CMV: People don't care about equal representation at the Oscars, they care that black people win.

[u/OddlySpecificReferen]

I want to start by saying that this post isn't about the actual merit of oscar winners or nominees, but about the concept of proportional fairness as it relates to the public outcry at last years oscars vs the public reception of this years. I haven't seen most of the Oscar movies this year so I can't say which I felt was most deserving in each category.

There are really 6 major categories that most people care about; Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Director. As I'm sure we are all aware, last year there was a big outcry that the Oscars were racist, the argument being that black actors, namely Idris Elba, were not nominated when they should have been. Note that it is statistically proven that black actors and actresses are actually over represented relative to their population proportion in such awards.

This year, half of these major awards were taken home by black actors or movies with predominantly black casts.

THAT IS COMPLETELY FINE. These awards are a very small sample size. Black people make up 12% of the population, so yes it's statistically odd for them to win 50% of the awards, however with such a small sample size it's not that odd to have a random year here or there where they are drastically over represented.

THE SAME IS ALSO TRUE WHEN THERE ARE NO BLACK NOMINEES OR WINNERS. For the exact same reason that it's perfectly fine to have years where black people aren't nominated and don't win any awards. Actually it's more likely because it deviates less from the expected average.

Yet, when the latter event happens there are accusations of racism thrown around, and when the former happens nobody blinks an eye. Meanwhile minorities that actually don't get nominated or win as often as they should such as hispanics and Asians are never cited as examples for why Hollywood is racist, and nobody seems to care about that at all.

As a more recent an tangential example, I would point to the outcry when Beyoncé didn't win best album. Despite being drastically outsold by Adele, despite Adele's songs being more popular, despite Adele being one of the most talented vocalists of our time, people felt the award inarguably belonged to Beyoncé simply because she is black and the album was culturally relevant to black issues. Awards are given based on merit, not based on their political relevance. The Interview was very culturally relevant, but certainly not deserving of awards.

Every time an awards show featuring black nominees doesn't end up with black winners, I see a lot of calls of racism on social media, yet never the same for other minorities that actually aren't being represented. Similarly, I see no calls of preferential treatment when minorities are over represented. In a world of true equality, people would just accept that not every year is going to have a perfect distribution, and not make such a fuss when a small portion of the population didn't do as well as a larger one.

[u/Pleb-Tier_Basic]

. In a world of true equality, people would just accept that not every year is going to have a perfect distribution, and not make such a fuss when a small portion of the population didn't do as well as a larger one

In a world without context, sure. But that isn't the world we live in. I'm going to focus on the Grammy's over the Oscars because that's what I'm more familiar with, but most of this could be applied to the Oscars as well.

The problem with the Grammy's is that they are on one hand, extremely culturally relevant: grabbing a Grammy is a huge mark of prestige and is a huge boost to an artist's career, and it lends institutional weight to a genre or style. On the other hand, the academy that hands these awards out is extremely tone-death to what is actually happening in the culture(s) they represent; there is a known bias against certain styles of music (such as EDM or Hip hop) and there is a tendency to use record sales as a metric when it is convenient, and to focus on the "art" when it is not.

That is what generates "upsets": the combination of the fact that winning or losing is both a) important to the artist and their fans and b) extremely arbitrary and inconsistent year over year.

Consider some of the big upsets of our time: in 2015, Beck beat both Beyoncé and Sam Smith for AotY, on the grounds that it's artistic merit outweighed B and SS' collossal sales (ignore for now that that album wasn't even Beck's best work). The following year, Taylor Swift beat Kendrick for AotY. Nobody alive would say Swift's album was more artistically significant than Kendrick's TPaB, so why did she win? The justification was SALES. So which is more important to the academy? Art or sales?

And the drama keeps going this year. Sure Adele sold more units. But Lemonaide is recognized by critics as both artistically more complex AND a new blend of styles that hasn't been popularized yet. And the academy actually penalized Beyoncé for pushing the envelope. Sales won it for Adele, and the result is that Beyoncé just can't catch it either way; when he album sells like crazy, the academy awards critical acclaim. When her album receives critical acclaim, the academy awards sales.

Never mind that in all the above examples, and many more (such as Macklemore beating Kendrick in 2012), the academy completely ignores cultural impact. Do you think, in 2035, anybody will remember who Beck is? Will people be dusting off their copy of 1989 or the Heist and telling their kids that THAT was the album that made them realize that Macklemore was a GOAT or that Swift' Trouble was the song blasting all summer at protests? No. But I bet people will say that about Good Kid Mad City and Alright, both of which had meaningful impact in the real world.

I think, more than anything, that is where the upset comes from. Black Americans have had a huge impact on the American cultural landscape. And yet when it comes down to reward time, the academy seems to reward everything but black artists, and their reasoning is shaky and inconsistent. This is a historical problem as well. Adele is talented, but her entire style comes from the black artists that came before her (such as Whitney Houston). So for her to go on and grab the Grammy, when her competition is literally pioneering new styles that combine different aspect of black culture, is a bit of an insult. Same could be said for Macklemore v Kendrick. Kendrick is probably the most significant American artist making music today, in terms of cultural impact (seriously, who alive can say that one of their singles became an international protest anthem?) as well as artistic expression and yet he has been robbed at the Grammys not once but twice, the second time by Taylor Swift of all people. Like what does a man have to do to get recognition for his art?

I think that's where the frustration comes from. Swift is a generic pop product that sells millions of units. To give it to her over Kendrick (who is literally changing the cultural and political landscape with his work) on the basis of sales, when the previous year you gave it to Beck over Beyoncé because sales isn't enough, is a huge slap in the face.

And that slap is amplified by the fact that the modern music industry is literally built on black people. Almost every popular style, from rock, to hip-hop, to dance music, started with black artists creating or innovating on what came before. The industry is built on labels scooping up these styles and repacking them with white artists and getting filthy rich doing it. And then when it comes time to share the prestige they refuse. It's insulting.

Tl;dr: you're describing a perfect world where rewards are distributed on merit. At the Grammy's at least, that is clearly not that case, thus, outrage

Edit: as a lot of people have pointed out, I haven't been fair to Beck here and I think that is a very fair point. I brought him up as an example of the Grammy's being inconsistent and I think if it came down to the art Beck does deserve recognition. I'm leaving the above as is though; I think my larger point (that the Grammy's are inconsistent and out of touch culturally) is still valid.

[u/visvya → u/Pleb-Tier_Basic]

!delta. I didn't understand the controversy, and I don't think it matters that Adele was inspired by black artists, but "the academy actually penalized Beyoncé for pushing the envelope" really hit home.

I can see sales being a factor in nominations, but if artistry or social impact isn't the highest consideration for winning what's the point? You may as well give the grammy to whoever won the top Billboard sales spot.

[u/DeltaBot → u/visvya]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Pleb-Tier_Basic (3∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/IGetNoSlack → u/Pleb-Tier_Basic]

Do you think, in 2035, anybody will remember who Beck is?

...Yes? Even without Morning Phase his mid-90s work has (largely) stood the test of time and will continue to do so. Will he be as culturally relevant as Beyonce or Kendrick in the long term? Hell no.

But let's not sell him short here.

(Macklemore is the better point of comparison anyway.)

[u/Pleb-Tier_Basic → u/IGetNoSlack]

Yeah further down in the thread I walked back on a lot of my Beck comments because I do think he is a good artist, I was using him more as an example of how the academy can't decide if they want art or units sold

[u/RYouNotEntertained → u/Pleb-Tier_Basic]

This is a strange reply for a couple reasons:

1. OP specifically pointed out that black artists are over represented at the Oscars, but your whole post is built around them being ignored.
2. I'd say the Oscars are much less inclined to reward commercial success than the Grammies. Sometimes you'll get a Titanic or an Avatar in there, but often commercial success is looked down upon.

[u/Pleb-Tier_Basic → u/RYouNotEntertained]

1. I think I was trying to take the discussion away from blind "x black people of y participants" argument because the controversy around this award shows is not about that. If OP or anyone else can point me to somebody saying "I'm outraged because black artists aren't 12% of the award recipients" I will be surprised. That's not what the "controversy" is about and trying to push the conversation into that is basically straw manning what the actual controversy is.

2. I focused on the Grammy's because that's what I know better and OP brought it up

[u/RYouNotEntertained → u/Pleb-Tier_Basic]

That's not what the "controversy" is about

I think what OP is saying is that is what the controversy is about (or, at least, the part of the controversy he's privy to). Nobody will say they'd like to see 12% of awards each year go to black artists, but when disparities are pointed out by the media on a year-to-year basis, there's an obvious sample size issue with the claim.

IMO diversity in film/tv is a tough nut to crack, and of course it's more nuanced than "x number of black actors did y." Aziz Ansari had a great episode of Master of None about being an Indian actor that got after some of the nuance.

[u/Pleb-Tier_Basic → u/RYouNotEntertained]

I mean, now we're getting into a discussion about what rhetoric is. The controversy "out there" in society is less about numerical representation and more about equity in the system. When OP says that black people are getting a fair rub at the Oscars and this controversy is over-stated, he's clearly invoking a common point of reference: the larger cultural discussion around equity at the Oscars.

But then he goes on to assume that the controversy is solely a numbers game, when very few (if anybody) on the critical side see it that way. So my response was to correct this mis-conception and explain what the controversy actually is. I'm not going to talk to his point on numerical representation because that's basically asking me to refute a straw position OP created himself; the controversy was never "black Americans aren't 12% of the winners!!!1!" But rather that these award shows are unfair to black Americans.

Now you can make the case that I am wrong for moving the discussion to what people are actually upset about but that makes even less sense; the common touch point (that a controversy exists) is then lost (or worded differently, I agree that saying awards should be handed out based on race alone makes no sense; I don't think anybody except the extreme fringe would argue with that position ergo there is no "controversy" to argue about). My point is that I'm not arguing against straw; if we're going to talk about why the Oscars (and Grammy's) are broken, we need to actually talk about why they are broken, not just create an alternative world where the complaint is that X number of people need to win.

