Why is David Grohl being blasted for what he said at the Grammys?

I watched the Grammys…well, part of them, at least the parts the Foo Fighters were on.  Yes, I’m going to be biased here since I am a fan of the band, but I found nothing wrong with what he said.  In fact, I clapped out loud (to myself, mind you) and said “Hell yeah!  That’s right!” when he said it.  Yet, some music press and music artists were openly critical about what he said, saying he essentially denigrated a musical form different from his own.

Here is what he said (thank you, LA Weekly):

“This is a great honor, because this record was a special record for our band. Rather than go to the best studio in the world down the street in Hollywood and rather than use all of the fanciest computers that money can buy, we made this one in my garage with some microphones and a tape machine...

“To me this award means a lot because it shows that the human element of music is what's important. Singing into a microphone and learning to play an instrument and learning to do your craft, that's the most important thing for people to do.

"It's not about being perfect, it's not about sounding absolutely correct, it's not about what goes on in a computer. It's about what goes on in here [your heart] and what goes on in here [your head].”

I suppose you could take the comment about “not about what goes on in a computer” could be construed as blasting electronic music, but I didn’t hear it that way.  He later clarified his comment to say he loves electronic music, he LOVES Skrillex, et al, but why did he even need to go there?  What I heard was “if you can’t sing the note, you should lower the key or not sing it.”  I heard “despite technological advances and all, you can still use the old stuff to record your music.”  I heard “music is emotion, baby!”  I thought he was blasting auto-tune and digital pitch correction and how music now recorded on computers doesn’t have the warmth that older records had.  Honestly, they don’t.  There’s a reason why vinyl has grown in popularity recently—a lot of the music pressed to vinyl was recorded on analog (I do know that some newer stuff was recorded digitally).

I didn’t hear his comments as a dig on musicians that use turntables and computers to create music.  There’s as much practice and heart in that music as there is in using a guitar or drums or oboe or whatever.  The voice is an instrument; you use it to create music.  Turntablists have been able to take recorded music and manipulate it into a fresh musical number; listen to Steinski.  Apart from probably pissing off some copyright lawyers and a few music artists, he offered a very fresh take on rap and dance music back in his heyday.  Listen to Flying Lotus’ Cosmogramma, which is an amazing record and an example of the advancement in the use of computers to create music.

Not all electronic artists are created equal, however.  For every Prodigy or Kraftwerk, there’s a Deadmau5 or Owl City.  I’m sorry, I didn’t find the last Deadmau5 record to be that innovative, and I threw in Owl City because, while “Fireflies” was a hit, that album is so lame.  Some writers keep harping that electronic music is the direction, the future of music, but it’s been around for years.  Heck, it’s been around for decades.  Yet people still pick up guitars, people still play piano, people still hit tambourines.  As forward-thinking as electronic music is proclaimed to be, it still doesn’t suit every listener.

The Foo Fighters are not originals, no doubt.  Their music is the same as rock music of the 1990s, the 1980s, the 1970s, etc.  They’re a popular band who rose from the ashes of a once-considered original band, Nirvana, which was really derivative of the punk and new wave rising in the late 1970s and 1980s.  David Grohl shouldn’t be criticized for having an opinion.  If he is, then the ones doing the critiquing should explain themselves for some of the garbage that has made it on the radio, on YouTube, and anywhere else.