The Grammy thread

[LaurieBiagini]

That was a great rant! I'm sure many if not, most of us here share your views! 

[Ron]

I for one don't.  While I don't like most of the modern music, I don't want Mariah Carey to die in a tour bus fire.  That's not clever to say, you're not cool for being hip enough to wish death on somebody, and no, I will not lighten up when people are talking about people dying because of something as slight as a bad song. 

[LaurieBiagini]

  Um yeah.. the death part was kind of extreme.. but the rest of the sentiment I agree with.

[I. Spaceman]

You guys are a bunch of old fogeys that should only curl up and blow away in the wind coming from the amp of Jack White.

[Maybelline]

Who do you mean Ian?!

[I. Spaceman]

Whoever reads it and takes it personally.
Those who dont take it personally are not the ones I am talking about.

[LaurieBiagini]

[Maybelline]

Whoever reads it and takes it personally.
Those who dont take it personally are not the ones I am talking about.

Good, not me then 

[I. Spaceman]

 

[Chris D.]

Hollaback Girl being song of the year is like Bridge Over Trouble getting pushed aside for "Sugar Sugar" by the Archies.

It's not that bad.

Non of these so-called contenders for "Song of the Year" ever stand the test of time. Where are the modern day "What's Going On?s", "Yesterday"s and, uh... uh,  "Afternoon Delights"?

"Afternoon Delight"?  How is that superior to "Hollaback Girl"??

There are no earth-shattering songs being released on a large scale anymore.

Gorillaz.  The only band that matters.

There will be another song that sounds just like it released in a few months and the sheep will move their herd over to the new thing for a little while.

"Norwegian Wood" ---->"Paint it Black"
"Paperback Writer" ---->"Last Train to Clarksville"
Every big band we gush over from the 60s ----> Every minor band we gush over from the 60s

Maybe the "popular music" genre has run it's coarse. I thought Radiohead were doing something important, but they got ignored in favor of Steely Dan.

Because Steely Dan are doing everything important.

Does anyone remember "Sunny Came Home" by Shaun Colvin? Nope.

Yes.  It did suck.  But I will also say that a lot of non-Grammy people backlash against the decent mainstream stuff.  Nevermind, for example.

AND WHY WAS THERE NO LOVE FOR JOHNNY CASH'S AMERICAN RECORDINGS? CLEARLY THE ALBUM  OF THE YEAR. He got one award. Best Contemporary FOlk album. Are they insane? Tony Bennett Unplugged. Jesus wept.

Why are you bashing the Grammies for favoring other old artists (Steely Dan) and talking about fucking Johnny Cash???

Awards are pointless anyway.

I totally agree with you there.

[Chris D.]

The Grammies are nothing more but recording industry pap.

Yes.

They slam us to the hilt with commercials, crap products and a very unpredictable industry all catered to the generation behind mine which is full of a bunch of whiny, timed-out, raised on cell phones and credit cards idiots who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground.

But we pay for the junk products and support the industries.  They are the price for the system we live in, and we have to change it.  I agree with your anger.  But blaming the companies does nothing, you have to take action against it.

Warner, Atlantic, Sony and Uni should all have their headquarters burned to the mother f****ing ground.  And if people like the B.W. camp defend these idiots, then the hell with them too.

I download my butt of

Show the artist you can support them better than the record companies.  Then you'll see the industry you want.  Going behind the artist's back just makes them pick the lesser evil -- a record company, because the company is still paying them and you're not.

[I. Spaceman]

  again.


Anyways, I'd rate Sugar Sugar alongside Bridge, just as I would rate the Ramones alongside Steely Dan.
It's all static.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Hollaback Girl being song of the year is like Bridge Over Trouble getting pushed aside for "Sugar Sugar" by the Archies.

It's not that bad.

Non of these so-called contenders for "Song of the Year" ever stand the test of time. Where are the modern day "What's Going On?s", "Yesterday"s and, uh... uh,  "Afternoon Delights"?

"Afternoon Delight"?  How is that superior to "Hollaback Girl"??

There are no earth-shattering songs being released on a large scale anymore.

Gorillaz.  The only band that matters.

There will be another song that sounds just like it released in a few months and the sheep will move their herd over to the new thing for a little while.

"Norwegian Wood" ---->"Paint it Black"
"Paperback Writer" ---->"Last Train to Clarksville"
Every big band we gush over from the 60s ----> Every minor band we gush over from the 60s

Maybe the "popular music" genre has run it's coarse. I thought Radiohead were doing something important, but they got ignored in favor of Steely Dan.

Because Steely Dan are doing everything important.

Does anyone remember "Sunny Came Home" by Shaun Colvin? Nope.

Yes.  It did suck.  But I will also say that a lot of non-Grammy people backlash against the decent mainstream stuff.  Nevermind, for example.

