Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

I wonder if the grammys are of any significance...


Mogut

Recommended Posts

...to music listeners? I suppose it makes artists feel legitimate

 

I mean, I would assume music goers can recognize that the grammy awards are completely insignificant. Its just celebrities giving themselves awards, as usual. But do they have to give 10 awards to the same artist in one year? No song or album is THAT good.

 

Junk I say...

-Greg

Motif XS8, MOXF8, Hammond XK1c, Vent

Rhodes Mark II 88 suitcase, Yamaha P255

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply
...to music listeners?

 

I mean, I would assume music goers would can recognize that the grammy awards are insignificant. Its just celebrities giving themselves awards, as usual.

 

Not all music is rock or pop. ;) It's a nice honor for the classical people who get them, and they aint celebrities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that is a nice nice honor especially for the non-celebrities and/or less popular categories.

 

Just wish those acknowledgements weren't a footnote on the program as they have been in years past.

 

However, I'm not sure if that is still the case since I haven't watched the Grammys in several years. :cool:

PD

 

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn, is just to love and be loved in return."--E. Ahbez "Nature Boy"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

However, I'm not sure if that is still the case since I haven't watched the Grammys in several years. :cool:

 

I wouldnt know who anyone is. :laugh: I checked outta the pop music scene around the mid-90s. I can't keep up with the teen group of the month anymore, is Menudo still doing well? :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't get to this thread before I replied to the previous one, but all of this is so true.To me, most all of these types of "award shows" are self-absorbed people trying to convince other self-absorbed people that they are "all that". I like all kinds of music, but I can't sit through much of these types of shows anymore. I will say this about the small parts I saw: Lady GaGa's has the most distracting vibrato and nasal sound I think I have ever heard. And, Michael Jackson would turn over in his grave is he could see what his family is doing with his kids. (And I'm not a huge MJ fan, but his music is great)There, I said it again!

Jim Wells

Tallahassee, FL

 

www.pureplatinumband.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there are so many excellent people in all artistic categories that don't win the awards, and then some of the ones who DO win, I wonder what the big deal is, as in, "yeah, they're pretty good, but not exceptional." Occasionally I even think they're pretty bad!

I go more by word of mouth from other musicians anyway, including good music magazines (the one or two out there!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't think the Grammy's are the least bit relevant to the "music buying" public. Lots of acts still sell quadruple platinum albums and haven't won Grammy's.

 

I think much what was seen yesterday was squarely "the middle of the road" and nothing extraordinary, innovative or particularly exceptional in any fashion.

Yamaha C7 Grand, My Hammonds: '57 B3, '54 C2, '42 BC, '40 D, '05 XK3 Pro System, Kawai MP9000, Fender Rhodes Mk I 73, Yamaha CP33, Motif ES6, Nord Electro 2, Minimoog Voyager & Model D, Korg MS10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They used to be:

 

http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/images/2007/04/10/steviewithgrammy.jpg

 

Now they're:

http://idolator.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/TaylorSwift.jpg

 

Muzikteechur is Lonnie, in Kittery, Maine.

 

HS music teacher: Concert Band, Marching Band, Jazz Band, Chorus, Music Theory, AP Music Theory, History of Rock, Musical Theatre, Piano, Guitar, Drama.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on what you mean by your question. Obviously, enough people watch it every year that they air it on national TV. I'm not saying that makes the show good or important or anything like that, just popular. If that's the case, who are all these people who are watching? Probably people who listen to popular music. I see people on Twitter and Facebook saying "yay! So-and-so won!" and "what? So-and-so won *that*?" so they obviously "care."

 

[FYI - I'm not one of these people. At most I'll watch a performance, but I'm more likely to watch a clip I heard about online afterwards. I usually have no idea who won any of the awards unless I hear or read something about one in particular.]

