If you'll forgive me for asking a rhetorical question, why doesn't anyone have parties to coincide with Sunday's telecast of the Grammys? What I mean is, what's with the double standard?

For years, I've heard of folks -- like my very own sister -- who've hosted Oscar parties, allowing their cinephile pals to jot down their lists of their predictions of who'll win what movie award.

Grammy Predictions | Interactive: Song Clips | Top Grammy Nominees | Album Of The Year?

Meanwhile, the Grammys, like a lonely, multimillion-dollar stepchild, inspires little of the celebration or anticipation in which its elder brethren bask.

Is it because pop stars aren't as good-looking as movie stars? Nope. Is it because the prospect of Beyonce writhing around the stage is somehow less exciting than Jack Nicholson tearing into an envelope? Not likely. Is it because music no longer occupies a central facet in popular imagination? Well, yes.

It's not downloading that is strangling the music industry, but mounting consumer indifference. There's a cultural shift occurring right now. Most baby boomers -- the bulk of the population -- aren't in a rush to get CD versions of their '60s and '70s record collection like they were in the '90s. And try to ask most of them if they're excited to start downloading Jay-Z's latest.

Meanwhile, their adult-age children -- advertisers' most coveted demographic -- have more entertainment options than any generation before, and all those media are competing for their ever-shrinking spending money. Once children enter the picture, you can bet a DVD of "Finding Nemo" or a cuddly, kid-friendly PlayStation 3 game will always beat out the Black Eyed Peas' latest disc.

Of course, the Grammys, functioning essentially as the music industry's standard bearer, has not helped its case any by always being hopelessly out of step with current trends and grossly extolling some artists while undervaluing more brazen creators. Who wants to watch your favorite band or rapper lose once again to Celine Dion?

But, this year, show organizers seem ready to tackle the industry's problems head-on -- at least, as much as they can considering this a three-hour show. The music industry might be going down but not without a fight. And as in some comic books, the Grammys are looking for the superhero to save them.

That savior will be the reunion of The Police. Sting has finally acceded to the long-sought wishes of guitarist Andy Summers and drummer Stewart Copeland to reform their New-Wave pop-rock trio. All three former members of The Police have seen their careers' cul de sac in recent years, and this reunion is poised to break them out of commercial purgatory. Many will no doubt just be happy that Sting will finally stop talking about the lute.

Come Grammy night, The Police can be counted on to deliver a pleasing medley of '80s hits that will serve as a preview of what should be one of this summer's top-selling arena tours. You can be sure that Grammy producers are hoping the sight of old friends back together again will inspire Generation X-ers to seek a similar rapprochement with their local music store to get the latest Police reissues.

While MTV has usually been able to pull off such surprise reunions (New Edition, Van Halen, Guns 'N' Roses, etc.), the Grammys have taken typically avoided sensationalism and taken the high road, emphasizing who is hot right now. The Police will form the crown jewel of this year's telecast, but the show producers haven't thrown out their playbook completely. This year's performers include many of the top nominees, including Christina Aguilera, Beyonce, Mary J. Blige, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, John Mayer, The Dixie Chicks, Gnarls Barkley, Ludacris, Carrie Underwood and Timberlake.

It should all run like clockwork. You can count on big production numbers from the likes of Blige, Aguilera, Beyonce, Underwood and Timberlake while acts like the Chili Peppers and The Dixie Chicks will emphasize their instrumental prowess.

However, more than ever before, show organizers appear to be looking for something to capture the audience's imagination, or at least get them talking. Hip-hop duo Gnarls Barkley should serve as a refreshing break from the Grammy formula. The group, which consists of DJ Dangermouse and former Goodie Mob vocalist Cee-Lo Green, are renowned for performing each show dressed as characters from famous movies.

The pair and their backing group have played entire concerts dressed as "Star Wars" Stormtroopers, with Cee-Lo wearing a Darth Vader mask and cape. On Feb. 11, it would be appropriate if the combo came out on stage as characters from "A Star Is Born."

Another interesting twist during this year's show involves Timberlake singing with an unsigned talent during the telecast. The performance is the grand prize behind a mini-reality show called "My Grammy Moment" being orchestrated by CBS, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences and Yahoo.

Basically, wannabes auditioned from around the country and the pack of those selected were winnowed down to a handful of finalists, all competing for a right to share a mic with Timberlake on the big show. The fact that this whole process happened behind closed doors to a certain extent (the whole drama unfolded on the Internet), it seems like a harebrained scheme. It's an obvious nod to "American Idol," but strips the premise of any of that pesky drama, cuts off the possibilities of the audience forging a connection with the aspiring performers and does without that grumpy killjoy Simon Colwell. What are they thinking?

One final aspect of the Grammys will have you questioning the sanity of show's organizers -- or at least, their motives.

The high-stakes moment will be the presentation of the Lifetime Achievement Award to folk-music goddess Joan Baez. On paper, it seems like it could make for an excellent must-watch moment. But there are also considerable risks.

While there's always the possibility that Baez might saunter up to the podium and reveal some secrets about former paramour Bob Dylan, she is a far greater risk for making a Tim Robbins-style anti-war and anti-establishment speech.

You can be sure producers are already wringing their hands about this portion of the show. But then, the decision to honor Baez is a statement in itself. They want to shock people as much as praise her music. Her career has been built on her activism just as much as her folk song, and you can bet the producers will be ready to play her off with the orchestra if she starts thanking Hugo Chavez while criticizing the Grammys' advertisers.

The preponderance of all these new spectacles is a signal that show producers want to fight back against their perceived obscurity. It demonstrates that they seek to keep the Grammys and the industry as a whole from sliding into irrelevance. They want to lure back all those fleeing the sinking ship. If they hope to inspire watercooler talk, this year's Grammys surely will provide it.

But doesn't all this shock and awe mean the show is losing its focus, namely on honoring great music? Certainly. Instead of competing head-on with the Oscars by borrowing some of their glamour, this year's Grammy strategy subtly turns the show into a circus, an event in which people want to see what happens next. The musical performances and the awards become secondary to what kind of marvel they'll see next. It might win viewers, but it isn't likely to lure listeners back.

Note: The 49th Grammy Awards will air live on CBS Feb. 11 at 8 p.m. EST.