AND WHY WAS THERE NO LOVE FOR JOHNNY CASH'S AMERICAN RECORDINGS? CLEARLY THE ALBUM  OF THE YEAR. He got one award. Best Contemporary FOlk album. Are they insane? Tony Bennett Unplugged. Jesus wept.

Why are you bashing the Grammies for favoring other old artists (Steely Dan) and talking about fodaing Johnny Cash???

Awards are pointless anyway.

I totally agree with you there.

1) I think it's as good as Sugar Sugar. Both are pretty catchy.

2)Afternoon Delight is one of the finest songs ever written.

3)Gorillaz do have an interesting thing going, but I can't get behind a band made up of animated characters......once again, see "The Archies".

4)I gush over neither The Stones nor The Monkees. They were 2 bands who saw which way the Beatles wind was blowing and then coasted along with it (although I do like the Monkees).

5) Steely Dan got the nostagic reward because they hadn't won before and the Grammies felt sorry for them. Now in the case of Dylan, he happened to make a masterwork. Age discrimination can go both ways. Any way, there is no way that Steely Dan's album was better than Kid A.

4) I think you agree with me on this, so....

5) Johnny Cash, with help from Rick Ruben, made a statement. His first American Recordings album is one of the best albums of the past 25 years. I'm not saying not to give awards to the elderly, but in the grammys case, at least in previous years, it seemed they'd always take an old favorite over something cutting edge. In that particular year, none of the nominees came close to what Johnny Cash had accomplished on his record. The fact that it had only one nomination in an overlooked category was a travesty. They should have treated his final album the way they did with Ray Charles mediocre "Duets" album. But some sort of controversy about the actual release date blocked "The Man Comes Around" from getting it's due.

6)Right on. There's not point in arguing about it, when the subject is pointless to begin with.

 

[I. Spaceman]

2)Afternoon Delight is one of the finest songs ever written.

I can dig that.

3)Gorillaz do have an interesting thing going, but I can't get behind a band made up of animated characters......once again, see "The Archies".

I call Archies/Gorillaz "honesty".

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I call Archies/Gorillaz "honesty".

And I can dig that.

[I. Spaceman]

That's cool.
For me the only honesty I saw last night was:
Gorillaz, for the concept. You want prescribed caricatures for rock stars, here you go.
Sly. You think I'm some weird freak to be brought out of hiding, OK, I'll show up looking as freaky as possible for a minute, then disappear into time. Perfect.
Bruce. He's almost John Lydon at this point, for his complete disinterest in the business of being a rock star. He just shows up, does his thing, minimal flash, bye.

[Chris D.]

3)Gorillaz do have an interesting thing going, but I can't get behind a band made up of animated characters......once again, see "The Archies".

Their last album and "Feel Good Inc." were amazingly substantial too.  Would the Archies be on the Grammies singing a song about how f***ed up America was for its reaction to 9/11, and then segue it into a throwback dance number (Madonna)?  Probably not.  The fact that Gorillaz use cartoons to appeal to kids with the message that we'll destroy any civilization to feel good about ours makes it even more brilliant.  Not that most people were paying attention...

4)I gush over neither The Stones nor The Monkees. They were 2 bands who saw which way the Beatles wind was blowing and then coasted along with it (although I do like the Monkees).

  That's cool.  I love the Stones and Monkees.  Just pointing out that copying exists even in a "Renaissance."  I think the problem you have is that popular music is worse.  Or radio is worse, than when you were young.  And that could be true.  There is still tons of great music being made, but it's harder to find.  Plus, we are still partly riding the dominant genre for the past few decades -- you can't expect another Beatles to come from within rock and roll.

5) Steely Dan got the nostagic reward because they hadn't won before and the Grammies felt sorry for them. Now in the case of Dylan, he happened to make a masterwork. Age discrimination can go both ways. Any way, there is no way that Steely Dan's album was better than Kid A.

  I don't know, I think everything Steely Dan has done is better than Radiohead.  I don't know if I'd call Two Against Nature a masterwork, but it's a damn good album and it's unfair to think they only got a sympathy vote or that's all they're worth.  I could just as easly nail Radiohead for turning their backs on the song that got them popular in the first place.  Which is more crass?

4) I think you agree with me on this, so....

5) Johnny Cash, with help from Rick Ruben, made a statement. His first American Recordings album is one of the best albums of the past 25 years. I'm not saying not to give awards to the elderly, but in the grammys case, at least in previous years, it seemed they'd always take an old favorite over something cutting edge. In that particular year, none of the nominees came close to what Johnny Cash had accomplished on his record. The fact that it had only one nomination in an overlooked category was a travesty. They should have treated his final album the way they did with Ray Charles mediocre "Duets" album. But some sort of controversy about the actual release date blocked "The Man Comes Around" from getting it's due.

