PGT: Grammys

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by valo403

You do realize that Arcade Fire wasn't mentioned at all in the post, right?

I agree with what he's saying for the most part, the Grammy's does a poor job of staying in touch with what the majority of people are into. It may be crap, but if they're trying to stay relevant to their audience they need to do a better job of that or accept a diminshing audience.

My mistake. The 5 or so posts I read before that were all taking about AF, so I assume he was still talking about them.

As for the other comment, the point of the Grammys is just to pick the best music. For just pure popularity there's the Billboard music awards. Personally, I don't mind someone I've never heard of winning. It's a opportunity to potentially find some new music to listen to.

If the Grammys start simply picking the most popular artists to stay relevant then they go from being elitists to being sellouts. No matter what they do people are going to break out the name calling when they don't have their own opinions validated.

[troutman]

I prefer the trouties.

1. New Pornographers - Together
2. Vampire Weekend - Contra
3. Ariel Pink's Haunted Graffiti - Before Today
4. Mark Sultan - $
5. MGMT - Congratulations
6. The Roots - How I Got Over
7. Jason & The Scorchers - Halcyon Days
8. Arcade Fire - The Suburbs
9. Surfer Blood - Astrocoast
10. Best Coast - Crazy For You
11. Land Of Talk - Cloak And Cipher
12. Warpaint - The Fool
13. Paul Weller - Wake Up The Nation
14. Los Lobos - Tin Can Trust
15. Superchunk - Majesty Shredding

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

If the Grammys start simply picking the most popular artists to stay relevant then they go from being elitists to being sellouts. No matter what they do people are going to break out the name calling when they don't have their own opinions validated.

Umm... isn't that exactly what they are doing now?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by JDub81

To me, music, movies and television are all about individual tastes. For the most part, I'm not into hard-core heavy metal or the super hard rap where every other word is the f word for mf or the n word. However, I recognize that this industry is consumer driven and some people like and buy that kind of music. They are music fans, just as much as I'm a music fan.

from the Grammy's official website:
"The GRAMMYs are the only peer-presented award to honor artistic achievement, technical proficiency and overall excellence in the recording industry, without regard to album sales or chart position."

Their mandate is to evaluate music from a technical perspective and rank it based on that. It's not about to each their own, our opinions are all equal as you view it.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by JDub81

Ok, I don't get this attitude. Just because someone isn't a fan of the music that you are a fan of, they aren't a fan of music at all?

And I'm not being a jerk - I just really don't understand this attitude.

To me, music, movies and television are all about individual tastes. For the most part, I'm not into hard-core heavy metal or the super hard rap where every other word is the f word for mf or the n word. However, I recognize that this industry is consumer driven and some people like and buy that kind of music. They are music fans, just as much as I'm a music fan.

Just because I might listen to and enjoy country music - doesn't mean I'm not a music fan. Just because I don't own and Arcade Fire album, doesn't mean I'm not a music fan.

What gives someone who listens to Arcade Fire, hates Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga the right to call him or herself a music expert?

Again, to be clear, I don't mean just you and I'm not saying your opinion isn't valid, I just would like to be able to understand where you and many others who have a similar opinion, are coming from.

I never said someone needs to be a fan of my music to be a fan of music. There are a lot of people I would consider fans of music whose tastes I can disagree with. Thats totally fine. What I take issue with is people who don't buy much music, don't listen to much other than what is presented to them on top 40 radio, don't know much beyond what they see on muchmusic, yet they act like their opinion is the gospel when it comes to whats good. They can think, like and say what they want. They have every right to. But who'se opinion am I going to trust and respect more when it comes to judging quality? Someone who buys and listens to a lot of music, different genres, goes to live shows -- or someoone who downloads a few of the latest hit singles and acts like they know whats going on with talented artists these days.

Its the same thing that this board does all the time to fairweather hockey fans. A lot of us love the game, the Flames, and we have the knowledge to back it up. We all know that guy who claims to be a huge fan when the team is good and can barely name the top line. He still has a right to call himself a hockey fan. He's just not a very big hockey fan.

That's why I used the word pallette. I don't need someone who eats at McDonald's as great restaurant experience telling me about fine dining. McDonald's is fine for what it is but I'm not going to regard that opinion on food as highly as someone who seeks out a more in depth cullinary experience.

Yes, it is personal opinion, but some people have a lot more experience with the subject matter to base their opinion on.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Umm... isn't that exactly what they are doing now?

According to the post I was replying to, they're doing the opposite.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

My mistake. The 5 or so posts I read before that were all taking about AF, so I assume he was still talking about them.

