metalhed717 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 first of all, HOW DID COLDPLAY BEAT METALLICA FOR BEST ROCK ALBUM?!?!?!??!!?!?!? also, how did lil wayne end ip with the most noms anyway??? i was glad to see robert plant win most of the awards, finally a decent musician. i enjoyed carrie underwoods performance (not the song, the performance). lets just say she was very... um... she put ona good stage show ;P plus her guitar player was really nice looking, and could actually play very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiberna Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 grammys dont look at skill, or ability otherwise buckethead would have several chicken coops full of grammys by now. also they might look at it like; "Oh Metallica have already won ALOT and i mean ALOT of trophys, not to mension the $1.3 MILLION they churn out at every gig. I think we'll give someone else a chance." i like Metallica as much as the next guy but i do think the've become a little over exposed. i also hate coldplay, they are a big bunch of faggots but still, should throw some fresh meat up there on the nominations, like the russian circles, the're a pretty decent instrumental band who are very very good, and just over a year old (Since i saw them anyway). there a lots of examples but still, i think they are trying to make rock and anything thats left of the roll die out so that they can continue to pump out shite like more madonna and and puff D to the 50 bullets lodged into the left knee and make a **** load more money on em. Wheres the passion gone! (its also why i think the british government is letting tons of bars and pubs a day so that new bands dont have a place to get well known anymore. I have a thousand more conspiracies but i'll keep it minimum) p.s are there bars and places like that going out of business really fast and like every day over there in america? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JefferySmith Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 After seeing all of the millions of dollars that are poured into competing for an Oscar, those kinds of awards mean nothing to me any more. I'm more of a People's Choice kind of guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenrirlupus Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 first of all' date=' HOW DID COLDPLAY BEAT METALLICA FOR BEST ROCK ALBUM?!?!?!??!!?!?!? also, how did lil wayne end ip with the most noms anyway??? i was glad to see robert plant win most of the awards, finally a decent musician. i enjoyed carrie underwoods performance (not the song, the performance). lets just say she was very... um... she put ona good stage show ;P plus her guitar player was really nice looking, and could actually play very well.[/quote']umm... neither of them play rock...one plays metal the other plays... umm.... I'm not even sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankS1281734010 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 The highlight of the night for me was finally seeing Green Day in a public appearance in a few years. can't wait for the new record in May. Those guys are probably the reason I even picked up in a guitar to begin with, about 9 or so years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Ah, only the Red Carpet (AKA "Mammory Awards") portion is worth anything, anymore! ;>) LOL! And, even that's questionable! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
floydpink7 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 umm... neither of them play rock...one plays metal the other plays... umm.... I'm not even sure. Coldplay got nominated for best Rock AND Pop album. Metallica did win for Best Recording Package and My Apocalypse won for Best Metal Performance (Honestly, there were a lot better songs than Cyanide on that album...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 The highlight for me was watching Dave Grohl totally enjoy himself playing drums for Macca. Looked like he was channeling Keith Moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ef_in_fla Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 The Grammys haven't been relevant to me for about 20 years, and they weren't particularly good even back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad1 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I stopped caring about the Grammys when Jethro Tull beat Metallica for best Heavy Metal band in 1989. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderstruck507 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 My Apocolypse was the worst song on that album...bleh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EL-KABONG! Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Hey metalhed, Were these your first grammys? The grammys suck pretty much every year...and are run by chimps. I remember one year, they gave Jethro Tull a grammy for best metal lp or some similarly ridiculous category. Unless you like mainstream pop, rock, c#nt-ry, rap, or bubble punk, the grammys aint for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parabar Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Here's a blog post from a few years back that pretty much sums up the Grammys --- they've always been about making money and rarely if ever about making music. WHY NOT TO WATCH THE GRAMMYS By rorshach, music geek It’s Grammy Time again! Last week the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS) announced its annual list of nominees. Time again for music’s biggest names converge for the annual award ceremony. Time again for millions watch the show on television. Time again for teary eyed winners to weep about what an honor it is to win the bronze megaphone statuette. Time again for Grammy-winning and even Grammy-nominated albums to be given a serious sales boost. Why all this hype? Ten years from now, will the list of Grammy winners really reflect the most important and longest-lasting artists of 2002? If the Grammys’ track record continues, that is a definite “no.” From their endless fascination with old smuck, Sting, to 1990’s Milli Vanilli fiasco to retro-wannabe, Lenny Kravitz, winning Best Rock Male Vocal for the past four years, the NARAS has shown absolute cluelessness to who is vital in popular music. Worse yet, this trend started with the very first Grammys, when Broadway composers and tiresome old crooners were showered with awards while Bob Dylan and Motown were in their primes. While other popular music institutions such as MTV and 'Rolling Stone' have become corporate-ized and irrelevant only relatively recently, the Grammys have always been so. The awards measure little more than appeal to mainstream America and thus, award show sponsors. This explains why Celine Dion has five Grammys, Shania Twain five, Phil Collins seven and 'Supernatural'-era Santana eight. That is not to say that no great artist has ever won a handful of Grammys. Every now and then there comes along an album with widespread appeal that also happens to be damn good, leading to a Grammy sweep that does not seem as ridiculous in retrospect. Simon and Garfunkel’s classic, 'Bridge Over Troubled Water [Expanded]' won several awards in 1970. Stevie Wonder’s grand opus, 'Songs in the Key of Life' won numerous in 1976. Eric Clapton’s 'Unplugged' earned a record number in 1992. But more often than not, great music is also music not easily digested by the casual listener which makes it dangerous music or at least dangerous to the middle-aged saps that make-up the NARAS. True, by the time they are respected pieces of rock history and thus safe, the Grammys will throw one of the music’s revolutionaries, or often former-revolutionaries by that time, a bone (Elvis Costello has received a few awards and nominations in the past few years, although such deserving classics as 'My Aim Is True (With Bonus Disc)' and 'This Year's Model (With Bonus Disc)' were ignored in their day). Often, this token gesture takes the form of the “Life-time Achievement Award.” Ironically, these awards do less to make-up for past errors than they inadvertently concede the NARAS’s own ignorance. Performers who have only received a few, one or even no Grammys suddenly receive the award show’s highest honor. Consider some of the following examples of leaders in popular music and their treatment by the NARAS: The Rolling Stones – When The Rolling Stones released the classic string of singles that included “Under My Thumb,” “Ruby Tuesday” and “Satisfaction,” the Grammys had categories for rock and R&B, but they went to The Statler Brothers, Petula Clark and other singers who are now playing county fairs. When the Stones released their first great album, 1968’s 'Beggars Banquet', Album of the Year went to soft-rockers, Blood Sweat and Tears’ 'Blood Sweat & Tears'. 'Let It Bleed', 'Sticky Fingers', 'Exile on Main Street' and 'Some Girls' were also ignored. When a Stones album finally won a Grammy (1994’s Best Rock Album) it was 'Voodoo Lounge', often considered the worst album by a band who had released nothing but bad albums since 1981. The Stones also have Lifetime Achievement Awards somewhere in their attics. Marvin Gaye – Not one of Gaye’s astounding early singles received a Grammy. Neither did his landmark 1971 album, 'What's Going on'. Finally, Gaye won two Grammys, Best R&B Instrumental and Best R&B Male Vocal for the song “Sexual Healing” in 1982. In 1996, he was posthumously given a Lifetime Achievement Award. Bob Dylan – Although he would later be given a Lifetime Achievement Award and win three Grammys for 1997’s 'Time Out of Mind', the NARAS completely ignored Dylan during his previous primes. He never received an award for the immortal folk songs he penned in the early sixties, although few other songs of that era have lasted as long and been covered as often. His groundbreaking transition to rock was also ignored. The year Dylan released “Like a Rolling Stone,” the Song of the Year was “The Shadow of Your Smile” from the musical, The Sand Piper! When he released his 1975 masterpiece, 'Blood on the Tracks', the pattern followed. Elvis Presley – Other than the Lifetime Achievement Award, Presley received three Grammys, all of them for Best Sacred/Inspirational/Religious Performance. None of his rock and roll recordings won a Grammy! The Beach Boys – The Beach Boys have earned only one Grammy: a Lifetime Achievement Award. 