50th Annual Grammy Awards Wrap-Up

Thanks for your thoughts, Matt, but I don’t think you’re showing enough recognition how NARAS and the Grammy producers work.

It’s unrealistic to expect Carrie to perform “Just a Dream” when it isn’t yet a single. From the artist/label standpoint, it would create confusion and potentially interfere with the run of the current single. But more to the point, I doubt Carrie was given the option of performing a song off Carnival Ride. Historically, the Grammy producers have artists perform either tributes or nominated material. Carnival Ride was released outside of the nomination period for this year’s Grammys, and so it’s unlikely she would have been allowed to sing something from that album.

Frankly, I think that giving Carrie a performance slot this year was a make-up for not having allowed Grammy’s Best New Artist of 2007 the opportunity to perform one of her own songs at last year’s ceremony.

As for Brad, he has indicated in a few places that the producers wanted him to sing “Ticks,” and that this puzzled even him. I don’t know whether he wrangled for something else. But I think in both his and Carrie’s cases, the Grammy producers wanted big-show numbers. Personally, I would have much preferred “Letter to Me,” as well.

I also agree with you that “I Need You” deserved a win in the Country Collaboration category. I’m content with Keith Urban’s win in the Male Country Vocal category but wouldn’t have minded if Tim McGraw’s “If You’re Reading This” had one. Before explaining that category away with some absurd argument about “anti-militarism,” you might consider Keith Urban’s history as a favorite in this category. NARAS voters are nothing if not repetitive in the genre categories.

But boy, it is difficult to top those Dixie Chicks’ wins from last year! Richly deserved wins for a fantastic album. From the quality of music standpoint, very tough to live up to this year, but the winners this year came close.

Oh, and as for your point about selling more records, Neil Portnow explicitly called out Music Row execs last year for complaining about country music’s treatment, saying that it was really because they were more concerned about selling albums than about art. In other words, the Grammy producers’ decisions aren’t driven by the currentness of an album or single — they leave that for the other awards shows. Perhaps especially so with country music because of the CMAs and ACMs.

Accusing the voters of being “anti-military” for not voting for “If You’re Reading This” is disgustingly offensive. You should be ashamed of yourself. In the end, your baseless accusation reveals more about your prejudices than the NARAS voters. I assume
you think that the CMA is even more anti-military because they didn’t nominate McGraw’s single at all?

Certain things should be beneath the dignity of civil conversation, and accusations of being “anti-military” is one of them. I don’t get offended very easily, but that comment made my physically ill.

Dudley:

Performances: I don’t imagine that artists themselves have absolute authority over what they perform. I hope our readers realize that when I criticize management decisions I’m not necessarily criticitizing the artists, and in this case “blame” may fall more on Grammy management than artist management. I contend that the alternate performances I suggested would’ve been a better fit for both Underwood/Paisley and the Grammys; obviously, someone on the inside saw it differently.

Male vocal performance: Keith Urban’s history as a favorite? Both he and McGraw have one win in this category, so I don’t think that you can call either one a clear Grammy male vocal performance favorite.

Lynn:

Performances: I’m not embarrased by either song. “Before He Cheats” is a great song but I like the original arrangement better and think that Carrie should have performed something more current. “Ticks” is one of Paisley’s weaker singles but I’m certainly not ashamed of it. My point is that the Grammy awards represent the only exposure that many viewers have to country music, and I think that “Ticks” reinforces some of the prejudices that turns the off to the genre in the first place.

Chicks: Given that the Dixie Chicks are by their own admission no longer a country group, I thought that their country wins last year lowered the quality of the country categories even though the music itself was quite good.

Kevin: I don’t think anyone can dispute the fact that the Academy sometimes chooses to reward liberal politics. Given preexisting NARAS liberal tendencies and what happened in the general and country categories last year, I think that my accusation is far from baseless. Whether conscious or not, I think that personal political tendencies do affect our appraisals of and emotional reactions to songs: I’m probably less likely to be moved by an anti-war protest song that some of our readers. I stand by my argument that this tendency swayed the judgment of some voters even if they didn’t consciouly cast an “anti-military” vote.

Furthermore, why is an accusation of anti-militarism beneath the dignity of civil conversation? That strikes me as simply a way to avoid having to argue against the accusation. Certainly you don’t deny that anti-military sentiment exists, even if it isn’t embodied by NARAS?

Matt: Keith Urban is a perennial nominee in the Male Country Vocal category. Not so for McGraw.

