I’ve always enjoyed the Grammy Awards. It’s a nice break between all the film and television awards shows of the season. I watched the live telecast here in Australia this afternoon. And, something about it felt wrong. Let me explain…
Certainly, Whitney Houston’s death completely changed the line up for this year’s Grammy Awards. It was an eleventh hour format flip and the producers HAD to be run off their feet in an attempt to pay tribute to Whitney. Not an easy thing to do given the fact that emotions are still very raw.
That said, the world lost another brilliant, yet troubled artist this past year – Amy Winehouse.
It was bittersweet to see Amy’s parents accept her Grammy this evening. Yes, Amy should have been standing there herself, but she certainly would have been looking down from above…cheering, teary…proud. She made an impact on the world too. How many people can say that?
A tribute performance would have been nice…someone like Adele who would be totally capable of pulling off one of Amy’s songs…but there was nothing. She deserved more. Disappointed? Yeah. After all, this was Amy’s very last chance to shine at the Grammy’s…it was HER show too. It was her stage too. She died too.
A quick clip of Amy performing flashed onto the “in memoriam” montage. Amy was first up in a long line of very talented artists who passed away during the past year. She was there, but she was gone in the blink of an eye.
So, is there a pecking order in death? Seems so…
Groucho Marx and Elvis Presley died on the same day…as did Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett. Newspapers gave one of them the front page…the other got a column in the corner.
Whitney’s death changed everything in a split second, and with no disrespect to her, it was sad and unfortunate that Amy Winehouse got the column in the corner…
Michelle Vogel
Michelle Vogel (Author) - michellevogelhollywoodnews.com 
Winehouse was from the other side of the pond. Houston was L.A. royalty. And to give Houston her due she had numerous hit songs and a relatively long career. On a personal level Winehouse made no impact on me. She was more of a niche artist and not for mainstream tastes. I didn’t care for her manner and drug and alcohol laced tirades. Houston crossed age barriers with her singing. She also became somewhat obnoxious when her career faded but at her height she had greater charisma and charm than Winehouse.
Bravo Michelle totally agree 100%
I don’t agree, Paul. Being from the UK makes no never mind. The Grammy’s are an international awards show. Case in point, Adele! She swept the Grammy’s with an armful of awards, including “Record of the Year”. It’s “what would have been”? Amy Winehouse was a unique talent and although she died two decades earlier than Whitney Houston, her impact, for the time she was here, was massive. It’s personal taste, of course. I just felt that she was somewhat snubbed.
I agree Michelle. A lack of a tribute to Amy left a musical void in the evening’s festivities.
To be honest I was watching the BAFTAs on BBC America (it was on at the same time as the Grammys) and The Artist’s clean sweep. Ruined by a vulgar and unfunny bathroom scene from The Bridesmaids. If this passes for humor these days then I give up.
Yeah, I heard “The Artist” got seven awards. Swept the BAFTAs. It opens here on March 1 – our tenth wedding anniversary 🙂 We’ll be going on opening day.