As for the other comment, the point of the Grammys is just to pick the best music. For just pure popularity there's the Billboard music awards. Personally, I don't mind someone I've never heard of winning. It's a opportunity to potentially find some new music to listen to.

If the Grammys start simply picking the most popular artists to stay relevant then they go from being elitists to being sellouts. No matter what they do people are going to break out the name calling when they don't have their own opinions validated.

Oh I completely agree, my point was imply that if they want to continue to compete with the other awards shows in terms of ratings etc. going forward they're going to have to accept popularity as part of it. They seem to be doing that over the last few years, which I didn't give them credit for in my previous post, but something about it seems pretty uncomfortable IMO.

[JDub81]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

from the Grammy's official website:
"The GRAMMYs are the only peer-presented award to honor artistic achievement, technical proficiency and overall excellence in the recording industry, without regard to album sales or chart position."

Their mandate is to evaluate music from a technical perspective and rank it based on that. It's not about to each their own, our opinions are all equal as you view it.

I wasn't referring to the Grammys in my post - I was responding to another post, which I quoted, saying that people aren't music fans if they don't like certain music.

I don't take issue with what the Grammys do at all - I don't watch them either, but I don't have a problem with them. I was just responding to another person's opinion that seemed to state "if you don't like my music, you aren't a fan of music".

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

You do realize that The Suburbs debuted at Billboard #1 in the United States, Canada and the UK? Arcade Fire has had pretty good commercial success; it's not like they picked some indy band that no one ever heard of.

I have no issues with Arcade Fire (I quite enjoy there music) winning hence I did not reference them anywhere in my post. The best new artist award though reeks of snooty art critic.

[JDub81]

Originally Posted by Igottago

I never said someone needs to be a fan of my music to be a fan of music. There are a lot of people I would consider fans of music whose tastes I can disagree with. Thats totally fine. What I take issue with is people who don't buy much music, don't listen to much other than what is presented to them on top 40 radio, don't know much beyond what they see on muchmusic, yet they act like their opinion is the gospel when it comes to whats good. They can think, like and say what they want. They have every right to. But who'se opinion am I going to trust and respect more when it comes to judging quality? Someone who buys and listens to a lot of music, different genres, goes to live shows -- or someoone who downloads a few of the latest hit singles and acts like they know whats going on with talented artists these days.

Its the same thing that this board does all the time to fairweather hockey fans. A lot of us love the game, the Flames, and we have the knowledge to back it up. We all know that guy who claims to be a huge fan when the team is good and can barely name the top line. He still has a right to call himself a hockey fan. He's just not a very big hockey fan.

That's why I used the word pallette. I don't need someone who eats at McDonald's as great restaurant experience telling me about fine dining. McDonald's is fine for what it is but I'm not going to regard that opinion on food as highly as someone who seeks out a more in depth cullinary experience.

Yes, it is personal opinion, but some people have a lot more experience with the subject matter to base their opinion on.

Oh, but you did kind Sir (or Madame):
Originally Posted by Igottago
Great to see the Arcade Fire win, if for nothing else, just to irritate people like those twitter/facebook posts. Or simpletons as I like to call them. Yeah it might sound snobby, but if you're musical pallette consists only of the mainstream acts that we normally see at these awards shows, you are hardly any type of expert let alone authority on the world of music. I'd hardly classify you as a music fan. So nice to see Arcade Fire take home the big prize.

But the Grammy still suck and are hardly worth paying attention to.

That's where my question comes from. An expert and music fan are totally different as far as I'm cocnerned.
From your response to my post, I think you agree, so we're no longer disagreeing on the issue.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by GGG

I have no issues with Arcade Fire (I quite enjoy there music) winning hence I did not reference them anywhere in my post. The best new artist award though reeks of snooty art critic.

I posted earlier in the thread that the reason she won is because she is a true musical prodigy who attended Julliard at 16 and now by 23 she is a teacher there. Earning a music degree is hard enough, but doing it at one of the arguably most prestigious schools in the world on a full scholarship is simply incredible. She has also performed at the White House among other prestigious places.

And come on, let's face it. She's a hot girl who play's stand-up bass.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by North East Goon

They were up for best rock album, not newest rock band?

So if this category of music is still being dominated by Tom Petty and Neal Young, and Jeff Beck and the new entrants to the field are Pearl Jam and Muse there is something wrong with the category.

I mean Pearl Jam's new album was okay but certainly not nomination worthy. It was another album in great body of work but not outstanding.

