Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 20:43:43 GMT -5
It's problematic when some of us refer to "the Grammys" as if they are a committee of people who get in a room and go through artists and songs and decide who and what gets nominated. The academy is a large body of individuals (artists included) voting independently in a systematic voting process. Literally anything could happen. This notion that "they" are ever going to "get it right" or "be consistent" isn't really viable.
Wiki: First-round ballots are sent to voting members in good dues standing. To help ensure the quality of the voting, members are directed to vote only in their areas of expertise; they may vote in up to 15 categories in the genre fields plus the four categories of the General Field (Record Of The Year, Album Of The Year, Song Of The Year and Best New Artist.) Ballots are tabulated by the independent accounting firm of Deloitte.
The only exception to this is for specialized categories where a committee or panel is used in the nomination process.
|
|
leonagwen
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 14,821
|
Post by leonagwen on Jan 29, 2018 20:52:26 GMT -5
The membets of Pulse know more about what's going on in music than the Grammy committee does.
|
|
wjr15
8x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 8,592
|
Post by wjr15 on Jan 29, 2018 20:55:15 GMT -5
I support Pulse doing a hostile takeover of the Grammy committee.
|
|
Rican@
8x Platinum Member
[Only dry eyes, I would love on you for years]
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,974
|
Post by Rican@ on Jan 29, 2018 20:57:24 GMT -5
I look forward to these think pieces too because the sh!t is obvious in what the Grammy is doing here. It was expected though. Hip-hop still can't get any love in General unless it is done by someone other than black. Huh? Lauryn Hill and Outkast both won AOTY. Eminem has never won a Grammy in the general field. What non-white artist has won a general category Grammy for making hip-hop music? *I agree hip-hop is snubbed by the Grammys in general, I am just not understanding your point. Sorry, I was in my feelings. I read back my post and noticed I didn't make any sense, smh.
|
|
leonagwen
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 14,821
|
Post by leonagwen on Jan 29, 2018 21:09:23 GMT -5
Someone should go in the polling section and put in the major Grammy categories so Pulse members can vote on it. Curious to see how Pulse members votes compare to the Grammy committee's votes.
|
|
elementd5
4x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2006
Posts: 4,082
|
Post by elementd5 on Jan 29, 2018 21:54:25 GMT -5
24K Magic was probably my most listened to/favorite album of the year, so I'm so happy for the sweep.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 23:13:57 GMT -5
I can't speak for others but for myself, when I refer to "the Grammys" I am usually referring to the blue ribbon panel (for the general field), Portnow, and Ehrlich (sp?) - basically, the ones in charge. The panel is supposed to be there as a balance against whatever biases might show up in the voting body's results, but unfortunately they tend to fail at this in at least two different ways simultaneously. When I want to refer to the voting body at large I say "the voters." That does encompass a large group of people spread across genres, but given that this body keeps consistently steering clear of urban albums with no crossover hits/gravitating toward commercial bops over weightier material, I don't think there's enough differentiation yet. As a few other people mentioned, I'd love to know the demographic statistics of both the registered members and the ones who vote. At any rate, when we complain about Kesha or SZA's losses we're complaining about "the voters" and I think it's fine to refer to them that way there, with the caveat that the body of people we're referring to are shifting somewhat based on their respective genres. It is also interesting that, for this year at least, the same problematic result did occur across the board - other than Alessia's BNA and Rihanna's shared win for rap/sung, I think all the women were shut out. (I'm not sure how I should factor Little Big Town in this.) When was the last time a gender shutdown like that has ever happened in either direction? That's actually rather abnormal even for standard gender disparity in the industry. edit - dug deeper and found that Reba won best Roots Gospel album, Shakira won Latin Pop album, Cecile McLorin Salvant won Jazz Vocal album and CeCe Winans won Gospel Album and Gospel Performance. Aimee Man won Best Folk Performance and Alabama Shakes won an award. So it's not nearly as dire when I look more. It just feels weird to have to look so hard for the ladies' wins. Someone should go in the polling section and put in the major Grammy categories so Pulse members can vote on it. Curious to see how Pulse members votes compare to the Grammy committee's votes. I actually wanted to do this before the show but I had a sort of drawn out idea in my head for it that I wasn't able to make time to do. I feel like it wouldn't be the most accurate comparison if done now b/c of post-show bias - e.g. Bruno suddenly 'losing' all seven of his noms when before the show, people were more favorable to him winning a few. I also don't think the support for Lorde was quite as strong before as it was after. She was clearly a political move who, if they felt like they "had" to put a woman in the mix, should have been replaced by Kesha or SZA, assuming either of those ladies managed to make the consideration list.* *This is admittedly based on a fair amount of cynicism - supposedly, when the blue ribbon panel receives the list of 20 songs/albums to consider it is not told the order from most votes to least. The show runners also supposedly don't know who has won what when picking performers or deciding what to present. I have my doubts about all of that. Bruno winning at least one major was obvious as soon as we saw that none of his genre wins were being televised.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,534
|
Post by jenglisbe on Jan 29, 2018 23:24:17 GMT -5