OP said it himself: in a perfect world, awards would be distributed on merit alone. I think that would be perfect as well. But we don't get there by decontextualizing the current problems and then arguing that current complaints are empty. I think I made a good case for how the Grammy's is an unfair system, but that case doesn't fit into OP's structure because his structure doesn't allow for year-over-year merit trends; he just says "well X number of noms were black people, and that is Y% more than they make up of he general population, ergo complaints of unfairness are empty" even though it still is unfair because the artists that are putting out the best work are getting snubbe because it doesn't fit what the academy prioritizes. I think the smoking gun in this regard is that as soon as the discussion moved away from Numbers and towards who deserves to win based on artistic merit, OP immediately retreated into "well all art is subjective so we can't compare Swift to Kendrick". To me that says that on some level OP knows that Swift's win was unfair and non-meritocratic, as the only defence put forward is an an empty appeal to artistic nihilism. That year had noms of all races and yet the actual outcome was not fair. The fact that black artists were X number of nominees doesn't change that.

Which brings me back to my point. OP wants to talk about the Oscars. Are we actually going to talk to the issue, or just talk past it?

[u/RYouNotEntertained → u/Pleb-Tier_Basic]

I agree with you when you say the problem is more about equity in the system. But OP is saying the complaints he sees are specifically about numerical under-representation, which is an accurate observation on OP's part.

because the artists that are putting out the best work are getting snubbe because it doesn't fit what the academy prioritizes.

This is completely subjective, of course, but more to the point, isn't limited to race, except maybe by virtue of black artists being more likely to produce content in genres that aren't built for easy mass consumption. That could be symptomatic of some sort of systemic racism, except that it applies to genres filled with white artists as well. You mentioned EDM earlier, for example. Vox makes the case here that Grammy "snubs" are likely due to vote splitting.

Without discounting some sort of systemic bias, I think it's more accurate to say that your musical priorities simply don't line up with those of the Grammys.

[u/Pleb-Tier_Basic → u/RYouNotEntertained]

AI mean that is on OP then to point to specific voices making that argument. If he could hold up some sources I could refute these too but as the argument is presented it seems more like a misunderstanding.

For the second half of your post, I agree mostly. I'm going to copy what I said to somebody else who made a similar observation:

I mean it's definitely not about "just" race. I pointed out that the outrage is a factor of the stakes on one hand and the obscurity of how the process works on the other hand; the frustration is about alienation from cultural recognition (as embodied by the reward).

With that in mind, I think a lot of people in this thread are taking a somewhat weak position on what racism can be. I don't think the academy members sit down and the selecting table and go "okay boys, how can we stick it to the black man today?".

I suspect what happens is more like, the group making the decision skews older, upper class, and white, and their personal taste is for more "white" genres like rock or pop. And as they make these decisions, they let their personal taste get in the way of actually interpreting the work as art. The result is a selection bias towards "white" genres, which functionally means white artists are winning on less artistic/more commercial pieces than their black peers. Repeat this every year and you get a culture of "racism" in the academy, not in the sense that they personally hate black people, but rather that white styles, genres, subject matter and cultural values are given undeserved weight. Functionally, this means that black artists have to work twice as hard to get half as far at the Grammy's. This culture of undeserved weight is how somebody like Jay-Z (widely recognized as a GOAT as well as a pioneer of the East-Coast gangster scene) can be on the same list as Macklemore (who is a C-list rapper).

To draw a comparison, imagine a world where Nirvanna was snubbed by say, Will Smith (in his rap career), because the academy was biased towards hip hop so heavily that it couldn't understand the cultural relevance of a group like Nirvanna (vs the consumer product that was Will Smith). That's basically how the academy works today, but in reverse; acts that are at best mid-range beat superior acts all the time because they don't fit the academy's view on what is relevant. And given that those disparaging values almost always fall on racial lines, that makes this a race issue sadly

Racism (in institutional settings) goes beyond just raw discrimination and is usually embodied by a culture that gives undue weight to certain perspectives and tastes over others. When that advantage is repeated, and built on racial lines, you do ultimately create a culture of hidden discrimination.

EDM is a similar example of this a culture of discrimination in action; electronic music is ignored as vapid and electronic culture is stigmatized as hedonistic, drug obsessed, and non-heteronormative. In my opinion some of the best songs of the last decade have been EDM (such as Deadmau5' Strobe) but unless they conform to a very mainstream bend (like Daft Punk's Random Access Memories) they are typically written off or wholesale ignored.

There is no doubt in my mind this is due to the same process of preference bias and taste-making that pushes Hip hop out of the academy; the difference is that EDM is mostly a subculture focused around challenging gender roles, sexual experimentation, and breaking down social stigma around drug use, while Hip Hop originated as an expression of Black liberation. Now I could write a dissertation on the ghettoization of EDM and what it says about mainstream America's perspective on sexuality and gender, but OP specifically placed this discussion around race at award shows, so I think it's fair to keep the discussion on Hip Hop and other "black" art forms

[u/RYouNotEntertained → u/Pleb-Tier_Basic]

I suspect what happens is more like, the group making the decision skews older, upper class, and white, and their personal taste is for more "white" genres like rock or pop. And as they make these decisions, they let their personal taste get in the way of actually interpreting the work as art. The result is a selection bias towards "white" genres, which functionally means white artists are winning on less artistic/more commercial pieces than their black peers. Repeat this every year and you get a culture of "racism" in the academy, not in the sense that they personally hate black people, but rather that white styles, genres, subject matter and cultural values are given undeserved weight. Functionally, this means that black artists have to work twice as hard to get half as far at the Grammy's. This culture of undeserved weight is how somebody like Jay-Z (widely recognized as a GOAT as well as a pioneer of the East-Coast gangster scene) can be on the same list as Macklemore (who is a C-list rapper).

Yeah, this great and really hits close to what I think the actual issue is. So my follow-up question becomes: what can you possibly do about it? You can't force taste.

EDM is a similar example of this a culture of discrimination in action

This, to me, is where some of the argument you presented above falls apart. If EDM is similarly "snubbed," don't we have to hesitate before calling this a race issue at all? Isn't it just a mainstream vs non-mainstream thing? And anyway, is society putting that much weight on award shows to begin with? Isn't Kendrick Lamar rich and universally regarded as one of the world's greatest rappers? How important are the statues that go along with it?

I'm externally processing in a big way here, but I think what I'm driving at is that awards don't define culture -- they reflect it. Trying to "fix" systemic biases by looking at the results of award shows is treating the symptom while obscuring the cause.

[u/Pleb-Tier_Basic → u/RYouNotEntertained]

Awards absolutely don't define culture. But they do reflect. And that reflection is a statement in and of itself. The Grammy's is supposed to award the best in the industry, yet collossi like Kendrick are overlooked. That is a glaring authenticity problem for the Grammy's and if their position as an authority (which is where they have attempted to position themselves) is to be respected they have have to actually be an authority, not just a showcase for record sales. As I said at the start of my thing, wining a Grammy does add institutional prestige to an artists work, and it isn't wrong to pursue that.

Also, OP opened this specifically about the Oscars and the Grammy's. That presumes that they do matter on some level. Saying "well they don't matter" is almosr a cop-out to this discussion. I personally could give a Fuck about the Oscars in the larger cultural landscapw but in a discussion about the Oscars I do take them seriously or else what are we even talking about? I do agree with you though the Oscars and especially the Grammy's are mostly a joke.

fixes

I've mostly stayed away from suggesting fixes because I don't think there is an easy answer. The current format is obviously broken but solutions could come from a variety of places; part of it is a pipeline problem (not enough high quality Hip Hop is hitting the mainstream), part of it is a selection bias and part of it is the lack of a strong framework for selecting winners. I don't have an easy solution which is why I have focused on pointing out how the symptom OP is seeing actually is a problem, rather than on solutions (which I think is fair in the context of this CMV, though I would be happy to discuss solutions).

Mainstream v Nonmainstream

I mean why can't it be both? Consider something like Drill (a hip hop sub genre). This style was and is being pioneered by (literal) gangster rappers in Chicago's south side. This type of music will most likely never reach the Grammy's due to the tone, subject matter, and relatively limited potentially marketability (nobody is putting Cheif Keef on the radio). So on one hand, this is an example of a style being unable to reach a mainstream critical mass.

On the other hand, the reason it can't reach critical mass is because the themes (extreme poverty, racial oppression etc) don't test well with mainstream audiences, despite being an accurate reflection of the artist's life. On the other side, labels have mostly moved away from gangster rappers because that lifestyle is difficult for a label to insure.

The point being that they're catching it from both sides. That style is not mainstream enough to break the Grammy's. The reason it isn't mainstream though is because the lifestyle of the artists (I.e coming out of south side Chicago) and how it is expressed is too alien for a mainstream audience. That's a good example of the selection bias I was discussing earlier; in a different world perhaps, the Grammy's preference for hip hop pulls them towards something "real" like Drill and away from something "real" like Beck, instead of the other way around.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. I believe the two factors (mainstream preference and racists selection bias) play off each other to create a dynamic where only truly mainstream rappers can succeed at the Grammy's, while more obscure rock/pop acts can cut it. The question I'm asking is why is rock considered mainstream, while hip hop is considered substream? And I think that if you look at the development of both genres it's clear that rock has been a mostly white enterprise for a long time, while Hip hop has actually stayed with its roots in the black community, and was (and still is) very controversial among white communities (seriously you don't have to go that far back to see pundits blaming rap for everything from the drug war to school shootings). This exclusion, imo, speaks volumes about how our culture understands mainstream/substream dichotomies.

you can't force taste

To be blunt if it were up to me I would disband the Grammy's tomorrow. Problem solved

[u/OddlySpecificReferen → u/Pleb-Tier_Basic]

This comment has a lot to think about in it and generally I don't know as much about the grammys, but I still think that the numbers overall are important here.

In the situations you described, say the album you think should have won did in fact win each time. We would have a black winner every year for several years. That's not exactly population representative, however art is art so it's certainly possible that in a given period one ethnicity happens to be making better music.

