You know who got the shaft at the grammies? Bloc Party's Silent Alarm and MIA'S Arular! Two wonderful albums who missed the best alternative album and best dance album categories respectively. Also, both of them could have been up for best new artist in my opinion. Does anyone agree/disagree? Have any other albums that got shafted?
hahaha...Oh no! The best artist didn't win the Grammy for which he/she was nominated! Go through the years and you'll find that this was probably the most progressive year ever for the Grammys (that is, U2 won for the album they tossed off in 2004).
It is a rare occcasion when the person you want to win an award does, not just the Grammey's either the Oscar's, Brit's, Nobel Peace Prize... Just life I guess.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Eccles,
I was perplexed with Clarkson beating Macca out. Granted I am a Macca fan, but when an artist writes the music, plays almost every instrument himself, and still has such strong vocal range in his 60s it was difficult to watch the Grammy go to a talented young woman who offered, primarily, a great voice. I don't know what the criteria is for making such a decision. If it is vocal talent, then she wins it and deserves it. If it overall talent, taking into consideration all skills, then McCartney deserves it.
I see the best album grammy as an indication of which album is the safest to declare yourself a fan of to a stranger at a party who isn't really into music.
Originally posted by Rev. Rikard: I was perplexed with Clarkson beating Macca out.
You assume that there is some sort of reasoning to the Grammy's. Trust me, there is not.
Nobody really cares about the Grammy's. People do care about the Oscar's though since the Oscars generally do reward at least one of the best films of the year.
Originally posted by Rev. Rikard: I was perplexed with Clarkson beating Macca out.
You assume that there is some sort of reasoning to the Grammy's. Trust me, there is not.
Nobody really cares about the Grammy's. People do care about the Oscar's though since the Oscars generally do reward at least one of the best films of the year.
What is the reasoning behind the Grammy's? I've never seen the program. Who does the voting, supposedly?
Members of the Record Academy vote on the Grammy's. I have no idea who all make up the Record Academy, but whoever they are they don't seem to care about rewarding good music.
I see the Grammys as the record industry congratulating itself for its commercial successes. The Album of the Year award is usually equivalent to a lifetime achievement award. This year it was U2, last year I believe it was Ray Charles, a few years before it was Steely Dan.
Originally posted by SDF: I see the Grammys as the record industry congratulating itself for its commercial successes. The Album of the Year award is usually equivalent to a lifetime achievement award. This year it was U2, last year I believe it was Ray Charles, a few years before it was Steely Dan.
Certainly, the film industry is also guilty of celebrating itself, but as someone said above, they typically do reward good stuff and the voters seem to know what they're doing (obviously we can all think of some exceptions but whatev). I might not love the award show concept but at least they never give any to Idiotic Summer Blockbuster and they rarely reward a movie simply for being successful (exception: Titanic).
The Grammys, on the other hand, are happy to rain nominations and awards upon Mariah Carey and Eminem for moving a ton of units. I think the major reason for the difference between the Grammys and the Oscars is that it costs a lot of money to make a decent movie, while a good album can be made for under a thousand dollars. So most good movies are made by people with the kind of money and influence to throw an awards show, while most good albums are not (exception: the PLUGgies, but no one noticed). So the Grammys are disgusting, but if they were to give the Best Album to Sufjan, then they would have no ratings, because Asthmatic Kitty doesn't have the resources (and arguably, the mainstream music buyers don't have the taste) to make a Sufjan album well-known.
Originally posted by dubs: So the Grammys are disgusting, but if they were to give the Best Album to Sufjan, then they would have no ratings, because Asthmatic Kitty doesn't have the resources (and arguably, the mainstream music buyers don't have the taste) to make a Sufjan album well-known.
I understand all that, but (just like the Oscars) if the Grammy's rewarded Sufjan-type music, then there is no reason to think that such music would not increase in sales. When the Oscars award indie, out-of-the-mainstream films, those films always increase dramatically in sales. Why wouldn't the same be true for music? It may be true that many "Oscar-worthy" films are still from big studios, but aren't most indie records just subsidiaries of bigger record labels anyway? Rich white men will always find a way to make money off stuff...why not reward the best music in the process?
Originally posted by paxsoprano: I understand all that, but (just like the Oscars) if the Grammy's rewarded Sufjan-type music, then there is no reason to think that such music would not increase in sales. When the Oscars award indie, out-of-the-mainstream films, those films always increase dramatically in sales. Why wouldn't the same be true for music? It may be true that many "Oscar-worthy" films are still from big studios, but aren't most indie records just subsidiaries of bigger record labels anyway? Rich white men will always find a way to make money off stuff...why not reward the best music in the process?
