Posted on 02/14/2005 8:05:32 PM PST by traumer
NEW YORK - From J.Lo to James Brown, Usher to U2, the Grammys (news - web sites) 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 percent 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 (news - web sites), 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 — the cacophonous opening number where several acts briefly played different songs all at once — there were plenty of thrills. Alicia Keys' smoldering "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 (news)'s Super Bowl fallout. Controversy sells.
Brill agreed: "Don't you think if Michael Jackson (news) 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 — the Oscars (news - web sites) haven't approached the 55 million who watched when "Titanic" won in 1998 — and 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.
I worked as a stage hand part-time in college. I would broaden your brush to include the entire entertainment industry. They're one step removed from carnies (notice I didn't say they're one step up). Some of the biggest losers are drawn to the fantasy world of the entertainment industry, from the lowly stage hands all the way to the entertainers. The industry literally drips with sleaze. I don't miss that world at all.
Chris Rock maybe be liberal, but he is neither a gutter snipe nor a low life.
Have you ever even watched his stand up rountine ?
He's hysterically asute about relations betwene men and women.
I'm a woman and he makes me laugh at my own little female foibles.
He's very off the cuff and gets himself in trouble for his unPC remarks.
He's already in trouble for saying only gays watch the Oscars.
LOL
If a woman tells you she's twenty and looks sixteen, she's twelve. If she tells you she's twenty-six and looks twenty-six, she's damn near fourty.
Chris Rock
So what's "good music" to you ?
Name names please.
Best Group of the Year?
How about The Bloggers!
Best group of the year--The pile my dog did in the backyard?
I think the c-RAP element in music has ruined it and people show they aren't THAT interested in watching them get their bowling trophies.
Carnies, I like that. Just a little better dressed. Most of the time anyway.
You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that, but Chris Rock is not a man for all seasons. He has a "niche" following, just like many "hip-hop" dudes. He will never approach the drawing power of a Richard Pryor or Eddie Murphy, and he certainly will never approach the popularity of Ray Charles. Rock's movie about becoming President baring made back the money it cost to make. The Academy has picked a wiseguy loudmouth with a racial chip on his shoulder. And....my dear, "Being Black, Democrat and liberal ain't cool, and it certainly ain't where it's at!!!" The winds of change are afoot in the Black community, and Mr. Rock is not with them!!!
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0150533.html Here's a page listing Grammy winners from past years. I was kind of surprised when I examined it. Music actually was better back in the old days! (of course, some songs listed will remind you that not everyone had good taste back then.)
The sentence that closed with the phrase "... and this year has no dominant film." is copied below. I guess one could take the sentence either way, as referring to domination in theatres, or domination in Oscar nominations. I think the domination in theatres interpretation is clearly the most sensible one. "Big-box office films" refers to performance in theatres, not the number of Oscar nominations garnered by a film.
But big-box office films tend to juice the ratings -- the Oscars (news - web sites) haven't approached the 55 million who watched when "Titanic" won in 1998 ... and this year has no dominant film.
Seems like the author is hinting to compare "Titanic's" box office performance with the box office performance of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." The theory seems to be that unless a film's box office take beats or approaches Titanic's, then Oscar viewership won't "be juiced" as a result. I think a simpler theory is that Oscar viewership is maximized when the bigger box office films are represented with nominations for awards. People like their favorite film(s) to be recognized. Maybe the decline in Oscar viewership is a simple reflection that Hollywood in general, and the Oscars in particular, are not in harmony with audience sentiment.
Awright, here's some of what's on my iPod...
The Moody Blues - Every Good Boy Deserves Favor, Seventh Sojourn, and a Best Of with much of their early work.
Dione Warwick singing songs by Burt Bacharach and Hal David
Led Zeppelin - One, Three and Four and Houses of the Holy.(Two is over played)
Aorta - Main Vein (undiscovered classic)
Emerson - Lake, and Palmer, Brain Salad Surgery
Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon, Meddle, Relics, Ummaguma
The Doors Box set - about 60 percent of the Doors library is crap, but that other 40 percent is OH MY brilliant!
Early Frank Zappa - Uncle Meat - (before he got into toilet humor)
George Winston Box Set
H.P. Lovecraft 2- another undiscovered classic
James Gang - Yer Album
Jefferson Airplane - The Worst Of
Jethro Tull - Aqualung
Jimi Hendrix - Electric Ladyland, Cry of Love
The Litter - Emerge - another undiscovered classic
Alice Cooper - Easy Action, Love It to Death
Loreena McKennit - Book of Secrets
The Who - Tommy
Blue Cheer - Outsideinside
Yep, they don't write 'em like that anymore! (Loreena McKennitt and George Winston aside).
Great List -- don't forget Aretha, the early work of The Supremes and GFR's E. Plurubus Funk
Oh yeah, and throw Atomic Rooster - Made in England in there.
And his parents complained wildly about how bad it was compared to their music from the 40's/50's.
If he was still alive today I wonder if he'd approve of 'my' music.
This weekend, I wanted to see a movie with my wife.
We drove up, and went down the list of the ones that caught our eye. Every one of them had a star that had mouthed off about the Iraq war.
We drove home, snuggled and watched TV. Skipping the movie didn't phase us one bit... And by voting with my money, I increase the odds that next time there will be something/someone worth watching.
Craig
I didn't watch the Grammys, but I know of Nora Jones and I appreciate her work, it kinda puts me to sleep, but she's the closest thing to actual songwriting goin' today. Can you tell the difference between her and say oh, Kanye West? People like Kanye West should not be getting any awards. He shouldn't even be recorded. He is a waste of time.
Kanye West's hiphop so he doesn't even register in my sphere of listening pleasures.
I'm totally a rock chick.
No rap cr@p for me.
Rap artists & Russell Simmons wouldve been thrilled to kill off modern day Rock/Alternative/Brit Pop.
Nora Jones is lovely, but only appropriate when I want to relax and be lulled to sleep.
And not only do I like modern day rock/alt, I'e always appreciated older music such as from Chuck Berry to Louis Armstrong to Glenn Miller.
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.