u2 and alicia keys top grammy contenders...

[jnorman]

im sorry, but that makes me want to barf. what does this say about the state of the commercial music industry? hell, i can find better music on mp3.com than i can on the radio anymore. the only radio station i can stand to listen to is the local jazz station from the community college. gob, i guess i am getting old or something...

[Danny M]

Well... I think it says that U2 and Alicia Keys have sold a lot of albums and gotten a lot of attention. The Grammys are the top echelon of the business throwing a party for themselves, which doesn't bother me at all. As far as everything in the industry being garbage...I disagree. Most of it isn't made for the core demographic of the recording forums here, therefore, it's viewed as undesirable. I agree that there is a vast amount of overlooked talent out there, but there always has been anyway. (There's also a ton of shoddy work as well.) I don't deny that there is truth in many of the statements made here that criticize the record industry, but I also get the feeling that there's a fair amount of "peer pressure" involved. It's not "cool" to like big label productions right now, as it damages your "cred" as a "serious professional." (It's very much like the current trend of hating Christianity. It's not "cool" for an intellectual to believe in anything "mainstream," because that must mean that one isn't thinking for one's-self.) All of that aside though, I feel that politics are a big part of the whole problem. I really like rock/ metal from the "1980's era" (along with the overall sound of music from that period.) I was too young to know about all the drugs, attitude, imagery, and what have you. All I knew was that when I heard it on the radio, I liked it. Unfortunately, it has been declared "not cool" by the "I much preferred EARLY Genesis" crowd, AND the "I much prefer new metal" crowd. As a further point, I personally like the overall production of the Britney Spears songs that I've heard. (They sound like someone cared about making things polished and larger than life.) I don't care about the politics, I just like it. I know it's not serious music, it's FUN. There's a fair amount of serious music out there that is just fabulous. There's also a fair amount of serious music that I consider cruel and unusual punishment. The bottom line is that my CD case has music from Def Leppard to Steve Vai to orchestral versions of Final Fantasy soundtracks, and it's all in there because I like to listen to it. If the music industry is going into a tailspin, it's the same tailspin it's been in since the 1950's with that evil rock and roll music... -Danny

[-]

Well said, Danny. At least Milli Vanilli didn't pick up any nominations this year... [img]http://www.fake.tugraz.at/images/s_millivanilli.gif[/img] [ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: popmusic ]

[Hippie]

Well, I'm happy, at least U2 is a 'real band' that has been around since 1980. Where were the Grammy people when U2 was good, like back in 80-87?

[fantasticsound]

The Grammy's are the worst of all worlds, when it comes to voting best of the best for an industry. First, they stuck to a format that ignored much of the best music in favor of politically correct nominees. (For example, How many Grammy's did the Beatles win?) Now it's the opposite. The Grammy's have been watered down, just about to the point, where everyone gets a gold star just for participating. (Cute, little old lady voice :) "There are only [i]winners[/i] in our little industry..." My prediction: In the name of diversity, I expect I'll be up for a Grammy next year because my, "Songs of the Jaw Harp" doesn't fit any existing category. The new category, [i]Jewish Music played on Ridiculous Instruments[/i] will pit me against me until 2004, when award hungry musicians take up Jaw Harp, and Spoons in droves. I certainly wasn't the first person to point this out, but, let's point out that NARAS stands for National Association of [i]Recording[/i] Arts & Sciences. Yet for years, the only awards for engineering or producing numbered: [i]4[/i]! One each for classical recordings, one each for non-classical recordings. Now what did they add? Remixer awards? With all due respect, there should be many more awards for those who make the industry possible, and remixers only work because someone else mixed something prior to their involvement. But that ain't the worst part. (Though it is the most shameful point.) The worst part is how they used to be run. I can't speak to the past few years, as I refuse to watch. However, in prior years the sound production, at the recording industry's gala event, has been laughable. Like the year Miles Davis received his lifetime achievement award. At the beginning of the show, the MC mic wasn't on. You could hear bleed from other mics playing to the house, but not the prime mic. Then Miles played a song before they presented his award. He looked like he was going to fall forward into the monitor speaker. The entire time he [i]glared[/i] at one spot, offstage. As luck would have it, this was the night my live sound prof. at Columbia invited us to his home for a listening class. He explained why Miles was going to rip the monitor mixer a new rear for screwing up. I mean, have you taken a look at Miles Davis. The man was seriously scary. Not someone I would want to trainwreck a gig for, when he's the guest of honor for a lifetime of exceptional work! :eek: That was just a tiny sampling of the major gaffs I've witnessed on several grammy shows, before I gave up on them. I want the respect of my peers. NARAS is not an organization created with that goal in mind. As someone else put it, the Grammy's are a political, self-congratulatory nightmare for the record companies.

