The Who, Why Behind Grammy Voting : Academy Makeup Is Key

Well, it’s Grammy nomination time again, which means we get to read Bob Hilburn’s 20th annual indictment of the academy. If one ignores the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences’ voting membership, Hilburn’s complaints are indeed valid. Who could ignore Nine Inch Nails in ‘94? Who could place Tony Bennett above Hole in terms of musical and social relevance? The answer is simple: the voting members of the recording academy.

Hilburn correctly claims that Grammy voters are supposed to be “discerning . . . listeners, who are committed to searching for the voices that define our times musically.” Well, yes--they are supposed to be. But most of them are, very probably, highly experienced veterans from many different areas of the industry, whose selections simply reflect their emotional and artistic response to the music.

The fact is that pitifully few young musicians, singers, producers, engineers, arrangers and writers bother to put up the very reasonable $65 annual membership dues (whose benefits alone are worth the price). Those who complain the most are probably most capable of changing things.

I wonder if Courtney Love, or the members of Nine Inch Nails, Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Green Day are NARAS members. Apparently, the academy membership is considerably older and more actively involved in the voting process than are those who actually create the music.

I happen to agree completely with Hilburn, but until the average age of the voting membership is lowered significantly, each year at this time Bob will get justifiably teed off, and each year at this time we’ll read about it. Only the names will change.