Analyzing Country Music's Relationship With the Grammys
Events are underway in Los Angeles as the Recording Academy prepares for the 50th annual Grammy Awards on Sunday (Feb. 10). A Grammy is one of the ultimate achievements in music, though if you listened to rhetoric in Nashville, most years someone writes it off as a lame exercise.Country artists have voiced opposition to the Grammys -- saying they don't present enough country awards or country performances on television -- for years. Tanya Tucker made such a claim in the early ‘90s, Toby Keith did it this decade, and practically all of Music Row got mad at the Academy last year when the only country artists on the show, Rascal Flatts and Carrie Underwood, were featured in a tribute to the Eagles and Bob Wills. They performed none of their own material.
The anger demonstrates pride in the genre, a good thing. It also shows a certain provincialism, not such a good thing, though realistically Music City fights a huge L.A. provincialism that's built into the process. The anger is also fueled by dollars, which is just a fact of life.
While viewers watch awards shows for entertainment, the industry gets behind them as a promotional tool. If your artist wins a Grammy or a CMA Award, it can mean more press, more sales and higher concert prices. If an artist performs, it can particularly fuel a spike in sales.
So country executives want all the slots they can get. But so do the classical, jazz, Christian and gospel folks. Somebody is always unhappy with the process.
Increasing the antagonism, the Grammys don't line up with the other country awards shows. More than any other genre, country relies on radio to reach its audience, and the CMA and ACM award shows reflect that very much. Most years, the Grammys throw non-radio hits into the nominations mix, giving space to artists whose current work doesn't get much radio play -- this year, that includes Willie Nelson, Ray Price, Vince Gill and the Time Jumpers -- and sometimes giving actual trophies to people without country radio hits, such as the Dixie Chicks last year, Alison Krauss & Union Station in 2006 and Loretta Lynn the year before.
I personally find it refreshing, but I probably come from a naïve place. I'm very aware of the bottom line, but I still care most about the quality of the product, which is what every awards show -- not just the Grammys -- should reflect.
©2008 Country Music Television, Inc., a Viacom company. A division of 
Cole Edwards (JensBoyfriend) says:
I have always- and once again this year- felt that country music gets way, way overlooked at the Grammys. Whether people want to admit it or not, Country Music has grown immensely in the past few years and is now one of the top genres. While I’m not saying that the majority of the show has to be directed toward country, it would be nice to have more than two people on the show this year from the Nashville area. However, I know that Brad and Carrie will represent us well. :)
Paul W Dennis says:
If I thought that Grammy voters actually thought they were making awards based on merit that would be one thing, but too often Grammy voters want to “make a statement” such the Grammy given last year to the Dixie Chicks’ mediocre album (easily their weakest one since they were a trio with Laura Lynch trying to handle lead vocals).
Plus they get infatuated with some artists - I like Vince Gill but he has about five Grammys too many. Ditto for Bluegrass’s #2 female vocalist Alison Krauss, who has many Grammy awards, often for inferior or uninteresting work
Steven says:
I hate the way the Grammy people treat country music. I could care less about that alt-country movement going on in Austin, Texas. It’s sad that George Strait, Martina McBride, Brad Paisley and several other talented stars have never won a Grammy. The voters should divide the three country categories into the Best Mainstream Country Vocal Performance and the Best Alternative Country Vocal Performance. This way, Josh Turner, Martina McBride, Lyle Lovett and Alison Krauss could all win on the same night.