[Charlie-brm]

Hippie done said: "Well, I'm happy, at least U2 is a 'real band' that has been around since 1980. Where were the Grammy people when U2 was good, like back in 80-87?" That's an interesting cut-off year you chose. I was in Ireland (Republic) for a week in 1988 and I always soak up local news where ever I visit. The definite vibe in the mainstream Irish media (papers and TV) was that U2 was getting too big for their boots using their rising international fame to hog the limelight from other Irish talent.

[Hippie]

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie-brm: [b]Hippie done said: "Well, I'm happy, at least U2 is a 'real band' that has been around since 1980. Where were the Grammy people when U2 was good, like back in 80-87?" That's an interesting cut-off year you chose. I was in Ireland (Republic) for a week in 1988 and I always soak up local news where ever I visit. The definite vibe in the mainstream Irish media (papers and TV) was that U2 was getting too big for their boots using their rising international fame to hog the limelight from other Irish talent.[/b][/quote] You gotta love the Irish, you get too high in your saddle, they'll put you back in your place. As for U2, I thought the high point was Joshua Tree, '87. -Amazingly, I saw them in a 300 seat place (Harpo's) in 1980 warming up for some band like the Romantics or Devo, (I cant even remember!) and they absolutely smoked the headliner, the next day I bought the 'Boy' album. I saw them again in '84 promoting the 'Unforgettable Fire' in front of 25,000. It seems after '87, they changed their format from a religious based theme, to 'zoo pop-mart rock'. That is where they lost me. The latest album is supposed to be a 'return to their old themes', but for me, it has lost a bit of its sincerity, especially after coming off of the myraid of 'pop chasing' styles , I mean, either you 'believe' or you don't. Whatever; they'll probably win the Grammy. Matt

[teh dri]

[quote]Originally posted by Hippie: [b] You gotta love the Irish, you get too high in your saddle, they'll put you back in your place. Matt[/b][/quote] now you see why we australian's are like we are... you throw ireland/scotland with a dash of england into a harsh country and tell them to live there and see what happens :p now throw in yankees, yugoslavians and chinese early on.... if we werent so steriotypically laid back we'd tear ourselves apart with stubborn pride and poppy-cutting (ps, we still have a lot of scotish and welsh named cities and places, and we wouldnt have many of the damns or other great early acheivements without the hard-ass serbs/croats coming over) alicia keys is up for a grammy? that cd is a little all over the shop. id like to hear what she pulls off next though. get over the 'im a super pianist' angle or else drop the 'ja, ja, ja, huh, huh, im feelin yo' over the top-ness. the two clashed more then harmonised on that particular release IMHO as for u2, well, they are u2. they play 'the game' nicely enough, and thats what grammys are about so good on em

[rold]

[quote]Originally posted by Danny M: [b] I don't deny that there is truth in many of the statements made here that criticize the record industry, but I also get the feeling that there's a fair amount of "peer pressure" involved. It's not "cool" to like big label productions right now, as it damages your "cred" as a "serious professional." (It's very much like the current trend of hating Christianity. It's not "cool" for an intellectual to believe in anything "mainstream," because that must mean that one isn't thinking for one's-self.) [/b][/quote] I don't think peer pressure or the essence of "cool" has a great deal to do with it, at least not for me. I could care less for what's "cool", and I have no problem whatsoever swimming with, or against, the mainstream. As far as I'm concerned, the high-profile record industry is a corrupt, tight-knit, corporatized scam and, for the most part, "Christianity" is anything BUT. Both of those institutions have proven *themselves* so, not their critics. As far as U2 goes, my support for them started at Joshua Tree and ended sometime before Zooropa, not because it became "uncool" but because their writing had lost the substance that the earlier albums had. "Cool" or not has nothing to do with that opinion whatsoever. Same thing with Floyd. You listen to Meddle or to Dark Side, you hear something that's no longer present in Division Bell, etc. IMO, whatever magic existed in those earlier albums disappeared with Barrett and/or Waters and the overall approach at the time; not their presence so much as the overall chemistry. I have no idea what other Floyd lovers think, nor do I care. IOW, my appreciation for the earlier albums did not develop from someone else telling me they were cool, and my disappointment in the later albums did not develop from people telling me they were "lame", those are just my opinions formed from what I hear from the source. I understand what you're saying - most people WILL flock towards their peers' leanings, but I don't think that applies in EVERY case.

[D. Gauss]

so tell me this.... U2's record came out in 2000 not 2001. so why is it up for grammy's? btw, my votes go to john hammond's record and delbert mcclinton. -d. gauss