jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,547
|
Post by jenglisbe on Feb 17, 2016 14:41:33 GMT -5
"When Taylor Swift called out Kanye West at the Grammys, it was one self-obsessed PR genius against another" www.independent.co.uk/voices/when-taylor-swift-called-out-kanye-west-at-the-grammys-it-was-one-self-obsessed-pr-genius-against-a6877551.htmlThat headline says it all, really, but then there is this which echoes things I've been saying: "For one thing, she allowed a landmark achievement for female musicians to pale into insignificance against the background of her feud with West. And unlike West, whose overt attention-seeking is played out through social media and other channels, βbrand Taylorβ repeatedly targets βall the young women out thereβ, begging them to comply with the starβs apparent feminism β and therefore everything she says."
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 15:25:36 GMT -5
Taylor's speech is something that is both true and has an important message beyond her situation with Kanye - regardless of how pointed we choose to think her speech may have been. The part about winning the award twice, to me, is her pointing out that it wasn't just a fluke or a mistake or luck the first time. She has worked hard and it has paid off, and nobody can say otherwise. But we will try anyway, and come up with reasons for why she's a full-of-herself terrible person, conspiracies, etc., because that's just how many humans are.
I can understand the argument that her accepting the award in a more "humble" fashion and not mentioning anything about the unwarranted and disrespectful and hateful crap that goes on around her may have been somehow "better".... if you're not Taylor. But she's a human being, not a robot punching bag, and what she said had a powerful message... and it's all how we choose to interpret her choice of words. There are clearly those who like Taylor and those that don't and will take every opportunity to use her words and actions against her. This is true of any celebrity - but the bigger you are the more people wanna take swings at you. The backlash she's receiving from some of us is essentially proving her speech to be accurate... people love to hate on and try and discredit success when it happens to someone they don't like for whatever reason(s)... or when we think someone else is more "deserving."
And so it goes. A lot of us have our favorite artist(s), and I encourage everyone to replace Taylor with whichever artist you love and respect. And by this I mean, have Kanye sabotage his/her first big awards moment when he/she wasn't even 20 years old, and then pretend make nice years later, and then spit some disrespectful lyrics and lie about her approval. Do you still feel the same way about Taylor's actions here? It's easy to judge Taylor and think we know what's best for her and how she should act and what she should and shouldn't say, but we haven't lived in her shoes to know what it feels like, have we? i've seen some artists act REALLY childishly when responding to hate from others - Taylor's words are not childish - especially not in comparison. One thing is true, and that is NOBODY likes to be discredited - especially after working really hard at something and having a hugely successful career and receiving awards for it. NOBODY.
It's always obvious to me when others are just finding ways to hate on someone they don't like vs. sharing a thoughtful and valid yet maybe not-so-favorable opinion of something someone does or says. I'd respect opinions more if some people would just say "I don't like (whoever)" and then go on and on discrediting and criticizing their every move... instead of hiding behind this thinly-veiled layer of bs.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Feb 17, 2016 15:35:16 GMT -5
And once again, going back to what started this discussion - why is there nothing about Kanye's words being discussed here, since all of this stems from him? Why is the focus so much on Taylor being in the wrong? I can't help but notice jenglisbe that you failed to acknowledge my point about if it were a man who gave the speech Taylor had, would it still be awful and instead you're pasting articles that share your opinion that she's a terrible person for bringing acknowledgment to her own achievements.
|
|
DJ General
5x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: March 2010
Posts: 5,932
|
Post by DJ General on Feb 17, 2016 16:23:06 GMT -5
the biggest issue was ll cool j spending 7 minutes reminding us of a bunch of memories. Could have shown 2-3 more awards on air. The Grammys are always going to be a ratings show. I think they do overall a good job with what they have. It would be great to see critical artists but they won't ever do that because the audiences would be minimal. It's just the way of the world.
