Is it Illegal Downloading, or a Lack of Creativity?

I have been, for years, reading about the music, movie, and entertainment industry crying the blues about illegal downloading, and how it's killing the business, leading to retail shop shut downs, lay-offs, and lost profits. There's no doubt that illegal downloading, pirated movies and such is a contributing factor to the decline. But in observing the direction of music, movies, and TV as of late, I'm wondering if it's simply a lack of creativity and not Internet geeks that's the underlying problem.

Let's start with music. I already discussed this year's Grammy Awards in a previous post, where one big winner was able to accept her award while on hiatus from rehab. Nuff said. But also, remember the previous Grammys when troubled starlet Britney Spears was given the stage to lip-sync and prance around with absolutely no co-ordination, nor entertainment value, and an obvious lack of rehearsing. Is this the sort of content for which consumers are supposed to be willing to pay $17/CD? Of course we have tons of great artists on the scene, like John Mayer, Alicia Keys, Jack Johnson, and Josh Groban (judging from the comments on the aforementioned Grammys post, he has a diverse group of fans!) But when it really comes down to it, who gets the spotlight? The ones gallivanting on Hollywood Blvd., and/or with drinking and/or drug problems, and/or with great or odd fashion sense. There's no focus on the music anymore! In my opinion, absolutely NO artist should be permitted to lip-sync during a live performance. If you can't sing live, find another career.

Now let's move on to the movies. I can't help but notice that many of the biggest box-office sellers over the years have been based on popular novels of the same name. The Da Vinci Code, Memoirs of a Geisha, Atonement, The Last King of Scotland, and even this year's big Oscar winner, No Country for old Men. I'm pretty sure that if you dig deep enough into the credits of most big movies, you'll find that they are in some way, shape or form, based on a book. I do understand that a lot of work is involved in order to turn a novel into a screenplay. But I've seen many movies after having read the book, and the dialogue in some cases is virtually identical. Where's the originality? Are novelists the only people left with talent? Or is there a shortage of original screenplay writers?

Finally, there's TV, which has suffered an unfortunate blow because of the recent Hollywood Writer's Strike (perhaps these guys should have become novelists!) But even before the Strike was a glimmer in anyone's eye, reality TV begun to take over. In a typical prime-time TV line-up, there's probably 10 reality TV shows for every one scripted drama (this is just my guestimate, so don't hold me to this!) Everything from singing to talent competitions a la American Idol, to sticking people in a house or on an island and watching the drama ensue. If anyone believes that half of these shows are actually fully unscripted, they'll be sadly disappointed. But again, where's the originality? The creative juices that are working to entertain, not just provide shock value?

Sure, the Internet is making it much easier for consumers to get pretty much anything when they want it. But perhaps there's a reason beyond this changing face of technology that leads consumers to want to gather as much content as they can as quickly as they can. Do they feel they're not getting the quality they deserve? All I'm saying is that entertainment companies should take a long, hard look at issues like those mentioned above before forcing all the blame onto illegal downloading.

Speaking of Music...What's with the Grammys?

The Grammys are yet another "hot" topic that I have refrained from discussing on here until now. John Thomson's blog title yesterday was fitting when it comes to this topic: he asked "where has all the music gone?" and I'm sort of asking the same thing.

I actually watched a good portion of the Grammys last weekend, and, although I was happy to see some very talented artists perform (Josh Groban, Alicia Keys, for two), the most-talked about portion of the evening was Amy Winehouse's performance and acceptance speech for one of her five, yes FIVE, awards.

What have we come to when a burgeoning artist can not only perform on the biggest music event of the year via satellite while taking a "break" from rehabilitation for drug abuse, but is also rewarded for such behaviour not once, but FIVE times! To add the cherry on top of this equation, she also gives a "shout out" to her hubby in jail. Don't get me wrong: I think Amy Winehouse is a talented musical artist; much more talented than many of the over-processed pop princesses out there recording albums today. But when someone has been video-taped smoking heavy drugs one week, and then receives five prestigious Grammy awards the next, does a red flag not go up in someone's head?

Supposedly the Grammy wins have helped motivate Winehouse toward her recovery, and that's great. Maybe I'm wrong, and showing her what she could accomplish should she stay on the right path was in fact a good way to go, rather than punishing her for bad behaviour by not nominating her until she cleaned up her act. After all, drug and alcohol abuse is nothing new within the music industry: it has been around for decades. But I can't fathom how allowing her to participate in the show and awarding her for a year's worth of botched performanced and drug-infested nights can make a good impression on her fans, many of whom are young and impressionable. It sends the message that you can do what you want, and you'll still be rewarded as long as you make money for someone down the line.

Nevertheless, the award show also seemed to be confused about who its audience was. We saw collaborative performances that were in an obvious attempt to entertain viewers of all ages, while, at the same time, promoting the show's 50th anniversary. Alicia Keys and Frank Sinatra; Josh Groban and Andrew Bocelli; and Beyonce and Tina Turner (who was surprisingly agile for her age!) were a few of the most motable ones. I definitely think it was a great idea to bring together the new and older generations: it showed how far music has come, and celebrated 50 years of the awards. But when it came to award recipients, the lines begun to blur.

The most shocking of these was Herbie Hancock's win for Album of the Year. Not to say that he wasn't deserving: I'm sure he was. But what sort of judging panel awards an old school jazz artist and new school troubled starlet on the same night?

Reportedly, this year's event was one of the least-watched Grammys. Next year, the Grammys really need to take on a clear direction if it wants to achieve a solid viewer base. If half the people watching don't even know who the album of the year recipient even is, as I'm sure was the case with the majority of the teen and tween viewers that tuned in to see artists like Kanye West and Rihanna perform, then you've got a problem.