Wondered if anyone had checked out the website to see who had won the award in the various jazz categories ?
I've not yet heard the Terri Lyne Carrington record and although I love her drumming, the element of spoken word on this record had put me off acquiring it. The nomination for Wayne Shorter for best solo was no surprise as that album was crying out for recognition. Nice to see that both the Christian McBride and Alan Ferber albums got a nomination as they were extremely good. For me, these two were amongst the two best albums of 2013 and it was nice to see that the judges were on the same wavelength as me this year!! Curious that the Donny McCaslin album was also included amongst the best solo nomination - not a surprise as there is a history of risible fusion records getting the nod. In my opinion, I felt that this was a disaster zone of an album with all the life squeezed out of the music.
Several things always stagger me about these nominations. The first is that the "best solo" nomination seems perverse as I am not quite sure how you would gauge this. Do the judges transcribe each nominated solo? It seems a bit pointless - perhaps the most pointless criteria by which jazz has ever been judged, even taking in to consideration that to call something "the best" is usually purely subjective. I have not idea how you can say one solo is the best on record in any given year let alone on one album!!
There also seems a tendency to plump for "safe" options and choices which are perplexing. The Gerald Clayton disc is not that great and includes the pianist delivering a few lame vocals. I was really surprised that this got selected as I was under-whelmed although I am a fan of this musician. It won't startle the horses by any means. The Gary Burton nomination was also a bit conservative although, having been loaned this CD by a friend, I didn't think it was too bad. However, there has been some better stuff issued throughout 2013 that should have edged Burton's recording. The vocal nominations are also very conservative but I suppose this could be argued to go with the territory.
The most annoying thing with the Grammys is that there seems to be a tendency to celebrate pop musicians whose time has been and gone and, I would suggest, who have probably received too much recognition already. Paul McCartney is a prime example and he has lived off the reputation of the absurdly over-rated Beatles far too long. Shame that he wasn't taken around the corner and led in to a dark alleyway to receive a good kick in for giving us "Wings" too!! That would have evened things up a bit!! Okay, he may seem like a towering genius in comparison to the current pop artists but I would strongly argue that someone like Wayne Shorter has enjoyed an even longer musical career during which time he has produced a body of work of considerably far more value than The Beatles. There is more musical merit in Shorter's last album than the whole of McCartney's career put together. McCartney has penned a few memorable songs , some of which are quite good, yet he is an artistic minnow in comparison with some of the jazz names amongst the nominations whose worth is more associated with the social changes of the 1960's than the dots he has added to the stave. The nominations seem stacked in favour of pop acts with there being categories all sorts of pop music where the differences between genres much be impossible to differentiate. Most of these artists will be forgotten in 2 years time.
I suppose that the Grammys are totally superficial and more to do with the music industry massaging it's own ego as opposed to valuing music by genuine artistic merit.
End of rant......
I've not yet heard the Terri Lyne Carrington record and although I love her drumming, the element of spoken word on this record had put me off acquiring it. The nomination for Wayne Shorter for best solo was no surprise as that album was crying out for recognition. Nice to see that both the Christian McBride and Alan Ferber albums got a nomination as they were extremely good. For me, these two were amongst the two best albums of 2013 and it was nice to see that the judges were on the same wavelength as me this year!! Curious that the Donny McCaslin album was also included amongst the best solo nomination - not a surprise as there is a history of risible fusion records getting the nod. In my opinion, I felt that this was a disaster zone of an album with all the life squeezed out of the music.
Several things always stagger me about these nominations. The first is that the "best solo" nomination seems perverse as I am not quite sure how you would gauge this. Do the judges transcribe each nominated solo? It seems a bit pointless - perhaps the most pointless criteria by which jazz has ever been judged, even taking in to consideration that to call something "the best" is usually purely subjective. I have not idea how you can say one solo is the best on record in any given year let alone on one album!!
There also seems a tendency to plump for "safe" options and choices which are perplexing. The Gerald Clayton disc is not that great and includes the pianist delivering a few lame vocals. I was really surprised that this got selected as I was under-whelmed although I am a fan of this musician. It won't startle the horses by any means. The Gary Burton nomination was also a bit conservative although, having been loaned this CD by a friend, I didn't think it was too bad. However, there has been some better stuff issued throughout 2013 that should have edged Burton's recording. The vocal nominations are also very conservative but I suppose this could be argued to go with the territory.
The most annoying thing with the Grammys is that there seems to be a tendency to celebrate pop musicians whose time has been and gone and, I would suggest, who have probably received too much recognition already. Paul McCartney is a prime example and he has lived off the reputation of the absurdly over-rated Beatles far too long. Shame that he wasn't taken around the corner and led in to a dark alleyway to receive a good kick in for giving us "Wings" too!! That would have evened things up a bit!! Okay, he may seem like a towering genius in comparison to the current pop artists but I would strongly argue that someone like Wayne Shorter has enjoyed an even longer musical career during which time he has produced a body of work of considerably far more value than The Beatles. There is more musical merit in Shorter's last album than the whole of McCartney's career put together. McCartney has penned a few memorable songs , some of which are quite good, yet he is an artistic minnow in comparison with some of the jazz names amongst the nominations whose worth is more associated with the social changes of the 1960's than the dots he has added to the stave. The nominations seem stacked in favour of pop acts with there being categories all sorts of pop music where the differences between genres much be impossible to differentiate. Most of these artists will be forgotten in 2 years time.
I suppose that the Grammys are totally superficial and more to do with the music industry massaging it's own ego as opposed to valuing music by genuine artistic merit.
End of rant......
Comment