Get Rid of Best Song Performances at the Oscars -- Completely

Oh no! Peter Gabriel has dropped out of the Oscars show because they only want to let him sing 65 seconds of his world-changing, Oscar-nominated song, Down to Earth, from WALL-E.

"I don't feel that is sufficient time to do the song justice, and I have decided to withdraw from performing," Gabriel said in his letter to the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences.

Geez - Bruce Springsteen can distill the experience of an entire three-hour concert into 12 minutes at the Super Bowl - but Gabriel can't sing an excerpt from a song?

I'm sure that, in Gabriel's mind, he didn't want to rob his fans of the opportunity to see him perform the ditty they accidentally may have walked out on while it was playing over the closing credits of the film.

But Gabriel's little snit actually may serve a useful purpose. Could this be the inroad needed to get rid of the ridiculous performances of best-song nominees altogether in the Oscar telecast?

Let's hope so.

Everybody talks about how long and boring the Oscar show always is - but nobody does anything about it. And the answer is always right there in front of them: Eliminate all musical performances of any sort from the show.

For the rest of this post, click here to go to my website, www.hollywoodandfine.com.

Comments

[Ramon Largo]

11:15 PM on 02/22/2009

It's a nice departure from the borefest that is the Oscars iIf they limit it to three nominees and scatter the songs throughout the night. .Falling Slowly from the movie Once was a clear highlight from last year's show. And to introduce the medley limitations after the nominations are done and performers of the caliber of Gabriel are preparing for their moment in the spotlight is just bad form. Shame on you,, Academy.

[DoctorGee]

05:16 PM on 02/17/2009

First of all, when there are five songs, by the time they are each introduced, performed, the audience applauds, we're looking at somewhere around twenty-five minutes (average five minutes each).

Now then - here's the bottom line: How fair is it that a song that is in 3% of a movie gets five minutes of "Oscar air time" compared to major categories (Best Picture, Best Actor/Actress) getting twenty-second clips of each nominee?

The medley is an idea whose time is long overdue!

To really shorten the show to a reasonable length AND make it more meaningful, tell nominees they can:
1) Only thank their family and the Academy members. No other thank-yous.
2) If they want to briefly - VERY briefly - share what the moment means to them, fine.

Otherwise, then can take out an ad in the trade papers or thank their manicurist/publicist/hairdresser/lawyer/manager/whatever the next time you see them! We don't need to hear them telling us how "amazing" their dog groomer is or how the groomer influenced their career!!!!!!

[LMPE]

11:27 AM on 02/17/2009

Here's what I'd like: Best Use of an Old Song.

The #1 all-time winner: "In & Out" for "Macho Man".

[edgraham]

11:17 AM on 02/17/2009

Really, music is important to break up the long periods of self-adulation. Leave the music in, let them sing the entire song, and hope they put better songs in movies.

If you want to cut something, don't let the winners thank anybody except the Academy for voting for them. I'm sure that God, their mother, and their publicist had nothing to do with a great performance.

Thank all those people in person, not on the show.

It could run 2 hours without all the crap.

Ed Graham

[rektruax]

08:46 PM on 02/16/2009

Then we can get rid of the rest of the show...

[longcrl]

08:09 PM on 02/16/2009

I know you're being facetious in part, but honestly? We need the songs and scrap the other crap. There is absolutely nothing we need more of lately, than music.

[cautionbug]

07:38 PM on 02/16/2009

Better suggestion to shorten the show: Mail the winners their statues, and reduce the broadcast to a reading of the winners list. The Oscars, Grammys, etc, are a ridiculous waste of air time. Yeah, good music and films and those involved with them deserve recognition. But seeing a mindless, endless parade of showbiz people blab on and on about who they owe debts of gratitude to is such a waste of time. And then there are those who deliberately say "Screw the rules!" and talk beyond their time anyway.

It's not the musical performances that need a change. The whole format is bogus.

[pastgone]

06:42 PM on 02/16/2009

Yeah--get rid of the best part of the broadcast. Good idea there.

[Glencora]

02:34 PM on 02/16/2009

Don't eliminate the songs! That's when I catch up on my email!

[furryone]

02:21 PM on 02/16/2009

I agree

[dannyo152]

11:32 AM on 02/16/2009

The Oscars tend to be a show of people extemporizing when their reason for success is found in the production of scripted moments from which the best are assembled into a coherent whole. After the awards are presented, sometimes it seems we remember the goofy ("You really like me!") more readily than the eloquent. Maybe the problem with the Oscars are that there are too many awards shows, the same people and productions get all the awards, and there's an alienation between the films and performances nominated and the films and performances seen by the public?

One thing going for the song segments, they are live performances of music by professional performers. Other than the host, what other part of the visible program consists of people doing their job?

[daedelus]

01:30 AM on 02/17/2009

Does anybody have a couple of Excedrin?

[EdinNJ]

09:34 AM on 02/16/2009

So your argument is that if Bruce Springsteen can complete his sellout by doing that awful, campy, scripted joke of a set at the Super Bowl, then an artist with some shred of integrity about their work like Peter Gabriel should be criticized for not wanting to bastardize his song at the Oscars? Why, because there is so much more compelling stuff going on during the 4+ hour Oscar telecast that they can't squeeze in 15 minutes for musical performances?