So if these are the best rock albums why does this category exist.

Or best Rock Solo performance

Clapton, MaCartney, Plant and Young? Is this nominees for lifetime achievement?

Then the bands aren't even consistant with what categories they are in. Rock performance duo or group. Aracade Fire and the Black Keys are nominated. This makes sense by then why are they an Alternative act when the nominees are for best Album.

The only time Alternative music existed was at the end of the Hair Band Rock era when Alternative was an alternative and really was a different genre. Now alternative music is rock music. So merge the two together.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I posted earlier in the thread that the reason she won is because she is a true musical prodigy who attended Julliard at 16 and now by 23 she is a teacher there. Earning a music degree is hard enough, but doing it at one of the arguably most prestigious schools in the world on a full scholarship is simply incredible. She has also performed at the White House among other prestigious places.

And come on, let's face it. She's a hot girl who play's stand-up bass.

Julliard graduates talented people every year. Bieber has performed at the Whitehouse too. At some point popular opinion should come into play in these awards. She also released a self titled album in 2008. Not to mention her first album in 2006. So how is she a new artists Not considering at least somewhat what people actually listen to is Pretentious.

Anyway the grammy's is what it is. It is a music Critic's opportunity to look down at popular culture and say how much better they are than everyone else while at the same time pimping themselves out to the popular artists who they get to preform to drive their ratings.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by JDub81

I wasn't referring to the Grammys in my post - I was responding to another post, which I quoted, saying that people aren't music fans if they don't like certain music.

I don't take issue with what the Grammys do at all - I don't watch them either, but I don't have a problem with them. I was just responding to another person's opinion that seemed to state "if you don't like my music, you aren't a fan of music".

Fair enough about the Grammys, but I think you're misunderstanding that other quote then.
No one is saying that you have to like what they like (at least I didn't read it that way), but I think a lot of people in this thread would argue that a well rounded and exposed ear to lots of music, an active interest in purchasing music, and frequently attending music concerts gives you a more credible opinion when trying to judge music on some technical level as the Grammys does.
The people on that facebook page who haven't even heard of the Arcade Fire clearly would not fit into that category.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by GGG

Julliard graduates talented people every year. Bieber has performed at the Whitehouse too. At some point popular opinion should come into play in these awards. She also released a self titled album in 2008. Not to mention her first album in 2006. So how is she a new artists Not considering at least somewhat what people actually listen to is Pretentious.

Anyway the grammy's is what it is. It is a music Critic's opportunity to look down at popular culture and say how much better they are than everyone else while at the same time pimping themselves out to the popular artists who they get to preform to drive their ratings.

Yeah, the popular opinion of people who know what they're talking about.

[Traditional_Ale]

Oh, and I guess I don't know what I'm talking about. She went to Berklee, not Julliard.

[Matata]

Katy Perry was up for album of the year. That's all you really need to know about the grammy's.

[Diverce]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Fair enough about the Grammys, but I think you're misunderstanding that other quote then.
No one is saying that you have to like what they like (at least I didn't read it that way), but I think a lot of people in this thread would argue that a well rounded and exposed ear to lots of music, an active interest in purchasing music, and frequently attending music concerts gives you a more credible opinion when trying to judge music on some technical level as the Grammys does.
The people on that facebook page who haven't even heard of the Arcade Fire clearly would not fit into that category.

The people they get to vote are in the industry, active members in the industry, people with years of experience in the industry. The voting process is very extensive and they do it the way they do it so there is no bias.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Matata

Katy Perry was up for album of the year. That's all you really need to know about the grammy's.

Not to defend her music itself because it is crap but it was at least the Album of the summer. Could you go for a drive this summer without hearing someone blasting it from there car?

It really comes down to the definition of 'good music'. Is it commercially successful, technically proficient, ground breaking, or music that is really good but no one knows about. Or has the music affected our culture and buying habits.

Take Bieber for example, from Tom Brady copying his hair to producing a movie that opens at number one he has become a cultural product of all that is terrible about modern celebrity through his music. As much as I hate everything that he represents he or his machine probably deserve an award for doing it the best.

The definition of 'art' is something impossible to define and many times critics enjoy using expanded knowledge of an 'art' to make themselves appear smarter or better.

[theinfinitejar]

Originally Posted by GGG

Not to defend her music itself because it is crap but it was at least the Album of the summer. Could you go for a drive this summer without hearing someone blasting it from there car?

If only there were some way to recognize artists for for selling lots of records...

Spoiler!

http://www.billboard.com/#/