I've been following this debate with great interest. One thing that struck
me was the claim that Madonna & co. were afraid to say what they really think
of Eminem, or were defending him to appear hip, or whatever. That may be so,
but couldn't it also mean that, um, they think he's good and are against
attempts to ban him? We attempt to read people's minds at our peril. I'd
also be very surprised if what he's saying is any worse than what's been said
by countless other rap crews; there's the whole argument about inhabiting a
character, as Ice-T did with "Cop Killer", which struck me as fairly
obviously a character piece. When Randy Newman writes a song from the
viewpoint of some kind of bogeyman, he's hailed as a satirical genius, when
some others do it, it's a different story.
This doesn't mean I'm defending Eminem's lyrics, but nor am I condemning
them; even the selection of quotes that were included in the note that Jerry
posted from his other list don't tell the whole story; they're certainly
pretty grisly - however, the writer says they're uncensored, but they're also
completely out of context, and thus difficult to evaluate; context is
important (if you just take "Short people got no reason to live", it doesn't
look too pretty), no matter how extreme a quote from them may look. You
could take the bit at the end of Stan, where Slim is giving some fair and
honest advice to his crazed fan, and that does broaden the range of the track
- it throws into relief the more out there stuff about Stan killing his
girlfriend and generally being psychotic. Now, I have no idea how some of
the quotes Jerry posted could be contextualised so as to make them more
"acceptable" - so that's why I, personally, will not condemn them.
Just as an aside, Dido has said in several interviews that while she was
touring with him, he was very kind and considerate - quite a gentleman, in
fact!
Anyway, as Jerry and others have posted some interesting articles about the
Grammies, here's a fairly acid (and short) piece from today's Guardian on the
very same subject; it's by John Patterson.
Enjoy,
Azeem in London
A little Grammy trivia quiz: in 1989, the Grammys inaugurated their new
hard-rock category. Who won? Metallica? Jane's Addiction? AC/DC? Iggy Pop?
All were nominated, and each deserved to win. But none of these
hotel-trashing, eardrum- perforating noiseniks stood a chance before the
mighty, bulldozing, hairy-chested heavy-metallurgy of . . . Jethro Tull!
The boos from the audience proved once again the Grammys' almost Martian
out-of-touchness. Despite being founded in 1959, the organisation totally
missed out on the birth of rock'n'roll and failed to nominate Elvis Presley
until he was almost dead. They preferred Rosemary Clooney. And, although they
managed to give four awards to the Beatles in the 1960s, that was about as
close as the organisation was prepared to get to the most turbulent decade of
the postwar era.
As race riots burned inner-city neighbourhoods to the ground, and Vietnam
threatened to plunge the US into civic chaos, Grammy-voters were favouring
Henry Mancini's Days of Wine and Roses, Herb Alpert's A Taste of Honey and
the Fifth Dimension's inane Up, Up and Away (In My Beautiful Balloon).
So, no Grammy for Street Fighting Man? Of course not. The Rolling Stones had
to wait until 1995 before winning. Bob Dylan got more of the same, and Jimi
Hendrix had to wait until the worms had dined a full three decades on his
remains. Add to this the 1990 Milli Vanilli debacle, and the threat of
boycotts after Tony Bennett and the Three Tenors won in 1995, and you have a
quite remarkable record of cluelessness.
So I think we should be pleased about Eminem and Sir Elton John's much-
discussed musical summit. It's not often the Grammys get people talking.
Unless it's to squawk: "Oh, turn this shit off - Temptation Island's on
Channel Nine!"