|
|
Caviar
Diamond Member
Queen X
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 30,915
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his
|
Post by Caviar on Feb 17, 2016 16:43:34 GMT -5
Poor excuse... Grammys Defend 'Touching and Emotional' Natalie Cole TributeHardly an "In Memoriam" segment goes by in any awards show without a resultant controversy over which recently deceased luminary got left out. In the case of the 2016 Grammys, though, the fracas hasnβt been over someone being forgotten, but whether the late Natalie Cole deserved an all-star tribute performance instead of a vintage film clip. The Grammy telecastβs helmers believe they did Cole right with the video salute. βFrankly, I think it was appropriate,β said the showβs longtime producer, Ken Ehrlich, who thought the video clip was the most βtouching and emotionalβ tribute he could have presented to his friend. 2016 Grammys: Natalie Cole's Family Outraged at 'Disrespectful Tribute' to Late Singer Coleβs sisters, Timolin and Casey Cole, have not been shy about begging to differ. "Sadly a FORGETTABLE tribute to Natalie Cole," they said in a written statement released to Entertainment Tonight Tuesday. "Words cannot express the outrage and utter disappointment at the disrespectful tribute, or lack thereof, to a legendary artist such as our sister.β Before the show, Timolin Cole also aired her grievances with the New York Postβs Page Six, saying, βWhy wouldnβt you have a medley of two or three songs? There are many hits that could be sung and great artists who could perform them.β Ehrlich tells Billboard he was taken aback by the familyβs complaints, believing the show had their blessing. βFor the record, there was an email exchange, and I told Timolin what we were doing, and she seemed to be very happy with it. And what I told her is that we had talked about having an artist do something for Natalie; at one point I was playing around with βMiss You Like Crazy,β because I love that song. But when I looked again at the Grammy show we did where she won for βUnforgettable,β and I saw the last 45 seconds of that number, where her father (Nat King Cole, on the big screen) throws her a kiss, she throws him a kiss, and then she turns to the audience and throws everybody a kiss -- that just was so touching and so emotional to me that that felt like it had to be the end of the whole 'In Memoriam' segment. I hadnβt looked at that clip in several years, but when I saw it again, I knew it was right.β Grammys 2016: Complete Coverage David Wild, whoβs co-written the Grammy telecast since 2001, concurs that just as much thought went into how to pay homage to Cole as any of the recently departed honorees on the show, although she didnβt get a live, multi-star production number of the sort afforded David Bowie and B.B. King. βNatalie Cole was one where I talked to Ken 10 seconds after we both found out that she passed, and he loved her,β says Wild. βBefore she passed, we always would have her on the show to present, and she was one of his favorites. In fact, he went to her service.β Although there were discussions about who to get to cover her -- the Grammys wonβt speak to whether anyone was approached -- βthat clip really impacted him, and he thought, heβs not gonna do better at Natalie than Natalie. When he found that clip and showed it to me, he was sort of in tears, because it meant so much to him.β For more on how this yearβs Grammy tribute segments came about, check out this Fridayβs edition of Billboard. www.billboard.com/articles/news/6875511/grammys-defend-touching-emotional-natalie-cole-tribute
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,547
|
Post by jenglisbe on Feb 17, 2016 17:31:37 GMT -5
And once again, going back to what started this discussion - why is there nothing about Kanye's words being discussed here, since all of this stems from him? Why is the focus so much on Taylor being in the wrong? I can't help but notice jenglisbe that you failed to acknowledge my point about if it were a man who gave the speech Taylor had, would it still be awful and instead you're pasting articles that share your opinion that she's a terrible person for bringing acknowledgment to her own achievements. Kanye's comments aren't relevant to the Grammys thread. They have been discussed in other threads, though. I've said I don't support his comments, and I've also said multiple times in this thread that I think Taylor's initial response about telling him the line is misogynistic was spot on. I then talked about her continuing the back-and-forth in her speech because it was a speech at the awards for which this thread was created. What more do you want in a Grammys thread? Do I think a male saying the same thing would get the same attention? I don't know, but society remains sexist. I wouldn't disagree if that's your point. Having said that male artists - including Kanye - have been criticized for the actions and comments, so it's possible a male would have been criticized. But considering Taylor calls out all of her male exes in songs, it seems weird for her to take offense here. That's typical Taylor for you, though. Again, I think she and Kanye are more alike than she'd ever admit. I like that the Independent called her on it and that like me, they pointed out that ultimately it took attention away from her accomplishments.