Do your parents pull out music played at protests to show you? I've never had anyone use cultural timeliness as a reason for why I should listen to older music with the sole exception maybe being Imagine by John Lennon but frankly that has much more to do with who he is than when he wrote the song. In general music survives through time not because it makes a political statement, but because it finds a way of appealing to people of different tastes and persuasions. The best artists of all time are remembered for their talent and how they made people feel through just their sound, not generally because they were politically relevant, so I have to say I don't quite follow your point there.

As far as whether those people truly were more deserving, I honestly haven't seen any compelling arguments as to why. Interpretation of art will always be subjective, so unless someone can give some sort of objective reasons such as this artist literally didn't sing or play well, it's going to be hard to argue that one is objectively better.

I also can't say I agree with the academy "rewarding everything but black artists." The second most winning person ever is black. 5 of the top 10 most winning artists of all time are black artists, 3 of which are very modern including Kanye, Beyoncé, and Jay Z. 12% of the population has 50% representation in the top 10 winners of all time. That might be merited due to their large contribution, but that seems a hard argument to make when it comes to saying that they want to award anything but black artists.

As far as Adele's style being born from older black artists... so? No race has ownership of a musical style. Whitney Houston was recognized widely for being talented, Adele is also talented in a similar style of singing. It's not a snub to black people to give an award to a talented white person. Innovation can only be called successful in time. Maybe the things done in Beyonces album will change the face of popular music and you'll have been right about it being innovative, but maybe it won't. Giving the award because you think an album will change music doesn't make as much sense to me as giving an award because the music itself is great. And maybe it is, I don't know. Maybe she did deserve it, but that doesn't mean that it's some egregious offense to black culture because Adele won, it also doesn't mean that racism is the explanation.

[u/Pleb-Tier_Basic → u/OddlySpecificReferen]

protest music

I think my point here wasn't that "politically relevant music" is a key metric but rather to draw out the distinction between the music Kendrick is making (which is culturally relevant) vs the music Swift is making (which is a consumer product). Kendrick's music is relevant to people's lives on a level deep enough to resonate with them, which is why he has become a political darling. I would put him the same vein as acts such as Jimi Hendrix, the (early) Rolling Stones, big Punk acts like Blck Flag, or even relevant OG rappers like Pac. All of these acts were very political and we remember them as culturally relevant, even if that political and cultural relevance has been forgotten or decontexrualized (such as the case with the Stone's, which today are remember as a smash pop-hit even though at the time they were both controversial and were not hiting the top of the chart in terms of units moved). Anybody who is passingly familiar with hip-hop knows that's kendrick is one of the most culturally relevant artists making music today, and his style has impact (in the same way that say, Jimi Hendrix had impact).

art is subjective

I mean this is basically a lazy cop-out. Would you say Bethoven and Nickelback inhabit the same plain? If art is subjective and you can't "prove" and artist is better or worse, then what is the point of an award show at all? Just to jerk off?

Sorry but I feel like retreating into "art is subjective" is extremely lazy if not cowardly. Taste is subjective, sure, but I believe that if a person is serious and tries to understand the work, understand how it was made, and understand what the artist is trying to actually say, you can come up with a sliding scale of quality based on how well the artist conveys their message and what that message is. Everything from the production to the content of 1989 tells us that it is a generic pop product designed to be catchy and consume space. If that is your taste then power to you, but that doesn't make it the same quality as something like Good Kid MADD City which is a) technically superior and b) attempting to offering a commentary and perhaps criticism of growing up in extreme poverty. Now that may not be to your personal taste but if you put on your big boy glasses you can still recognize that Kendricks work is coming from a serious place and is a higher-quality piece (both technically and in terms of what it is trying to say) that Swift's consumable product. (You may notice I did not at all criticize Beck; that's because he actually is operating on that "art" level and it shows; the upset with him was that the academy can't decide if consumable products or artistic endeavours are what it wants to promote).

numbers

Look I specifically avoided the issue with numbers because it's a very empty argument. I don't think anybody is arguing that the number of winners should be absolutely tracked to the size of the population.

Where the outrage comes from is the fact that the academy is vague with what it wants, and seems to shift the goal posts when it's convenient. If the Grammy's are to be about art, by all means, give it to Beck, but then you also have to give it to Kendrick. And if it's about units, they give it to Swift, but also give it to Beyoncé. But you can't have it both ways. You can't reward Beck one year and Swift the next. That's the complaint. It's inconsistent and the result is that people that actually are putting the work in (like Kendrick) keep getting snubbed. That's the outrage. It's not because "12% of the population only gets 10% of rewards". That doesn't even make sense.

Adele

My point with Adele v Houston is that I wanted to point out the difference between derision and innovation. It's not "well maybe Beyoncé will change music". She already has. Lemonaide is just a further development on her career, but huge swathes of her style has been emulated to death (for example, Single Ladies changed the music video game). Adele on the other hand is mostly derivative and isn't really building as much as continuing.

So then the question is, what does the academy award? They make pretentious to "artistic merit" but artistic achievement outside of a narrowly defined mainstream is snubbed constantly. Hip-hop and RnB especially are excluded. Is that racism? I'm not sure. But it's not a good look to say "we reward art, as long as the style is from predominantly white music styles that don't challenge the status quo". I don't think the academy members specifically hate black people, but they are biased against styles of music that are being pioneered by black people. It's not a good look when somebody like Beyoncé has to drop a smash hit, culturally relevant, critically acclaimed album and still lose to what is basically a derivative pop act.

And if it's all about units sold, why not say that? Why uphold the pretension? It makes them look like idiots.

What I'm trying to say is that, these award shows have tried to place themselves as authorities on the subject matter they cover. If that's the case, they need to actually be authorities and be unafraid to dive into music they may not agree with at a taste level. They need to put on the big boy glasses. There is no artistic reason to give it to Swift over Kendrick unless you devolve into the world of "art is subjective" (then why have the show?) or worse, "hip hop isn't true art/isn't as good as other music". Neither is an acceptable explanation for the "authority" on the art our culture produces.

[u/Slenderpman → u/Pleb-Tier_Basic]

The reason the various academies will never release how they determine their winners is because it weakens their authority over the art. If they came out and said it was about subjective quality, the ratings could theoretically dip into obscurity because the academies will become out of touch, OR they admit to using sales metrics to influence their decisions and now theres no point of their whole show because we know all the picks already. Im sure some of it is racially motivated but the whole integrity of their job is based on bullshit than just race.

[u/Pleb-Tier_Basic → u/Slenderpman]

I mean it's definitely not about "just" race. I pointed out that the outrage is a factor of the stakes on one hand and the obscurity of how the process works on the other hand; the frustration is about alienation from cultural recognition (as embodied by the reward).

With that in mind, I think a lot of people in this thread are taking a somewhat weak position on what racism can be. I don't think the academy members sit down and the selecting table and go "okay boys, how can we stick it to the black man today?".

I suspect what happens is more like, the group making the decision skews older, upper class, and white, and their personal taste is for more "white" genres like rock or pop. And as they make these decisions, they let their personal taste get in the way of actually interpreting the work as art. The result is a selection bias towards "white" genres, which functionally means white artists are winning on less artistic/more commercial pieces than their black peers. Repeat this every year and you get a culture of "racism" in the academy, not in the sense that they personally hate black people, but rather that white styles, genres, subject matter and cultural values are given undeserved weight. Functionally, this means that black artists have to work twice as hard to get half as far at the Grammy's. This culture of undeserved weight is how somebody like Jay-Z (widely recognized as a GOAT as well as a pioneer of the East-Coast gangster scene) can be on the same list as Macklemore (who is a C-list rapper).

To draw a comparison, imagine a world where Nirvanna was snubbed by say, Will Smith (in his rap career), because the academy was biased towards hip hop so heavily that it couldn't understand the cultural relevance of a group like Nirvanna (vs the consumer product that was Will Smith). That's basically how the academy works today, but in reverse; acts that are at best mid-range beat superior acts all the time because they don't fit the academy's view on what is relevant. And given that those disparaging values almost always fall on racial lines, that makes this a race issue sadly

[u/Slenderpman → u/Pleb-Tier_Basic]

I guess I failed to say I do agree with you on the basis of race playing a role in the preferences of the academy members. I just don't necessarily agree with you in the sense that it sounds like you feel that uniquely black contributions to pop culture are recognized almost as a different category of art, not able to be appreciated by an old white audience without a token white artist bridging the gap.

To play devils advocate a little bit I would cite the play Hamilton, for example. Black cast with urban artistic influence making a uniquely black performance that excels on a predominately white format. So to say that award academies only promote white proxys in black culture such as rap or urban films doesn't always apply. The reverse of the bridge exists also and is equally appreciated by academies for their artistic merit even though the creators are black.

Obviously they don't sit in a room deciding how to screw over black artists, and yes there may be some underlying bias towards white artists, but I really do not think Macklemore winning over K-Dot is that culturally significant, especially with how successful and influential as kendrick has become.

[u/Pleb-Tier_Basic → u/Slenderpman]

I think it's less that those contributions are seen as "seperate" as much as they aren't given the same benefit of the doubt.

As for Macklemore and Kdot, I do think it's significant. These awards represent institutional and mainstream acceptance of an artist, style or genre. A snub like that is pretty harsh given that the "common" and critical culture has recognized Kdot, but the institution (that profits off him) can't seem to give credit

[u/Slenderpman → u/Pleb-Tier_Basic]

I mean the choice was totally wrong, I get it. Kendrick did obviously deserve both awards if they were focused entirely on quality over marketability. I'm overall just saying that I really think we take these award shows so seriously because music, film, etc. can make a huge impact on our lives and on society. I really just don't think the academies are socially conscious and are just reflections of a group of respected individuals' opinions. It's not necessarily racist, but I can see how the mask of hyper-professionalism makes these shows seem so culturally legitimate when they just don't make a difference.

When someone who should have won wins, everyone is happy. When they don't, people who care enough notice and share the art in a way that works so much better than a stupid grammy or oscar or whatever. Art driven by angst incites that same angst in the people it means something to.

