• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Are the Grammys still relevant?

Hmm, I'm just sitting here shaking my head, because I watched the entire show, but missed a lot:

Arianna Grandé won best pop rock vocal album
High on Fire won best Heavy Metal performance

There are heaps more, so I just stopped reading. They glossed over many of the awards for performances I could not care less about.
Alicia Keys playing two pianos, when she could have easily played just one.

Many moments like that which gave my head a wobble. What were they thinking?

Can't even find Black Sabbath on their winners page, had to do a gOOgley-mOOgley to get that:

upload_2019-2-11_9-6-27.png
 
Last edited:
I have not watched any of the awards shows for years. More recently it's been much of the same and tiresome at times with the content. Rich celebrities trying to tell me how to be and what to believe in...yeah no thanks. To be honest I also question a lot of the times those who make final decisions who wins awards and the integrity of the awards themselves.
 
What do you want? Good Grammy or good taste? Corporate Nashville taints everything it touches; the American Music Awards is another example. Nashville now is plumping Americana just like it did bluegrass when "Oh Brother" made a splash at the theaters, when it fact, except for $$$, it cares for neither.
Thank you for giving me my next band name: Nashville Taints!
 
  • Like
Reactions: kentiki
I have not watched any of the awards shows for years. More recently it's been much of the same and tiresome at times with the content. Rich celebrities trying to tell me how to be and what to believe in...yeah no thanks. To be honest I also question a lot of the times those who make final decisions who wins awards and the integrity of the awards themselves.

Agreed. It's actually amusing when a group like the music or film elite, which includes some truly horrible people, become the self-appointed moral compass of the world.
 
Thank you for giving me my next band name: Nashville Taints!

Oh, but there's better than that available. I am on a panel of student symposium reviewers for my University. One of the projects is a study of local flora, and every plant cataloged in the abstract IMO would make a superb band name: Boynton's Oak, Elf Orpine (for acoustic folkies), Nuttall's Rayless-Goldenrod (dibs on this one), Harper's Dodder, Small-head Blazing Star, White Sunnybells.
 
I didn't catch much of it, and I think it's meaningless, but I did catch Brandi Carlisle's performance and I will be listening to more of her for sure. Wish Margo Price coulda won something as well. But yeah - I spent most of the show cooking dinner for my family (happily) and cleaning up (happily) to avoid it.
 
Kinda hard to discuss relevance year by year other than by album sales. Plenty here seem to be saying they aren't relevant, but, in the opinions of those who run them it's kinda hard to measure relevance by any other measure, that and streaming services. Sure, some acts will disappear next year, others will endure, and other acts won't sell enough albums to make the cut but will achieve some long-term relevance, many still won't even make that. To figure out who will achieve endurance is kinda hard - how do you operationalize that so as to even start measuring it, and better yet predict which act will endure. Year to year, though, sales seem to be a pretty solid indicator of what's relevant that year (whether or not it endures is a different thing), that and potentially the amount of writing there may be published about an act.

That being said, yeah, there's lots of that's really popular stuff that I hate, and I'm terrible at staying current in music - so why would I personally care about the grammys or anybody that's been on them? I mean, it's great for lady gaga who made yet another earworm, it's also great for anybody else that even got nominated. Furthermore, I really doubt anybody wanted to celebrate the life of Erik Peterson at the grammys the year he passed - he just didn't have the clout - but to say that his work hasn't had a profound effect on some people just because he never won an award for it would be just as incorrect as saying that Lady Gagas awards don't count for anything (or that she hasn't similarly inspired people) because people only buy the catchiest of music in droves.

As for whether or not the Grammys themselves are relevant, how much we're talking about it might make a yes. Its endurance can be discussed if we're talking about them three years from now.

Excellent post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Son of Wobble