It's been a couple of weeks since the awards, but I still wanted to talk about all the performances on the show. This'll probably end up being multiple posts just because there were so many performances. Overall, I thought the show was pretty strong. Some great moments mixed with some not so great moments to things that flat out didn't work for me. Which is pretty much the case with every awards show.
But first I want to share some general thoughts and observations. I'm guessing that at one point award shows were first and foremost about the awards themselves, but in the time I've been watching them it feels like the focus has shifted from being about them to being about the performances. This is true for just about every awards show these days. I understand it to an extent; a lot of times they'll be a ton of categories and there just wouldn't be enough time to air them all. I get why some awards would be done off air. Leaving some off the show is one thing; making the show about the performances is another and one I don't agree with. In the case of the ACMs in particular, there seemed to be twelve awards that they were promoting the most - all the ones I posted predictions about. Out of those twelve, only eight were given out during the actual show.
Eight. The total number of awards given out was eight. I may be in the minority here, but I would've rather had them cut two or three performances and seen those awards get handed out. Now granted, two of them were given to the recipients on the GAC red carpet special beforehand, or at least two of the three recipients. Video was given to Toby Keith and Vocal Event was given to Jason Aldean. Aside from them not happening during the actual show, I have two other big problems. Number one: the video of the year award should be given to the director or maybe both the director and the artist. Now, maybe the director did get an award as well, but if that was the case, I didn't hear them say so. Videos are so important to music today; they can give the director some recognition and attention. Problem number two: giving the award for vocal event to only one of the artists involved when the other one is in attendance.
Duo of the year was given to Thompson Square at a special concert dedicated to the military that they were apart of, that happened the night before the awards. This is one of the biggest awards of the night, arguably, and is considered by many to be the biggest upset of the night. They're the third duo to get that award since 1991; it's a big deal. For TV purposes, that would've made for some great TV. And Thompson Square fans wouldn't have been cheated out of seeing them win. Finally, the last award that wasn't given during the show was songwriter of the year. They made such a big deal about how they were bringing that award back after who knows how many years and then don't bother to show it. In music, in country music especially, it all comes back to the songs. To the songwriters who are the true backbone of the genre. Without them, there wouldn't be a genre as there wouldn't be songs. I'd go so far to argue that not only should it be given out during the awards, it should be one of the last ones given. I find it that important. Awards shows should ultimately be about the awards. Period.
Moving on - it felt like a lot of the artists were having a hard time hearing themselves and there's no telling how badly that can mess up a performance. I realize that it's live TV and that you never know what's going to happen, but this is a problem on every single awards show that tends to last for the entire show. This was the 47th ACM Awards and it's Las Vegas as well. Surely they can do better.
I really don't like when artists get to perform more than once. There's so many people who never get to perform and I'd rather see them be given a chance than see an artist get to do more than one song. Especially considering that the people who get multiple songs are ones who pretty much always perform. Speaking of, it's high time they shake things up. If they must have so many performances, mix it up. Have only a third or so be made up of the people who perform all the time and give the newer artists a shot. How about mixing in some of the older artists even? Larry Gatlin was in attendance; they could've had him do a song. Just a thought.
Meanwhile, what was up with the lack of focusing on band members? The focus should of course mostly be on the artist(s) themselves, but it seemed like they were making a concentrated effort to not highlight any of the musicians. The only times you saw a close up of any musician was when they were right up next to the artist. I'm not asking for a lot; give me shots of anyone who might be doing a solo. They usually always do so this was odd. I'd rather see the musicians than reaction shots from the crowd. No reason you can't include both - they usually do. It was just odd.
Another thing that was odd? The whole wedding thing. Look, it was a beautiful love story and I'm happy for the couple, but the wedding during the show was weird. Especially since they cut up the song with it which made it very hard for me to get invested in either. I just didn't feel it and at the risk of sounding cold, it took away from more important things.
Which brings me to my biggest problem with the show; with what I'd consider to be the biggest travesty of the night: the lack of an Earl Scruggs tribute. And no, adding Steve Martin to play along with Rascal Flatts during "Banjo" isn't good enough. They would have performed that anyway. I'll go into my thoughts on the performance later. This isn't about that. In a time where people are so quick to throw around words like legend and icon, usually in reference to people who are neither, it's amazing how little attention is given to those who actually fit that description. Like Earl Scruggs. A true legend; the man was an innovator, a pioneer in not only country music but music in general. And that deserves, at the very least, a video package during a country music awards show. I know they mentioned him and showed his picture, though I missed it. I know the performance was supposed to be a tribute and in a way it was. But it wasn't enough. I've heard it suggested that they just didn't have time and to that I say that for something like this, for someone like this, you make time. There's no acceptable excuses. They can fit in a wedding, but not a two minute video tribute? Really? Unacceptable.
Okay. Ranting over with. I'm headed to good old youtube to check out the performances. Any thoughts about my rant? Feel feel to share them. Thanks for reading.
Comments
Post a Comment