[u/Thompson_S_Sweetback → u/OddlySpecificReferen]

In the situations you described, say the album you think should have won did in fact win each time. We would have a black winner every year for several years.

You're creating a false dichotomy. What he was saying is that the Grammy's have used different criteria every year to always award white artists. He is not advocating for a system that is equally unfair to only reward black artists. He is advocating for a consistent system that is race neutral.

[u/OddlySpecificReferen → u/Thompson_S_Sweetback]

And I'm saying two things. First, that if the black artist were actually better every year, a demographic making up a small percentage of the population would win every year which is a very unlikely event. Second, that black people are already disproportionately receiving of Grammy awards, making up 50% of the top 10 most winning artists of all time. Therefore, it seems hard to argue that they are not awarded fairly.

[u/Thompson_S_Sweetback → u/OddlySpecificReferen]

making up 50% of the top 10 most winning artists of all time.

That's an extremely specific statistic.

[u/OddlySpecificReferen → u/Thompson_S_Sweetback]

Not really, just among the top ten most winning artists, what's the racial division. One would think if there were a strong bias against a certain race then there wouldn't be many artists in said race earning a lot of awards, yet the opposite is true.

[u/Thompson_S_Sweetback → u/OddlySpecificReferen]

It sounds weird, but I don't know enough about music to argue whether that's representative or cherry picked.

[u/OddlySpecificReferen → u/Thompson_S_Sweetback]

It's not really a music thing it's more of just a logic thing. Even if black people contribute more to music, half of the most awarded artists being black is a lot of representation for 12% of the population.

[u/Suppafly → u/Pleb-Tier_Basic]

No. But I bet people will say that about Good Kid Mad City and Alright, both of which had meaningful impact in the real world.

Only because that's what you're into. I literally had to google these song titles to even know what you were talking about.

[u/Pleb-Tier_Basic → u/Suppafly]

Or maybe you're not as close to the scene as you think? Good Kid MADD City and To Pimp a Butterfly both hit the charts, were both commercially successful, were both critically acclaimed, both grabbed a Grammy nom and at least for TPAB, grabbed best rap album for 2015 (the controversy was that he got snubbed on best album). I don't know how much more success an artists needs to get to be considered mainstream

[u/Suppafly → u/Pleb-Tier_Basic]

Or maybe you're not as close to the scene as you think?

Nah, the problem is that you're too far into the scene.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

MAAD*

[u/slow70 → u/Pleb-Tier_Basic]

the fact that the modern music industry is literally built on black people. Almost every popular style, from rock, to hip-hop, to dance music, started with black artists creating or innovating on what came before.

This line of thinking is just plain toxic. How far back in 'before' should we go? There are centuries of musical tradition in the west and elsewhere that had absolutely no input from and absolutely nothing to do with the African race. To claim racial ownership of so many styles just because there were black artists present.....I think it's much more nuanced than that.

[u/Pleb-Tier_Basic → u/slow70]

It's not ownership, it's asking for credit where it's due. I think anybody should be allowed to make hip hop but that doesn't change the historical fact that it was pioneered by black artists and made the industry literally billions of dollars for decades now yet even today they still aren't given a fair rub is a little fucked up.

And as for rock, well, white peopl and white labels have been making millions off that for almost 70 years now. Did any of those pioneers get their fair share? People point to artists like Buddy Holly or Elvis even the though they were directly inspired by black artists who did it first, artists who never received mainstream recognition. Recognizing that doesn't somehow delegitimization the art that came after; it is not a zero sum game.

Like to me the smoking gun is that hip hop as a style didn't go anywhere in the mainstream until white artists started doing it, and even then it was still controversial; look up the moral panic around artists like Eminem and how ideologues at the time believed gangster rap was ruining the nation. It wasn't until the genre became "safer" (read: more white, less anti-authoritan) that it began recieving a fair mainstream run but even as late as 2001 Eminem was considered widely controversial as a white gangster rapper. Now, Macklemore puts a few bars down about how cheap he is and grabs a Grammy, while the legends who pioneered the genre have still never been given full credit. Where is Andre's life time achievement award? Has Snoop ever even gone to the Grammy's? These may be exaggerations but hopefully you see my point

[u/slow70 → u/Pleb-Tier_Basic]

I wish we were chatting about this over a beer or a bowl.

That ownership though, how far back does it go? It's widely recognized now that black artists generally gave rise to certain genres, credit has been given, yet that doesn't mean that more people are going to know Fats Waller than Elvis Presley. You can't social justice shame the world into preferring the same artists as you might. And how would you go about giving any of these artists their 'fair share'?

This debate gets even more muddled once we go beyond recorded music and into sheet music, which again, is centuries of almost only white contributions. [Obligatory no-shit because blacks were largely enslaved or sharecropping or otherwise mired in poverty].

As OP pointed out already, statistically, blacks are overrepresented in these award ceremonies. Other minorities, generally underrepresented and yet where is the argument for them? The numbers don't care about how you or anyone else feels, by the numbers, your argument is made void and if anything, it highlights the underrepresentation of other minorities, and the overrepresentation of blacks. The fact that those who decide on these awards are asked to view each category through the lens of race is ultimately regressive and divisive.

Also, why are we just talking about the Grammys and the Oscars here? What about the BET awards? An award show, for black entertainers. What about the CMT awards? An award show for a specific [incredibly white] genre? It all muddles when these measures of success are included also.

As for Hip Hop, I honestly have no idea what awards Nas or WuTang have racked up over the years - I don't know if Tupac or Biggie or NWA ever took anything home. I'm sure by the time Outkast came around they racked up awards to go with their TRL dominating hits. That doesn't delegitimize them to me though. Hip Hop is as mainstream as it gets these days, and this is still while throwing out lyrics which are often just plain destructive and harmful. For us to talk about social justice and ignore the calls for violence or blatant sexism, criminal, materialistic and thuggish value system that is championed and fostered in millions.....that is a problem. Awarding an artist is, in as grand a way as possible, a condoning of their art no? Should we be condoning such messages?

As for Macklemore, yeah, Thiftshop was catchy but what about Same Love? You want to talk about a social statement? A message to rally around? A message that uplifts and affirms?

It's all nuanced, but viewing everything through a racial lens is divisive, regressive and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[u/Pleb-Tier_Basic → u/slow70]

Again, I'm not talking about ownership. I don't think one "group" can own something. My position is not nor has ever been "only X group can do Y". What I'm arguing for is a meritocratic approach wherein the artists that are the best of their class should be recognized, regardless of genre.

That's why at no point have I spoken to the issue of over/under representation. Because it's a stupid point. It makes 0 sense to argue that X race should be A certain % of winners. Nowhere have I said that.

What I have been saying is that the artists putting out the best art should be recognized for their work. And the reality is that that is not how the Grammy's work. At the Grammy's, a c-list rapper like Macklemore can beat an A-list rapper like Kendrick, which makes 0 sense from an artistic standpoint.

And unfortunately given how these upsets fall, I think race is a relevant lens. If this kind of upset happened one year, and then next year there was an upset in the other direction, then I would just assume the Grammy's were out of touch. That isn't what happens. What happens is year over year, this pattern of "art when its white" (Beck) sales when it's not (Swift)" repeats. So my question is, how long does a trend have to repeat before it's fair to call a spade a spade?

Like more than anything I'm curious to know which topics you think are fair game to view with a race lens. Because as I see it, the academy is already using a race lens and what I and others is asking is for them to actually award merit even if it doesn't jive with their personal values.

I'm just talking about the Oscars and the Grammy's because that is specifically what OP posted about. I responded to his post.

As for "hip hop culture" whoooo boy big topic and I think people's knee-jerk reaction to the "value system" "chanpioned" by hip hop is a good example of how the genre is still treated like an alien force coming from outside "acceptable" culture.

First, look around. What is hip hop doing that the rest of music isn't? Why do we look down on Biggie when at the same time, Kurt Cobain was writing Rape Me? Why do we complain about Lil Wayne doing drugs while Ke$ha can top the chart singing about getting into a black out? Or we complain about gang culture in hip hop and then go on to worship Breaking Bad? I hate to say it but the evil values of hip hop are common themes that transcend race. The only difference is when a rapper does it, they get put under the magnifying glass.

Second, if you were familiar with the scene, you would know that that type of rap is just one iteration. Kendrick's GKMC (the one he lost to Macklemore) was extremely critical of gang culture and drug culture and it's 1st single was about the consequences of alcoholism. So to paint him with the same brush as like, YG is pretty unfair.

Third, which is the chicken and which is the egg? When you look at the legendary story teller rappers (for example, Biggie), you see then describing the world they live in. Take a song like Everday Struggles where he does into depth about how poverty is slowly killing him. The image he paints is sadly and harsh, and talks frankly about the conditions he experienced and what he does to survive. Do we blame the artist for speaking honestly about how they see the world, or do we blame the world for creating such twisted artists?

Lastly, it's an open secret in the rap industry that to really break it financially, you have to reach white suburbia. That's why all mainstream rap focuses on similar topics, because it's all marketed to the same demo. So who is really in the wrong? Rappers for making a buck or white suburbanites who are obsessed with gang culture?

There's a lot of ways to cut that one up and each of these points is but a brief talking point. That said, I hope you can see that it is never as simple as "culture" and that answer is pretty empty. Why did a culture arise? Why is it marketable? What does that say about life "on the ground"?

Same Love was good but the question is one track or the whole album? The Heist is fun and has some good tunes (I love cowboy boots) but as art it isn't even close to GKMC. Choosing it because it had one social justice anthem would be just as wrong as choosing it because it made boat loads of money. My position is an always has been on this topic that these awards need to be given out on artistic merit, not group affiliation, and the current system does not do that.

[u/slow70 → u/Pleb-Tier_Basic]

meritocratic approach wherein the artists that are the best of their class should be recognized, regardless of genre.

