What do the Grammy's mean?

RexNFX79 · #1 02-01-2010, 11:38 AM

I started thinking after the "Is Rock Dead" thread. I'm wondering if you are a true fan of quality music, what do the Grammy's even mean, if anything? Let us not forget that Jethro Tull beat Metallica for a Metal Performance Grammy once and Ricky Martin and Michael Bolton as well as Brittany Spears all have a grammy on the mantle. If you're a true fan of music, should you even care about such an award? It seems that the musicians that most of us look up to can't get near the Grammy's anymore.

salcott · #2 02-01-2010, 11:40 AM

Nothing.

Captain Simian · #3 02-01-2010, 11:48 AM

I have not watched the Grammy's since George Michael won Album of the Year. That was in 1990.

jkramer5 · #4 02-01-2010, 11:52 AM

The Grammys and The Academy Awards among others are just rewards given by the appropriate industry to itself. Sometimes they reward quality and talent, sometimes they don't.

Mostly they mean hype to drive sales and always have. They've become some of the most expensive, slickly produced, longest info-mercials there are.

rappa29 · #5 02-01-2010, 11:53 AM

FWIW, there are many Grammys awarded in other categories that are not 'tv worthy'.

An old college buddy won a Grammy for his work doing computer music for radio\television.

My best friend's bass instructor won a Grammy for his work Mastering a Jazz album (IIRC Spyro Gyra).

There are categories for many genres other than the one's shown on TV. But obviously, who gives a rat's ass about 'Best Jazz Album Mastering'! LOL!

conebeckham · #6 02-01-2010, 11:55 AM

Colbert's comments at the beginning, re celebrities congratulating each other, and celebrities giving each other awards, pretty much nailed it.

RexNFX79 · #7 02-01-2010, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkramer5

The Grammys and The Academy Awards among others are just rewards given by the appropriate industry to itself. Sometimes they reward quality and talent, sometimes they don't.

Mostly they mean hype to drive sales and always have. They've become some of the most expensive, slickly produced, longest info-mercials there are.

I agree but at least the Oscars still, in some cases, award really good acting or filmaking. The Oscar doesn't always go to the crappy movie that sold the most tickets like the Grammy's always seem to do. Of course Titanic kind of blows my argument out of the water

funkmangriff · #8 02-01-2010, 12:03 PM

Award ceremony's are just things made up as a way of advertising and promoting artist IMO, its the same with films, rubbish high budget films often win big awards, its a way of keeping interest high for the films, therefore DVD's, CD's and all the other products keep selling.

MysticMichael · #9 02-01-2010, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RexNFX79

I started thinking after the "Is Rock Dead" thread. I'm wondering if you are a true fan of quality music, what do the Grammy's even mean, if anything?

It's not about art - it's about commerce. Bottom line: It's all about money...

MM

southpaw76 · #10 02-01-2010, 12:18 PM

It's a popularity contest plain and simple. It's more about how much an (so called)artist sells as opposed to the quality of the product they produce. At least that's what I have noticed over the years.

sp

ERIC31 · #11 02-01-2010, 12:18 PM

Nothing. It's a circle jerk for the industry. Who's the most fabulous and who moved the most units. Doesn't have much to do with quality music 98% of the time.

JTE · #12 02-01-2010, 12:22 PM

CORRECTION- the voting body is NARAS, not RIAA. See post #30 below.

The Grammys (not "Grammy's" BTW, that's a possesive, not a plural) are mostly about record sales. The ~~Recording Industry Association of America, the people who certify gold records and other stuff is the body that awards them~~. And it really is about record sales, not content. The Beach Boys only won one Grammy, and that was for the putrid record "Kokomo", not for any of the brilliant Brian Wilson works. That's because when Brian and the Beach Boys were making the really good music, rock 'n' roll oriented stuff was too far out for the RIAA to acknowledge.

So, years later, out of guilt, they'll award someone a Grammy. The year Jethro Tull won out over Metallica, the people who voted in the Grammy process had no idea who Metallica was, and little concept of what "heavy metal" might actually be. The guys in Tull were surprised- they didn't even go to the ceremony because THEY knew they shouldn't win it.

The music business has ceased mattering to me years ago. The only good things about the award show (Grammys specifically) is the all too infrequent chance to hear/watch some good musical performance. What little I saw last night was pretty low on that scale. Jeff Beck is always worth watching (for me), so the Les Paul tribute was interesting to me ('though why'd they use a pre-recorded track for the vocals?). Taylor Swift still has trouble singing in tune consistently, but she's better than when she started in the biz. The so-called "country" band that performed with Leon Russel was interesting. I've heard them on the radio and dismissed them as more bland contemporary country pop fodder, but at least they can sing. Mary J. Blige, Jennifer Hudson and Smokey Robinson were the only real singers I saw all night.

John

CapnSev · #13 02-01-2010, 12:26 PM

The Grammys mean that I had something to watch on TV last night... That is all.

stoolpigeon · #14 02-01-2010, 12:28 PM

Screw the Grammys...Taylor Swift...really?????

Bass_Thumper · #15 02-01-2010, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salcott

Nothing.

+1 It's just a party so that the folks that really moving some units can get together and have a party. They are way more concerned with entertainment than music that's for sure. The Zac Brown Band and Jeff Beck were the only ones that I saw last night that had me interested.

How about the auto-tune battle featuring Jamie Fox.