I'm pretty sure most of the "Recording Academy" members are record industry (RIAA affiliated) people. So it's unlikely that they're going to reward something that was made outside the RIAA (I'd have to do more research, but I don't think it's ever happened). I'm sure record companies spent a ton of money making those U2 and Mariah Carey albums, so they want something to show for their efforts. It's better to say you spent millions making an award winning album as opposed to what it really is-- a mediocre album. Imagine their embarrassment if some kid that spent not millions, but thousands of dollars making an album won all the awards.
It's a little different from the Film industry, because even so-called "indie films" that are produced outside of the studio system, usually get distributed through major studios, so the majors studios are pretty much making money in some fashion on most films. Albums are much cheaper to distribute, so you get albums that are truly indie, like Sufjan or CYHSY, that aren't affiliated with any big labels. Those guys would be the only people making money off of increased sales of their respective albums.
----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar.
Originally posted by ericg75: I'm pretty sure most of the "Recording Academy" members are record industry (RIAA affiliated) people. So it's unlikely that they're going to reward something that was made outside the RIAA
Yeah, that's probably true. However, it makes me frustrated that the labels of artists like Sufjan and Okkervil River and CYHSY don't do more to promote their artists. Imagine Sufjan Stevens doing one of those Illinois, jazzy-type numbers with a big orchestra and boys' choir behind him at the Grammy's. Think about how much more $$ he would get! Also I remember that last summer when Illinoise came out I was in Houston, and I must have called four or five indie-type record stores asking if they had the album, and NONE of them did. In fact, there was not one "Come on Feel the Illinoise" in the entire city (of course the next weekend I was back in Austin and they had about 50 copies). When I asked the record store people in Houston why they didn't have Sufjan, they said "I have no idea: you're like the tenth person to ask." Anyway, my point is that it is not always the big bad record labels' fault...these small labels have a quality product, and they're doing a shitty job marketing it (probably because they don't trust anything that makes money).
Just thinking about all of this, do we really want our music to get the mainstream recognition it deserves? I don't want my bands to be so unpopular that they can't support themselves, but I kind of like the fact that they remain relatively obscure. When a band is really popular and the mainstream accepts them it can diminish the personal connection you feel to their music to a degree. In a sense it adds to the listening experience when you feel like you are priveleged to be exposed to it. I guess it magnifies my love for my music when the public at large embraces the stuff I dislike. In that way, I'm glad the Grammy's are wrong.
Hmm..I don't know. I know it's fun for indie-fans to feel they're in some kind of secret club.
But, there are some indie bands that I honestly believe could sell millions of records if mainstream audiences were told they exist. And I wish they would get that kind of recognition.
Originally posted by Bobthespirit: But, there are some indie bands that I honestly believe could sell millions of records if mainstream audiences were told they exist. And I wish they would get that kind of recognition.
Yeah, I'm kind of with you Bob. I would rather get off on being right than being a member of some unknown elite club. Where is the fun in being a member of an elite club unless you can brag about it to other people? When a friend asks me what type of music I listen to, most of them just kind of smile and nod, then ask if the Arcade Fire sounds anything like Jack Johnson. If the Arcade Fire were on top 40 stations, I think they would have plenty of fans (although some would still stick to their Nickelback, etc). Either way though, at least there would be competition.
There is no relationship between a true indie label and a major label. The majors do have lots of subsidiaries that have some autonomy (OK fine filmore, they have no autonomy at all) and focus on the types of acts that would typically be on indie labels. Occasionally, an indie label lets a major distribute one of their albums (as we know from my thesis on the subject, this was how the Sony rootkit ended up on MMJ's Z, released on RIAA-safe ATO). And "Off the Record" became a staple of those alt-rock stations that typically play the Foo Fighters.
Which brings me to my second point: do we want our favorite bands to get famous? After all, we like seeing them with like 60 other people in a tiny upstairs club. I love Beck, but I'll probably never see him except at Bonnaroo because those kinds of concerts suck. We also like feeling just a little bit superior. And when one of our favorite bands hits it big, no one believes us when we say we liked them since way back when. But if we feel this way, we also forfeit the right to bemoan the state of popular music (because you can't do that while jealously guarding the anonymity of your little indie bands), and is that really something you want to give up? Also, I think we're all guilty of the following faulty logic from time to time: the vast majority of popular music is bad (true) -> the public's taste is bad (mostly true) -> music that becomes popular is bad. I'm OK with Beck having videos on MTV and being totally rich (even if he thinks it's acceptable to be a Scientologist).
I guess that in my mind, the only non-selfish reason to want a band to stay unpopular is to prevent the problems that often ensue when they make the major label Leap. For one thing, being rich isn't good for all artists (I'm looking at you Courtney Taylor-Taylor at the end of Dig!). I'm not saying they have to starve, just that some should have a financial reason to try. More significantly, major labels don't know about or care about music. Personally, I like to see indie bands hit their stride and land on Sub Pop or Merge or Matador, labels with the resources to distribute their music and pay their bands well while not interfering.
