Grammys 2011

==Transcript==
The Grammys aired last night, and the results of the six or seven awards they actually give out on TV every year were as confusing as ever. I always feel like the Grammys have more identity issues than Lady Gaga's backup dancers during this year's opening performance. They have no idea what the hell they're supposed to be. Are the Grammys rewarding the best, most artistically well put together compositions, and most talented artists of the year? Or the most popular? Take, for example, the "Best New Artist of the Year", awarded to Esperanza Spalding. Who in the hell is Esperanza Spalding? Justin Bieber looked over to Usher and appeared to ask the very same question after he lost the award. Well, she's a jazz bassist, and a singer. Wanna hear some of her work? No? Well, too bad, here it is. [clip of Spalding's music] That isn't pop music, that's an artsy jazz tune. Nothing wrong with that, but look at the winners of "Song of the Year" and "Record of the Year", Lady Antebellum's Need You Now, a country crossover schlockey duet that reached number 2 on Billboard's Hot 100 and is almost a rip off of Kid Rock and Sheryl Crow's song Picture from a few years back. Lady Gaga, who masquerades as an artist but is essentially just another pop diva, took home a number of Grammys, so did Eminem, Rihanna, Jay Z, Miranda Lambert, Bruno Mars, Train, and a whole host of other so called "artists" who are just pop creations to be consumed by the masses with very little "art" to speak of. And then came "Album of the Year". Lady Gaga had already taken an award home for Fame Monster, and Lady Antebellum swept the song awards, with Eminem earning himself a "Best Rap Album" and "Best Solo Rap Artist" award, so it seemed pretty much a lock between one of these three artists, right? Nope! They gave it to Arcade Fire, a Canadian rock band that I can guarantee you is barely known in the US, they've never charted on the Hot 100, and in Canada, they've never even cracked the top 40. So what is it they're trying to reward? It would be like the Oscars giving James Cameron the "Best Director" award for Avatar, which would only be because it made so much money, and then, giving the "Best Picture" award to The King's Speech or something else that no one ever saw but was artistically considered the best film of the year. So what is it, Recording Academy? Are you giving awards for the most radio plays, the most iTunes downloads, the highest charting songs, or, are you giving awards for the most artistically well done songs? Cause I'll tell you right now, they're not going to be one in the same. With any entertainment medium, there's a divide between pop and art that is rarely crossed over. It's the reason the general population watches the Oscars and wonders why they've never heard of any of the movies that weren't nominated in the "Special Effects" categories. In the end, the Grammys appear to be trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator, while paying some lip service to the hipster-indie crowd. And if that's what they wanna be, that's fine. But it just comes across the same as a teenage boy who has feelings for dudes, but keeps talking about how hot the chicks are in his class because that's what's expected of him, and he doesn't wanna be shunned. Keep living the lie, I guess, Grammys! Maybe someday you'll come out of the closet.