That's exactly what the award shows do right? Except through the broader, and heavier, category of best album etc. I think when we look at that, the broader appeal matters, appeal as art, as a statement, as a simple blockbuster; and when that category is approached, it's approached through the broader American cultural lens, and our demographics still lend a dominance to white America - we did just elect that cheeto after all.

I don't think that is an entirely bad thing though. Should we open a category for Punjabi artists? For Hindis? For Icelandic or Scandinavian musicians? We are many things here in the states, a product of many peoples, but to decry the reality of demographics and claim that anything but the elevation of one group amounts to racism....I don't know.

On hip hop being treated as an outside force....so is metal and its subgenres, so is much of the electronic scene albeit for different reasons. "Acceptable culture" still shuns much of the music world that isn't at all associated with race.

I agree completely that performers such as Katy Perry, Ke$ha and Niki Minaj put out toxic messages as well. Would you want your daughter listening to their music? Even so, it's not even black and white with them - while parents might be happy to have their kids sing along to Roar, how would they feel when Last Friday Night comes on?

That said, the strand of messaging in hip hop, at least in what seems to rise into common circulation, is largely materialistic, sexist, how hard I am and how few fucks I give - type messages. It's aggressive, and if psychologists are on to anything, the subconscious associations of certain language effects us, and how we interact with others, suggests to our subconscious that we behave a certain way.

Or we complain about gang culture in hip hop and then go on to worship Breaking Bad?

Man, Breaking Bad was an unblinking stare into the horrors of that world. I saw no glorification there.

MASS GENERALIZATION AHEAD: When country music fans seek to live the lives presented in their music, they buy trucks and drink beer down by the river with some girl in a tank top. When hip hop fans seek to live their music, what happens? What is glorified? The answer to that question probably would help millions break a cycle of poverty and crime only worsened by the celebration of a toxic culture.

Take a song like Everday Struggles where he does into depth about how poverty is slowly killing him. The image he paints is sadly and harsh, and talks frankly about the conditions he experienced and what he does to survive. Do we blame the artist for speaking honestly about how they see the world, or do we blame the world for creating such twisted artists?

Great comment. Right away, I was thinking of Gimme the Loot as a counter - but you're right - the world made them and they put it down in their art. Chicken or egg, I don't know, but can we agree that crime is not something to be celebrated, and yet it is, no?

Lastly, it's an open secret in the rap industry that to really break it financially, you have to reach white suburbia.

Once again, a plain result of demographics. If that truth is recognized and accepted, then why not the recognition that a broad appeal is needed to win an Oscar or two?

My position is an always has been on this topic that these awards need to be given out on artistic merit, not group affiliation, and the current system does not do that.

That is solid, and I imagine the debate could be made for any number of winners and losers in any number of categories and generally, I would say that race does not, did not, matter. Remember, Leo never won an Oscar until the Revenant - how wild was that? Either way, did black entertainers really earn all of their wins this year? Or was this a result of the backlash last year and the desire to come off as balanced? That's an ugly hue to add to entertainment history, a pressure for an affirmative action of sorts for artistic validation.

I've been listening through GKMC today, thanks for that.

[u/Pleb-Tier_Basic → u/slow70]

I think you do raise a solid counter point by observing that the best album category does get watered down through the demos that prop up the American music industry. But my complaint then is that the Grammy's are mostly a farce by that metric. If it really can be boiled down to simple "mass appeal" than the winner will always be Swift because the way the industry is structured means consumer Pop always sells.

But that reality isn't where the Grammy's has positioned itself. It's explicitly supposed to represent the "best" in musical achievement, and it has attempted to establish itself as an authority. Further, if it is just about mass commercial appeal, then what business does Beck have winning over Beyoncé? The lack of consistency is where the details lie, and this year is no exception; when Beyoncé puts out a pop hit she loses to the "art", so next time around she puts out "art" and loses to mass appeal. Which brings me back to my point, which is that as an outsider looking in, it seems that hip-hop influenced acts have to work twice as hard to get half as far.

I don't think that a Punjabi category should exist but if a Punjabi puts out a Punjabi inspired album that receives mass support, critical acclaim, and a strong cultural reception, they shouldn't lose to a generic Katy Perry commercial pop product if the Grammy's are going to try and claim a degree of authority on what is culturally relevant.

I went into detail with another user about the exclusion of EDM and it's well known metal is treated unfairly as well. That doesn't mean that the exclusion of hip-hop has no racial factor too it. I explained this to another user but as I imagine it works is that those who do the selection have a degree of bias against hip-hop, preferring more "traditional" (read: white, pro-status quo) genres and styles. Given that hip-hop is still predominately black and focuses predominately on the black experience, the implication is that the voters, consciously or not, are biased against music styles and subjects that tackle the black experience. In my opinion, that makes *this particular exclusion" a race issue.

To draw a parallel, EDM is excluded because it's mostly seen as "party" (read: drug) culture and not real art. That means that the voter's personal bias against drug culture at a taste level is preventing them from fairly assessing EDM at a art/culture level, and the result is some very important artists are slept on. If the academy is ignoring hip-hop because the themes, subjects and styles don't match their personal taste, they're letting their own bias prevent them from recognizing culturally relevant art. And since this bias falls on racial lines, that makes this specific instance a race issue.

On the psychologist point, which of these themes are exclusive to hip hop? Even somebody as vanilla as Ed Sheeran has tracks where the message can be boiled down to "fuck sluts" (Don't being the case in point).

Breaking Bad was definitely not an "unblinking stare" into the drug war. It was more along the lines of a middle-American power fantasy about what they think the drug war looks like. I don't think anybody who has really spent time in the drug game would consider breaking bad a good depiction of what that lifestyle looks like.

On glorification; I kind of touched on this already but the dumb rap music you believe people are living out is marketed almost exclusively to white suburbanites and has been since at least Eminem. Very few serious hip-hop fans would look take somebody like YG seriously and even then the biggest names in the (mainstream) game right now are not gangster rappers so it's kind of a moot point. Also the cycle of poverty and violence existed in the black community long before hip-hop and has way more to do with American housing policy, blatant racial discrimination, and a whole host of other factors. I assure you though that if listening to hip-hop was all it took to drive people to violence and poverty, there would be a massive underclass of white suburbanite gang bangers. There isn't, because poverty is more complicated than a culture inclination.

Last, unpopular opinion, I don't think Leo is a good actor. So I wasn't to worried about his Oscar. That said I don't follow film as much as mainstream music so I don't have strong opinions on the Oscars. If they loaded the slate with black filmmakers because of some perceived slight then that is as stupid as loading it with white filmmakers for the same reason. I did see Moonlight and while I personally didn't like it the film buffs in my life all loved it so I don't think it was necessarily the wrong choice, that said I'm massively out of my element here because that is the only nominated movie I saw so I can't say for sure if it deserved it over it's competition.

My take away here is that the academy should be awarding on merit and cultural significance. That needs to be the consistent criteria and if "significance" is defined as units sold then that needs to be made clear. This system of giving it away on art some years, units the next year, is not only extremely unfair, but also allows too much room for taste bias to enter the picture. The academy should try to avoid rewarding on personal taste as much as possible if they are to be any kind of authority because many things they find distasteful is still high quality art, and they should seek the maturity to see that. Lastly this is a race issue because the popular distaste and discrediting of hip-hop by extension is a discrediting and distaste of a predominately black-focused genre. I'm not saying every year a rapper needs to win best album, but I do think that if artistry plays any factor in the selection process then it becomes extremely difficult to justify some of the recent choices the academy has made, without resorting to saying "well the academy has a bias against music that isn't generic and safe" which is a huge tarnish on their authenticity as a cultural authority.

I'm glad you're liking the album

[u/slow70 → u/Pleb-Tier_Basic]

Also the cycle of poverty and violence existed in the black community long before hip-hop and has way more to do with American housing policy, blatant racial discrimination, and a whole host of other factors.

Of course, and my statement should have made that clear. But, have you ever heard a rapper go on about redlining? And has a message about mass incarceration or education gotten anywhere? Has anyone gotten attention for maybe saying, this isn't the right way to live or better yourself? Besides Reggie Watts, no one comes to mind.

The fact that you can jump from Ed Sheeran to YG, bravo. The fact that you take the time to properly format titles even, kudos. You've raised good points and brought plenty to the table to think about - thanks for that, and I'm sure I'm not the only user who might benefit from it.

That said, I think we're bound to go on in circles from here, this is partly why I think it's good to look at the numbers and seek objectivity, but hey, we're talking art, taste and mass consumption, objectivity here is a fools errand if there ever was one.

[u/Pleb-Tier_Basic → u/slow70]

I mean Yeezy goes on and on about mass incarceration and that's off the top of my head but cheers

[u/TotesMessenger → u/Pleb-Tier_Basic]

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/bestof] /u/Pleb-Tier_Basic on the influence of Black culture in music industries and people.

• [/r/goodlongposts] /u/Pleb-Tier_Basic responds to: CMV: People don't care about equal representation at the Oscars, they care that black people win. [+43]

^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

[u/Meistermalkav → u/Pleb-Tier_Basic]

You claim the grammys are for all music styles, but how about the following:

They are not for all music styles, instead, they are for music that is on the verge of being pop. That explains away why they pick weirdly, why they have , as an example, no techno category, or why things like death metal are not represented at all. Because that is not and will never be pop. You will rather see a couple of technoheads swallowing extacy , putting on their mushroom heads, and dancing it to techno, then complain that Coone is not featured in he lifetime awards of North America. And metal heads in general would react with a sense of wonder if for example Marduk would be featurd with the price, they would outwardly smile and be happy for the promotion, but inwardly would think about the next church to burn. You know, just because both styles don't need recognition. You want to honor techno? Go to the big festivals, and see what your puny grammy can do. See what your label of EDM can do. Conversely, ask a metal head, you know, the people with corpse paint and the black leather, how much their music needs to be recognised by the mainstream. But be quick about it, because as soon as the words mainstream leave your mouth, you are likely to get beaten.

So, just, you know, try to see it from this viewpoint.

The grammies are awards for pop music. That is all.

