Five Reasons Why I Don't Do the Grammys

"And lo, all across the land there was a great ourcry,

with wailing and gnashing of teeth and shaking of fist,

for in the west it was the time of the gramophone,

and the people, while they were vexed at what they saw,

could not help but watch."

Once again we find ourselves in the aftermath of the Grammy Awards. I didn't even know they were on until this morning, when I opened up Facebook and found several friends posting about the results in dismay. As if they couldn't have guessed what was going to happen. Can the leopard change its spots, after all? What else do you expect from an event that, each year, gives Lady Gaga the chance to dress like an animal rights activist's nightmare?

As a recovering Oscar addict, I know what it's like to succumb to the allure of the cult of personality (to coin a phrase). But the Grammies have never held much allure for me, even though I'm big on music. Maybe it's because they've never been big on the same kind of stuff I was.

But just for the sake of reference, here are five reasons why I don't bother with this annual pat-yourself-on-the-back fest. Reading and acknowledging them is the first of twelve steps to freedom:

1) Any time any industry gives an award to itself, it is immediately suspect. They tend to be petty and incestuous. Trust me on this. I work in advertising, an industry that has nothing on Hollywood when it comes to giving one's self awards. Also, I used to be able to vote for such an award in a different part of the entertainment field, and there wasn't a year that went by that wasn't filled with bile, backstabbing and brutality.

2011 Best New Artist Winner Esperenza Spalding. One of the rare years the Grammys got it right. Still, if I were her I'd be worried about my career.

2) 1979 – The band Taste of Honey – those perennial favorites – win the Grammy for Best New Artist. The losers that year? A bunch of folks you've probably never heard of: Toto, The Cars, Chris Rea and Elvis Costello.

3) 1989 – For the first time, the Grammys give an award for best Hard Rock/Metal Performance. The winner? Not Jane's Addiction. Not Metallica. The award went to… Jethro Tull. Now don't get me wrong, I likes me some Tull, but Metal they ain't. (When Metallica did win a couple of years later, they thanked Jethro Tull for not having an album out that year.)

4) 1990 – Best New Artist: Milli Vanilli. Enough said.

5) The Grammies are named after a useless and out of date piece of technology. Maybe they should be named after the Phonograph… the Phonies? Ooops. How about the Compact Disc? The Seedies! Oops again. Well, then they have to be renamed after their big bone of contention, the mp3. The "Mpties." Well, maybe they should stick with Grammy.