Make the Grammy Winners Perform Right Then and There
By Dan Brown I have a theory on how to save the Grammy Awards. Why does the annual music award show need saving? Because when it aired at the beginning of this month, the televised ceremony drew only 14.4 million viewers, about a million fewer than last year. And last year, it drew about 1.5 million fewer viewers than the year prior to that. So the curve doesn’t look good. But don’t worry. I’ve got an idea that will bring viewers back, lend musicians much-needed credibility, and give the audience what it wants – a heap of authenticity. My strategy can be summed up in a single sentence: Make the winners in each category perform right then and there. That’s right. As soon as a winner in a category such as, say, record of the year, is announced, that person or duo or band would come up on stage. And instead of giving a boring speech or making a political statement, they would perform the song that won them the prize. Then the show moves to the next category. Repeat. So if I had produced the telecast this time, Billie Eilish would have sung her ballad Wildflowers immediately after she was named the winner for song of the year. Which is something everyone wants to see. Now let me answer the million objections that will be raised against this new type of Grammy show. The main one will be how it doesn’t give the winners enough time to prepare for performing live. But that’s kind of the point. Being forced to play an impromptu version of a big hit on the spot will separate the real musicians from the pretenders. It will give musicians bragging rights when they pull off an amazing live version of their song, and will no doubt lead to some immortal, if imperfect, performances. Besides, this will all be done out in the open. Any act that feels it’s not up to performing live with little lead time can skip the ceremony if they get nominated. (Or they could, you know, rehearse.) No one will have a gun to their head. Nominees should consider it a unique opportunity to show they have real chops. There will be no doubts about their success being due to studio wizardry or fancy production. The overall effect will be the public will come to appreciate genuine performers even more. (Naturally, the show would be packaged into a Live at the Grammys playlist and album.) The repeated complaint I hear about the current music industry is that the songs are too processed, they lack soul. I work with young people, the biggest music-consuming demographic, and the one word I hear from them the most is “authenticity.” They are hungering for it. They want more of it. This is exactly what my version of the Grammys would provide. As for what happens if a tune wins in more than one category, that’s a detail that can be worked out. And if the winners feel strongly they need a safety net, the Grammy producers could borrow a backup band from one of the late-night talk shows to help individual winners who aren’t used to performing solo. Besides, aren’t the Grammy winners supposed to be the best the music industry has to offer? This shouldn’t be a problem for them. My scheme would also encourage them not to drink or do drugs before the show, would eliminate embarrassing speeches where the recipient doesn’t know what to say, and would increase viewership by adding an element of genuine unpredictability. This may sound like an outrageous proposition, but at this point what do the Grammys have to lose? Just more viewers, who are already tuning out by the millions. Dan Brown has covered pop culture for more than 33 years as a journalist and also moderates L.A. Mood’s monthly graphic-novel group.
