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.
Unh huh. Sure.
Pack of liars, they are.
Music today is garbage. The "Best Group of the Year" is usually never around for a second album. It's been like that for nearly twenty years running.
With Chris Rock as the emcee, the Academy awards are headed for the toilet. Rock, a butt kissing Bill Clinton lover is just a low life, gutter snipe. Add to that, the Mel Gibson epic film "The Passion of the Christ" was passed over by the "Hollywood" elites for major awards and you have the making of a bad night for Hollywood. Maybe these idiots will one day learn to keep their politics to themselves, but I doubt we will ever see that day!!!
Gee, how'd they miss that excuse? Music sales are in the dumps and they expect that to translate into a huge Grammy viewing? I dare anyone to hum an Usher tune.
Amen.......
Low class scum have ruined the music business.
Ya think?
In the article they meant no dominant film among the nominees.
haha.......I agree but isn't that what my parents said to me back in the 70s.......however, I can't really relate to "Rap" as music in any culture.......Rap makes Disco look like Mozart.......
"I'm wondering if there are so many awards shows that they have lost some of their specialness,"
I'm sure that former viewers who are fed up with the elitists anti-american arrogance, the lack of talent, and the absence of humility and class amongst the presenters, performers, and recipients has absolutely nothing to do with it.
How conveniently ignorant.
An entire generation that never learned how to play an instrument, learned nothing about music theory or songwriting. They punch in a simple drum pattern, maybe create a childish one finger melody and yell and swear on top of it. Sorry, that ain't music. The industry is a disgrace. And they wonder why nobody's buying.
By now, flyover country is quite familiar with all of the outrageous behavior, the F-bombs and the Bush-bashing from the Grammys and Oscars. By alienating half of America's population with their leftist tripe and the insufferable garbage they produce, the entertainment industry has dug a deep hole which they, in their infinite wisdom, keep digging deeper.
Yo........ I'm inclined to knock music!
I agree. Rap disgusts me --the message, the image, everything about it I find abhorrant. Am I too old? I was a huge fan of British metal back in the 1980s and many "old" people back then found that type of music as repulsive as I find rap today.
Of course, one could dislike metal and still see that the musicians who played it had some amount of talent. Certainly it took some practice to acquire the technical skill that metal required in guitar, drums, bass and vocals. I just do not see where rap (especially that Atlanta "crunk" sound) requires any skill whatsoever.
That being said, I like Eminem --not as a rapper as much as the humor and satire found in his music.
I think all the hate leveled towards President Bush is the result of the low ratings.
And there you have it!! I have not been to a movie, rented one, listened to any radio other than conservative talk,in the last 7 months and could not care less about rich, screeching, hate mongering, low class, uneducated morons. Did I leave anything out?
Let's sink the oscars also. Gawd I hate Hollywierd.
Best Group of the Year ?
No such award.....Maybe you mean Best New Artist
And actually the winner of the most awards this year was the late great Ray Charles.
Other awards went to U2 who are all in their 40s now and still holding up great.
Overall it was a very good Grammys. Much better than the one I attended 6 years ago.
More rock, less rap last night.
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.