And you continue not to recognize that the Dixie Chicks were NARAS favorites long before “The Incident,” having won the Grammy for Best Country Album for all 3 of their releases prior to Taking the Long Way and having been nodded in the General Field Album of the Year category for both Fly and Home. There was precedent for their 2007 General Field and Country field successes. I’m not saying that the fact that they took a stand with a few of their songs didn’t have any impact but your treatment of the issue has been facile and incomplete.

It’s disingenuous for you to continue to harp on the 2007 DCX sweep as the by-product of NARAS’ liberal bias without acknowledging the possible and, indeed, likely contribution of a number of other factors — the DCX Grammy history being one of them, NARAS’ tendency to reward adult pop music being another and the lack of real competition in the category once Bob Dylan’s Modern Times didn’t make the cut. If this “liberal bias” is so determinant, how is it that Bruce Springsteen has yet to win Album of the Year? How is it that his Magic failed to get nominated in the General field Album of the Year category this year, when it is full of those liberal politics that you appear to think NARAS embraces so blindly and without regard for artistic merit?

Once again, the foundation of your argument is full of holes, and so your attempt to build an argument about “Stupid Boy”’s victory based on so flawed a premise is, frankly, a non-starter. If “anti-militarism” were so determinant, how was “If You’re Reading This” able to secure a nomination in the first place — not just in the Male Country Vocal category but in the Best Country Song category? Am I to believe that there were enough objective souls to get the song nodded but then “anti-militarism” crystallized as the liberal voters conspired to bring IYRT down by secretly coordinating their votes to support “Stupid Boy”?

Seeking sanctuary in your reference to “some” voters and this bias “sometimes” being a factor reads like an excuse for sloppy reasoning for which you have no supporting empirical evidence. If you can’t explain why this bias is “sometimes” a factor and why it isn’t in other times, then you have failed to construct a valid argument.

Matt: In the second to last paragraph of my previous post, I was exaggerating to make a point. I do think your theory is absurd, but not quite that absurd.

You’ve still failed to make the case that anti-militarism was prevalent enough to be the decider. I think it’s irresponsible to make that claim as dogmatically as you do without a shred of evidence. Quoting your exact words to disagree: you don’t “have to think that enough Academy voters were sufficiently anti-military to shift the vote” (bolding mine). In fact, it makes no sense whatsoever to posit “anti-militarism” as the “best” explanation as you do when you have absolutely no empirical evidence to back up your theory.

Present it as a possible explanation? Sure. But as the best one? By your own admission you lack the empirical grounds on which to evaluate the relative merits of different explanations. So you’ve no place to claim this explanation as the “best” one when you don’t have a means of making that assessment.

I haven’t even addressed the notion that enough NARAS Country field voters would take IYRT as so military-oriented rather than as a personal narrative that these “anti-militaristic” prejudices would come into play. I don’t buy that, either.

Chris, come on. It’s fair to question whether “anti-military” is descriptive of NARAS voting members. It’s another thing to act like the sentiment doesn’t exist anywhere. Try telling that to anyone who lived through the Vietnam war or people like me who have seen, among other things, the WHINSEC protests at Fort Benning, Ga. Your comment is about as honest as Trace Adkins’ incredulous assertion on the Bill Maher a few weeks ago that no one flies the Confederate flag anymore.

I think most of us are like Tim McGraw. We may not support this war, but we support those who are fighting for us, doing what they’re told by their boss, the President of the United States. I will not deny that there are plenty of anti military people out there, but people are unfair when they dub people who don’t support this war as anti military when we’re really anti-this-war. I think that may be why we get a little defensive when we get lumped with these anti-military people. I think we who care enough about our country to be passionate against people dying for a reason that we don’t feel is justified is just as patriotic as those who believe this war is a justifiable reason for our country’s people to die. they’re simply two different perspectives…we both care about this country. Otherwise, we’d be apathetic. I think apathy is the most unpatriotic stance. So, instead of getting angry who disagree about the fact that we’re in this war, it would be more fair to be angry at those who are apathetic about the whole thing.

For the record, I love “If You’re Reading This.” It was a great song and I wouldn’t have minded if it had won.

