Is the irrelevance of the Grammys a good thing? - Page 2

innerSpaceman · 02-14-2008, 11:09 AM

They've never been relevant to my musical tastes, and never will be.

That said, my opinion about them changed when I got to attend one year in person. The musical acts made a big difference LIVE, and I even went out and purchased some music as a result.

I got to see U2 for the first and only time. Terrific. Madonna, whom I couldn't have less about, put on a great show.

And so I've seen two of her concerts since (making my ex boyfriend very happy in the process) and I enjoyed them both very much. Still have not purchased any of her music, because she's just not my cup of tea. (Come pry the gay card from my hands, if you dare).

Oh, and I enjoyed seeing the hundreds of "lesser" nominees get their awards before the cameras rolled.

Kevy Baby · 02-14-2008, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

1989:

-Jethro Tull over Metallica for Best Hard rock/Metal performance.

-DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince over Public Enemy's "It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back".

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousepod

1985 - Lionel Richie's "Can't Slow Down" beats Cyndi Lauper's "She's So Unusual," Tina Turner's "Private Dancer," Springsteen's "Born In The USA" and Prince's "Purple Rain" for Album of the Year.

The Grammy's have made very specific efforts in recent to get away from tragedies like these.

innerSpaceman · 02-14-2008, 11:23 AM

One could go thru a random sampling of Academy Awards winners and come to the same absurd conclusions about movies.

It's fun to do ... but demonstrates no greater faux pas on the part of the Grammys than commited by Awards King Oscar on a consistent basis.

blueerica · 02-14-2008, 11:50 AM

On the other hand, I was truly impressed with Herbie Hancock's win. River his best work, IMO, in ages, and a lovely album in its entirety.

I watch it because I get to see some stuff I like, some stuff I don't care about, but otherwise will now know about, I get to see when the 'community' is in touch with what I like and when they're not. As musical tastes and genres have whizzed off, not unlike my favorite of the fireworks which reminds me of curly-q after curly-q... I digress...

As musical tastes and genres continue spreading out into new areas, awards like the Grammys will become increasingly irrelevant, particularly to a group as diverse as we are. That said, I do think that a majority of Americans listen to one thing or another, pop culture as it were, and that just because we don't listen to pop or whatever's hot at the moment, doesn't mean it's not relevant, at least to a big portion of music listeners.

In other words, I really don't give a rat's a$$.

I listen to what I wanna, and I know that artists are going to be there to help me achieve my ear candy goals.

Gemini Cricket · 02-14-2008, 12:33 PM

The Grammy's, like the Oscars, are just about publicity for a handful of artists.
The Grammy's are irrelevant to me, the Oscars are getting there for me too you know, post 2005...

02-14-2008, 11:09 AM	#11
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	They've never been relevant to my musical tastes, and never will be. That said, my opinion about them changed when I got to attend one year in person. The musical acts made a big difference LIVE, and I even went out and purchased some music as a result. I got to see U2 for the first and only time. Terrific. Madonna, whom I couldn't have less about, put on a great show. And so I've seen two of her concerts since (making my ex boyfriend very happy in the process) and I enjoyed them both very much. Still have not purchased any of her music, because she's just not my cup of tea. (Come pry the gay card from my hands, if you dare). Oh, and I enjoyed seeing the hundreds of "lesser" nominees get their awards before the cameras rolled.
	Submit to Quotes

02-14-2008, 11:23 AM	#13
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	One could go thru a random sampling of Academy Awards winners and come to the same absurd conclusions about movies. It's fun to do ... but demonstrates no greater faux pas on the part of the Grammys than commited by Awards King Oscar on a consistent basis.
	Submit to Quotes

02-14-2008, 11:50 AM	#14
blueerica Nueve Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,497	On the other hand, I was truly impressed with Herbie Hancock's win. River his best work, IMO, in ages, and a lovely album in its entirety. I watch it because I get to see some stuff I like, some stuff I don't care about, but otherwise will now know about, I get to see when the 'community' is in touch with what I like and when they're not. As musical tastes and genres have whizzed off, not unlike my favorite of the fireworks which reminds me of curly-q after curly-q... I digress... As musical tastes and genres continue spreading out into new areas, awards like the Grammys will become increasingly irrelevant, particularly to a group as diverse as we are. That said, I do think that a majority of Americans listen to one thing or another, pop culture as it were, and that just because we don't listen to pop or whatever's hot at the moment, doesn't mean it's not relevant, at least to a big portion of music listeners. In other words, I really don't give a rat's a$$. I listen to what I wanna, and I know that artists are going to be there to help me achieve my ear candy goals. __________________ Tomorrow is the day for you and me
	Submit to Quotes

02-14-2008, 12:33 PM	#15
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	The Grammy's, like the Oscars, are just about publicity for a handful of artists. The Grammy's are irrelevant to me, the Oscars are getting there for me too you know, post 2005...
	Submit to Quotes