|
|
|
Post by when the pawn... on Feb 17, 2016 17:33:45 GMT -5
the biggest issue was ll cool j spending 7 minutes reminding us of a bunch of memories. Could have shown 2-3 more awards on air. The Grammys are always going to be a ratings show. I think they do overall a good job with what they have. It would be great to see critical artists but they won't ever do that because the audiences would be minimal. It's just the way of the world. But what about the Oscars? They are the ultimate award show but this year's Best Picture nominees include Room, Brooklyn and Spotlight. Other movies nominated in the top 8 categories include 45 Years, The Danish Girl, Carol, Steve Jobs and Ex Machina. And people still watch. Not trying to make these The Annual Pitchfork Awards but I definitely think including Adele, Taylor Swift, Kanye West, Beyonce, Bruno Mars, Lady Gaga, Eminem, one or two big-name veterans, etc. allows room for the inclusion of some lesser-known artists. How many people really tuned in so they could see The Hollywood Vampires, Tori Kelly, Tyrese, Robin Thicke, Andra Day, Ellie Goulding or James Bay? If CBS/NARAS thinks those kinds of performances are driving ratings, I think they are mistaken. I'd just rather a small handful of slots devoted to more alternative acts rather than a few unnecessary and often-hard-to-watch mashups/tributes.
|
|
musicfan134
Platinum Member
Joined: July 2012
Posts: 1,335
|
Post by musicfan134 on Feb 18, 2016 18:30:40 GMT -5
So there were some people here who thought Adele hurt 1989's chances of winning AOTY this year.
Well, now that we know how that turned out, here's my question: do you think 1989 hurts 25's chances at AOTY next year? Would the Grammy's give their highest honor to 2 female pop acts in a row?
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,547
|
Post by jenglisbe on Feb 18, 2016 18:36:23 GMT -5
So there were some people here who thought Adele hurt 1989's chances of winning AOTY this year. Well, now that we know how that turned out, here's my question: do you think 1989 hurts 25's chances at AOTY next year? Would the Grammy's give their highest honor to 2 female pop acts in a row? Alanis and Celine won back-to-back. That's the only time females have won AOTY two years in a row, but it shows two big female albums can win back-to-back. At this point Adele just doesn't have any real competition. If something else huge and of decent quality comes out, it could change things.
