The Grammy Awards broadcast, which airs Sunday at 8 p.m. on CBS, has long tested the patience of its audience. Is it worth tuning in?

YES

So much is wrong with the Grammy Awards, now in its 54th year — the ridiculous categories (Best New Artist nominee Bon Iver has been around since 2007), the nonsensical snubs (Kanye West isn’t nominated for Album of the Year but Bruno Mars is) and, of course, the overwhelming fact the Grammys are not a celebration of all music but primarily of music produced and distributed by the major labels.

Despite all of its flaws, the Grammys are consistently more entertaining than the Oscars and the Emmys. The show achieves this by centering the broadcast not around the awards (which nobody really cares about), but around the performances. On top of that, year after year the performers chosen represent nearly every genre imaginable. Bruce Springsteen and Paul McCartney are both slated to perform this year — and so are Nicki Minaj and Katy Perry. Last year featured Mumford and Sons and The Avett Brothers — as well as Rihanna and Barbara Streisand.

Over time, the Grammy broadcast has adapted to the changing musical landscape, fully recognizing the unique opportunity it has to create one-night-only mash-up performances. Perhaps the most memorable instance comes from the 2001 Grammys, when the show had Elton John duet with Eminem. Similarly, in 2006, Jay-Z and Linkin Park took the stage to perform their rap-rock hybrid music, only to be joined by Paul McCartney, singing “Yesterday” over a banging rap beat.

Even when the show isn’t mixing genres, the Grammys often shoot for spectacular performances that can only be done with the resources of a big-budget production. From Kanye’s 2005 performance of “Jesus Walks” with a gospel choir, to Radiohead’s “15 Step” performed with the USC Marching Band in 2009, the show allows its performers to try something different — something that will be talked and tweeted about the next day.

The Grammys have also continued to adapt their nominations, now fully recognizing the indie rock genre — Death Cab For Cutie, Bon Iver and My Morning Jacket all received nominations this year. This comes after a year in which Arcade Fire — a band that developed its following not through pop radio but with college radio; not through television but through music blogs — beat out Lady Gaga and Katy Perry to win Album of the Year.

Ultimately, when it comes to music taste, everyone is different. The Grammys face the difficult task of trying to be all things to all people. In doing so, the broadcast has no true identity and no target audience. Instead, it’s a smorgasbord that celebrates an incredibly diverse variety of music. Performers this year will represent country (Carrie Underwood), classic rock (Springsteen), mainstream rock (Coldplay), soul-pop (Adele), rap (Nicki Minaj), contemporary R&B/hip-hop (Chris Brown) and the most mainstream of pop (Katy Perry).

Not everyone who deeply cares about music will be pleased, or entertained. But they will watch.

— Adam Offitzer

NO

Identity crises suck. The Grammy Awards, currently standing at a frail and delicate 54 years old, has been undergoing a massive one for years. Unsure whom to pander to, the entire spectacle ends up pleasing no one, instead coming across as an uninformed, overblown attempt at rewarding the highest-selling musical acts with more press and recognition.

Perhaps even worse is the nominations list, with its adherence to a formula of grating predictability. There’s the critical and commercial pop darling that’ll take home every award (Adele), the outsider of moderate indie credibility (Bon Iver), the polarizing rags-to-riches phenomenon (Skrillex), the rock-and-roll mainstay (Foo Fighters) and, of course, the rulers of modern radio (Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars, Katy Perry). This sounds less like America’s “Best of 2011” Spotify playlist and more like a lazy attempt at high-scale diversification. The Grammy Awards don’t necessarily lack a purpose — its creators just don’t have a clue how to hold the attention of such a wide range of people.

The lack of familiar faces is just one aspect of the Grammys that makes it tough for the awards show to keep the attention of a wide audience. The Academy Awards, Golden Globes and Emmys are all incredibly successful at keeping audiences satisfied because they showcase the mugs of iconic stars. If George Clooney were to walk through Stamp on any given afternoon, a majority of the student body would recognize him. But if Justin Vernon of Bon Iver were put in the same position, perhaps only a handful of people would be able to pick him out.

To make up for this lack of familiarity with the nominees, the Grammys are then forced to resort to silly, time-wasting gimmicks, such as pairing Cee Lo Green and Gwyneth Paltrow for a bizarre take on “Forget You” at last year’s ceremony. Accepting the drawback of unrecognizable faces would help remove a lot of senseless absurdities, instead cutting right to the acceptance speeches, which is what most people want to see.

In the end, scrapping the Grammys as a whole is unnecessary because there is still some merit in honoring the best musical acts of the year. And though music may be more subjective than film, television or theater, it is still possible to assemble an intelligent, informed jury of nominators, who can help lift the Grammy Awards from its battered state of obscurity and criticism into an ice bath of widespread cultural relevancy.

— Dean Essner

diversions@umdbk.com