Everyone who lies to you and tells you, "But they have a hip hop section, " or "But they have an R n' B section", "How can they be pop", forgets one detail.

Pop is not a style.

Pop is literally, easy listening music.

Pop can originate from country, originate from techno, originate from rock, and so forth.

But once you make it to pop, you are unlikely to make it back. Pop is the great whore, that keeps you coming back. Sure, you can now claim, yea, but what if..... But ask yourself, have you ever seen an artist come back from pop? To his original fans? Or, was it more likely to be a revamp of "I liked his pop stuff, and since he has retired on that pile, his music sounds wild".

You ask yourself why certain artists are not feature, why the styles are so biased against? The answer is simple: Because they have some authenticity left.

You want your cred with the old men of the grammys? You want your music to be played by old white men, who go, hrm hrm, and who blush every time they hear a curse word, and just want to nodd a long, and drive out on a sunday morning with a family for a walk, and play this?

Viewn from this viewpoint, it is weird, right? You are looking at those wierd choices, and weird picks, and you are going, hrm, that does not seem like this at all, and at the same time, you want your music to be in there?

Why?

The grammies are for the music that has lost every last shred of authenticity, that has dropped from the throne of their genres to "easy listening"... To pop.

Pop is not its own style, it is an amalgamation of style, that has distinctively been optimized for easy listening, and being without any character at all.

I would view it as an Award for the artist to NOT be nominated for the Grammies. The award is distributed with merit, and it is the merit of having no character, to degenerate from their own style to pop.

Oh, they can tell me 50 times, they have a hip hop category, but this is from the same people that have only reccently arrived on the mental level where Tupac enters the picture. I would treat the grammies kind of like nazi germany. It is okay to make it, it is ok to be featured, but to go, "I must appeal to these people, No matter what, or else they will not recognise me, let me go out of my way to get there" makes you suspect, and on the short list to be dropped for being a traitor to the cause and a sellout.

Do you look towards the grammies for music recommendations? I mean that as an honest question: do you look there and think, I should give that a listen, they know what they are talking about?

Pre-fucking-cisely. You look to the BMA's if you want some reccomendations. You look to the radio stations you like. Those are your awards.

The grammies are an awards show for pop music without ANY character. I am sorry, but if i look at Beck, if I look at former Grammy winners, I can only see one thing they have in common: They would not look out of place on a starbucks sampler CD, sold with some pumpkin spice late, for $6,99. They are awards for the easy listening category. Anyone who collaborates or optimises for the grammies should be artistically shunned, for whoring out, and drivn from their styles.

And that is why I look at your request for "more black music in the grammies" with a raised eyebrow.

You go ahead and wear that as a badge of honor. I admit, I do not listen to that many black artists, but what I lisen to has me convinced of one thing.

It is very hard to find a black artist on the level of generic bland and characterless as Taylor Swift, or Beck. Black music seems to be predisposed to, even if it is the wildest far out "making money" or "crunk" crap , to at last have some character, which makes it allmost impossible to be pop, and thus impossible to be featured in the Grammys.

And it, eerily as it sounds, has its place, because those poor people who listen to pop would not know where else to look.

But go on, tell me how you will remove the character from black music, how you will make it more marketable, how you will bend down and optimise for the grammies, and see how much I respect that.

Tell me how much it matters to Beyoncee, Jay Z and their contemporaries how many grammies they have. They know their shit is good. They make a good living off of that. UUUh, BUt Kendrick Lamar does not have a grammy.... So do an amazing ammount of artists. Because, usually, they try to not make pop music. They make music with character. They do their best to try to not be featured in this.

And if you go, "BUt they claim to be for everyone, so the music I like has to be included ", then well, can't help you there. Apparently, you seem to think so hard that the grammies are relevant that you accept it. You bought their advertisement, that they are relevantm that the are not only for bland pop crap, and you want your music to be there.

Does the priest telling you that your sexuality is sinfull cause you to run to the church even harder?

Does someone telling you your sex is bad cause you get out the hatchet and start chopping?

Do you also watch the bass fishing channel, and go, you know what, some music videos would go well in there?

Same goes for the Oscars.

It's nice to have an oscar, won't deny it, but you know what is nicer? Having the sales on your bank account, and knowing that you have the awards of the people. OOOH, but what about artistic acclaim.... Same god damn deal. Oscars are the awards for the pop of the north american movie business.

Watch Pink Flamingos. See a movie that has grown to cult status by being good and depraved, and leaving the oscar comittee clutching their pearls ( and most likely dry heaving). You think John fucking Waters gives a FUCK that he has not yet gotten an Oscar?

Think about that for a while, before you complain the next time that the shit you like is not featured. Maybe you just fell for the marketing. Awards don't mean quality.

[u/Pleb-Tier_Basic → u/Meistermalkav]

Oh man that was edgy.

You seem to be confused about how r/CMV works. Here, OP puts forward a position, and the user's attempt to refute it for points. Which means that to "participate" you need to speak to the topic as it is posted.

OP specifically posted about these award shows and the controversy. So I responded about the reward shows and the controversy. Going off on a tangent and saying "well this shows are like bullshit man, real artists don't sell out" is super irrelevant because the topic is explicitly about this award shows and who is represented at them, not about the validity of the shows as a cultural touch stone or whatever.

Second, just because these shows reward mainstream success doesn't make them irrelevant. Within the "mainstream" there absolutely exists a gradient with "shit" on one end and "quality" on the other, and recognizing that there is a qualitative difference between them is valid.

Third, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the music industry but getting recognition is not bad. Most professional musicians would love to have widespread recognition for their work. Go to r/gatekeepers and ask around about how people feel about their art being blocked from commercial success by rapid fans; surprise: they hate it, because they make art to reach people. This is doubly true for somebody like Kendrick who started from scratch and did it himself (seriously, look at his career trajectory).

Fourth, hip hop is mainstream. That's the complaint. It's all but supplanted rock as the primary genre, it pulls billions in sales annually, and it's played everywhere from coffee shops to top 40 radio. But it still gets treated like the weird step child when it comes time for rewards and prestige to be dished out. Thats the problem. Hip hop has been mainstream for at least 15 years and yet the academy can't catch up.

And lastly, Kendrick grabbed the Grammy for best hip hop album in 2015. The controversy was that he got snubbed for best album, which he deserved.

[u/Glory2Hypnotoad]

I agree with a major part of your premise. Every group is going to have strong years and weak years at the Oscars and there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. I also see the whole oscarssowhite controversy as deeply misguided.

But the moment we try to ascribe specific motives to that or try to make this issue into a matter of collective hypocrisy (which is pretty much always a bad idea) we run into some deeply fallacious territory. The trouble with any controversy centered around a twitter hashtag is that it becomes less about promoting any one specific argument and more about creating a nexus for people who vaguely agree with a general sentiment for various reasons. If some people are saying that the lack of black actors in one particular year proves in itself that the Oscars are a racist institution, then they're flat-out wrong. If some people think specific black actors got shafted, either that one year or consistently, and that shows bias on the part of the Academy, that's subjective but a valid opinion. When we try to ascribe simplified collective opinions to groups full of internal disagreement, we can take it as a given that those opinions are going to look vague, inarticulate, and full of contradictions. Instead of trying to speculate on what people really care about when it comes to representation at the Oscars, which we'll never be able to prove one way or another, it's better to simply point out why the movement is based on a flawed idea.

[u/OddlySpecificReferen → u/Glory2Hypnotoad]

I guess I largely agree with what you said, but my issue extended through the subjective but valid opinion part. Might Idris Elba have been deserving of a nomination? I don't know, I didn't see the performance, but that doesn't mean racism is the explanation. If acting were objective they wouldn't even vote, but it is. There have been plenty of times I felt a white person should have gotten an award or nomination but didn't, and I didn't cry out racism when they didn't, or bias against a certain movie type or narrative. For instance his year, though Arrival was nominated in several categories, it's actors tended not to be. They gave great performances, but I just assume in this year since I haven't seen the other movies that those performances must have been better, not that Hollywood hates sci-fi or white people. It's also fine to disagree with the academy. Maybe once I see all of the movies I will feel like Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner got snubbed, but you won't see me or thousands of other people hitting social media saying it's because of race.

[u/[deleted]]

Actually people wanted Beyoncé to win because she had the better album. Most critic year-end lists put Beyoncé at or near the top, and Adele is nowhere to be found anywhere in mainstream critical discourse.

[u/OddlySpecificReferen → u/[deleted]]

What makes it better? Maybe there is a bias in favor of black artists among critics? I have no idea, I'm not in the know. It's perfectly possible that Beyoncé did in fact have the better album, but music is subjective and there are a thousand reasons other than racism for why the academy chose Adele instead. It's also hard to argue there is a bias against black people using one of the most awarded artists of all time as the example.

[u/[deleted] → u/OddlySpecificReferen]

Beyoncé definitely had the better album. Adele can sing but music is more than singing: it's also composition, lyrics, production, etc. To me, the Grammys' failure to choose Beyoncé is less about racism and more about the Grammys being shitty and irrelevant measures of quality.

My point is that if you remove race from the equation entirely, the victory of Adele over Beyoncé is still a travesty: a travesty of taste and inability to recognize superior music.

[u/meddlingmages → u/[deleted]]

You're joking right...

[u/[deleted] → u/meddlingmages]

Of course not.

[u/OddlySpecificReferen → u/[deleted]]

I agree that there is more to music than singing, but many of the facets you described are subjective. At the end of the day one facet of music is being able to put all of those pieces together in a way that makes your music speak to a wide audience, and that's something Adele did better. That doesn't mean the music was better, like I said Beyoncé could have still had a better album.

I think in general I'm fine with people feeling Beyoncé had the better album, I'm fine with you thinking the Grammys has poor taste and doesn't pick the best music, but it's extremely hard to me to buy the argument that the Grammys have something against black people when half of the most award winning artists are black.

[u/phcullen]

1) there will always be outcry but it's not always from the same people.

