Grammys: Too long, too nostalgic, too boring

Remember Soy Bomb? He was the stage crasher during Bob Dylan’s performance at the 1998 Grammy Awards. Where did he go? The Grammys could use him again.

I was finally able to watch the Grammys from Sunday night. I had to watch it on DVR, I wasn’t about to sit through three and a half hours of glad handing and country music for what ended up being 45 minutes of somewhat watchable material.

THREE AND A HALF HOURS!!!?? No awards show should be that long. Especially when you only hand out something like 10 awards (tops), and then fill the rest with endless performances (I lost count around 20). The producers could easily cut an hour from the program. After the jump, let’s see what performances we could have cut from this year’s program to make it shorter and more relevant(take note for next year):


U2: The Grammys is not a show meant to reward music in general, but music from the past year. A new U2 song from an album that has yet to be released does not qualify. Save it for next year.

Al Green/Justin Timberlake: This was a last minute performance to fill in for Chris Brown/Rhiananana so I can let it slide, but has Al Green sung anything besides “Let’s stay together” in the last 30 years? He had a new NOMINATED album; couldn’t he perform something from that?

Coldplay: Of course they needed to perform, but for the sake of time let’s keep each performer to one song. If they wanted to do this 2-song combo they should’ve opened up the show instead of U2.

Stevie Wonder: Is it in his record contract that he has to perform on the Grammys EVERY YEAR? When was the last time he actually released new music (besides that song he sang at the end)? Unless you are nominated during that year, you should not perform.

Kenny Chesney/Taylor Swift/Carrie Underwood/Sugarland/Kid Rock: Too much country music. Cut back.

Katy Perry: This was just bad; we could have done without it.

Paul McCartney/ 4 Topps/ Neil Diamond: Maybe the most pointless performances of the night. This is exactly what is wrong with the Grammys. If you want to know why the ratings for the 18-34 demographic decrease every year, let’s start here. Stop clinging to the past. For a show meant to award the music of the past year, the Grammys spends too much time being nostalgic for the music of the good ol’ days.

If you want to reward the past, create another awards show and fill it with classic performers singing their hits, reuniting, and singing duets with the up and coming stars of today. Leave the Grammys alone and let them focus on the music of the present and introducing new artists to the mainstream.

During the same year as the Soy Bomb incident, the world was introduced to a new Latin singer who brought the house down with his performance. He was relatively unknown outside of his genre, but after his Grammy performance, he went on to achieve international success for years. He ended up being Ricky Martin, but that’s beside the point. The Kings of Leon are a great live rock band (coming to Cleveland in May) that could’ve benefited from a performance, but instead we got Jamie Fox singing old Doo Wop songs. YAWN!

Bottom line: the show should focus on the music of the past year and the unique artists and performances who contributed to it. Until the old dogs learn some new tricks worth rewarding, let them phone in their old hits someplace else.

EXCEPTION: Honoring the dead. I have no problem with the Bo Diddly tribute. One performance every year honoring the passing of a legend is alright. This tribute to the Clash’s Joe Strummer from the 2003 Grammys was awesome (and the last time I remember seeing an unforgettable Grammy performance):