JB'S MAGICAL MYSTERY MUSIC REVIEWS

...And I'd like to Thank my Management Team and my Savior Above just for being here, and for the blessed thing that is the Grammys...

Posted 02/22/00

Well, I know that I've said that "coming soon," I'd have some reviews up here for about a month now, and obviously I haven't. I was feeling a bit daunted with where to begin. After all, what topic should be the first? Wouldn't I need a topic that would establish the tone and breadth of all to follow? What is big enough, yet small enough to manage? A number of topics were floating in my mind: Bob Dylan at the Golden Globes?; Elvis Costello and Burt Bacharach: God Give Me Strength, this sucks!; Ken Burns' JAZZ: There was Louie, there was Jazz. Louie died, Jazz was soon to follow; and countless more. Also, should I review a new album, or perhaps an album I consider a "classic," or maybe a musical event of some kind? Well, my answer came to me last night, as I watched the Grammys. Oh-ho-ho.

It truly was a night of mediocrity. Even Toni Braxton's revealing garb was a cliché of the famous algae-colored napkin Jennifer Lopez wore like a dress last year. Rockets blasted behind Christina Aquilera as she danced la vida loca to a tune obviously intended to be muy caliente, yet with only a smidge more soul than Enrique Englesias, and a bit more flavor than a Taco Bell Grande. It made me wonder: what's all the fuss? Why the rockets? Save 'em for the next millennium celebration. Bono's comment later (not in reference to C.A.) seemed appropriate. It was about God's reaction to being thanked for songs he didn't particularly like.

I don't mean to be rude. It is just very tiring to watch the same faces win over and over again—the same people thanking the same people, the same hands back-slapping the same backs year after year—and watching the top-grossing bands continually being rewarded for "artistic merit" when whether they win really comes down to sales. Perhaps we should award the Grammys to the Promotions teams, hmm? For crying out loud, if the Grammys were rewarding art, don't you think that U2 would have won for "Sunday Bloody Sunday," rather than their pop-dripped and only mildly catchy "Beautiful Day"? There is vital music out there, I swear. Unfortunately, vital music was severely under-represented last night. Macy Grey was one, certainly. Radiohead (although they lost the big one) absolutely. But alas, and yet to no surprise, it was another night for the Faith Hills.

Yes, and in the ultimate celebration of mediocrity, the Recording Academy and all the various recording artists and attendees stood up, applauded, and embraced the oh-so-controversial Eminem. Personally, I don't fear Eminem. I cannot take him seriously. To me, he seems as manufactured as 'N Sync, the Backstreet Boys, or Vanilla Ice. Only he is the manufatured tough guy.

Even the Grammys thugs are mediocre! Is Eminem really supposed to be threatening? I mean when it comes to "legitimate" hoodlums like James Brown and Ike Turner, Eminem is but a K-Mart special.

Obviously, I am being tongue-in-cheek, and obviously violence is not something to be celebrated or tolerated. Nor do I think that speaking of violence is necessarily a threat, or reason for censorship. I just think it is hilarious and highly ironic that while big, bad white boy sparks the largest Grammy protest of all time—and provoked from the CEO of Grammy, Inc. perhaps the longest-winded speech on the freedom of speech and artistic expression ever clocked—producer of Eminem's album among many others, Dr. Dre, former member of NWA, co-writer and performer of such hits as "F**K The Police," got a producer of the year award.

But the media loves a white boy. I wonder what goes on in Dr. Dre's mind as he sees his little bleached investment win awards and controversy (and album sales) while he, one of the original bad boys and a rap innovator, is inducted into the Institution that wouldn't touch him ten years ago. I mean, he can't win for losing. The fact is, it is scary to white people when blacks speak of violence, and yet when we get a Gilligan-looking Vanilla Ice with a sailors tongue, we all of a suddenly stand up cheer, praise and defend him for "telling it like it is."

Still, album of the year, the big (Taco Bell) enchilada, didn't go to Eminem. Nor did it go to U2 or Radiohead. It went to the ever-vibrant Steely Dan. Album of the year. Which year, I ask? 1978? I like them—at least some of their old stuff—but are they really that vital? When folks look back at past Grammy winners down the line, people will kind of trip on this year and ask themselves, "What the hell happened?"

My feeling is the board had a Florida-like problem: It was called early for Emimem, and U2 supporters didn't go to the polls. Or maybe Radiohead was the Nader-like factor that took votes from U2, giving it to Steely Dan.

It makes me laugh, but I have no tears for the Grammys. Perhaps they should re-count. Maybe take it to the Supreme Court to decide. I am just going to stay home and listen to my Radiohead CD. Fantastic album, by the way. You should get it.

Any suggestions for albums or events to review? Send an email to: jboyte@ululation.com