"I'm so crazy, I don't know this is impossible! Hoo hoo!" - Daffy Duck

 

"The good news is that once you start piano you never have to worry about getting laid again. More time to practice!" - MOI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on what you mean by your question. Obviously, enough people watch it every year that they air it on national TV. I'm not saying that makes the show good or important or anything like that, just popular. If that's the case, who are all these people who are watching? Probably people who listen to popular music. I see people on Twitter and Facebook saying "yay! So-and-so won!" and "what? So-and-so won *that*?" so they obviously "care."

 

Im one of those idiots Joe! I had a blast last nite twattering on facebook during the show. It was like one big conference call with all my buds. More fun than Ive had in a while during a Grammies show.I couldnt have sat through it any other way. The show means nothing, literally.

Hitting "Play" does NOT constitute live performance. -Me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buddy of mine has one for performing on a Ricky Skaggs album a while back. They're heavier than you'd think. I played on a Grammy-nominated album and frankly, it was kinda cool to know that someone in the business had listened to something I did.

9 Moog things, 3 Roland things, 2 Hammond things and a computer with stuff on it

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buddy of mine has one for performing on a Ricky Skaggs album a while back. They're heavier than you'd think. I played on a Grammy-nominated album and frankly, it was kinda cool to know that someone in the business had listened to something I did.

 

I played on one that won. I didnt get no steenkin Grammy. :mad: I got a "certificate" that said I played on it.

 

There's an actual voting process. If you are a member, you have a specialty and vote in that category. In smaller fields like Classical, there is a whole networking process involved. There was a controversy many years ago in classical, a bunch of supporters of the Atlanta Symphony joined NARAS to stack the deck for the ASO and chorus. :laugh: I think some were chorus members, which would give them the credentials to join. They still win all the time.

 

Yo-Yo Ma is a shoe-in, too. He can release something stupid like "Yo-Yo Ma plays the music of Cher", he'll win. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No significance whatsoever. Just another way for people who can't form their own opinions to know what's good and what's not.

 

The only way to gauge the significance of art is to let time pass and see what works have influenced the following generations, or marked their era or have stood the test of time.

Ian Benhamou

Keyboards/Guitar/Vocals

 

[url:https://www.facebook.com/OfficialTheMusicalBox/]The Musical Box[/url]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im one of those idiots Joe!
I never said "idiot," you did! :P:D

 

Tru enough! But looking at what you posted, I realized...I AM AN IDIOT! But I had great fun doing it.

 

I wanna be Joan Rivers...but not in a drag queen kind of way.

Hitting "Play" does NOT constitute live performance. -Me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the Grammies are a marketing tool for the Recording industry, so I would expect that they have significance insofar as the marketing work. Like the other significant marketing campaign of the last week, the iPad, these are both working well according to this forum, if judged by the number of comments :-) I guess it is a multistep process: marketing generates buzz, which hopefully generates increased sales. So, if just one of us hears about an artist they weren't aware of before, or revises upwards their opinion of an artist, and as a result buys one of their CD's, then the marketing is working. Whether they get enough of a bump to offset the show's production costs, who knows?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether they get enough of a bump to offset the show's production costs, who knows?

 

I would assume that commercials cover most if not all of the cost. It's probably shown in quite a few countries, it has in the past.

 

Maria Schneider is a good example of a musician who would benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say that the Grammys are significant. They are a pretty accurate snapshot of the current state of pop music though. Is that significant to you? Depends -

 

BEP, Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Lady GaGa, Pink and yeah the bad boy rappers at the end (whoever they were - I was asleep by then) are all dominating the charts right now. That's what the show has become - a recognition of success rather than a recognition of talent.

 

As such I've always found the show to be at least mildly entertaining. I'd rather watch the Grammys than the Oscars because of the live performances. There's always someone who screws up and someone who just blows me away.

 

And then everyone gossips about it the next day :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether they get enough of a bump to offset the show's production costs, who knows?

 

I would assume that commercials cover most if not all of the cost. It's probably shown in quite a few countries, it has in the past.

 

Maria Schneider is a good example of a musician who would benefit.

 

Good point, I forgot about the commercials...

 

Is there is actually a performance by the Maria Schneider Jazz Orchestra, or did she just win an award? Guess I should slog thru it all on my TiVo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether they get enough of a bump to offset the show's production costs, who knows?

