Surprise!
-
Artist:
I'm not sure which is more surprising, the fact that the Recording Academy actually chose someone with talent to receive the Best New Artist award or the reaction of Justin Bieber fans to the choice.
No, I take that back. The reaction of people who've never come to learn the difference between music as a product and music as art is understandable. Even predictable. They've never learned, because no one was there to teach them.
How many of them can watch this video and spot Esperanza's use of harmonics to allow the notes to ring as she changes hand positions (the fact that she does so almost effortlessly while singing as emotively and expressively as any other vocalist notwithstanding)? How many of them even know that the from about the 3:00 minute mark on Esperanza is improvising on the spot?
Folks, this is one case where the Recording Academy got it right. By far.
Update: So, MOG understands the old embed code.
Locating MOG account...
Comments (13)
OK, so it looks like Mog doesn't dig HTML 5 yet.
Nothing like making it easy to write a post.
No, I take that back. The reaction of people who've never come to learn the difference between music as a product and music as art is understandable. Even predictable. They've never learned, because no one was there to teach them.
......a whiff of the elitist there my friend. The fans do not vote. Industry hacks do the voting. The Grammys are as real as political ethics.
"......a whiff of the elitist there my friend."
Bullshit. You might get away with that claim if I'd said that Esperanza Spalding is a more talented artist because she won the Best New Artist award, but that's not my argument at all.
Now, if you want to try to make the case that Justin Bieber is every bit the musician and artist that Esperanza Spalding is, then, by all means, make your case. If you can't make that argument, then tossing out the "elitist" pejorative merely denies any notion that artistic criticism can, indeed does, involve objective standards.
I was glad to see some of the winners, but the whole Grammy process is strange. The time period of releases I don't get -- and artists with several albums get nominated for Best New Artist -- i.e. Shelby Lynne in 2000.
The NYT speculates today that Bieber split the pop vote with Drake, and Mumford & Sons split the hipster vote with Florence + the Machine -- leaving the lovely Esperanza the winner. The article does give her some credit, and points out that she is a virtuoso, and deserviing of the award. especially if you consider the word "Artist" in the title.
I pretty much gave up on The Grammys as youngster when Toto IV took home six of the damn things back in 1983. It's fun to watch (sometimes) and every once in awhile they surprise you.
This year, I enjoyed Janelle Monae, Mumford & Sons, and Avett Bros and Arcade Fire, but Jagger was kiind of ridiculos . . . and Bob Dylan . . . well, these days, I like his radio show and his books.
@ RSchaut......the tone of your post lead me to infer that you have knowledge & taste that's ....based on your better understanding of "art".
Elitist.
Folks, this is one case where the Recording Academy got it right. By far.
@funoka,
Yes, the ways of the Recording Academy are often inscrutable. Last year, I thought Tierney Sutton should have taken the best jazz vocal album award rather than Kurt Elling. Hence, the subject of this post. They actually got one right.
"the tone of your post lead me to infer that you have knowledge & taste that's ....based on your better understanding of "art"."
And here I thought the tone of my post would indicate that there are objective standards by which we can measure artistry. I'll have to work on my writing skills...
But, I'm curious. You don't seem to want to argue that Justin Bieber exhibits the same level of musicianship and artistry as Esperanza Spalding. Are you merely niggling for the sake of niggling? If you are, then, frankly, piss off. I'm not in the mood this morning.
And here I thought the tone of my post would indicate that there are objective standards by which we can measure artistry
..Are there really? Are these "objective standards" universal? Do they apply equally to the fine arts as well as the folk arts?
@Jeff,
Yes, not necessarily, and yes. Any other questions?
Here at least, i think i understand what you're saying, and to a large degree i agree. Educating one's self about an art form can greatly enhance one's enjoyment thereof. I'm not sure though if objective standards are at all universal. I am sure that the response to any art form is purely subjective....
.......What is the "objective standard" for judging a good piece of music? If i ask 100 ppl this question...i won't get the same answer 100 times. Heck, i'd be lucky to get the same answer twice. Would it be your assertion that 100 properly educated (in that art form) ppl would each give the same response?
The choice of which criteria to use is, itself, somewhat subjective, which is why I don't think the criteria is necessarily universal. It does, however, mean we should discuss them.
What are the criteria? Most often, they have to do with musicianship, craft and originality. This can encompass a variety of things. For example, the video that I had tried to embed (why has Mog taken a step backward in this regard?), you can see Esperanza using harmonics at various points to allow notes to continue to ring while she's changing positions with her left hand. This is akin to a painter using a specific brush and technique to achieve a desired effect in a unique way.
I should probably note that recognizing artistry isn't always about art being "pleasing". I think Tierney Sutton's 2007 album, On the Other Side is an artistic tour-de-force. Reworking the perennially ebullient Get Happy to turn it into a dirge is both a brilliant piece of musicianship and a profound statement on the notion of happiness. It's not, however, an album I'm going to throw throw into the CD player and listen to unless my head is in the "right" (or wrong?) place.
That doesn't mean that I expect everyone to reach the same conclusions about the comparative artistic value of two different bodies of work. It does, however, mean that I expect people to be able to articulate the reasons for their choices in such a way that other people can understand those reasons. If we can't have at least that level of expectation, then "artistic merit" simply devolves to a popularity contest, and criticizing the Grammy awards generally amounts to complaining about the fact that the critic didn't get to vote.
I don't think it's worth it to take the Grammys and its selection process seriously. I did hear a brief clip of Esperanza; not particularly to my taste, but very evident musicality. Some people are not moved by Robert Wyatt, some people don't know who Loren Mazzacane Conners is or why he is profoundly original as a guitarist. Don't know that I can articulate my reasons for my choices. All I do know is I enjoy, am moved by, and like everything from Deadman's incredible early Stones post to the two artists I name-checked. Welcome to the discussion, RSchaut. I miss Mike the Knife--how is he doing?
I trust ole Mike is doing just fine......he's got a knack for landing on his feet.
I suppose i should confess that i haven't watched or given 2 shites about the grammys for decades. I tried to find someone who was gonna watch so they could alert me when Dylan played....but to no avail.
@RSCHAUT.....Well spoken. I tried mightily to find something to disagree with......but you stumped me & trumped me. (on this one, lol)