Kevin, I find your comment to be a little over the top. To act like anti-military sentiments don’t exist is dishonest and to further allege that such a thing is below civil discourse is suspect at best. The ad hominem attacks on Matt don’t address the issue of why Urban won over McGraw, which Matt’s speculations attempted to do. All of your analysis on Country Universe seems to suggest that “If You’re Reading This” should have easily won and you even rated it as the best single of 2007, claiming, “It’s the finest moment of McGraw’s distinguished career, and the best four minutes of country music in 2007.” Any ideas as to why McGraw didn’t get the nod?

Should I or shouldn’t I Chris N.? That is the question. I’m weighing whether I should even bother to wade into the debate. Mostly I find it useless as it changes no one’s mind.

Examples? Hmmmm, how about a duly elected leader of the Democratic Party standing up and calling Marines “cold-blooded murderers” before charges were brought or there was even a hearing? Based on charges leveled by our very own enemies? Not some “fringe” as you would like to portray but a leading Democrat and head of the Armed Services Appropriations. Just this weekend we were told by the duly elected House Majority Leader that we have “lost” and Iraq is a “failure”. The front runner for the Democrat nomination is singing from the Mountain that he will cut and run from Iraq. Basically that equates to pissing on the sacrifices made, to us anyhoo. Again, snatching defeat from the jaws of vistory. And frankly I do not expect you to understand that last missive. These are only a few small “examples” and not one is from the “fringe” of anything. The problem is simply the LEADERSHIP you elect represents YOU! Funny how that works eh?

YOUR example of Fred Phelps is an fine one in regard to fringe elements. He would persecute homosexuals the same as the Islamofascists would. Coming soon to a neighborhood near you! I’ll let all the rest lay. I could go on for hours. Including Dudley’s absurd assertion that the Chicks’ Grammys last year were not politically based and awarded on nothing but pure merit. But then he didn’t have to listen to “The Comment” played hour after hour by the muj PSYOPS while laying on a berm waiting to go into Fallujah. Along with all those lovely melodies sung on the floor of Congress by the esteemed “fringe” senator Teddy “I Wish I could Swim” Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, et al. Words have real time meaning to someone where it counts. Again, something I really do not expect you to understand. You elected them therefore you are as responsible as they for their actions. Sucks having responsibility for your actions huh?

I love the sentiment LeeAnn about separating the troops from the mission and choosing to only support one and not the other. Shame it doesn’t work that way but I understand how you feel. The troops ARE the mission. That’s simply the way it is. What did Chris N call it? “Deeply Offensive”? Heh! You should feel it from the other side! What you are saying is you support the troops as human beings and Americans but you are not supporting them in their roles of what it is they do for a living. You really cannot separate them from what it is they do, orders or no orders. They choose to defend this Country and are not conscripts as in previous wars. Therein lies the rub eh? As far as Berserkley goes there’s an old saying that goes, “These are our countrymen that we get paid to defend. The rest we do for free!” ;-)

Aw hell, no sense going on. Everyone has their minds made up and that’s pretty much it. I do have my white man-dress ready so I can shave my head and do the “Hari Krishna” chant at the airport to fulfill my indoctrination into the whole Obama “Hope, Love, Peace, and Unity” program. Right after I up-armor my pick-up truck! That way I’ll be ready to invade Pakistan. Heh!

As far as the original point about Tim’s song “If You’re Reading This”. I thought it was an awesome song. That song could’ve been sung about any war our Country has ever fought. I also enjoyed his vocals. It’s haunting and emotional to those that understand it. A masterful war song in the finest tradition of Country Music. Same can be said for Carrie Underwood’s “Just A Dream”. We buried a young Marine a couple of years ago that was KIA three weeks before redeployment home that was so looking forward to his wedding. JAD just rips my heart out every time I hear it. But then that’s just me, your mileage may vary.

Do I believe there is an anti-war/anti-military bent in the Grammys? Yeah, but I do not believe that is what pushed Keith’s “Stupid Boy” over the top. The Grammys are famous for promoting “social awareness” types of songs and SB fits that bill to a T. How else can you explain a song about refusing to go into rehab as the greatest song on the planet?

BTW, in case you were wondering I am simply a dad of a combat Marine NCO. Three tours and a float from the 1st Battle of Fallujah to Zadan to Mahmudiyah to Karmah etc. & et al. Retired USMM skipper and have lived on both sides of war. All over this planet (well, at least the part touched by water). Too damn many years of it actually but sometimes it is a necessary evil. Right now we are facing the very simple reality of the ultimate battle between good and evil. All you have to do is choose which side you’d like to be on. And no, that is no oversimplification. No matter how much we’d like to intellectually believe it to be!

