by Paul Klemperer

A friend and longtime Steely Dan fan, remarking on their Grammy wins, noted that it was wonderful to see a band from the '70s deservingly beat out all the mainstream pop crap of today." Laudable commentary without doubt, but it got me thinking. The Grammy's were designed to give music industry people, the ones who do the work, a voice in recognizing achievements within their field.

Yet the ceremony seems to have become just another corporate machination for reinforcing the profit-driven pyramid that is popular music. When a band like Steely Dan, or last year's Carlos Santana, wins awards, does that mitigate the pyramid of mediocrity, or is it a case of the exception that proves the rule?

The rule of "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" often reveals pop music trends. An innovative group appears, or a new twist on an old formula catches on, sells some product, and creates a buzz, and then a 100 imitators spring up. We may think it small-minded and idiotic, but the process works in a mass-market economy. Thus it is no surprise when bubblegum girls like Britney & Christina edge out other artists and legions of bubble gummers seep from the woodwork. But did this rule apply when Santana's album topped charts last year, and Steely Dan re-emerged this year? Maybe I missed something, but I haven't heard a lot of complex jazz chords and subtle melodic lines being worked into pop music formulas as a result.

This leads me to think that a different process is going on here, what I call the "gold watch back pat." If you have an organization whose legitimacy is somewhat shaky, what better way to solidify your standing than to honor someone whose legitimacy is rock solid? Now, it may not quite be on the level of the Corleone family making charitable donations to the Vatican, but if the Grammy powers-that-be choose one aging rock star per year for a gold watch and a hearty pat on the back, it helps to make stock terms like "trailblazer, tradition, and roots of" seem less empty in the tabloid world of post-modern pop culture.

Perhaps I overstate the case. Certainly artists like the Dan and Santana deserve the awards they received. And certainly we live in a complex world filled with contradictory tendencies, so Carlos and Britney sharing the spotlight is not the greatest travesty we shall ever see.

But the gold watch syndrome does exist, and it is part of a long pattern of tokenism that is embedded deeply in American culture. Perhaps tokenism is the first step by which subcultures are incorporated into the dominant culture. Or perhaps it is the constant effort of the dominant culture to deflect change and preserve itself.

One thing is less than debatable, however: money greases all wheels. You won't see an artist feted and venerated who is unable to generate bucks through product. You can sing your protest songs, get busted for a concealed weapon or carrying pot through the airport, but if you fail to generate product, you won't even get the gold watch.

In contrast (I hope!), the burgeoning SXSW organization seems to be striving to increase stylistic diversity with each year's musical showcases. I've made the point in years past that as American culture becomes more ethnically diverse, particularly with the increase of Hispanic culture in North America; designers of musical showcases are trying to reflect this trend. Latin, Asian, rap and jazz, are all established niches of SXSW. This may reflect an increased musical internationalism, and a growing awareness of the economic and political power music industry workers wield as a united group. Or it may be a less interesting response to increasing product sales from these musical niches. The more forward thinking visionaries among us are building the infrastructure of musical internationalism, generally a good thing, if the money doesn't get in the way.