 

I would assume that commercials cover most if not all of the cost. It's probably shown in quite a few countries, it has in the past.

 

Maria Schneider is a good example of a musician who would benefit.

 

Good point, I forgot about the commercials...

 

Is there is actually a performance by the Maria Schneider Jazz Orchestra, or did she just win an award? Guess I should slog thru it all on my TiVo.

 

She won a year or two ago for a CD that was essentially financed by fans. There was a lot of press about it, and I can only assume that it helped greatly in paying off the album.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still of the mind that the Grammy awards should be more like the Oscars. Here's the case I made back in 2007:

 

I'm going to start by saying something nice and then I'm going to take it back (well, sort of).

 

It's great to see live music on television. There's so little of it these days -- on TV or off. I particularly enjoyed the Police and Christina Aguilera, but it was good to see many of the other acts perform live as well.

 

However...

 

I hate that the Recording Academy can't seem to make up its mind whether the Grammy Awards is a concert or an awards show; and because it tries to be both, it does neither particularly well.

 

I've always felt that the Grammy Awards should be more like the Oscars. You won't see Alan Arkin and Steve Carell reenacting a scene from Little Miss Sunshine live on this year's Oscar Awards, nor would many people want them to. Don't get me wrong -- I love live theater, but the Oscar Awards are about the movies and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences gets that.

 

Similarly, it's the Recording Academy, not the Performing Academy, that puts on the Grammy Awards. It's time to take a tip from the Oscars and put the glamor and prestige back into the art of recording.

 

At the Oscars, serious films take center stage. Entertaining action films and comedies generally make more money and would otherwise get more attention, so why does the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences choose to honor serious films that might otherwise barely make a blip on the RADAR? It does it because those films need attention, and they stand a chance to break even or make a profit once they've been showered with awards.

 

Why doesn't the Recording Academy do this with its more serious forms of music? Other than the child prodigies who got their 15 minutes of fame tonight, no jazz or classical music was featured nor was any other genre that might have had higher aspirations than simple entertainment. Once a year, this is the industry's best shot at raising the bar and expanding the public's awareness of variety in music. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences does a great job at this. Why doesn't the Recording Academy?

 

Last but not least is the shaft given to lifetime award honorees who -- instead of getting a featured speech like Oscar lifetime winners -- must simply nod and wave at the camera for a second or two before they are dismissed. If there was less live music at the Grammies, we might have a chance to hear a few words from the greats who shaped the industry and art of music.

 

So here's my suggestion:

 

Don't get rid of the live music; have instead a Grammy Awards concert on an earlier night to help build up to and hype the Grammy Awards. Then, make the Grammy Awards more like the Oscar Awards by honoring the best and brightest -- not the most popular -- and by letting lifetime winners speak.

 

Just my two, shiny copper Lincolns.

Best,

 

Geoff

My Blue Someday appears on Apple Music | Spotify | YouTube | Amazon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still of the mind that the Grammy awards should be more like the Oscars. Here's the case I made back in 2007:

 

I'm going to start by saying something nice and then I'm going to take it back (well, sort of).

 

It's great to see live music on television. There's so little of it these days -- on TV or off. I particularly enjoyed the Police and Christina Aguilera, but it was good to see many of the other acts perform live as well.

 

However...

 

I hate that the Recording Academy can't seem to make up its mind whether the Grammy Awards is a concert or an awards show; and because it tries to be both, it does neither particularly well.

 

I've always felt that the Grammy Awards should be more like the Oscars. You won't see Alan Arkin and Steve Carell reenacting a scene from Little Miss Sunshine live on this year's Oscar Awards, nor would many people want them to. Don't get me wrong -- I love live theater, but the Oscar Awards are about the movies and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences gets that.

 

Similarly, it's the Recording Academy, not the Performing Academy, that puts on the Grammy Awards. It's time to take a tip from the Oscars and put the glamor and prestige back into the art of recording.