Just my two cents and you can take it or leave it as you see fit. S/F

Dudley said, “Keith Urban is a perennial nominee in the Male Country Vocal category. Not so for McGraw.”

I believe McGraw has more nominations in this category than Urban, although Urban was nominated two years in a row for the same song. Neither of them have won while Vince Gill was in the running, though. It’s clearly obvious that the voters are motivated by more than the vocal performance when it comes to voting.

—————-

Chris, if anti-war is equal to this war in Iraq or unjust or preventive wars in general, then the association with anti-military isn’t justifiable, but if anti-war is equal to being against all wars no matter what, then there would be no reason for the military and therefore anti-war and anti-military could be equatable.

Here’s an article from SFGate.com about anti-military sentiments in San Francisco to elaborate on what Cindy said.

If anti-military can be separated from anti-war, I would think it would be possible to separate southern heritage and political ideologies from racism when it comes to the Confederate flag, but perhaps a difference of political ideologies is exactly the reason the two can’t be separated.

Also, here’s a couple of passages from Wikipedia on Forrest:

The Klan used Forrest’s name in recruiting. In 1869, Forrest, disagreeing with its increasingly violent tactics, ordered the Klan to disband. He stated it was “being perverted from its original honorable and patriotic purposes, becoming injurious instead of subservient to the public peace.”

In the Congressional investigation on Klan activities in 1871,[18] the committee concluded that Forrest’s involvement with the Klan was limited to trying to get it to disband. They determined there was no evidence that he had founded or led the Klan.

[...]

On July 5, 1875, Forrest became the first white man to speak to the Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association, a civil rights group whose members were freedmen. In his short speech, he stated blacks had the right to vote for any candidates they wanted and that the role of blacks should be elevated. He ended the speech by kissing the cheek of one of the daughters of one of the Pole-Bearer Memphis Appeal, evinces Forrest’s racial open-mindedness that seemed to have been growing in him. As reported in the contemporary pages of the Memphis Appeal.

“Chris, if anti-war is equal to this war in Iraq or unjust or preventive wars in general, then the association with anti-military isn’t justifiable, but if anti-war is equal to being against all wars no matter what, then there would be no reason for the military and therefore anti-war and anti-military could be equatable.”

With all due respect, that’s pretty tortured reasoning. You know perfectly well that the phrase “anti-military” is loaded in a way that “anti-war” is not.

Every nutty idea anyone can imagine exists somewhere in somebody’s head. I’m just saying the percentage of Americans who are empirically “anti-military” is so small as to be statistically insignificant.

That’s why I still don’t understand how you could assume (if I read the original sentence correctly) that a large number of people voted against “If You’re Reading This” because they’re opposed to the military itself rather than to the war. That would be a lot of crazies, even for the music business.

… beyond which, as country music war-related songs go, “If You’re Reading This” was relatively subtle. If it had been a bit more aggressive in its tear-jerking it might have won.

I stayed away from this for a good day after my original post, which I wrote in the heat of anger (as is probably clear.) I’ve debated in my mind whether I regret that or not, and in the end, I really don’t. Even after a day to reflect, reading the “anti-military” aside in the original post creates the same reaction that I had that first moment. The only question really was whether it was worth voicing it or not, and given what’s transpired on this thread since, I think that it was.

“Anti.” A prefix that means opposed to, against or hostile to. I have to be honest, I never heard “anti-military” before. I’ve heard accusations of “You don’t support the troops” from some people directed at others, but “anti-military” is escalating that rhetoric to a point where it is pejorative.

Now, there are certainly people out there who might fit that description. There are a lot of people out there with world views that are based on hate. However, to accuse an entire group of people that you don’t know of holding such views, with the only evidence being they voted for Keith Urban instead of Tim McGraw (and three other nominees), is beyond the pale.

It’s logically ridiculous, as well, as Dudley has already well-argued. It makes about as much sense as assuming that a shopper chose white bedsheets over red ones because they’re a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

Now, Brady makes a few errant claims about my original post that I’ll address for posterity’s sake, even though the readers here are more than capable of reading said post and knowing that I said and did no such things.

1.
Brady: “To act like anti-military sentiments don’t exist is dishonest and to further allege that such a thing is below civil discourse is suspect at best.”