'A Man and His Music', a collection of previous hits Frank Sinatra rerecorded for his new label won Album of the Year the year 'Pet Sounds' revolutionized the pop song. Bob Marley – Marley was given a Lifetime Achievement Award in 2001, despite the fact that everything he released in the 1970s apparently paled in comparison to Billy Joel and The Carpenters. Nirvana – Nirvana’s 'Nevermind' and “Smells Like Teen Spirit” seem like no-brainers for 1991’s Album and Song of the Year. Yet, Nevermind didn’t even win Best Hard Rock Performance, awarded to Van Halen’s 'For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge' and “Smells Like Teen Spirit” was neglected for Best Rock Song in favor of Sting’s “Soul Cages.” In 1995, Nirvana was awarded Best Alternative Music Performance for 'MTV Unplugged in New York'. Chuck Berry – Like The Beach Boys, the inventor of rock and roll has no Grammys except the obligatory Lifetime Achievement Award. The Velvet Underground – Ha! Led Zeppelin – Despite being one of rock’s most perennially beloved groups and pioneering hard rock, Led Zeppelin was never given a Grammy. Pink Floyd - Although they have linked generations of rock fans, Pink Floyd's multi-million-selling 70s albums never received a Grammy. The group did win Best Rock Instrumental for "Marooned" from 1994's 'The Division Bell'. I bet they felt they really made it afterwards. The Who – Aside from the Lifetime Achievement Award, The Who have received no Grammys. “King of the Road” by novelty-country singer, Roger Miller, won Best Rock & Roll Single the year “My Generation” was released (as were "I Get Around," "Satisfaction" and "Yesterday"). So this year, when the cleverly paired air-head pop starlet and the tuxedo-clad has-been rip open the envelope and exclaim “And the winner is…” remember not to care. In fact, don’t even tune in. The Grammys have nothing to do with rewarding major achievements in music and everything to do with continuing to force-feed over-exposed, untalented, conventional pop stars to a crap-guzzling American public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fadedepi Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I stopped caring about the Grammys when Jethro Tull beat Metallica for best Heavy Metal band in 1989. +1000 You Got That Right!! I'll never forget Ian Anderson saying, "I didn't know we were a heavy metal band?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiggy Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 well guys, who loves metallica... rock music is not about shreding and screaming pop music, used to be all the timberlakes and so on, but they've shifted to r'n'b nominations now, so as much as I don't really care about coldplay, they deserved those awards they've got. (and don't be angry giving away awards to brits.... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freak show Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Here's a blog post from a few years back that pretty much sums up the Grammys --- they've always been about making money and rarely if ever about making music. WHY NOT TO WATCH THE GRAMMYS So this year' date=' when the cleverly paired air-head pop starlet and the tuxedo-clad has-been rip open the envelope and exclaim “And the winner is…” remember not to care. In fact, don’t even tune in. The Grammys have nothing to do with rewarding major achievements in music and everything to do with continuing to force-feed over-exposed, untalented, conventional pop stars to a crap-guzzling American public. [/quote'] I've never watched the Grammys, and this article summed up "why" pretty well. Thanks for posting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Dean Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 umm... neither of them play rock...one plays metal the other plays... umm.... I'm not even sure. Coldplay makes Muzak............. you know............. Elevator music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fadedepi Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 well guys' date=' who loves metallica... rock music is not about shreding and screaming pop music, used to be all the timberlakes and so on, but they've shifted to r'n'b nominations now, so as much as I don't really care about coldplay, they deserved those awards they've got. (and don't be angry giving away awards to brits.... :- )[/quote'] Perhaps I should clarify my comment. The point was, the Grammy's became pure BS to me in 1989. When they couldn't even figure out that Jethro Tull wasn't a "HEAVY METAL" band. (As Ian Stated) How could anyone who actually listened, not realize this?? They both deserved awards in seperate catagories. And by the way, I'm old school, I like Tull more than Metallica. Faded... