Advertisement

Letters to Calendar: Exploring our Grammys coverage -- the highs and lows of it all

Taylor Swift backstage with her Grammys on Feb. 15, 2016.
(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
Share

The highs and the lows of Grammy coverage

Regarding “The Grammys: The Trouble With a Swift Win” [Feb. 13]: Kudos to Mikael Wood — in one sentence, he provided the most apt summation of the Grammys’ raison d’être ever penned: a celebration of “finely wrought arrangements, exceptional playing and the kind of careful engineering that promotes further employment of recording professionals.”

C. Price

San Clemente

Advertisement

Interesting articles on Taylor Swift’s Grammy predicament and Kanye West’s latest media promotion that highlight some of problems with music and music criticism today [“The Trouble With a Swift Win”; “Kanye vs. Kanye,” Feb. 13]. Is it the music or the media that matter? Do music awards target song craft or cultural shock waves?

Maybe both. But if the point is the music, then song structure and form, melody and verse, meticulous attention to vocal and instrumental arrangement, lyrical detail, a polished production and some kind of sonic beauty matter.

It seems that music criticism gets caught up in the buzz and who is yelling the loudest at the expense of listening to a song for the sake of the music.

Christine Vidovich

San Pedro

::

Sasha Frere-Jones’ article [“Grammys Preview: This Is One Awards Ceremony That Is Relevant,” Feb. 15] is such a mess in so many ways. The attempt to imply that it’s so easy to become an Oscar voter compared to a Grammy voter is laughable. But the insinuation that past winners of the album of the year Grammy were not deserving was plain rude and inconsiderate to both the artists involved (Herbie Hancock/Bob Newhart) and Grammy voters, who as a peer group do not have to take popularity or critical view into their consideration.

Mike Williams

Sylmar

::

Advertisement

Whether or not you’re a fan of those “In Memoriam” segments at awards shows, the Grammys one left out a doozy. No mention of jazz singer extraordinaire Mark Murphy. He was nominated for six Grammys over the course of his six-decade career, during which he routinely topped the Downbeat Poll for best male jazz singer. No, he never attained the widespread public recognition of a Tony Bennett or a Joe Williams, but to singers in the jazz community, he was the man.

In a bloated show that allowed Johnny Depp’s vanity rock act to run rampant, the smallest thing the Grammys could have done was to honor a jazz giant.

Mark Winkler

Hollywood Hills

Grammys 2016: Full coverage | Red carpet | Show highlights | Top winners and nominees

::

Enough, already. It seems daily The Times runs an article about one award or another not being diverse enough. How about just awarding the best performer, be they black, white or green? At this rate, it will be impossible for a white artist to win anything next year, no matter how talented.

Dan Wolosuk

Chino Hills

This is funny? In whose world?

Why might TruTV’s producers think that “Those Who Can’t,” a show featuring ludicrously maladjusted high school teachers, attract viewers?

Advertisement

Well, as Mary McNamara’s scathing critique [“It’s No Fun to Watch the Infantile Educators of ‘Those Who Can’t’,” Feb. 11] notes, the show goes “infantile ballistic,” with an “endless cycle of scheming and abuse.” Which brings to mind the ceaseless bickering among candidates in the 2016 presidential campaign, with numerous acrimonious debates notching historically high ratings.

As H.L. Mencken might have put it, in television and politics, there’s little risk of underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

Devra Mindell

Santa Monica

Advertisement