I'm not sure if the nominations are funny, or just sad.
They've really gotten to the point where they're only recognizing popularity and showing zero interest in actual artistry. They might as well combine the Grammys with the Billboard awards.
----- Stay gold, Ponyboy. Stay gold.
Posts: 5267 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
Originally posted by ericg75: I'm not sure if the nominations are funny, or just sad.
They've really gotten to the point where they're only recognizing popularity and showing zero interest in actual artistry. They might as well combine the Grammys with the Billboard awards.
Usually there is at least one or two albums that are given fair recognition from the Grammy’s like in 2000 when Kid A, Midnite Vultures (although released in 1999) and The Marshall Mathers LP were all deservingly nominated for album of the year. And I think that in 2003, Outkast's split album and Elephant were the front runners in the album of the year battle. But it is true that lately, less and less quality albums are being nominated.
----- I go to sleep and think you're next to me.
Posts: 5752 | Location: Texas | Registered: 27 December 2005
If you're a metacritic regular, then the Grammy's are probably not for you. It's even worse at rewarding excellence or independence than the Oscars. That said, after reading through the list, there were two good nominations:
Mastodon for "Colony of Birchmen" - Best Metal Performance Wolfmother for "Woman" - Best Hard Rock Performance
I suppose those two making the list is because those albums had good sales.
********************** Metal-Archives POTD
quote:
I'm looking for Russian Militant Black Metal. Semi-good production is a plus, as are clean vocals (if kept to a minimum). Also looking for vocals in Russian. Basically like a Russian version of Absurd...
Posts: 932 | Location: Ain'T it stiLl obvious? | Registered: 22 August 2006
Originally posted by ezkcdude: That said, after reading through the list, there were two good nominations:
Mastodon for "Colony of Birchmen" - Best Metal Performance Wolfmother for "Woman" - Best Hard Rock Performance
I suppose those two making the list is because those albums had good sales.
I think I saw that Goldfrapp and Zero 7 are nominated in the Electronic/Dance category. I liked Supernature by Goldfrapp. I thought The Garden was kind of a snoozer.
Posts: 3130 | Location: FoCo | Registered: 07 January 2005
There are some good songs and albums scattered throughout the nominations, but I get the feeling it's a fluke. Mostly, I look at those categories and I get the impression that the academy members were trying to name five songs/albums that fit the bill.
----- Stay gold, Ponyboy. Stay gold.
Posts: 5267 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
I think between nominating Mary J. Blige (who is awesome, always) and the Dixie Chicks (who are getting better with every record) a lot, the Grammys are getting better with each show.
Considering its a bunch of really, really old white dudes choosing all of these noms, they know soul and quality when they see it. Mary J. Blige should be the biggest star in the world. To the Grammys, she is. And that's a good thing.
Agreed with above poster. Either "Music Critics & Publications" or "out back, where we can shoot it" would be great locations for this thread and the awards it notes.
Posts: 570 | Location: Boston | Registered: 17 May 2004
Because its reflects what the NARAS chose to represent the best in music for an eligibility period,2/3rds of which was constituted by the first 8 months of 06.
Anyway, would agree that the nominations pretty much suck except for that outta left field nod for Imogen Heap in new artist. Guess these guys watch The O.C or somethin' 'cos Imogen or Frou Frou have never been on their radar. As for the mainstream snubs, I am surprised Nelly didn't get in Record of the Year for "Promiscuous" and Pink didn't get in anywhere for "Dear Mr. President". Also surprised that Arctic Monkeys didn't make it in New Artist even when they had the fastest selling Indie album ever in the States. Isn't that the kinda facts they care for while nominating people???
Just read the list. It confirms that the Grammys are a pathetic microcosm of EVERYTHING wrong with today's music industry. If Daniel Powter or James Blunt win a Grammy, I will take to the streets in violent protest.
Posts: 24 | Location: New York | Registered: 10 August 2006
you know, i'm all for a catchy tune getting cred over an overwrought orchestra of experimental music, but:
My Humps The Black Eyed Peas Track from: Monkey Business [A&M Records]
-----
one of the few songs i couldnt explain away to myself as tapping into something subconscious, something with hook, that was catchy for a number of non-obvious by very culturally relevant reasons. this song was stupefying from every angle, including her angular ass. aside from the insipid quality of the song, the utterly depressing ways they decide to fill time, and the utter failure to make fergie look sexy in any scenario, this is a song about a woman who has as much hump on her as paris hilton. hell, i might get around to thinking the song is funny if it was done by someone with a BODY, but this lumpy pile of ug has absolutely none of the qualities listed in the song, and people still got with it. i think maybe i'm getting old now?
also, the dance record section is embarassing. one of top 3 WORST reviewed albums that no one bought and managed to still seep into the consciousness of every cheap and lazy beat-seeker got placed simply because SOME GUY heard THAT NAME somewhere and though he was good because he persisted in releasing albums. paul oakenfold and his ilk have poisoned everything dirty and wonderful about electronic music for ten years now.
also, the dance record section is embarassing. one of top 3 WORST reviewed albums that no one bought and managed to still seep into the consciousness of every cheap and lazy beat-seeker got placed simply because SOME GUY heard THAT NAME somewhere and thought he was good because he persisted in releasing albums.
Good point, I didn't even notice that. It's like they didn't even listen to enough dance records to nominate five good ones. I'm surprised they didn't nominate Kevin Federline for something
Posts: 1376 | Location: Valparaiso, IN | Registered: 01 July 2006
And you know what? I will sit here in this chair, right now, the day after Christmas and say that I defend the essence of the Grammys. No other music awards comes close to the breadth and scope they do. In the last couple of years, credit is due to them for giving out tons of statues to new, promising artists like Alicia Keys and Norah Jones.
The Alternative section isn't that bad...And it is the section closer to my preferences than any of the others in the Grammy categories.
The Eraser: certainly not amazing by any means, but it is a pretty-sounding (if sometimes boring) album Show Your Bones: A disappointing album, but far above standard Adult Contemporary Rock. I liked "Gold Lion" and "Cheated Hearts" alot, and the entire album is listenable. St. Elsewhere: Probably the best album on the list, but I've only listened to it once. I wasn't blown away, it seemed creative at least; POPMATTERS' album of the year, if that means anything. At War with the Mystics: In my opinion, this is the weakest album of the group, and is only being recognized due to its popularity and namesake in so-called "alternative". Where were the Grammy judges in 1999 or 2004 when The Flaming Lips made phenomenal albums? Whatever People Say I Am...: While most Metacritic users stray from hype, Grammy Awards LOVE hyped albums, and almost always includes them in the awards. I certainly have nothing bad to say about this album, many people here love it, and I just am not a huge fan of the dancey brit-pop on the album.
Posts: 747 | Location: San Diego ==> Duke U. 2012 :D | Registered: 24 July 2006