World Music Awards

Last night London hosted the World Music Awards at Earl's Court. that means I was just a 20 minute tube ride (a ticket and a few body guards) away from Michael Jackson...crap, and I didn't get his autograph! Apparently he had late night private shopping trip to Topshop the night before. I also missed out on a chance to see my hero, Lindsay Lohan, host the awards.Fortunately I will be able to watch them on TV next week! Although I already know who won (see the website) so that takes out a little of the suspense. But really, how many awards shows do we need? I suppose the WMAs are a little more unique than the Grammys or VMAs because they claim to be the only "international" music awards. So watching the show could be a good chance to see some performers I haven't seen before. I'll let you know if there were any outstanding performances.

Also, according to Wikipedia all the proceeds from the show go to The Monaco Aide and Presence Foundation. I'm a little curious as how to a show that gives awards generates extensive proceeds, I suppose through the advertisers. Anyway, it seems like a noble cause. The charity assists underdeveloped areas mainly in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Brazil.

The WMAs are awards based on public popularity, not the music industry. This can have it's pluses and minuses. I don' t always agree with the critics, but I also don't always agree with the public (of course, my opinion is always the right one!). Allow me to provide several case studies that illustrate the problem with awards based on popularity and record sales. This year's best rock group was awarded to Nickelback. Seriously? Out of the pool of Coldplay, Keane, Red Hot Chili Peppers and Greenday, Nickelback won? Perhaps a better award for them might be "Most Overplayed Rock Group." Also, the Best New Artist was awarded to James Blunt. I am very thankful the award didn't go to The Pussycat Dolls but would have preferred one of the other nominees - KT Tunstall, Gnarls Barkley or even Carrie Underwood.