View Full Version : 49th Annual Grammy Awards
Well the Dixie Chicks cleaned house...deservedly so with all the hell they went through for using their 1st amendment rights. As far as the show went, I personally felt that every performance was quality this year and enjoyed this one more than I have in recent memory. Watching that girl live out her dream on stage with JT was fun - she was a pretty darn good performer too!
Nice nod to the Godfather of soul. Christina has a set of pipes on her like I've never heard in a pop singer. Excellent show.
ryudo
02-12-2007, 05:13 AM
didn't watch but I know my brother is there since CBS makes him go but he hates going with a passion to these shows...but it's part of his job.
wildey
02-12-2007, 06:20 AM
I never watch award shows. It always seems that the people that really deserve to win never do. but that maybe just a matter of opinion
magunwarrior
02-12-2007, 01:48 PM
I really don't like a lot of mainstream music so I didn't watch.
I really don't like a lot of mainstream music so I didn't watch.
Yea, hear you. I watch mainly for the spectacle of it all, and to see who's making noise that I might not have paid attention to previously. After last night I'm looking forward to hearing more from John Legend. Corinne Bailey Rae is a hell of a singer/songwriter too, who I hadn't heard anything from besides the played out "Put Your Records On." I checked out some samples, and her album is layered with beautiful sounds...it's different - acoustic-influenced soul-folk that grooves in some places - kind of like if Feist and Erykah Badu ran into each other real hard.
It also made me want to purchase RHCP's Stadium Arcadium, which for some reason I haven't done yet, as I am a fan of most of their work.
ericjosepi
02-12-2007, 06:10 PM
I have to agree with magunwarrior on this one. The Grammies aren't about the talent. They are about the sales and how well the music can reach the 12-14 year old market. I mean... "My Humps" (the worst hip-hop song EVER) won for Best Performance By A Duo with Vocals. Why didn't they give that to Keane? "Is It Any Wonder" is a much better tune! "Confessions on a Dance Floor" got Best Electronic? Madonna didn't even have anything to do with the production of that album. They could have at least acknowledged that fact. And since when is Wolfmother "hard" rock? At least Slayer won the damned Metal Award. I would hate to see a repeat of the Jethro Tull incident. Also, Gnarls Barkley as alternative? Try Hip-Hop!
It's just a load of overall terrible choices this year.
MK - Definitely check out Stadium Arcadium. Awesome album.
The Grammies aren't about the talent. They are about the sales and how well the music can reach the 12-14 year old market....
<snip>
Well, objective opinions about music always come into play here...who belongs in what genre, which song/album was better in your opinion, etc. The Academy Awards run into many of the same problems. I have to disagree with your main argument though: the Grammy Awards are about sales and how well the music can reach the 12-14 year old market.
From the complete list of winnners (http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/49th_Show/list.aspx), I count only a few who remotely qualify this statement. If anything, this year's awards and performances were mainly centered around quality of work (within a particular genre) and the rich tradition of American music. Naturally, there will be genres here that influence your opinion on this (some genres lend themselves to your aforementioned younger demographic more than others), but overall I'd say that most teenie boppers wouldn't be excited about 90% of the award winners and performances from last night's show.
BusinessWire (http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070104005813&newsLang=en) lists the top 10 selling albums/songs of 2006 (1/2/2006-12/31/2006). You'll notice that many in the top 10 selling albums, songs, artists, etc. do not correspond with Grammy winners, and those that do appeal to more than just the 12-14 year old market (in my opinion, of course).
Don't get me wrong - I'm not a Grammy defender by any means...there are plenty of selections I disagree with every year, and a majority of the music I listen to never makes it to this level of exposure. However, I'd never close my mind and tune out the "big players" (I love music too much to do so), and this year I felt rewarded for doing it.
Thanks for validating Stadium Arcadium - I'm going to check it out on Urge now (two week free trial..yay).
popltree2
02-12-2007, 09:10 PM
I tuned in for The Police reunion performance and then changed channels. They sooo better be going on tour this summer....
ericjosepi
02-12-2007, 10:29 PM
From the complete list of winnners (http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/49th_Show/list.aspx), I count only a few who remotely qualify this statement. If anything, this year's awards and performances were mainly centered around quality of work (within a particular genre) and the rich tradition of American music. Naturally, there will be genres here that influence your opinion on this (some genres lend themselves to your aforementioned younger demographic more than others), but overall I'd say that most teenie boppers wouldn't be excited about 90% of the award winners and performances from last night's show.
BusinessWire (http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070104005813&newsLang=en) lists the top 10 selling albums/songs of 2006 (1/2/2006-12/31/2006). You'll notice that many in the top 10 selling albums, songs, artists, etc. do not correspond with Grammy winners, and those that do appeal to more than just the 12-14 year old market (in my opinion, of course).
Thanks for validating Stadium Arcadium - I'm going to check it out on Urge now (two week free trial..yay).
Maybe my 12-14 year old comment was out of place in this argument (I'm just getting sick of the little brats (in Alberta the minimum work age is 12 now) running rampant over the mall and the little high school mingers blasting the same 12 hip-hop/pop songs over and over again. The main issue I have is that the Grammies tend to be about what's popular and what's on the radio. For instance, Imogen Heap (I've known about her for years, **** the OC) should have won best new artist. She didn't win because she wouldn't have been a popular enough choice among the mainstream media and you rarely hear her music on pop radio. Carrie Underwood on the other hand is America's sweetheart right now so it just seems obvious that they would pick her. I'm still not sure how Gnarls Barkley got on the Alternative list though. That just blows my mind!
For instance, Imogen Heap (I've known about her for years, **** the OC) should have won best new artist.
Yea, I feel you there...she was certainly my pick for best new artist. The whole album is great, and from what I understand she did most of the work on it. I'm guessing the lack of exposure really hurt...even if Hide and Seek has been on every TV program in the last year, there's been relatively no radio/marketing support.
One good thing about Grammy nominations is that it gets the attention of the public who doesn't pay attention to these artists beforehand. I guarantee a lot more people know about Imogen now than 3 days ago, which is the big payoff (her "forest-in-a-hat" might have helped out there too).
ericjosepi
02-13-2007, 04:37 PM
One good thing about Grammy nominations is that it gets the attention of the public who doesn't pay attention to these artists beforehand. I guarantee a lot more people know about Imogen now than 3 days ago, which is the big payoff (her "forest-in-a-hat" might have helped out there too).
I will give you that. Now in their ads and on their Wikipedia entries and their website biography and their MySpace they can list themselves as "Grammy Nominated." Actually... I think for the next few weeks HMV has "Grammy Nominee" displays and stickers. So, yeah... it is good exposure.
And for any other Imogen Heap fans, she did an album with super-producer Guy Sigsworth under the name Frou Frou. Very good pop album.