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pohatu771 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Y'all need to open your minds a bit... We've had hours of discussion on this in my music business class. Just because a song isn't in a genre you like, doesn't mean you can't recognise it for what it is. My friends have a band... I guess you'd call it a punk band, maybe... it's not my style, but I can tell that they're good at what they're doing. I don't like rap, but when my roommate plays it, I can tell who's good and who's not. All those country guitarists are just as good, if not better, than your 240bpm metal guitarists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EL-KABONG! Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 pohatu771 I have very eclectic taste in music. I know that James Burton has 20x the skill and talent of a typical heavy metal shredder- You need to open YOUR mind (and your eyes) that the grammys aren't about good music: they are about sales and the 'music' corporations partying like wild indians. "We talked about it in my music biz class" NEATO! If you are content to have execs that consistently choose image looks, and marketability over talent, heart and sound, that is your choice... Just don't tell me to see things your way; my head is outside my a$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pohatu771 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I wasn't specifically referring to the Grammys, this has been something I've thought about for quite some time. Too many people are willing to dismiss the talent of a musician based on what genre they play in. Censoring the word "country," and referring to ©rap are prime example of it. If you'll excuse me, I've got to go wash my hair now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EL-KABONG! Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 You gotta look far and wide for good music these days. Rap = ultraviolent/porno nursery rhymes. Vital street poetry: my ***! Glorification of the most idiotic segment of our 'society' Modern Country = Moronic pop-rock crap. modern Heavy Metal = death obsessed thrash w/ cookie monster or wwe vocals These are generalizations...I know there are good rap and country, and metal acts, but they are far the exception, not the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pohatu771 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 It's not as hard as the complainers would like it to be. The top 40 may consist of the same few songs over and over, but there are plenty of talented artists around, and some of them are even on the charts... Sara Bareilles and Sugarland are two of my favourite artists, and they've both had a fair amount of radio play. The Internet has allowed anyone to be heard, and anyone to hear them. Dozens of websites started as a way for musicians to find an audience, you just have to take advantage of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EL-KABONG! Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I have heard of this 'internet!' What I am saying is that the grammys and music 'biz' in general is the last place to look for music w/ substance and heart...as counter-intuitive as that may seem. Hopefully your music biz class will delve into the history of the music biz (ie..furniture companies) and you can see for yourself that it has NEVER been about the music. Notable exceptions: older indies like chess, atlantic, sun, stax and motown and great modern indies like yep-roc, bomp!, and pre-sony sub-pop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 It's not as hard as the complainers would like it to be. The top 40 may consist of the same few songs over and over' date=' but there are plenty of talented artists around, and some of them are even on the charts... Sara Bareilles and Sugarland are two of my favourite artists, and they've both had a fair amount of radio play. The Internet has allowed anyone to be heard, and anyone to hear them. Dozens of websites started as a way for musicians to find an audience, you just have to take advantage of them.[/quote'] The Grammy's and over produced pop music are becoming increasingly irrelevant because people are discovering real music on line. That said, you have to give the Grammys some credit for giving so many awards to Raising Sand, which by the way, included Alison Kraus, Robert Plant, and was produced by T. Bone Burnett. The credit goes to all three equally, it wasn't just a Robert Plant album. After my fingers are worn out from too much guitar playing I get on line and start searching for unique music. My latest find was Eva Cassidy. An incredible singer and guitarist who would probably be winning Grammys if she didn't die after her first album was produced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.