Posted on 02/14/2005 6:10:59 PM PST by Pikamax
Audience stays away from star-studded Grammys Associated Press
NEW YORK — From J.Lo to James Brown, Usher to U2, the Grammys had it all this year -- except a lot of interested viewers.
An estimated 18.8 million people watched Ray Charles' swan song clean up with eight awards Sunday night, a startling 28 per cent drop from the 2004 Grammys. After two years on an upswing, Grammy ratings sunk to their lowest level since 1995, according to Nielsen Media Research.
It may be an ominous sign for the granddaddy of awards shows, the Academy Awards, Feb. 27 on ABC.
People at CBS and elsewhere in the industry were somewhat perplexed by the numbers on Monday, given that the show was jam-packed with performances and star power.
"This was the show to beat in terms of how it was produced," said Shari Anne Brill, a television analyst for Carat USA. "It was just great. It wasn't about someone handing out awards. It was about performances. Viewers who didn't tune in missed a treat."
The Grammys, which has a long history of being derided as the Grannies within the music industry, even drew an endorsement from one of pop's potentates. "I think this is the best Grammys we've ever seen," U2 lead singer Bono said as the group accepted an award toward the show's end.
It was a continuation of a recent Grammy trend of minimizing awards presentations and maximizing live performances.
While there were misfires, such as the cacophonous opening number where several acts briefly played different songs all at once, there were plenty of thrills. Alicia Keys' smouldering If I Ain't Got You, Kanye West's resurrection, the duet between Usher and Brown and songs by Green Day and U2 all come to mind.
CBS spokesman Chris Ender noted last year's show benefited from Janet Jackson's Super Bowl fallout. Controversy sells.
Brill agreed: "Don't you think if Michael Jackson did a duet with someone with his trial going on, more viewers would have come?"
ABC is also much more competitive. Desperate Housewives had more viewers than the Grammys in the same time slot on Sunday, Nielsen said. But there was little evidence that many people switched over to the Grammys when Desperate Housewives was done.
Charles' big win could have been a hindrance, too. While a music legend, his best work may have been a mystery to many young viewers. Since he died last June, viewers were denied heartwarming scenes of him basking in the glory.
It continues a trend of less-than-stellar ratings for awards shows.
The Emmys last fall had its smallest audience ever. The Golden Globes last month had its fewest viewers since returning to broadcast television in 1996, down a whopping 10 million people from 2004. The 12.9 million people who watched the American Music Awards in November was a distant echo of the 48 million who tuned in two decades ago.
"I'm wondering if there are so many awards shows that they have lost some of their specialness," Brill said.
The Academy Awards, frequently the year's second-highest-rated entertainment event after the Super Bowl, usually considers itself immune from such outside factors. But big-box office films tend to juice the ratings and the Oscars haven't approached the 55 million who watched when Titanic won in 1998. This year has no dominant film.
Host Chris Rock may draw in the curious, particularly with his unique brand of promotion. The Internet's Drudge Report on Monday was circulating excerpts from a recent Entertainment Weekly interview where Rock said, "What straight black man sits there and watches the Oscars? Show me one!"
ABC has been more aggressive promoting an event that usually sells itself.
Maybe "the thrill is gone" because so many of these self congratulatory stars have decided to take up politics pushing as a second career and have exposed themselves to their fans as the shallow idiots they really are.
Did any of you see Mr Richard Betts? Dicky looks real bad, but he sure can play. And The Blind Boys of Alabama were a treat, it wasn't all bad.
I saw that scene and thought it was horrible because J.Lo was awful, truly awful. However, why would 'middle America' be put off by people singing in another language? They don't have opera there?
Tonight I am watching the Westminster Kennel Club. The dogs are well-goomed, happy, and do not give obnoxious speeches. Great TV!
There's an unbiased opinion for ya.
I was just following that thread myself. No doubt about it--they have a lot more personality than most "stars" these days.
Definitely that's part of it. Living and fighting and dying in Iraq is more real to me than any Hollywood stuff .... which rarely entertains me anymore. Anyhow I know 95% of the plot turns and twists by now.
Village Voice Pazz and Jop Poll
The Backdoor Men rule!!
Wow!
That catchy little tune is on my classic rock station every few days around here..
I just spent about 5 minutes today (at work) trying to figure out the lyrics...Thanks!
Pretty much says it all right there, doesn't it? Many artists have worked hard and maintained their integrity while producing a quality product. Sadly, most of those who are honored at the grammys do not fit into that group.
If the academy could only have gotten past its intense hatred of the Faith, in this corner The Passion, in the other corner, Million Dollar Baby, they might have netted a couple million more viewers interested in seeing whether Mel would win. They shot themselves, but good. Serves 'em right.
And second, if people tune in for the songs, what songs are there. Color of the Wind? Annie Lennox singing from LOTR? Heck, theme from Titanic? What stars are there? Eastwood, maybe. But in the past, it was as they say - a cavalcade of stars. Now you've got posers and gifted character actors. But the PC has driven out, or prevented the rise of major box office stars for the latest generation. As for films - forget it. Go back and look over the nominees in the 50s and 60s, never mind the 30s and 40s - every gosh darned year. It's a best of all time roster, practically. Then look at those over the last decade. Some good films, yes. But not like then.
And lastly, of course, there's the 'freeper' factor. FR, in my opinion, tends to represent the majority American opinion. And American feel utterly betrayed by their institutions, including the entertainment business (or parts of it). They see the writers and directors, the actors personal opinions, as practically treasonous. And they don't want to be a part of that. They would rather defend the country, and take the snide insults dished out by Hollywood types, Dems, and libs of all stripes, if that's how it must be.
Made for Radio music is not my cup of tea all those band suck.
Oh, silly me, and to think that I didnt watch it because I didnt feel like watching a bunch of lip-synching no talent losers who sue kids for getting their crappy music online instead of paying 100 times the cost of a CD. Any award show for pompus ass millionaires is a waste of time to the average person
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
I've seen this kind of thing before. Don't let it snowball. Get help before it's too late.
LOL! I missed the whole thing. As for the Aca-Me-Me Awards, I haven't seen any of the elected movies, so I would only watch it for the freak show element.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.