|
|
bat1990
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2004
Posts: 12,980
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by bat1990 on Feb 19, 2016 9:37:12 GMT -5
So there were some people here who thought Adele hurt 1989's chances of winning AOTY this year. Well, now that we know how that turned out, here's my question: do you think 1989 hurts 25's chances at AOTY next year? Would the Grammy's give their highest honor to 2 female pop acts in a row? Alanis and Celine won back-to-back. That's the only time females have won AOTY two years in a row, but it shows two big female albums can win back-to-back. At this point Adele just doesn't have any real competition. If something else huge and of decent quality comes out, it could change things. Anti :kii:
|
|
ddlz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2011
Posts: 2,165
|
Post by ddlz on Feb 19, 2016 11:20:27 GMT -5
Poor excuse... Grammys Defend 'Touching and Emotional' Natalie Cole TributeHardly an "In Memoriam" segment goes by in any awards show without a resultant controversy over which recently deceased luminary got left out. In the case of the 2016 Grammys, though, the fracas hasnβt been over someone being forgotten, but whether the late Natalie Cole deserved an all-star tribute performance instead of a vintage film clip. The Grammy telecastβs helmers believe they did Cole right with the video salute. βFrankly, I think it was appropriate,β said the showβs longtime producer, Ken Ehrlich, who thought the video clip was the most βtouching and emotionalβ tribute he could have presented to his friend. 2016 Grammys: Natalie Cole's Family Outraged at 'Disrespectful Tribute' to Late Singer Coleβs sisters, Timolin and Casey Cole, have not been shy about begging to differ. "Sadly a FORGETTABLE tribute to Natalie Cole," they said in a written statement released to Entertainment Tonight Tuesday. "Words cannot express the outrage and utter disappointment at the disrespectful tribute, or lack thereof, to a legendary artist such as our sister.β Before the show, Timolin Cole also aired her grievances with the New York Postβs Page Six, saying, βWhy wouldnβt you have a medley of two or three songs? There are many hits that could be sung and great artists who could perform them.β Ehrlich tells Billboard he was taken aback by the familyβs complaints, believing the show had their blessing. βFor the record, there was an email exchange, and I told Timolin what we were doing, and she seemed to be very happy with it. And what I told her is that we had talked about having an artist do something for Natalie; at one point I was playing around with βMiss You Like Crazy,β because I love that song. But when I looked again at the Grammy show we did where she won for βUnforgettable,β and I saw the last 45 seconds of that number, where her father (Nat King Cole, on the big screen) throws her a kiss, she throws him a kiss, and then she turns to the audience and throws everybody a kiss -- that just was so touching and so emotional to me that that felt like it had to be the end of the whole 'In Memoriam' segment. I hadnβt looked at that clip in several years, but when I saw it again, I knew it was right.β Grammys 2016: Complete Coverage David Wild, whoβs co-written the Grammy telecast since 2001, concurs that just as much thought went into how to pay homage to Cole as any of the recently departed honorees on the show, although she didnβt get a live, multi-star production number of the sort afforded David Bowie and B.B. King. βNatalie Cole was one where I talked to Ken 10 seconds after we both found out that she passed, and he loved her,β says Wild. βBefore she passed, we always would have her on the show to present, and she was one of his favorites. In fact, he went to her service.β Although there were discussions about who to get to cover her -- the Grammys wonβt speak to whether anyone was approached -- βthat clip really impacted him, and he thought, heβs not gonna do better at Natalie than Natalie. When he found that clip and showed it to me, he was sort of in tears, because it meant so much to him.β For more on how this yearβs Grammy tribute segments came about, check out this Fridayβs edition of Billboard. www.billboard.com/articles/news/6875511/grammys-defend-touching-emotional-natalie-cole-tributeA very poor excuse.
|
|
wjr15
8x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 8,599
|
Post by wjr15 on Feb 19, 2016 17:01:36 GMT -5
There were enough tribute performances that night. No need for another.
|
|
Libra
Diamond Member
The One Who Knows Where All the Bodies Are Buried
:)
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 14,376
My Charts
|
Post by Libra on Feb 19, 2016 18:01:38 GMT -5
There were enough tribute performances that night. No need for another. The problem with this is the picky-and-choosy result.
|
|
Luckie Starchild
Diamond Member
Has a special title
2020 PMA Lifetime Achievement Award, 2011 PMA winner and 8X nominee!
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 14,524
|
Post by Luckie Starchild on Feb 19, 2016 23:44:07 GMT -5
There were enough tribute performances that night. No need for another. Yes, there was a need for another. Natalie was a 9-time Grammy winner, including an Album of the Year winner and the first African-American to win Best New Artist. She produced a TON of HIGH-QUALITY recordings throughout her career and hit #1 on various Billboard charts in five different decades. The producers made a huge mistake.
|
|
musicfan134
Platinum Member
Joined: July 2012
Posts: 1,335
|
Post by musicfan134 on Feb 19, 2016 23:55:19 GMT -5
There were enough tribute performances that night. No need for another. They should've replaced the MJ tribute and the Stevie Wonder/Pentatonix performance with a Natalie Cole tribute.