 

At the Oscars, serious films take center stage. Entertaining action films and comedies generally make more money and would otherwise get more attention, so why does the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences choose to honor serious films that might otherwise barely make a blip on the RADAR? It does it because those films need attention, and they stand a chance to break even or make a profit once they've been showered with awards.

 

Why doesn't the Recording Academy do this with its more serious forms of music? Other than the child prodigies who got their 15 minutes of fame tonight, no jazz or classical music was featured nor was any other genre that might have had higher aspirations than simple entertainment. Once a year, this is the industry's best shot at raising the bar and expanding the public's awareness of variety in music. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences does a great job at this. Why doesn't the Recording Academy?

 

Last but not least is the shaft given to lifetime award honorees who -- instead of getting a featured speech like Oscar lifetime winners -- must simply nod and wave at the camera for a second or two before they are dismissed. If there was less live music at the Grammies, we might have a chance to hear a few words from the greats who shaped the industry and art of music.

 

So here's my suggestion:

 

Don't get rid of the live music; have instead a Grammy Awards concert on an earlier night to help build up to and hype the Grammy Awards. Then, make the Grammy Awards more like the Oscar Awards by honoring the best and brightest -- not the most popular -- and by letting lifetime winners speak.

 

Just my two, shiny copper Lincolns.

Best,

 

Geoff

 

Couldn't have said it better.

 

The Oscars, imo, are the only awards show that matters quite frankly, for all the reasons Geoff mentioned. They honor the ART of filmaking, not the business of it. That's why I've always felt that the Grammy's were complete BS.

Ian Benhamou

Keyboards/Guitar/Vocals

 

[url:https://www.facebook.com/OfficialTheMusicalBox/]The Musical Box[/url]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...to music listeners? I suppose it makes artists feel legitimate

 

I mean, I would assume music goers can recognize that the grammy awards are completely insignificant. Its just celebrities giving themselves awards, as usual. But do they have to give 10 awards to the same artist in one year? No song or album is THAT good.

 

Junk I say...

 

I admire the original idea, but not what it has become.

 

It started, as musicians, producers, and other industry workers recognizing each others accomplishments. To me, having another musician appreciate my work means more than having the average guy appreciate it, simply because the other musician knows what it takes to do what I'm doing. So it's a nod of acomplishment from my peers, and I consider that to be a good thing. There are boatloads of awards given by fans and the press and various magazines, and all that, but to have people who do what you do tell you that you excel, that is cool.

 

Turning it into a television show and a 'pop' show changed the whole vibe. And the change in the industry has created a new group of entertainers whom mean nothing to me, if I don't actually loathe them. Very few get my respect as musicians.

"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

 

Steve Martin

 

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Oscars, imo, are the only awards show that matters quite frankly, for all the reasons Geoff mentioned. They honor the ART of filmaking, not the business of it. That's why I've always felt that the Grammy's were complete BS.

 

I find them pretentious and Artsy-Fartsy. :laugh: While they honor a certain type of art, their exclusion of more mainstream films, certain blockbusters, comedies, horror etc pretty much negates the whole award.

 

100 years from now, the classics from this era will be films like Terminator 2, Independence Day, There's Something About Mary, etc. These films are the best of their kinds. A good film doesnt always have to have a 10 dollar budget, period costumes and fake british accents. You can have aliens in your film and it can still be art.

 

It seems that the Oscars sometimes try to be the exact opposite of the Grammys. I wish there was a middle ground. Having an anti-popularity contest is no better than a popularity contest, they both get the same results of not honoring the best without some sort of conditions.

 

In 100 years, nobody will have a clue who Taylor Swift is, and nobody will have heard of Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon, but they will know films like Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park, and those films shouldnt be punished because they are popular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this picture answers the question (and is a pretty accurate summary of exactly what the Grammy Awards have become)

 

http://www.zeitgeistyreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/gaga.jpg

 

(for those unaware, that's Lady Gaga, the reigning media whore of "style over substance", and Elton John, a sad parody of an artist that once created music worth listening to, both covered with what I'm suggest is shit. ;) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...