Parties, Wardrobe and Other Substantive Grammy Coverage

As a Grammy voter, I submit this admittedly personal reaction list to whatwas missing as well as what was included in your awards coverage Feb. 24. (I stress that I speak only for myself and not on behalf of the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences.)

* As a publication quick to denigrate the “substance” of this awards presentation, do you see no irony in the amount of photo and editorial space you devoted to what the attendees were wearing? You gave the public what it wants to see and so did the CBS-TV special.

* Just as film critics’ Top 10 lists often praise motion pictures ignored by the Oscars, why be surprised that music critics’ best-of-the-year lists honor releases which don’t make Grammy’s final cut? Critics spend most of their time going to concerts, listening to CDs and weighing their merits. Most Grammy voters (as is the case with most American music fans) don’t have this luxury as their day-to-day tasks are much more varied.

* As a Grammy voter, I often differ creatively with the collective choices of 10,000 ballot-casters. But consider that, with a voting base that large, the final results cannot possibly reflect any individual’s standards of excellence. By its very nature, such massive collective wisdom will have its accent on collective and massive rather than on wisdom. Is it any different when Americans cast their votes on election day? There is a final limited field of choice in both races, brought about by the realities of the process.

* You criticize the choice of site for the Latin pre-Grammy party. What other nightspot identified with the music yet spacious enough to accommodate the size of the crowd springs to mind? If NARAS had selected a more elegant but less community-identified choice, don’t you think the organization would have come under even greater criticism for selecting a “vanilla” venue?

ROBERT ADELS

Los Angeles