I do not own any Johnny Cash albums.  I'm not making statements about his talents, but to me Steely Dan is more interesting.  So when you accuse Steely Dan of only getting a vote because they're old and it's for sympathy, and I love the album they won for, I'm going to wonder why you're not nailing the Grammies for Johnny Cash, regardless of what he put out.

6)Right on. There's not point in arguing about it, when the subject is pointless to begin with.

 

Haha, yeah.  I don't really regard the Grammies, but it's good debating with you.

[al]

What did Bruce do?
I assume it was an acoustic Devils and Dust.

THe Grammys are the most absurd example of an awards show ever invented. I can't look at the list of categories without ACTUALLY laughing out loud. It begs so many follow on jokes.... but, what it is there to do, like its pale UK imitation (the Brits) is to CELEBRATE THE MUSIC INDUSTRY. Note the last word. All those corporate pillocks amassing cocaine mountains in their living rooms while they are still young enough to get down with the people (man....).

The list of winners over the last 10 years is enough to make you think there was nothing decent produced by anyone anywhere.

I Agree with cta about Maria Carey by the way after Live 8 (and actually well before that come to think of it). Its sad that someone like BW probably feels more vindicated by that award than by the fact he created some of the greatest records ever made in the 60's.

[I. Spaceman]

What did Bruce do?
I assume it was an acoustic Devils and Dust.

Yep.
Then simply said, "Send em home".
Bono stood up and applauded, which seemed an interesting admission of being utterly outclassed in the statement-department.

[Maybelline]

What did Bruce do?
I assume it was an acoustic Devils and Dust.

THe Grammys are the most absurd example of an awards show ever invented. I can't look at the list of categories without ACTUALLY laughing out loud. It begs so many follow on jokes.... but, what it is there to do, like its pale UK imitation (the Brits) is to CELEBRATE THE MUSIC INDUSTRY. Note the last word. All those corporate pillocks amassing cocaine mountains in their living rooms while they are still young enough to get down with the people (man....).

The list of winners over the last 10 years is enough to make you think there was nothing decent produced by anyone anywhere.

I Agree with cta about Maria Carey by the way after Live 8 (and actually well before that come to think of it). Its sad that someone like BW probably feels more vindicated by that award than by the fact he created some of the greatest records ever made in the 60's.

Alan, totally agree with you about the Brits - a revolting, back-slapping fest. However, respect to the Brits this year for nominating Kate Bush!  She's got to win, over MOR drivel like KT Tunstell (the new Dido). But she probably won't, since we could probably predict the winners now. Good on Macca for rejecting his lifetime achievement award... hilarious though that Paul Weller is willing to take it instead!
Always tend to find myself watching it, despite the cringe-factor.

[Sheriff John Stone]

A couple of random thoughts...

As I was watching Sly, I had the same feelings I usually get when watching Brian on TV. First, I can't take my eyes off of him, he's the only one I can focus on. Next, after about a minute goes by, I realize I'm physically holding my breath, not knowing what he's gonna do next, or not do next. While I was excited to see Sly re-emerge, I thought it was sad. He appeared lost and not "with it"...

Paul McCartney was great. I feel the same way about McCartney as I did about the Rolling Stones at the Super Bowl. Yes, I'm the old fogie type I guess, but I like it when the Old Guard gets a chance to show the young people what real rock and roll is. U2 did that last night also, by the way...

Is it my imagination, or is Bruce Springsteen starting to look and sound more and more like Bob Dylan circa 1984 or so...

Just a minor observation, but I enjoyed that little tribute at the end of the show to Wilson Pickett. I thought it was an excellent representation of "In The Midnight Hour". I was glad Springsteen hung around for it...

[Maybelline]

Bono makes me feel sick. So self-congratulatory.  

[Chris D.]

Good on Macca for rejecting his lifetime achievement award... hilarious though that Paul Weller is willing to take it instead!

Yeah, doesn't he usually copy the Beatles?

[I. Spaceman]

He appeared lost and not "with it"...

True, and the BW comparison is apt, BUT he was allowed to do what he wanted and when he wanted, heightening the "alien visitation" feeling of the moment, rather than pretending a shattered man is not, which is how the last year or so of the BW circus has felt to me.
The best would be if Syd Barrett was announced as a guest, then he got up on stage and talked for 15 minutes about gardening tips. That would be far more shocking and intense than playing "Arnold Layne".

[Sheriff John Stone]

Good on Macca for rejecting his lifetime achievement award... hilarious though that Paul Weller is willing to take it instead!
 

I missed this! I'll admit I walked away from the TV a few times to check on the old Smiley Smile Message Board...

Anyway, was this award for Paul as a solo or as a Beatle? Did he refuse to take the stage? Did they show him rejecting it?  Details please... Thanks...