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,597
|
Post by Enigma. on Feb 20, 2016 7:50:07 GMT -5
When it comes to tributes, gender is an issue. It's a man's world there still. Only Whitney Houston scale of women get some recognition
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,026
|
Post by felipe on Feb 20, 2016 8:02:53 GMT -5
What are you guys' opinions on the nominees/winners in general? It seems to me that more and more the Grammys have been driven by sales and success more than anything else. Think about the three top categories: record and song of the year were won by the two biggest hits of the year, AOTY was won by the - duh! - best-selling album of the year. Just a big coincidence or is this becoming the Billboard Awards?
Can you guys imagine if The Avengers won a Best Picture Oscar? But somehow a similar scenario is acceptable at the Grammys.
|
|
matty005
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 3,418
|
Post by matty005 on Feb 20, 2016 8:23:54 GMT -5
What are you guys' opinions on the nominees/winners in general? It seems to me that more and more the Grammys have been driven by sales and success more than anything else. Think about the three top categories: record and song of the year were won by the two biggest hits of the year, AOTY was won by the - duh! - best-selling album of the year. Just a big coincidence or is this becoming the Billboard Awards? Can you guys imagine if The Avengers won a Best Picture Oscar? But somehow a similar scenario is acceptable at the Grammys.Titanic and Forrest Gump say hello.
|
|
Luckie Starchild
Diamond Member
Has a special title
2020 PMA Lifetime Achievement Award, 2011 PMA winner and 8X nominee!
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 14,524
|
Post by Luckie Starchild on Feb 20, 2016 8:31:19 GMT -5
When it comes to tributes, gender is an issue. It's a man's world there still. Only Whitney Houston scale of women get some recognition Yep, they had five tributes for male artists who passed away in the last year plus tributes to Lionel Richie and Michael Jackson. It's hard not to notice.
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,026
|
Post by felipe on Feb 20, 2016 8:59:03 GMT -5
What are you guys' opinions on the nominees/winners in general? It seems to me that more and more the Grammys have been driven by sales and success more than anything else. Think about the three top categories: record and song of the year were won by the two biggest hits of the year, AOTY was won by the - duh! - best-selling album of the year. Just a big coincidence or is this becoming the Billboard Awards? Can you guys imagine if The Avengers won a Best Picture Oscar? But somehow a similar scenario is acceptable at the Grammys.Titanic and Forrest Gump say hello. The fact that you had to dig examples from 20 years ago is clearly saying something. Then again, Titanic is most definitely not Avengers, but even Katy Perry can score an AOTY nomination if she sells just enough. What do you guys think? Would Taylor Swift have won two AOTY Grammys if she wasn't selling so much?
|
|
Luckie Starchild
Diamond Member
Has a special title
2020 PMA Lifetime Achievement Award, 2011 PMA winner and 8X nominee!
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 14,524
|
Post by Luckie Starchild on Feb 20, 2016 9:26:29 GMT -5
What do you guys think? Would Taylor Swift have won two AOTY Grammys if she wasn't selling so much? Sales help raise an album's profile but it's not a requirement... Beck won AOTY last year and his album wasn't a big seller.
