Clever Decision or Foolish Collision

As most of us probably know, this past weekend included the 63rd annual Grammy Awards. However, despite a rating of between 7-8 million viewers (compared to 2020's 18.7 million), the ceremony had reached a decline of more than 50% though live-streaming for the event had rose up to 83%. I personally did not watch the Grammy Awards (and had not watched in a number of years now) but did take the time to analyze and research different aspects about it such as Trevor Noah being the host and the recipients for various categories. In the midst of a Zoom discussion yesterday about the awards and its results from a PR point of view, numerous factors came into play as to why this year's viewership had resulted in the least amount of viewers in Grammy history. In addition to various circumstances that have shifted our priorities within the pandemic, people don't seem to be too interested in and partly, rightfully so with the in-depth reasons to be listed ahead.

Most of the recipients and performers were usually expected and typical at this point from Beyonce to Taylor Swift to Meg The Stallion (The only one I truly enjoyed was Bruno Mars). I'm probably speaking for a lot of us when saying that there ought to be an emergence of new and original artists who are not only fresh on the scene but create innovative, never before seen, and substantial works. In the years before (even decades before), there was stiff competition within Grammy nominees and winners (the likes of Aretha Franklin, Toni Braxton, Lauryn Hill, Mariah Carey, Ne-Yo, etc.). This is not a "music was better back then" tirade because good music never dies or expires, it's simply not as popularized since we seem to have traded substance for noise and soundness out of quality for "wokeness" out of convenience. What is called wokeness should ought to already be in place, which is being able and courageous enough to question what is wrong upon society. However, this has degraded into a false sense of superiority, arrogance, and the capability of being loud and wrong. This has played a role in the sharp decline in Grammy popularity and Hollywood as a whole: people watch award ceremonies to view their favorite entertainers be honored with the merit at hand based on our votes, not to be lectured to and pandered to a particular ideology. If this were the case, many musicians would have been better off becoming politicians.

I firmly believe political messages have their place in music (i.e Marvin Gaye's What's Going On and Lauryn Hill's MTV Unplugged 2.0), but when an individual tunes into an awards ceremony that is entirely (or ought to be) MUSIC ORIENTED, music is where the focus should be, not solely politics or taking the time to bash who you personally don't like on either side. With this being said, to intentionally have a comedian and television host who is known for being politically polarizing was a recipe for low viewership given the rhetoric that political views should be adhered to and govern every facet of society has been dominant for years now. It is understandable why they would select a host of Trevor Noah's caliber since his views are usually shared more within Hollywood. Since the Grammy Awards however, is nationwide, transcending borders and regions, this "one size fits all" approach for this year apparently didn't seem to work too efficiently. The greatness of public relations is the freedom to not just accept what is given, but to reject it as well as develop or find what aligns with what we may be seeking that is not being provided by mainstream entities. If the Grammy Awards for 2022 would do well to make it a more musical event like it originally was, and not a target for punchlines and monologues at the expense of the party being disagreed with, there might be a resurgence in viewership. Constant politicization ought to be left where they are, in the political realm and not the music realm.