02.12.07 Means Nothing, Chicks

I’m in the Jacksonville, Florida airport (free Wi-Fi) and I should be working.  I have an article due on Wednesday and an inbox full of mail to return. Instead I’m pondering the sham the Grammies are..and the Dove awards for their likeness to them.  I can save you some reading - here’s the point of this post: These award shows are not about music; they’re about business.

See, the Grammy awards are voted on by music industry professionals (Just like the Doves) - good people who, more than honoring whatever “good” is, are more concerned, understandably, with adding a marketing point to their artists’ bios.  “Grammy Award Winner” is a nice thing to put on a sticker and slap on a CD cover.  Sells more CDs they suppose, and they’re probably right.  Can’t blame them.

Problem is many people watching the Grammy or Dove awards don’t realize that behind the scenes managers are trading votes with one another (I’ll vote for your artist in this category if you’ll vote for mine in this one over here), labels are shmoozing and even buying themselves more votes, distribution companies are rewarding labels whom they’d like o keep on the roster, publishing companies are rewarding artists who renewed contracts. The point? It’s not about music.

When I was heavily nominated for Dove awards many years ago I knew this.  I sat on a tour bus writing post cards to people on a list my publicist gave me.  My manager worked her connections, my label president did the same, and the awards meant nothing to me - they were one more thing to put on that sticker.  Until I lost, that is.

Losing, even if it’s in a meaningless contest, has a way of making one care.  And I did.  See, my fans didn’t know it was a game.  They got angry.  And I realized we’re sort of lying to the audience when we broadcast these shows and call ourselves the “Best New Artist if he Year” when in fact we’re the “Artist With The Largest Label.”

But again, I didn’t care so much that I didn’t win as I did why I lost.  I lost, I found out, in part, because the president of my distribution company at the time sent out an e-mail to all his people, steering their votes.  He was careful so as to not technically break any rules - he advised them on who, out of the artists they distributed, he hoped would win the awards.  He strongly encouraged without demanding.

He didn’t endorse any artists from my label.  Why?  The guy working for him, who sent me a copy of this e-mail with an apology for going along with it, said the decision was made in a meeting not to support Rocketown Records because we weren’t going to be renewing our distribution contract with the distribution company.  He thought.  It was business.  Good business.  Bet on the horse that was staying with the company, the one that would make them money in the future, not the one that had made them money in the past, and definitely not the best selling or most played or just “best” (whatever that is) on the ballot.

Truth is, if the best were given the vote, I wouldn’t have won either.  Nor was I the best selling or the most played...OK, I was the most played, but like that’s a measure of anything important.  But that’s not the point.  The point is, don’t be fooled Mr.Public.  These award shows are all business and not about honoring the best as measured by any musical metric.  The best according to these awards is the one whose army fights the hardest for the votes, the one with the most loyal label and distribution company and publisher etc.

And this year?  Well, that means George Bush gets the finger and the Chicks get the Grammy.  Five of them.  The statement, not the music, wins.