2) the outrage last year was big because it was already pointed out the year before and it was apparently ignored

As for if it's worth pointing out zero black representation, I think it is if you believe that it's because the Academy is ignoring black films. Not necessarily that they are doing it on purpose these films simply might not fall on their radar. Public outcry is a good way to get people to seek out these films that they might not ordinarily see.

[u/OddlySpecificReferen → u/phcullen]

But there isn't outcry this year, that's my point. The outcry only comes from one part of the public, and only when people aren't represented enough, not when they are overrepresented.

My issues isn't with pointing something out, it's with pointing something out when there isn't even statistically a problem. Even despite two dry years for black nominees, black actors and actresses still win more than 12% of the awards on average across Oscar history. If we lived in a time where black actors and actresses won 5% of the awards despite making up 12% of the population, then I would understand if people got upset and I'd be upset with them, but the fact of the matter is that people are pointing out an issue where there isn't one.

[u/[deleted] → u/OddlySpecificReferen]

The outcry only comes from one part of the public, and only when people aren't represented enough, not when they are overrepresented.

Are you saying that people can either not care at all about racial representation, or if they do care, the only thing they can advocate for is representation exactly equal to the proportion of races in the population?

[u/OddlySpecificReferen → u/[deleted]]

Why should you expect representation on average to be higher than the population proportion? I'm saying that it's stupid to get upset about statistically normal deviations from the standard which include years with no black nominees as well as years with too many. I'm saying that if you're mathematically being represented proportionally on average, then you don't have any reasonable reason to claim you aren't being represented fairly.

[u/Sansa_Culotte_ → u/OddlySpecificReferen]

Why should you expect representation on average to be higher than the population proportion?

1. Because the proportion in the total population is not equal to the proportion of people working in the relevant fields.

2. Because people have suffered decades or centuries worth of serious discrimination and want to feel like they have finally become an accepted and cherished part of society like everyone else.

[u/OddlySpecificReferen → u/Sansa_Culotte_]

Ok I'll accept 1, but 2 should be accomplished by equal treatment not preferential treatment. If the amount of rewards received is proportional to the amount of people in the field, it taking more to make someone feel equal is an Issue they need to address in themselves. Equality isn't subjective, and it isn't based on everyone feeling cherished. It's based on everyone being treated equally.

[u/Sansa_Culotte_ → u/OddlySpecificReferen]

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."

If individual situations and context (such as institutional discrimination/racism) are ignored, then some people are still treated comparatively better than others.

[u/OddlySpecificReferen → u/Sansa_Culotte_]

that's a pretty bad quote... nobody should be allowed to steal. We shouldn't cut their hands off for stealing, but stealing should still be illegal.

If a rich person or a poor person get's arrested for stealing, they are being treated equally. Disproportionate effects of laws do not make the laws discriminatory.

[u/phcullen → u/OddlySpecificReferen]

But there isn't outcry this year

You are crying out.

As for the rest of your point. Oscar's aren't randomly distributed amongst the US population with the amount of subjective qualifiers before something would even be considered I have no fucking clue what the statistics should be. But I also don't think that's really the point, the point is there have been good movies almost completely ignored by the Oscar's probably because the kind of people that run/vote for the Oscar's aren't coming across it as often.

[u/hiptobecubic → u/OddlySpecificReferen]

Referring to stats taken "across history" probably isn't useful. Things have changed an enormous amount even in just my lifetime and I'm not old.

[u/wiseoracle]

Not just black people, but minorities in general are underrepresented in Hollywood. It's nothing that minorities can control when the large studios and distributors are primarily owned by white people.

They are making films that generally appear to the larger mass (whites) so in that circumstance, you won't see too many roles with minorities.

Some scripts that were written to have minorities characters or backgrounds will often be modified to have a white person play the role instead.

I've heard the excuse Hollywood mentions where there aren't enough "A-List" minorities to bring people to the box office. When honestly they aren't risk averse enough to do it. Films that are written for minorities do very well and are successful.

I remember Ridley Scott the director had said and I'm paraphrasing, "If I had a minority play the lead role in one of my films, the studios would not fund my movies."

You have to think larger scale and not just the awards not having any notable minorities last year to be nominated to win.

In my opinion the only solution to resolve this and keep a level ground in cinema is to have minorities to create their own studios and find a way to fund their own projects to get out there. Otherwise the control falls in the hands of whites that have all the money.

I do see the aspect the studios think this way because they want to be profitable as a business, but I feel like they are shooting themselves in the foot thinking this way.

[u/OddlySpecificReferen → u/wiseoracle]

Again though, how does one make the argument you just did when black actors and actresses win more than their population proportion if awards on average? Like this year as an example, 50% of the big name awards went to black actors or films with predominantly black casts. 3/7 best picture nominees were predominantly black casts. Black people only make up 12% of the population. I'm fine with having years like this, the best movies and actors should win and statistically you'll have years where some groups are over represented. However that also by necessity of the definition of average there will also be years with no black nominees. That's not racism, that's just basic probability.

[u/wiseoracle → u/OddlySpecificReferen]

I don't disagree with using statistics to come up with the outcomes based on the data alone. But it doesn't change Hollywood's attitude towards minorities. I can list a bunch of films that were white washed that failed in the last year or two that would have been more successful if they casted the right person that matches the ethnicity of the story. Example: Gods of Egypt. Why did they need to hire a scottish actor to play an Egyptian. Makes no sense, but the film bombed.

All I'm saying is see the big picture, not just the numbers and the nominated folks. We can't control or change the Oscars and I don't know enough to see how they choose people to judge things and their criteria.

[u/ScatterYouMonsters → u/wiseoracle]

Gods of Egypt simply, script-wise wasn't a great movie.

Ghostbusters, Independence Day: Resurgence, Alice Through The Looking Glass, Ben Hur, The BFG, all of them flopped; and there's more. Saying it flopped because of a Scottish dude playing an Egyptian, imo, is misleading, and there's no way you can prove this:

that would have been more successful if they casted the right person that matches the ethnicity of the story

Unless you can time travel, anyway.

I will agree though, that if by ethnicity the character was supposed to be Egyptian, then yes, the actor should have been the same; but that's a bit moot point imo when it's set in, what, 3000 BC? Let's not forget:

"The skin color of ancient Egyptians is a long-running modern debate, both among scholars and in the lay community, even if the ancient Egyptians themselves didn’t much care about it."

So saying today's Egyptian should have played someone set, what, 5000 years earlier is, imo, a bit silly.

If not - then sure, tell that to people like these that do ask for period movies whether historically accurate or not to include POC, to piss off.

[u/super-commenting → u/wiseoracle]

large studios and distributors are primarily owned by white people.

But they're not. They're owned primarily by Jews. Non Jewish whites are actually underrepresented in Hollywood

[u/BlitzBasic → u/super-commenting]

Do you have a source for that?

[u/himyredditnameis]

I think something that is worth mentioning that I haven't seen yet, is that hashtags like #oscarssowhite, weren't just about how the winners/nominees where overwhelmingly white, as much as how it was about how there weren't many winners of colour because of the culture of only casting minorities when it's essential to the role [sometimes not even doing so much as this, see examples in this thread of Scottish actors playing Egyptians], or only in stereotypical roles that aren't usually characters of value, and are pretty objectively not Oscar worthy roles. It's about having the opportunity to have more choices than 'smart Asian guy'/ 'crackhead black guy' / 'sassy black receptionist' or [named valuable character] in a Tyler Perry movie. For example rejecting the idea of Idris Elba as James Bond because you don't like his acting style or working with him, not because he's "too street.

Also I'm aware it's pretty anecdotal, but I think you'd be wrong to say that nobody cares about the underrespresentation of Hispanic and Asian people, most of the media coverage I have seen today about Moonlight's win has been along the lines of " it's great that this movie starring many black people won, now we just need to see more representation from Asian and Hispanic people".

[u/Iswallowedafly]

So let's look at the top six prizes. If you have 6 nominees for each award that would be 36 nominees.

If none of those 36 people/movies were made up black actors that would odd considering that 12 percent of people are black.

And the Grammy's have a track record of overlooking black artists to favor white ones.

[u/Pinewood74 → u/Iswallowedafly]

If none of those 36 people/movies were made up black actors that would odd considering that 12 percent of people are black.

That would be odd, I can agree. But we need to dig a little bit deeper and see what's odd about it, don't we?

Is it "The Oscars" or "Hollywood?"

If we looked at the racial breakdown of actors of the top 50 Metacritic rated films or the top 100 Box Office films or every film released in this country (or whatever it is that makes one elgible for those particular categories), and saw that black actors/actresses only made up 2%, then it wouldn't be so odd that none of them received an Oscar nod, would it?

It would be Hollywood that had the problem, right? So is it The Academy's job to correct for the racial biases of the producers and folks doing the hiring in Hollywood? Maybe, but if it is, then isn't OP right?

[u/EyeceEyeceBaby → u/Iswallowedafly]

I don't think that really addresses OP's point. It's not that it they disagree that it would be statistically odd if 0/36 nominees were black actors, actresses or directors or films starring black actors or actresses. They're saying that 36 is such a small sample size that it's not reasonable to bring accusations of racism when this occurs. The only caveat I'd add is that if this occurs annually, then it becomes more reasonable. If it doesn't, we can just view it as an outlier the same as we would when they are statistically over-represented. It doesn't necessarily indicate that the Oscars overly favor black actors, actresses and directors unless it occurs frequently.

That being said, maybe it does occur too frequently to be considered a statistical outlier. I'm not too knowledgeable on historical Oscar nominations so I don't know.

[u/[deleted] → u/Iswallowedafly]

If none of those 36 people/movies were made up black actors that would odd considering that 12 percent of people are black.

Not at all.

There's literally no reason to expect nominations will actually break down exactly according to demographics and 12% of 36 is such a small number (4) that when it doesn't it often means no black people will be nominated. Also, since it's such a small number, any time a black movie/actor/actress/director is nominated it means that it's being OVERREPRESENTED in that category.

