I watched the Grammy Awards, and "don't get it".

[bassliner50]

For starts, I just don't "get" Adele. I try, but all I hear her sing are crap tunes which are over produced and over dramatized. Her voice is admittedly a strong instrument. Why does she insist on this pompous fluff all the time? People actually prefer this stuff? This is the best we can do? Gaga is a musically versatile and talented individual. Watching and listening to her last night was like putting my head in a meat grinder.
In contrast to the Grammy show, the other night I saw the Gershwin award given to Smokey Robinson. Every singer was brilliant. Every tune consisted of real music content. It seemed the goal was a higher art. Not the Grammy line up. Although the Grammy visuals and sets were outstanding and mildly entertaining, the material was all overly sugar coated, mega over produced fluff. Standing ovation from the audience. I would be (metaphorically) throwing tomatoes. Am I alone with this consistent negative reaction to this popular presentation?

 

[Gorn]

Why does she insist on this pompous fluff all the time? People actually prefer this stuff?

 

[zon6c-f]

I was disappointed when Jane Little wasn't mentioned during Memorium

 

[bassliner50]

View attachment 1055761 View attachment 1055762

Yes, I understand the profit motive. What about the quality music motive? There are singers who enjoy both. Michael Buble comes to mind.

 

[Gorn]

Yes, I understand the profit motive. What about the quality music motive? There are singers who enjoy both. Michael Buble comes to mind.

You just demonstrated the failure of the argument. Taste is subjective. I don't like Adele's music any more than you do and I like Michael Buble even less.

 

[steamthief]

The sooner you realize that art and commerce aren't synonymous, the more the Grammy awards make sense.

 

[Bob_Ross]

Yes, I understand the profit motive. What about the quality music motive?

The sooner you realize that art and commerce aren't synonymous, the more the Grammy awards make sense.

As a friend reminded me this morning, the Grammys are a Music Business award, not a Music award.

 

[bassliner50]

The sooner you realize that art and commerce aren't synonymous, the more the Grammy awards make sense.

Steamthief, I fully understand art vs. commerce and hopefully there is some overlap. Why then the Grammy award? Is not the the monetary rewards enjoyed by the "artist" acknowledgement enough? Sure I am making subjective statements, but to me statements subjective or not are vital in an area (music) I am passionate about. Why is an award such as the Congressional backed Gershwin award, hold artists to a higher standard (to my mind) than the Grammy which is 99% bombast?

 

[bassdude51]

No you are not alone and I don't get it either.

Fortunately, I didn't watch the Grammy Awards (or I should say that I am physically and mentally unable to watch it) but the few minutes of clips on CBS Morning News was more than enough to completely disturb me!

Seeing some knocked up woman do a tilting chair routine..............................OH GOD! Rubbish at it's finest!

You know, what is so upsetting? The so called artists or the brainless masses who like, watch and buy this crap?

 

[organworthyplayer337]

Is this not against the rules? Openly bashing an artist? Anyway, she makes more money (and probably talent... uh-oh!) than any of us combined. She's got Grammies, money, fame and success. And we have these kind of posts on TB.

 

[organworthyplayer337]

View attachment 1055761 View attachment 1055762

Yeah people seem to forget these things

 

[Gorn]

Yeah people seem to forget these things

True but I wasn't trying to say artists who make a lot of money are objectively good. That's just it. There is no objectively good music or objectively funny comedy. It's all subjective. I think it's fair to say she is objectively talented as far as range and vocal control are concerned but that doesn't mean anyone has to like her music...although clearly many people do.

 

[buldog5151bass]

1. She has an amazing voice. You don't like her music.
2. Lady Gaga has an amazing voice. Many people don't like her music.
3. Comparing almost anyone to Smokey Robinson is kind of unfair ("he's a good ballplayer, but he ain't no Babe Ruth").
4. I heard a little of the Smokey tribute, and turned it off as soon as I heard "Crusing" - I thought they mangled it with inferior voices. To each their own.

 

[bassliner50]

Is this not against the rules? Openly bashing an artist? Anyway, she makes more money (and probably talent... uh-oh!) than any of us combined. She's got Grammies, money, fame and success. And we have these kind of posts on TB.

More than anything else, I believe we are weighing the merits of the Grammy award, their presentation and the judging standards by which they choose who to present to us as the "crown jewels" of musical achievement.

 

[FilterFunk]

The Billboard Music Awards make a lot more sense. The Billboard awards are all about who sells the most product. The awards are titled "Top," as in "Top Country Artist" or "Top Rock Album" according to sales, as opposed to the subjective pretense of "Best."

 

[ahc]

This is why there's chocolate, vanilla, and 28 other flavors. And you don't have to like any or all of them.

 

[mellowinman]

Ha! I've got you beat! I didn't watch the Grammy Awards and don't get it.

I've practically built a life out of not getting things!

 

[jthisdell]

I would like to see if Adele could sing a happy song, or at least one less sad.

 

[Chasarms]

Musicians almost never "get" popular music.

 

[Obese Chess]

Grammy season is one of my favorite times of the year to be online because I get to see just how cool and smart everyone is for hating pop music.