Just like everyone blogging and Twittering at home, each media outlet coast to coast had its own take on the 2009 Grammys.

The New York Times focused on the show's turn away from awards presentations and towards live performances, mostly praising the shift. They mentioned, of course, the Grammy tradition of nominating younger stars but ultimately rewarding veterans.

The LA Times has extensive coverage, along with some delightfully snarky fashion blogging and a celebration of M.I.A.'s offbeat style. In the main piece of analysis, Ann Powers writes that if you're going to down, you might as well go down swinging, or in this case, singing. The music industry continues to decline, but that didn't stop the Grammy's from throwing a party full of loony, lively collaborations.

Chicago Tribune Pop critic Greg Kot leads with the controversial story that was the talk of ceremony - Chris Brown and Rihanna's no-shows after Brown was linked to an assault. He also shouts out to Chicagoan Jennifer Hudson for keeping it classy and strong in the wake of the murders of three of her family members.

The Boston Globe's coverage was buried on their website, and included interviews with the staff of Boston-based Rounder Records, who released the Robert Plant and Allison Krauss album that swept that show. The piece also speculated that the Jonas Brothers lost the Best New Artist trophy as karmic retribution for their less-than-perfect performance with Stevie Wonder.

The Grammy's deserve their low ratings if they continue to award older artists and stiff the young 'uns, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The paper also pointed out that the best selling artists of last year turned in the worst performances, citing the Jonas Brothers and opening themselves up to a deluge of tween hate mail.

Rolling Stone posits that performances, along with Blink 182's reunion announcement were the big news of the night - none of the awards were big upsets. The site praised Radiohead and Paul McCartney for turning in some of the evening's best sets.

Spin's Charles Aaron posted a somewhat non-sensical essay that basically comes down to driving home the time-honored point that the olds win the Grammy's. As you might expect, People didn't have much business analysis here, but a nice round-up of memorable quotes and fashion slideshows.

Vibe's live-blogger writes that the Stevie Wonder collaboration made him not hate the Jonas Brothers. He also concludes that the Grammy's hate hip-hop.

Gawker declares MIA is the hero of the Grammy's for bringing it while nine-million months pregnant.

The title of Idolator's post -- Live Blogging the 2009 Grammys Where The Winners Don't Count As Much As The Ability to Bring In Raings -- sums up Idolator's take on the show - who cares who wins, as long as people are watching.

Stereogum posits that the olds will win everything, and we're so much cooler than you.

Questions? Comments? Let us know: @billboardbiz

Print