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,597
|
Post by Enigma. on Feb 20, 2016 9:37:14 GMT -5
1989 wasn't a wrong winner by any means. Fearless on the other hand... She was truly an American sweetheart back then. And the nominations were horrible then, with the exception of Gaga and Beyonce which both deserved it more than Fearless.
|
|
magik
Gold Member
Joined: November 2015
Posts: 506
|
Post by magik on Feb 20, 2016 10:06:14 GMT -5
1989 wasn't a wrong winner by any means. Fearless on the other hand... She was truly an American sweetheart back then. And the nominations were horrible then, with the exception of Gaga and Beyonce which both deserved it more than Fearless. Gaga's and Beyonce's albums were not AOTY material.
|
|
matty005
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 3,418
|
Post by matty005 on Feb 20, 2016 10:20:22 GMT -5
Titanic and Forrest Gump say hello. The fact that you had to dig examples from 20 years ago is clearly saying something. Then again, Titanic is most definitely not Avengers, but even Katy Perry can score an AOTY nomination if she sells just enough. What do you guys think? Would Taylor Swift have won two AOTY Grammys if she wasn't selling so much? Then go from 2000 forward. The amount of best picture winners which were huge sellers is very similar to the amount of best album winners which were huge sellers.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Feb 20, 2016 10:47:07 GMT -5
1989 wasn't a wrong winner by any means. Fearless on the other hand... She was truly an American sweetheart back then. And the nominations were horrible then, with the exception of Gaga and Beyonce which both deserved it more than Fearless. Gaga's and Beyonce's albums were not AOTY material. Nor was Fearless. I liked having out of left field selections make the final tally of the three big categories as long as they made sense. Norah Jones or Robert Plant/Alisoj Krauss winning despite not being pop or having major hits is nice because it's not so predictable that the most popular or best selling will automatically win (well, Norah's was the best selling in her year I think).
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,026
|
Post by felipe on Feb 20, 2016 11:11:23 GMT -5
What do you guys think? Would Taylor Swift have won two AOTY Grammys if she wasn't selling so much? Sales help raise an album's profile but it's not a requirement... Beck won AOTY last year and his album wasn't a big seller. Yeah, Beck won last year, but take a look at the other nominess, BeyoncΓ©, Sam Smith, Sheeran... all huge sellers. All five Song of the year nominees were huge hits. All five Record of the year nominees were huge hits. There's clearly a pattern there, right?
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,026
|
Post by felipe on Feb 20, 2016 11:27:21 GMT -5
The fact that you had to dig examples from 20 years ago is clearly saying something. Then again, Titanic is most definitely not Avengers, but even Katy Perry can score an AOTY nomination if she sells just enough. What do you guys think? Would Taylor Swift have won two AOTY Grammys if she wasn't selling so much? Then go from 2000 forward. The amount of best picture winners which were huge sellers is very similar to the amount of best album winners which were huge sellers. Like I said on the post above, you just have to take a look at the nominnes (and usually the winners too) to notice most - sometimes almost all - the nominees for the top categories were huge huge hits. And most times the connection is clear and not a mere coincidence, or does anybody think All about that bass would have been nominated for song and record of the year if it wasn't a hit? Now with the Oscars, you can take a look at the nominees for picture, director or actors and notice that most of them were not hits at all, they just happened to be good movies with a lot of critical support. If you take a look at the top 10 grossing movies of 2015, only one of them is up for Best Picture (The Martian), and in some of the previous years that number was 0. So you can't really argue the Academy makes its decisions based on success, can you?
