID so not right now but for the long run, this shit REALLY matters.

this is 2012, so grain of salt for a decade of time between but via pollstar:

In the year after grabbing Grammy No. 1, crooner Bruno Mars' average nightly gross swelled from $130,000 to $202,000 (+55%); multi-instrumentalist Esperanza Spalding swung from $20,000 to $32,000 (+60%); and pop-country superstar Taylor Swift surged from $125,000 to $600,000 (+380%).

my mom knows who billie eilish is now. megan is pretty much set to do vegas shows in her 50's if she wants to. grammys still equal money equal exposure and power and acceptance by the music mafia.

yeah i know, but those are all megastars, helping their major label career, already several dimensions above all other musicians, soar to new heights. it's good for the industry, live sales, people who work at those arenas i guess, and all the PR appearances they put in, and the people that write about them, and the...ok, i guess i see your point

i'm at a point where i realize the "pro" version of whatever i like - sports, music, art, absolutely anything - seems completely unrelated to what i like about the things

anyway, so concludes my annual grammy gripe where i realize that actually my problem is with the concept of having a job

a corrupt parade of nonmeritocratic racist and misogynistic kingmaking

Not to belabor the point, but there were many women winners (and nominees) in the pop/rock/country categories, including the aforementioned Megan and Miranda.

(and rap and folk and comedy and "Traditional R&B")

systematic racism and misogyny does not preclude individual excellence

"does not NECESSARILY preclude" rather

At what point would you feel confident that the system has been adequately reformed?

morrisp, it might be worth it for you to read up on deborah dugan's short reign as recording academy chair

maybe we could start with gender and color parity among the membership to more accurately represent the most critically and commercially successful artists in the field, full transparency as to the voting nomination and review board process, and a complete overhaul of the categories and where music is slotted.

http://i.imgur.com/owc9MiN.png

forks won a grammy!!!!

yeah i know, but those are all megastars

morrisp, it might be worth it for you to read up on deborah dugan's short reign as recording academy chair

Thanks - I have read about that, as well as the reforms made in the wake of it. If industry insiders feel they're not going far enough, I'm interested to hear that.

(xp) for what it's worth, i don't think chick corea's grammy was a sorry you're dead grammy. he won a LOT of grammys when he was alive. he was pretty much on the "you put out a record? ok, here's a grammy" list.

the reforms made in the wake of it

the major reform was that deborah dugan was fired. beyond that, they made a web page and put some words on it.