[ad_1]
“Could Taylor Swift’s remake of ‘Fearless’ be nominated for the Grammys?” It’s a question that has come up repeatedly in the short time since Swift released “Love Story (Taylor’s Version)” and promised that her full-length recreation of the 2008 blockbuster “Fearless” album would arrive in April.
It’s an interesting question… in a completely theoretical spirit, “Who would win in a fight, Santa Claus or Jesus?” sort of means, in that it will never have serious application in the real world.
If the question is simply could, there’s an easy answer to that: yes, definitely – he’s clearly technically eligible. If the query is replaced by would have, this one is also simple: it will never happen in a million years, but especially never in the next.
It’s because of the guards involved. There are the Blue Ribbon Committees that keep Grammy nominations and try – the emphasis on ‘the essay’ – to make sure the names reflect the musical climate of the past year and not what happened. happened three presidents ago. (Granted, there have been times in the history of the Grammy Awards where you could have pulled the exact opposite conclusion.)
But most importantly, there’s Swift as her own custodian – someone who has a choice of whether or not to submit a work to the Grammys for possible nominations. And while her camp has no comment on the matter, the odds of Swift putting “Fearless (Taylor’s Version)” up for the 2022 Grammy Awards are pretty much timid about the odds of her signing on all royalties from her. new version of the album to Scooter Braun as a gesture of goodwill “no hard feelings”.
That’s not to say that Swift isn’t proud of the (re) work she does, but even if she was inclined to think that a version of ‘Fearless’ should win twice the album award. ‘Year of the Grammys, there “was a self-destructive factor at play: Swift would submit the recordings for” Taylor’s Version “to compete with her brand new work. December’s album “Evermore” and its songs will be up for grabs next time around, and the weakest pop star on the planet wouldn’t try to find a way to siphon the votes by offering the Academy an alternative to it. which currently exists as a favorite for the 2022 trophies.
It might seem obvious. This is not the case, however, for some gullible news sources who have suggested that Swift is trying to stack the game for next year’s Grammys by releasing a flood of merchandise. Fox News ran an article, republished by TMZ, with the headline: “Taylor Swift’s re-recorded albums will be Grammy-eligible, eliciting mixed reviews: ‘Greed.’
Leaving aside the question of what the mixed review means, Swift’s alleged Grammy-hoarding claim of “greed” was linked to two separate tweets, from a single Twitter user, with a total of 10 and three likes, respectively, to date … but still enough to make headlines about how Swift tries to block the Grammys with multiple nominations – an unlikely scenario for anyone following the awards process.
On the contrary, Swift and her camp have been careful in recent years not to give voters or Grammy committees too much to vote for. When songs from the album “Lover” were in contention, it was reported that her people split the difference between two of her greatest singles from that period and submitted “Lover” for song of the year and ” You Need to Calm Down “for record of the year and pop solo performance. (“Lover” was actually nominated for the song, and “Calm Down” was featured for a solo performance, but missed the cut for record of the year.)
As for the end of the Grammys, some fans and reporters seemed surprised that the “Taylor Versions” of older material was Grammy-eligible. (A Recording Academy spokesperson told Billboard: “The current eligibility criteria would allow new concerts and albums to be eligible if they were recorded within the past five years. However, none of the songs older would not be eligible for songwriting. awards. ”) The point was clear: outside of writing categories, a cover is a cover, and still eligible, if it is reasonably fresh; the rules make no separate exclusion for soundalikes, compared to looser interpretations.
Swift is no less eligible for a remake almost note for note than director Gus Van Sant would have been eligible for an Oscar for his shot-for-shot remake of “Psycho.” Of course, unlike Van Sant, whose Xerox effort to make a Hitchcock classic deeply intrigued almost everyone in the film industry, but her supporters, Swift received a lot of positive attention to redo her own work – and, yes, pockets of “mixed reviews,” also – earning credit for the chutzpah and craftsmanship inherent in redesigning six entire studio albums. Some even claim to find new or ripe vocal inflections in the middle of the “Love Story” facsimile. Price bait, however, this is not the case.
If there was an award for self-simulation, Swift would be the only nominee – not just for this year, but perhaps historically, since no one has really attempted what she is doing now at the same volume or with the same attention to exact detail, with no corner cuts.
Pop stars like Frank Sinatra and country stars like Merle Haggard used to re-record their classics regularly when they changed labels, but not with the intention of emphasizing that they were new interpretations or with the likely intention of inviting comparisons, let alone trying. so that every last piece of sonic is as close as possible.
In 2012, Def Leppard became the rare artist to boast of having made something as close to an original as possible, boldly using the term “forgery” when the group released a handful of re-recordings of their old one. work, including “For Some Sugar on Moi.” It was part of a dispute between record companies that prevented the band from keeping all of their pre-existing music off digital services and offering replacements as a tease. finally accepted his label and put his entire catalog online in early 2018, the few ringtone versions they had presented as a promise or threat have quietly disappeared.
Other artists, like Prince, have also made noise to remake their catalogs, but never did much about it beyond a sample song or three. The most notable example of accomplishing something, even in the rough Swift stage, was when Jeff Lynne released an Electric Light Orchestra’s greatest hits album that was all remakes. Rather than showcase him as part of a contract dispute, he told fans he never really felt like he got the likes of “Mr. Blue Sky ”absolutely right the first time around. Hardly anyone bought this: Some ELO freaks have said that its one-man recreations don’t have the same spirit as the more populous originals, however close they may be. And few people thought he made the effort for a lot of reasons other than getting paid for master rights as well as releasing when songs synced for commercials and film / TV. (“Mr. Blue Sky: The Very Best of Electric Light Orchestra” reached 118th place in the US, although it debuted in the top 10 in the UK.)
Grammy Award veterans will note that an album made up largely of re-recordings, Frank Sinatra’s “A Man and His Music” won Grammy Album of the Year in 1967, though it is questionable whether Sinatra had exact duplication as a primary goal or hidden agenda when he wanted to release a career summary that included songs from his previous labels.
It’s fair to say that this wouldn’t happen today – and probably neither are examples of live projects or winning duet albums, like “MTV Unplugged” by Eric Clapton in 1993, “MTV Unplugged” by Tony. Bennett in 1995 or Ray Charles and various artists. Genius Loves Company ”in 2005. It’s not that these projects lack merit, but the Grammys are constantly under pressure to appear relevant at the moment that keeps anything seen as a nostalgic flashback from passing. (Granted, there won’t be a repeat of something that won best song “Layla” in the early 90s; the rules have since been changed to prevent alumni from categories that reward songwriter, although new registrations never cease to be eligible.
Ultimately, when “Taylor’s Version” inevitably fails to submit, everyone will win: the Recording Academy for avoiding a # GrammysSo2008 hashtag, and Swift, for not pitting “Love Story” against “Willow,” or whatever. or else the leader “” Evermore “could stand when the first round of the 2022 ballot takes place this fall.
She will receive an unofficial honor that’s better than stacking Grammy names: the Most Memorable Mimeograph Award, with a possible battle courage plaque and a side plate of “I Told You I Was.” serious”.
[ad_2]
Source link