Grammys - Page 4

michael_atw · #61 02-11-2013, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluewine

I'm 60 and I realized a long time ago I was not going to get stuck in the 60s, 70s, 80s or the 90s.

I embrace all these new young talented artist doing new things.

There wasn't a performance I couldn't find value in.

Blue

I'm not very good at embracing rehashed overdone nonsense.

If I can listen to old bands and hear the same thing almost verbatim, why pay for a new album?

michael_atw · #62 02-11-2013, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nutso42

Also, how did Mumford & Sons win Album of the Year, but lose Best Americana/Roots Album?
Wouldn't winning Album of the Year kind of guarantee your album would be the best in another category?

Because Mumford and Sons is as much Americana/roots as Taylor Swift is country-western.

hrodbert696 · #63 02-11-2013, 05:04 PM

Geez, there's a lot of "get off my lawn" getting yelled around here.

You know, if you like 70s blues-rock better than 2000s blues-rock, fine, more power to you. Everyone can listen to what they like. The Grammies don't exist to tell this year's musicians that they're not as good as musicians from forty years ago. They exist to reward (or publicize) whatever the industry wants to publicize about THIS year's music.

And frankly, if the Black Keys or Mumford and Sons or whoever are turning teenagers on THIS year to how cool it is to play a guitar or a banjo or bang some drums, I don't think there's any need to go snooty and say they don't do it as well as (fill in the blank) from forty years ago. They themselves would be the first to say so. But they're making that kind of music fresh and new for a new generation, rather than just telling them to sit around in corduroys and cardigans and fuzzy slippers listening to their grandparents' music. For that, I'm perfectly happy for them to get a little buzz in the media and a shiny prize.

**Pacman** · #64 02-11-2013, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrodbert696

Geez, there's a lot of "get off my lawn" getting yelled around here.

Betwwen the geezers and the hipsters, this thread is crowded.

michael_atw · #65 02-11-2013, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacman

Betwwen the geezers and the hipsters, this thread is crowded.

I'm 26, neither a hipster nor geezer. Just someone who has a varied taste in music and doesn't reward redundancy as much as others.

I appreciate Mumford for what they are - repetitive stomp-rock. If you've listened to their 2 albums, you would know exactly what I'm talking about. My guess is most in this thread haven't. The Lumineers are basically the same thing. That segment of the indie/"Americana" genre is getting over-saturated and it only took a year.

The garage-rock genre is over-saturated as well; The Black Keys do nothing new and IMHO shouldn't be rewarded for redundancy. But they will be, because that's the name of the game in pop music.

4001 · #66 02-11-2013, 05:54 PM

Here today and gone tomorrow.
It's all about quick money and fame.
Nothing that will ever rise to the level as, let's say, Close To The Edge for example.

**Pacman** · #67 02-11-2013, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael_atw

I'm 26, neither a hipster nor geezer. Just someone who has a varied taste in music and doesn't reward redundancy as much as others.

Who said I was talking about you? A little defensive there. That should be a red flag.

bluewine · #68 02-11-2013, 06:46 PM

Those artist were up their for a reason. Whether you like it or not. They are selling records and calling the shots.

I enjoyed it, I do not want to see 50 year old acts on the Grammys.

Blue

4001 · #69 02-11-2013, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluewine

Those artist were up their for a reason. Whether you like it or not. They are selling records and calling the shots.

I enjoyed it, I do not want to see 50 year old acts on the Grammys.

Blue

Chick Corea, Stanley Clarke and Sting are kids? Didn't I read somewhere in this thread that they were on the show?

Tupac · #70 02-11-2013, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael_atw

The garage-rock genre is over-saturated as well; The Black Keys do nothing new and IMHO shouldn't be rewarded for redundancy. But they will be, because that's the name of the game in pop music.

Excellent way to put it. The way I see it, the music is dying for throwback bands that stick to the classic rock band formula, they and the Foo Fighters are making heaps playing it as safe as possible. Audiences are saying "Hmm, this electronic synth stuff MGM and everyone is doing is kinda cool, but I think I'll go back to rock bands."

