The Brits ending gender-based awards is pure common sense
The scrapping of male and female categories reflects how we listen to music, says Neil Mccormick
The Brit Awards has quietly done away with its Male and Female categories, replacing them with Artist of the Year. The most surprising thing about this move is how much sense it makes. This is not, as some might instinctively respond, political correctness gone mad. It is actually a true reflection of how we listen to music. For who among us would declare, “I really fancy going to a concert by a female”? Or, indeed, “I need to listen to a male!”
Music is not gendered. It is made by musicians, and audiences respond to the artist, be they male or female, or as androgynously alien as Ziggy Stardust descending from Mars.
This is not about so-called wokeness, or endorsing any position in gender politics. It is common sense. Why should Adele be judged in a different category to Ed Sheeran, when they are both commercial pop singer-songwriters? There are many ways you can compare and contrast the talents of PJ Harvey and Stormzy, but neither would thank you for making it about their gender. And there are very good reasons why the Brits, since it’s very first ceremony in 1977, has always had a Group category, and doesn’t attempt to judge musicians as Girl Bands and Boy Bands. For one thing, where would you put Wolf Alice – arguably the most exciting band in Britain right now, comprising three young men led by a woman?
The new Best Artist award may even improve the Brits. Sam Fender can now test his mettle against Little Simz (while Adele walks away with the prize, sorry Ed). But alongside that, the Brits have also added four new award categories, divided by musical styles. Because what really matters when it comes to recognising and celebrating diversity in music is not gender, but genre.
It is worth noting that America’s Grammy Awards has never bothered with male or female categories. What it does have is a lot of different musical categories, creating a field wide enough for a huge range of talent to be given a chance to shine.
The Grammys actually take it to an absurd extent, with more than 60 categories. The Brits’ four new categories sound about right, celebrating the best acts in Alternative/ Rock, POP/R&B, Dance, and Hip Hop/ Rap/grime. And, as 2008 Best British Female Artist award winner Kate Nash once pointed out, “female is not a genre”. Still, a note of caution. Most industry studies show that, despite Adele, men outnumber women in chart hits by as much as two thirds. In more than 41 Brit Awards, only a quarter of the winners of the gender-neutral Best Album category have been female, and only two groups with female members have ever won Best Group (Five Star in 1987 and Little Mix last year). What will happen if, at some future awards, no female artists are nominated in a significant category?
But that is a question and a battle for another day. The moment you make art a competition, all kinds of absurdities and contradictions arise. Sport has more obvious criteria for measuring success and has its own gender issues to contend with. But would anyone really suggest that female authors or painters should be judged differently to their male counterparts? How about actors? How long before the Oscars face questions about the criteria that separate the best performances by men and women? I think the Brits have unquestionably done the right thing. And when you consider the fluid nature of gender in pop – from Mick Jagger donning women’s blouses to David Bowie appearing in a man dress on the cover of Hunky Dory – it is incredible the Brits took so long to get with the programme.