So, a new version of Thom Yorke’s Grammy ad, which crafts a mosaic of the Radiohead frontman’s face from the titles of various songs that have influenced him, is out there, and keen-eyed viewers will notice a few key differences between the initial print (at left, as sourced from Pop & Hiss last Tuesday) and this iteration, which is being rolled out with a TV spot in which Yorke talks about his dreams of becoming David Bowie someday. Let’s play a little game of “catch the edits,” shall we?
Autechre gets removed from Yorke’s right chest in favor of David Bowie! Scott Walker shoved off Yorke’s left shoulder to make way for the Rolling Stones! At least he still has Bjork on the brain, but really—oh, Grammy, even when you try to be “with it” and “down” you need to make your Old Guard-praising ways known, don’t you.
Thom Yorke’s Grammy Commercial Celebrates The Music That Makes Him [Stereogum]
Earlier: Thom Yorke Wants You To Watch The Grammys, Know Who Liars Are
(NB: This kind of locks up the whole theory that In Rainbows is going to fall to Raising Sand in Album Of The Year, doesn’t it.)
Hey! Nobody puts Baby, er, Autechre in the corner!
Hey! Nobody puts Baby, er, Autechre in the corner!
@T’Challa: Forget Autechre, what about Scott Walker? To think he got thrown aside in favor of some ubiquitous Stones makes me want to set the Grammy HQ on fire.
Autechre’s “Vose In” wasn’t completely removed – their track remains on the upper left of Thom’s forehead. To be fair, Autechre’s cryptic cyber-English is a puzzling sight to many eyes.
Isn’t this one of the main problems with the Grammys? There’s always a sense that they fear the unknown, and would much rather be on the safe side.
This tact assumes that the music-listening public is unaware of Scott Walker et al. and would much rather be comforted by the reassuring omnipresence of “standards” such as the Rolling Stones.
It’s exactly this false belief, however, that turns 90% of discerning music fans away. With moves like this they’re a long way from being a relevant or noteworthy entity.
Even if some of these songs are a little obscure, wouldn’t someone who cares enough to look at Thom Yorke’s musical influences (in fancy Grammy poster form) be interested in looking up the songs they don’t know?
@moomintroll: It would’ve been better if the artists, not the songs were listed so that folks would have a better idea of who influenced Thom.
@Cam/ron: I have to disagree with you here. The Grammys are ideally, though not infact, strictly about recorded music. There should be, ideally, no consideration given to the personality creating or promoting the record. I personally feel that the use of lyrics cheapens the gimmick a bit.
Of course, this being the Grammys, I’m rather surprised they didn’t jump on that. I don’t believe it’s a secret that Grammys are rewarded largely as an apology for previous records that they overlooked.
On a slightly related note: were any of these songs nominated or awarded Grammys? Shouldn’t that be some sort of a requirment if one is going to use them to promote the Grammys?
@K-Rex: My point was that if the ad wanted to tell the public what influenced Thom then it would’ve been better to clearly print the artists’ names rather than feature otherwise generic song titles like “Unravel,” “Six Days” and “I Want You.” A dozen or more artists could’ve recorded songs that share those titles, hence confusing people about what exactly influenced Thom.
How can you even read the print ad? You’re driving me nuts for two weeks with that tiny jpg
My comment about the Kraus/Plant record winning was made because it’s happened before. Many albums that deserve Grammys are either not nominated or lose. Even in genre categories like Best Alternative Music Album, with deserving albums by Arcade Fire and Arctic Monkeys losing to merely OK albums by the White Stripes (excluding 2004, where Elephant was easily the best of that lot). Radiohead has the Alternative award completely in the bag, however. Album of the Year will go to the dark horse like it did last year (Hancock) and the year before that (the Dixie Chicks).
@Christopher R. Weingarten: next time we hang out you should see my computer’s default fonts. EVERYONE is like ‘wtf yo’
@K-Rex: I suppose it makes sense to think that the reason behind the poster’s change was to highlight the actual Grammy winners that have influenced Thom.
Fair enough.
However, I wonder how he feels about the change?
At least they kept “Kill Bill Vol. 4″ up at the top on his forehead.
Should I have heard of Raising Sand?
@relaxing: it’s the alison krauss/robert plant bluegrass album. did pretty well. held up the led zep reunion, ha ha.
Hm, OK. I’m genuinely curious here because I listen to (and read about) a lot of music each year, so I’m wondering how a potential best album escaped my radar.
Am I a bad person if neither I nor anyone I know cares about bluegrass?
Not too long ago, Pitchfork did an article about how we should all give Country music a fair chance, and I sort of mentally filed that away for after I finish listening to these 1960′s garage/psych comps leftover from that fad in the 90s. (Also on pile: Dub Reggae, Tropicalia, Javanese Gamelan.)
I guess I’m really asking if Bluegrass is the next thing, so I can jump on the bandwagon now before the rest of the hipsters get to it. I see Pitchfork has zero coverage of Krauss, which can only be a good sign.
@relaxing:
“Am I a bad person if neither I nor anyone I know cares about bluegrass?”
Not at all. Honestly, I doubt Grammy voters listened to any other bluegrass albums at all.
@Maura Johnston: It its defense Raising Sand is a good album. I just don’t think it’s “Album of the Year nominee” material.
@relaxing: ha! Country music got knocked out of contention in 2008 by early twentieth century calypso for me.
It’s funny that a genre as ubiquitous as country can be ignored so easily.
@moomintroll: The secret to country music is to never buy or download an album. It works best in it’s natural habitat: country radio.
@K-Rex: I get your point too, I suppose it’s irrelevant to the specifics of who wins a Grammy what the nominees’ influences are. However, if your ad campaign is solely about the nominees’ influences, why would you cherry-pick what you think the Grammy audience would “get”. It seems disingenuous, and really condescending. I just wish they would give the audience some credit.
@moomintroll: I didn’t mean that one should condescend to the Grammy audience; that’s a rather dangerous level of condensation. Rather, they should take or fake pride in themselves and say “We’re the frickin’ Grammys, and these are the relevant things we’ve done in the past.” Afterall, shouldn’t the influences of a great artist be great, and therefore worthy of winning the award for outstanding achievment in their field? Unless, of course, the Grammys are a ridiculous farce trying to grab some sort of cultural relevance by tempting Mr. York with a trophy he can give to his mom. @Cam/ron: It’s still a matter of personality over substance. Was he influenced by some specifics of the record of “Tumbling Dice”, or did he just think Mick Jagger looked cool strutting around on the Voodoo Lounge tour? The two could, concievably, be two different animals.
^True, that also helps me know where to avoid.