Two minds about the upset Grammy win for the Arcade Fire. Always glad when an award for 'best' goes to an artist and/or work actually deserving of the award. But I don't have tons of respect for the Grammys. Case in point: What was the Best Album a decade ago? Can't remember it. Just think back to all the albums that you listened to back in 2000 and pick the one that comes to mind.


Got it. Now.......

Wait, wait, wait. You're thinking, "I get your point Kyle. It was obviously a popular one that you and I didn't like." Actually, guess again. Or start throwing some names out there....ready to guess........



Did you come up with.........













...............



Steely Dan?

No? Clearly, you're not into music, then.

Now, I do gotta give the Grammy crowd their props that year. They did nominate Kid A and Beck (though for Midnight's Vultures, which isn't an album of the year in any year, really).

In fact, most year's nominations look like an 11 year old's music collection--4 or 5 albums which include a smattering of something a releative bought, the crap you and your friends listen to on the radio, and maybe one disc from a parent or cooler older sibling who has some taste.

So kudos to the Arcade Fire. Hope it opens their music to a wider audience (though they barely rated a single mention in the free USA today I picked up in my hotel lobby this morning). But since the Grammy's are to relevancy what bicycles are to fish, my enthusiasm is very much tempered.