Now what music today REALLY needs are bands that put some energy into their shows and music, like RHCP does (or possibly did). People just want to go back to the basics.

Shakin-Slim · #71 02-11-2013, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluewine

Those artist were up their for a reason. Whether you like it or not. They are selling records and calling the shots.

I enjoyed it, I do not want to see 50 year old acts on the Grammys.

Blue

Nobody is doubting that they are talented. It's just a shame that most people who win awards are among the least talented of commercially available artists. I was very surprised and happy to see Robert Glasper won an award. Just like when Esperanza won best new artist over Bieber. These are good signs. Sure, Bruno Mars can sing, but so can Gretchen Parlato, and a damn sight better.

I think what Grammy-haters, myself included, need to realise is that they are a platform for awards to be given to a commercial success. "Best" doesn't really mean anything in the award titles. Therefore, we should let them alone with their success and their false notions that they are the 'best so and so'. It's just a shame that consumers fall for that, rather than their ears.

michael_atw · #72 02-11-2013, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacman

Who said I was talking about you? A little defensive there. That should be a red flag.

A red flag for what?

If you don't agree with me, you were talking about me. No need to play silly mind games about it.

My guess is you don't know what a "hipster" is and characterize anyone who makes criticism of modern music as a "geezer". Luckily, opinions backed up with information are valid.

**Pacman** · #73 02-11-2013, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael_atw

A red flag for what?

When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit. You yelped.

Quote:

If you don't agree with me, you were talking about me. No need to play silly mind games about it.

My guess is you don't know what a "hipster" is and characterize anyone who makes criticism of modern music as a "geezer". Luckily, opinions backed up with information are valid.

I know exactly what both are.

Actually, all opinions are valid, whether backed by information or not.

FilterFunk · #74 02-11-2013, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacman

When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit.

Siggable.

MarkMgibson · #75 02-12-2013, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacman

When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit. You yelped

Indeed, but rocks can be aimed at a particular dog.

Tupac · #76 02-12-2013, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shakin-Slim

Nobody is doubting that they are talented. It's just a shame that most people who win awards are among the least talented of commercially available artists. I was very surprised and happy to see Robert Glasper won an award. Just like when Esperanza won best new artist over Bieber. These are good signs. Sure, Bruno Mars can sing, but so can Gretchen Parlato, and a damn sight better.

I think what Grammy-haters, myself included, need to realise is that they are a platform for awards to be given to a commercial success. "Best" doesn't really mean anything in the award titles. Therefore, we should let them alone with their success and their false notions that they are the 'best so and so'. It's just a shame that consumers fall for that, rather than their ears.

Wait... Beiber was up for best new artist? He was very popular in 2009 or 2010.

bluewine · #77 02-12-2013, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4001

Chick Corea, Stanley Clarke and Sting are kids? Didn't I read somewhere in this thread that they were on the show?

One of the high points of the show and Stanley looked like a million bucks.

Blue

Dean N · #78 02-12-2013, 07:43 AM

I was just happy to see a couple ensemble bands tear it up on stage.

Chick and Stanley were a total surprise, and a great one at that.

Jhengsman · #79 02-12-2013, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tupac

Wait... Beiber was up for best new artist? He was very popular in 2009 or 2010.

From the wiki:
The official guidelines are as follows: "For a new artist who releases, during the Eligibility Year, the first recording which establishes the public identity of that artist." Note that this is not necessarily the first album released by an artist.

Sounds like as soon as you become enough popular the industry will use that for promotion and claim you are a new artist at the point

GregC · #80 02-12-2013, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbybj

There are two distinctly different things going on in a Grammy telecast; Awards, and performances. Thanks to the magic of TIVO, and before that VCR's, for as long as I can remember, our family has had great fun, and on occasion, had our minds blown, by the performances.

The awards and acceptance speeches are just a surreal high speed snowy image, flying by in fast forward. Approached in this fashion, I love the Grammys.

I think you've hit on something important here. The awards are often, IMO, misguided and sometimes lead me to think "***?" The performances vary quite a bit, but they can sometimes be worth watching and are occasionally (dare I say it) actually compelling.