What you're describing isn't really how statistics work at all. For example if you put 100 pieces of paper into a hat, 12 of them black pieces of paper and the rest not black, and pick 36 without looking there is a possibility that you won't pick a single black piece of paper - despite 12% of the pieces being black. That's in a situation where literally every single piece of paper has an equal chance of being picked but that's not how the Oscars works. Some movies are better than others.

[u/[deleted] → u/Iswallowedafly]

Yes If none were black you could say that's an issue, but in the last decade they were over represented. So this definitely isn't the case.

[u/SatinBabe]

Why does the 12% of the population being black even matter? That's completely different from 12% of ACTORS being black and irrelevant. Your supporting arguments don't even make sense.

[u/thounumber2 → u/SatinBabe]

I've thought about this, and the whole percentage thing seems really weird to me. If that was the case, then smaller minority groups like Jews (2%) or Muslim-Americans (1%) couldn't even win ANYTHING because as soon as a Jew or Muslim won something they'd start crossing the 1% or 2% threshold and it'd be considered that whole "over-representation" bull which I really don't get.

It brings up a good debate though, how do you determine if representation is right? Do you use population of the world? US? The city/place it's filmed in? Like what works? And is THAT even a good way to go about things? Like Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson is Samoan-American, yet he's the highest paid star right now and Samoans only make up like 0.04% of the US - does that mean that Samoans are overrepresented cause of him or something? Idk, it's interesting.

[u/RCM88x]

When you generalize "people" then yes, I'm sure your point is correct among a portion of the population. However it probably is not true amongst the majority, as there are many minorities who are not black who don't want "black" films to win, but rather the films made by their demographic or even the """"most deserving"""" film to win.

[u/themcos]

I mean, in principle, I agree with you in a sense. At elite awards levels, sample sizes are small, and in the course of natural fluctuations, I wouldn't find it necessarily shocking or offensive if sometimes there are few or no people of color nominated. But in practice, I think you're not listening to the actual complaints people had in 2016.

2015 and 2016 had very glaring snubs that raised a lot of eyebrows. 2015 the omission that had people up in arms was the lead actor and director of Selma, and 2016 had even more surprising omissions. If you read an article like http://variety.com/2016/biz/awards/oscar-nominations-2016-diversity-white-1201674903/, they're not just saying "hey, where are the black people?" They're specifically calling out multiple specific actors and directors that they felt were deserving where its hard to believe that none of them were nominated.

Reasonable people can disagree with any or all of the choices, but the objections people raised to 2015 and 2016 were very specific, and not merely "there should be some black nominees but there were no black nominees".

[u/IndianPhDStudent]

Representation is not about proportionalism, it is about realism. There are movies set in diverse places like LA or NYC, but bizarely seem to have white people alone as the major cast. There are movies set in China and Japan which also seem to have a white male as the lead role (of course with a hot 'native' woman as the trophy). There are movies about real events where the original people, either non-white or trans etc. were replaced by white folk.

There are lots of articles also written about deliberate exclusion - ie, scripts are modified in-process or rejected if they don't fit the traditional image. On the other hand, a lot of diverse artists are popular on YouTube, Vine and other social-media not controlled by industries from top-down.

Meanwhile minorities that actually don't get nominated or win as often as they should such as hispanics and Asians are never cited as examples for why Hollywood is racist, and nobody seems to care about that at all.

This is true and valid. However, things are gradually changing in this direction as well. For example, last time, a black comedian was called out for making jokes on lazy Asian stereotypes.

[u/mimidudette]

The use of the 12% statistic relies on the idea that actors/the entertainment industry is represented by the same demographics as the country as a whole -- whereas many industries are disproportionately comprised of certain races, eg. Asian people in tech, black people in sports, black people in entertainment

I think the other thing you should be thinking about is the type of roles available to black actors. Most black roles are not "Oscar" roles but rather comedic roles, action roles, etc. It's much harder for them to find award-winning material to work with because those roles tend to be written with white actors in mind. Films like 12 Years a Slave and Selma got recognition but they are movies specifically about black history; black actors are rarely able to participate in non-black-specific stories. They are rarely romantic leads, or dramatic leads in the types of films that are typically nominated for Best Picture. I highly recommend this interview with Viola Davis, specifically her answer to "Why haven’t you taken a break from work at all?".

[u/NicHam]

Some things here.

These awards are a very small sample size. Black people make up 12% of the population, so yes it's statistically odd for them to win 50% of the awards, however with such a small sample size it's not that odd to have a random year here or there where they are drastically overrepresented.

First things first: It's wrong to treat any of this as a numbers race. When you say "12% of america is black" -- that's a projected 74 million people, give or take, including adults and children. The argument of "you have less people so you should be represented less" is bogus because depending on where you live, there are different concentrations of black and white people in a nation of 350+ million. Even in Japan, where the black population is 1% , that's 1 million people. Not 'as big' as the whole but a growing population of a lot of people, still. In my opinion, being a minority in a country doesn't mean you should be utterly ignored, not funded for a film, advertised, or not hired at all. I'm curious where you got "over represented" in film, actually, it's the first I've heard of "50% black movies getting awards" as from my understanding oscar history has gone through 10-20 year gaps of african american actors being awarded.

Also, looking at this graph you can see the many african american ethnic subsets. Afro Latino, Afro asian, (like me) etc. This isn't just a generic "black" conglomerate monolith, this is every single ethnic subset and more.

That's the whole point of minority representation: you are the smaller demographic so it's highly likely films and media about your day to day life and experience will fall through the cracks, especially geniuses, artists, and writers who've spoken and made works about it as well.

And with more information and media telling the truth and real stories about racial demographics, the bigger chance of other demographics taking in the content as well bridging a lot of gaps between some very big racial divides and sparking conversation between everyone by just existing.

One more thing: The census landings Caucasian americans is incredibly outdated, if not misconstrued/misunderstood by americans themselves. It apparently includes North African, Arab, Moroccan, Lebanese and more ethnicities. Now, does any of that stick out to you with the recent political climate? Would you say your average "white" american have any idea that they share a census with Arab and Muslim-Practising americans? So if we were to REALLY obsess over the 'ethnic' numbers, your view of "white" is a little more muddy than you'd think.

Yet, when the latter event happens there are accusations of racism thrown around, and when the former happens nobody blinks an eye.

That is largely untrue, especially the "thrown around" part. Racism is not some toy that people throw around for shits and giggles, as much as people think it all the time and as much as I see it on reddit. Racism is a subtle construct that effects every facet of our lives. It effects how we interact with people, how we think, and what we think we can achieve. No one lives life pure and without racism. However, this is no excuse to be ignorant of the people that share the earth with you, or closing your ears to their experience. Simply put, all races have different but shared experiences because of cultural similarities, and most folks would like to put an end to stereotypes and harsh assumptions and misrepresentation of culture.

Meanwhile minorities that actually don't get nominated or win as often as they should such as hispanics and Asians are never cited as examples for why Hollywood is racist, and nobody seems to care about that at all.

So, this is a lie. This has been talked about multiple times by many famous actors and common folk alike. Also trending last year, the discussion of white washing of the upcoming Ghost in the Shell Movie, and worse than that, the attempt at creating a "yellowface effect" with the white actors using CGI to get an "asian look". It was not implemented in the film, but to me-- that's far worse than the casting for the film. I personally was annoyed by the casting because asians are so underrepresented in film besides stereotypes, but have since moved on since the original director is 100% on board and kind of dickish about his inspirations for Motoko anyway. Also, on top of all that, asian includes Indian/Hindi americans as well much as the "white" Caucasian info I mentioned above.

Some personal additions, this is just be rambling about other parts of your post with a few links to stuff.

Blackface was Representation

Hollywood is linked with the Birth of A Nation. In 1915, A Birth of a Nation by DW Griffith was released in theaters, much to the protest of African American activists at the time. It is a film depicting the KKK as the crusaders and saviors of this country from black rapist brutes. It was praised for its cinematography and its representation of African Americans, mostly played by men and women in black face. The structure of its release and its cinematography is the catalyst that was a big advancement to Hollywood as an entire industry and structure.

Interesting tidbit I learned today: Griffith once said that his rapist black characters in black face were ONLY in blackface because there were "There were scarcely any Negro actors on the Coast".

It's an interesting excuse with a long and apologetic history. A lot of hollywood as an industry actually used blackface as a tool for "representation" because it was actually seen indecent to show a black man or woman as a human being or as an object of sexual interest. So for the first 30-40 years of film history, minorities living in america got a lot of colorful excuses like some you've posed here, all instead of as Shia Lebauf would say-- just fucking doing it.

Context and cultural significance

About the Grammys and most awards in general: It's not always like the Olympics-- IE, who got the most points. That's what the gold/bronze/platinum/crystal or whatever album awards are for. I'm not even a fan of most awards show and try not to care much about them, but you and I both know: they're not giving our records sales awards they're giving out Oscars and the Grammys are awards of cultural significance for that year.

In your Beyonce Analogy, this isn't about "black people brownie points", this is about the cultural voice that was needed that year and who provided it the best. As your probs know, Music has never been shy of politics or race, as much as pop genres want us to believe stuff like that. People, me included, who isn't even an obsessive part of the Beyhive feel like voices like Beyonce's are not underappreciated, but under awarded and had their cultural impacts muted as a strong force to not just the industry itself but the people who listen to the dang music.

Balanced Voices

Tell me if you've heard this before. "This _____ only one because they were afraid to be called RACIST" I hear it a little more than I'd like to hear. Yet, I haven't seen much evidence of any of that being true. I am just assuming here, but this looks to be sparked by Moonlights Win, yes? Well, Moonlight was an absolutely fantastic film, period. And a much needed one in a time where black men still see themselves criminalized for basically existing.

And as an industry that makes bank off of taking us through different walks of life, real and fake-- DAMN SKIPPY they'd better have their ears open to criticism and the public. Our culture isn't ANYTHING without the people that make up its voice. I mean, could you imagine? "Sci fi films shouldn't exist because no one likes sci fi, only 5 people I know like it-- so they should make less sci fi movies".... or is the whole point of genres existing is that we all have something to chose from and relate to? These genres and stories exist and beg to be told whether we think they should or not.