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,547
|
Post by jenglisbe on Feb 20, 2016 18:14:23 GMT -5
What are you guys' opinions on the nominees/winners in general? It seems to me that more and more the Grammys have been driven by sales and success more than anything else. Think about the three top categories: record and song of the year were won by the two biggest hits of the year, AOTY was won by the - duh! - best-selling album of the year. Just a big coincidence or is this becoming the Billboard Awards? Can you guys imagine if The Avengers won a Best Picture Oscar? But somehow a similar scenario is acceptable at the Grammys. Keep in mind there is a lot more music released each year than movies. Logically that means it's harder for lesser known music to not only get heard, but to be heard and liked by enough people to become one of the top nominees; votes for music releases are a lot more spread out. With movies there is a lot less competition, so it's easier for less popular movies to break through.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2016 0:17:13 GMT -5
Sales help raise an album's profile but it's not a requirement... Beck won AOTY last year and his album wasn't a big seller. Yeah, Beck won last year, but take a look at the other nominess, BeyoncΓ©, Sam Smith, Sheeran... all huge sellers. All five Song of the year nominees were huge hits. All five Record of the year nominees were huge hits. There's clearly a pattern there, right? There's no solid theorizing about who wins awards of any kind, really. I don't see much pattern - just when I do I'm proven wrong. The Grammys obviously don't always award big sellers, especially in the AOTY category. It just comes down to votes - determining first who gets nominated and then who wins. Is there politics involved? Sure. Are there lazy voters? Of course. It's not a science... it's a lottery in many ways. There have been some crazy weird AOTY wins over the years, CRAZY, but 1989 winning is not one of them, imo. It's a super solid album of songs that delivered in spades. It all depends on who you talk to - but removing any dislike for Taylor or for popular music that sells well... it made a big statement within all the individual solidly crafted songs. As for ROTY, I think it tends to include big hits. As it should, really. SOTY can be for the songs that are really well written even if not hits. Sometimes statement records will make it into the ROTY nominations... but even then, they are usually a hit on some noticeable level.... Not Ready To Make Nice, for example. I tend to take nominations as wins at the Grammys... there's so much music out there in any given year... being voted into the top 5 is pretty much a win in my book. Only one song or album or artist wins in most cases (ties happen) and the winner gets the trophy but they don't always get the gift of timelessness over some of the other nominees. It is what it is.
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,026
|
Post by felipe on Feb 21, 2016 7:50:52 GMT -5
Yeah, Beck won last year, but take a look at the other nominess, BeyoncΓ©, Sam Smith, Sheeran... all huge sellers. All five Song of the year nominees were huge hits. All five Record of the year nominees were huge hits. There's clearly a pattern there, right? There's no solid theorizing about who wins awards of any kind, really. I don't see much pattern - just when I do I'm proven wrong. The Grammys obviously don't always award big sellers, especially in the AOTY category. It just comes down to votes - determining first who gets nominated and then who wins. Is there politics involved? Sure. Are there lazy voters? Of course. It's not a science... it's a lottery in many ways. There have been some crazy weird AOTY wins over the years, CRAZY, but 1989 winning is not one of them, imo. It's a super solid album of songs that delivered in spades. It all depends on who you talk to - but removing any dislike for Taylor or for popular music that sells well... it made a big statement within all the individual solidly crafted songs. As for ROTY, I think it tends to include big hits. As it should, really. SOTY can be for the songs that are really well written even if not hits. Sometimes statement records will make it into the ROTY nominations... but even then, they are usually a hit on some noticeable level.... Not Ready To Make Nice, for example. I tend to take nominations as wins at the Grammys... there's so much music out there in any given year... being voted into the top 5 is pretty much a win in my book. Only one song or album or artist wins in most cases (ties happen) and the winner gets the trophy but they don't always get the gift of timelessness over some of the other nominees. It is what it is. I do get what you and broccoli are saying, and I agree not 100% of the nominees were big hits, but most times the nominations look almost like a copy and paste from Billboard's year-end charts, except for one sole spot usually reserved for a critical darling (e.g. "Alright"). I agree with you that it looks lazy, but this is voted by professionals and most times it looks just like regular folks writing down what they remember hearing on the radio last year, "let's see... there was Uptwon Funk, See you again, Blank Space... that Ed Sheeran Song..." Is it a coincidence that most nominees on the general field categories were highly successful albums or singles? Just to be clear, I have nothing against a huge hit being nominated. I don't mind The martian getting nominated for best Picture because it could be up there even without the $$ it made, but to nominate Minions just because it was a hit would be ridiculous. Sometimes I get the impression that some songs were nominated simply because of their success, and I can't really imagine - at all - All about that Bass or Fancy getting nods in these big categories if they weren't hits. Can you?
|
|