Social Media Got The Grammys All Wrong
Social media buzz toruned out to be a poor predictor of Grammy winners last night, getting it wrong in nearly every category. That's the danger in believing that buzz is a predictor rather than a snapshot of the moment. Or as @BigChampagne tweeted, it's "the problem with scraping for net buz" without context. Check out the Wired pre-Grammy buzz infographic vs. a list of the actual winners:
vs. The Grammy 2011 Winners
Share on:
In my eyes, social media analysis most accurately mirrors pop culture. There’s no reason to assume awards would reflect the voice/immediate fixation of the “masses,” particularly the segment of the “masses” that uses such social media sites where Justin Beiber is trending every other minute, Kat Stacks is headline news, and mainstream acts go viral in a heartbeat. Half the people on these sites don’t even know of artists outside the “Top 40” anyway…so, no surprise here
I think goes to show the difference between public sentiment and corporate politics. It shows how out of touch with the tastes of the people Grammy voters really are.
When public sentiment for, say, Best New Artist, shows a 15x lead for Justin Bieber over Esperanza Spalding who got the Grammy, there’s a problem.
Of course the Academy isn’t going to give a Grammy to a guy whose song is called Fuck You with a modern twist on a 50s R&B style, they’re going to give it to a band with a pretty girl and a white-washed style that is easier to market.
The fact of the matter is that the “Record Of The Year” had FOUR Urban nominations. One country. Country wins. What does this tell you?
We see this trend YEAR AFTER YEAR. Pop gets snubbed. Urban gets snubbed. R&B doesn’t even exist anymore. If you’re jazz/country/rock or alternative, you automatically trump any and everything else.
And honestly, no disrespect to Esperanza (who is an amazing bassist and vocalist), but anyone besides her would have been a better pick. Seriously. She has work dating back to 2006 on iTunes. How is that new? And I KNOW the whole rule being changed to Best New Artist is about the year of rise to prominence, not date of first release (because of the whole Gaga thing with her not being able to be nominated because of a prior remix nomination and everyone getting pissed), but this is a BIT on the extreme side. I think this rule should be edited (yet AGAIN) to rise to prominence within 2-2 1/2 years of first release.
UGHHHHHHHHHHH.
This is nothing new. The Grammy’s have always been out of step. Does the name Jethro Tull ring a bell to anyone?
Everybody has made very valid points on this topic so far, but take this into consideration: The mainstream media/music corporations CREATE the buzz around someone like Justin Bieber through the use of major marketing dollars. Hence, they’re are going to be talked about more on social media outlets by default because they’re physically saturating the market more. You talk about what’s in your face by nature, NOT what is hiding away in the shadows or playing the background.
Artists like Arcade Fire, Lady Antebellum, or Esperanza Spalding aren’t included in this multi-million dollar exposure machine that mainstream pop artists like Bieber, Gaga, or even Eminem are in. You’re not going to see an Arcade Fire doll in Target, or Esperanza Spalding notebook folders in Wal-Mart, or a Lady Antebellum Brisk commercial on the Super Bowl. I think it’s actually encouraging to see the Grammys paying attention to the merit of the music being put out, NOT the politics of how many A-Listers are associated with the project. Just look at the credits for the Arcade Fire album – there are about 6 people involved. Now look at The Fame Monster or Recovery, there’s something like 30 or 40 people involved with EACH album. That shows LESS involvement from the artists themselves and more from the “machine” they are a part of.
I hate to be this guy, but with enough money and enough of a network ANYBODY can be a music star. Look at Taylor Swift: It’s common knowledge around Nashville that her dad threw down 5 MILLION dollars of his own money to get her started and bought the first 100,000 copies of her album so she would chart on Billboard. Don’t believe me? Ask around Nashville. You’re talking about probably the highest concentrated area of the BEST songwriters in the planet – and none of them has any respect for Taylor Swift because she didn’t EARN her way into the business like they did, she BOUGHT her way in. But that’s my case in point: Daddy buys her visibility, now she can start trending in mainstream media/social networks, and the snowball effect can help her obtain exponential growth – leading to a Grammy and so on. With groups like Arcade Fire winning, it shows that this “buying your way in” method isn’t necessarily going to work anymore.
I’m not even a fan of these more “unknown” artists that won, and I’m STILL rooting them on. It’s exciting to know the Grammys can give awards off of musical content and NOT off of how much money is being poured into making sure these artists are in EVERY place a human being would look in a given day.
The saddest news for these mainstream artists: at the end of the day, you have to pay BACK all that money that got you famous and someone owns you until you do. Indy artists get to keep their own souls and are owned by no one.
Kudos to all the winners of last nights Grammy’s that won because of their talent, NOT the size of their proverbial wallets.
I’m tired of hearing about “indie” this and “indie” that… If an artist or band is on the Grammy’s then they are NOT indie! As soon as you’re on a label that has you touring cities doing shows to thousands of people, advertising all over the Internet, magazines, and elsewhere you’re not “indie”. For fuck’s sake, as soon as you step onto that stage at the Grammy’s you’re no way in Hell “indie”. These are all indicators of “mainstream”. It’s okay though because it’s the combined fault of the labels and the fans. Labels want to market to everyone as possible, so they’ll adopt buzz terms for bands that have street cred and fans don’t ever want to admit that their favorite artists are now mainstream and are considered to have sold out. So the line and definitions become blurred.
And for the record, any real fan should be accepting of their favorite musicians becoming “mainstream” because this means that they are possibly making some king of living off their talent and hard work. It’s only when a clearly industry manufactured artist or band is marketed that they should recognize the dishonesty behind them and their product!
Free album download at http:/www.facebook.com/chancius
Many commenters made a good point – social media reflects cultural trends, but not necessarily what award show panels are voting on. Maybe this info-graphic just reinforces this discrepancy.
I’ll be discussing this article on my talk show, Watercooler on http://www.thepulsenetwork.com – LIVE at 12 EST or available anytime on-demand.