I didn’t act like such sentiments didn’t exist. There isn’t anything in my post that even approaches that. I said that it was a baseless accusation, and it was. And I do believe that throwing out accusations like that should be below civil discourse. You don’t have the right to accuse people of being opposed to something without having evidence to prove it. And no, one person winning a Grammy over four others, one of which was singing a song about a fallen soldier, is not evidence. It would be just as ridiculous for me to say that Vince Gill and Ricky Skaggs keep winning Grammys because of their outspoken conservative views. Even if I thought that were true, I don’t have any evidence of it because I don’t have voter totals and I don’t know the voters personally.

2. Brady: “The ad hominem attacks on Matt don’t address the issue of why Urban won over McGraw, which Matt’s speculations attempted to do.”

There was not an ad hominem attack in my post. All of my comments addressed the actual claim Matt made and how I felt about it. An ad hominem attack is when you argue against the character or beliefs of a person, rather than their actual words or actions. Matt’s original post and subsequent explanations amount to ad hominem attacks on NARAS voters and liberals in general, but again, other posters here have already hashed this one out. I will add, though, that Matt didn’t offer speculations as to why Urban won over McGraw, he offered a specific, definitive explanation: “I have to think that enough Academy voters were sufficiently anti-military to shift the vote from McGraw to Urban.”

3. Brady: “All of your analysis on Country Universe seems to suggest that “If You’re Reading This” should have easily won and you even rated it as the best single of 2007, claiming, “It’s the finest moment of McGraw’s distinguished career, and the best four minutes of country music in 2007.” Any ideas as to why McGraw didn’t get the nod?”

My analysis does not suggest that it should have easily won. Yes, I did (and do) love that song. It was my favorite single of 2007, though it wasn’t a runaway favorite. All that you are quoting is my personal opinion of the song, which has nothing to do with analyzing who will win a Grammy. You write that you found the song a bit contrived, and for all I know, I would’ve agreed with you had my veteran father not died shortly before I heard it.

The closest I did to an analysis on my site of this category was this:

“Frequent winner Vince Gill is absent from the race this year. Of the remaining nominees, two have never won (Alan Jackson, George Strait) and two have won just once (Keith Urban, Tim McGraw.) It’s worth noting that the Bentley, McGraw and Strait tracks also scored nods for Best Country Song, which may give them an edge. I’m guessing that Tim McGraw’s popularity with NARAS and the emotional impact of “If You’re Reading This” will carry him to victory, after confused voters scan repeatedly for Vince Gill’s name and finally realize he’s not in the running.”

I took a guess that it would be McGraw, but without Gill in the running, I had no clue. So as far as your question goes – “Any ideas as to why McGraw didn’t get the nod?” My answer is, he received less votes than Keith Urban. I suppose it’s possible that people wanting to reward that song split their votes between Best Male and Best Country Song. Alan Jackson won Best Country Song for “Where Were You” but lost the Best Male race to Johnny Cash in 2003. It’s pretty much impossible to know why a song doesn’t win a Grammy, which is what you’re trying to figure out here. Matt started with his conclusion – “If You’re Reading This” deserved to win – and when Grammy voters didn’t agree, looked for their ulterior motive, when the reality might be that voters simply didn’t come to the same conclusion in the first place. I agree with Matt that McGraw deserved to win, but that’s just my opinion. It’s not fact, and it doesn’t require a hidden agenda on the part of NARAS voters to explain why they didn’t collectively agree with me.

“If You’re Reading This” is a great performance and a great song, if Matt can come to the conclusion that “I Need You” deserved Best Country Song over it simply because he likes it more, why assume something like “anti-military sentiment” among the voters who chose “Stupid Boy” over it in a different race? As I wrote in my original comment and was validated by when Matt expanded on his reasoning in the comments, it reveals more about the biases of the writer than it does about the NARAS voters.

I think this horse has been beaten to death and then some. Everything is there for anyone to read and I’m sufficiently confident with what I’ve said to not contribute anymore to the discussion unless it’s related to the awards. And just so we’re clear, Kevin, I don’t harbor any ill will towards you, and Chris, you’re cool in my book of cool people–as if there was ever any doubt.

I was disappointed in the Bluegrass category, personally. Merle Haggard’s album “The Bluegrass Sessions” was told it was not “bluegrass” enough to be nominated. The album was great and should have been acknowledged. If you want to find out more, the folks at McCoury Music put a couple of good articles about what happened along with the song clips so the fans could decide for themselves.
http://www.mccourymusic.net/interact1.cfm