MUSINGS: The Fire in The Suburbs: Indie Music's Victory at the Grammys (w/ Podcast)

By Jack Delano, November 1940 / via Library of Congress Flickr

Below is the article, which is followed by a short podcast at the bottom of this post.

The following are actual quotes from Twitter reacting to the winners of the 2011 Grammy Awards this past Sunday.

"How can this group get album of the year when they didn't even have as many top 10 as Gaga. Did this group even have a number 1 hit?" (source)

"@thegrammys Fuck you! WHO THE FUK IS ARCADE FIRE? STOP RIGGIN THIS SHIT.... U LOST MANY VIEWERS..LOOK AT THE REACTIONS U LOST ALOT" (source)

"The Grammy's [sic] are fixed, like straight up; how are all these nobodys [sic] winning? And why is everyone from Arcade Fire hideously ugly? #appalled" (source)

"Esperanza Spaulding's [sic] twitter account isnt even VERIFIED thats how much of a nobody she is!!11k followers, thats it, & she won a grammy??!" (source)

"The fact that Arcade Fire are winning over people who have actually made an impact on the music industry is really fucking annoying." (source)

All the above were collected and found on whoisarcadefire.tumblr.com.

The issues at hand here are so great in number that it's nearly impossible to approach them all without dragging on a long discussion: kids raised in the autotune/Twitter/Facebook/MySpace age, bias, close-mindedness, mainstream mass marketing, good vs. bad, opinion vs. fact, etc. As a result, I'll try to stick to just a few points here.

Last year, I wrote a "Musings" piece reacting to the Grammys in which I highlighted the Grammy Foundation's contradictory edict that the Grammy was "the only peer-presented award to honor artistic achievement, technical proficiency and overall excellence in the recording industry, without regard to album sales or chart position" (the wording has been slightly modified since last year). If you've ever watched "The Grammys" in the past and have taken your ears beyond the world of Top 40 and terrestrial radio, then you know that such a claim is a bit of a stretch. So, when Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson -- though they've worked together, it's an unlikely pairing for presenters of "Album of the Year," let's be honest -- revealed the winner was, as Babs put it, "The Suburbs - Arcade Fire", it seemed like "The Grammys" -- the Grammy Foundation -- had finally upheld its mission of awarding and recognizing the talent that was most deserving according to "artistic achievement, technical proficiency and overall excellence in the recording industry, without regard to album sales or chart position."

Unfortunately, it would appear as though many people still believe that a band's (or artist's) talent is equivalent to how popular they are (i.e. popularity = talent, popularity + talent = Grammy award). And because "The Grammys" has become the music awards show in mainstream culture and is broadcast on primetime television, on a major television network, it must be able to connect with the public (network TV is about ratings, face it). This means that "The Grammys" would not air or be as widely known if the program focused on music living, thriving, and maturing outside the bubble of Top 40 and terrestrial radio. Without getting overly analytical and technical, "The Grammys" must, in a some way, cater to the tastes and trends of what is popular -- I guess you could say they are the "pop" genre of music awards.

So, when did a Grammy award only apply to what was popular? How many awards are handed out based on popularity? Yes, people are awarded for selling lots of units of this, or raising the profile of that. Let's put it this way: awards are meant to recognize skill and achievement. If the Grammy Foundation's aim is not to assess a band or artist according to albums sales or chart position, popularity -- in the realm of mainstream culture -- does not factor into the equation for winning one of those shiny, golden gramophones. It's for this reason that on Sunday, February 13th, "The Grammys" and the Grammy Foundation succeeded in their mission when they awarded Esperanza Spalding the Grammy for "Best New Artist" and Arcade Fire the Grammy for "Album of the Year."

Spalding may have received a great deal of critical acclaim over the past year or so, but she certainly hasn't sold tons of records. Arcade Fire, on the other hand, have received critical acclaim and have also sold quite a few records considering their status as an indie band, signed to an independent label (and they did crack the Billboard Top 40 with The Suburbs). These two acts are certainly not "nobodies." Spalding has been active since 2000, released three solo albums to critical praise, and performed with the likes of Mike Stern, Stanley Clarke, and M. Ward. Arcade Fire have been active since 2003, released three albums to great critical acclaim, and have a fanbase that spans the globe. Have either had a number one hit on the radio in the U.S.? No. But what does that have to do with their talent? Radiohead have just released their eighth studio album. I'm pretty sure they've not had a number one hit in quite some time. I'm also pretty sure they aren't nobodies and that they are quite good at what they do. They are popular, yes, but not through the social lens that the general majority of people seem to be gazing through.

The question becomes, then, "Do 'The Grammys' hold any real clout in the music industry anymore?" The independent music world had a huge victory in the realm of mainstream music with Spalding and Arcade Fire taking home the awards for two of the show's biggest categories. Whether or not there is any physical evidence of a change is irrelevant, as what's most important here is that two acts that are not part of the mainstream music culture -- two acts that are signed to non-major record labels -- defeated the typical recipients of Grammy awards (your Lady Gagas, your Eminems, your Justin Biebers, etc.). I'm not going to go ahead and say that any of the latter artists are necessarily bad or completely devoid of talent, but Esperanza Spalding and Arcade Fire are not products of anything other than their roots. To be blunt, their success is not dependent on how their music is packaged and marketed. Ok, all music, to reach an audience, does have to be packaged and marketed, but a band like Arcade Fire doesn't find continued success in presenting themselves as controversial or wacky or whatever. Music is art -- I'll agree with that. So, Lady Gaga's thing is pairing her music with bizarre imagery, but what would Lady Gaga be without her image? Would she be as successful and popular if she stopped focusing so much on her image and perception?

If you disagree with Arcade Fire and Esperanza Spalding winning these Grammys, we could probably sit here all day and argue whether or not the right artists won. The point of the matter is that the Grammy Foundation made a move they seem to have avoided for quite some time: seriously considering talent that exists outside that mainstream bubble. Will Spalding and Arcade Fire now be subsumed into this bubble? Only time will tell, but based on the reactions of a large majority of people watching last Sunday's telecast, mainstream culture doesn't seem too welcoming at this point. Arcade Fire and Esperanza Spalding didn't start in the big leagues, they've worked hard to get where they are. The fire started in the suburbs, and it's spread. Success and admiration shouldn't be dependent on financial success and fame -- it's a shame that still seems to be the case. Here's hoping indie music's victory at "The Grammys" turns people on to what lies in the forest surrounding the city of popular music.