The Grammys needs to figure out wtf it wants to actually represent, mainstream tastes or pure acclaim; it's painfully clear that they'll never figure out how to stand for both. A lot of its issues would fix themselves if the showrunners could make heads or tails of what the Grammy brand is all about. The show doesn't catch backlash simply b/c there's always someone who will be mad, but because they have no sense of consistency except for their' dogged persistence in being clueless. When they get called out they 'fix' things that don't need fixing, neglect what does need fixing, and usually end up making an even bigger mess in the process. Right now it's just confusing and often hurtful when you can be nominated for AOTY but still somehow receive the message that your album wasn't good or successful enough to guarantee a performance slot for it; or when someone can justifiably believe he got locked out of the general race solely b/c he didn't fit the current narrative; or when a hugely acclaimed breakthrough who does fit the current narrative gets gassed up only to lose to the guy I just mentioned simply because he sold more and that's what the voters wanted to recognize, and then hear the president of the academy declare just a few hours later that the women "need to step up and be artists" if they want to be recognized and basically make a mockery of the whole movement. We can't really simply it to "they." Keep in mind that in terms of the winners of the big categories, we are talking about thousands of voters who are voting separately. It's not really a situation where you can say "they" all got together and had a specific intent. There can be some disconnection between noiminations and winners because of the panel that selects the final nominees from top vote gettters. They surely have some specific intent with the nominees. Still, that panel was created to alleviate issues that arose from nominations being decided by the body at large. What was clear 25 years ago, and is still clear from the winners we get, is a majority of voters respond to a certain kind of artist (and more so don't respond to music such as hip-hop). So, as long as the nominees and winners are chosen by different bodies we will get some inconsistency, BUT that inconsistency is still better than if we left nominations and winners up to all voters. Hip-hop wouldn't even get major nominations then. I just wish voters would take things like vote splitting into account. Stop nominating 4 'urban' acts with 1 mainstream white act. Stop nominating the same artist/s in all 3 general categories and spread the love a bit so there isn't a sweep (except in a case like the year of 21 where an Adele sweep made some sense).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 23:56:41 GMT -5
We can't really simply it to "they." Keep in mind that in terms of the winners of the big categories, we are talking about thousands of voters who are voting separately. It's not really a situation where you can say "they" all got together and had a specific intent. There can be some disconnection between noiminations and winners because of the panel that selects the final nominees from top vote gettters. They surely have some specific intent with the nominees. Still, that panel was created to alleviate issues that arose from nominations being decided by the body at large. What was clear 25 years ago, and is still clear from the winners we get, is a majority of voters respond to a certain kind of artist (and more so don't respond to music such as hip-hop). So, as long as the nominees and winners are chosen by different bodies we will get some inconsistency, BUT that inconsistency is still better than if we left nominations and winners up to all voters. Hip-hop wouldn't even get major nominations then. I just wish voters would take things like vote splitting into account. Stop nominating 4 'urban' acts with 1 mainstream white act. Stop nominating the same artist/s in all 3 general categories and spread the love a bit so there isn't a sweep (except in a case like the year of 21 where an Adele sweep made some sense). That's admittedly my fault for not making clear the distinction, because 'they' will always read as ambiguous even if it's not in my head. But in the post you quoted at least, I am referring more to the panel and to the show producers more so than the body. That is, giving Kesha a prime spot on the show gave the feeling that there was a lot of support behind her when it turns out there wasn't at all, from the voters at large OR the Grammy bigwigs (and certainly not from the general field panel who didn't select her for anything). The panel chose to exclude Ed and include Lorde (going against what the voters likely had to say about it), but then the producers chose not to honor Lorde's nomination on its face with a solo performance slot over some petty AEG ish. The inconsistency starts at the top. With that in mind, I put a lot of onus on the panel to avoid the vote splitting potential (conspiracy theory cynthia might even question if the panel members do that on purpose). "The voters," as an entity, are actually frustratingly consistent af with their end results even with them spreading across all genres and industry positions. I had two longish paragraphs about how the show's producers should handle things based on whether it went in a 'mainstream' or 'critical acclaim' direction that I then deleted before posting. But if they were to go with the latter I think they should ditch the second round of open voting entirely. Just have one round of voting for each category and give the blue ribbon panel (or genre panel) the list of the top twenty albums/songs in each category to vote on; the top five in each category are announced as 'nominees' and then the ultimate winner is announced at the show. The panels would still catch flack over the years for some of their choices, but I think this would cut down on a lot of discrepancies and give the show a more 'acclaimed' feel than the popularity fest that it is right now. Adele's 2012 sweep has its own little quirk; the AOTY nominees that year were Adele, three of her pop album competitors, and Foo Fighters. Everyone expected Kanye to get in too (I believe that was the MBDTF year), but he didn't, and I remember thinking that was a really transparent and unnecessary play to ensure an Adele win by making sure no other album could have a sizable voter bloc to itself. I'm sure she would have swept regardless. But if he had won...so what? She still would have won ROTY and SOTY.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Jan 30, 2018 0:07:16 GMT -5
I support Pulse doing a hostile takeover of the Grammy committee. That's the thing though. If members of Pulse were to all contribute to a similar voting process of going through all submitted titles/artists for each category, would the results be terribly different? If we were to each choose genuinely who we thought should be nominated going by our own criteria only, many of us would have outliers and some of us would choose songs that were popular. By default, the popular songs would likely receive the most votes and would make the final nominations tally. Then we'd vote again for the winner. In an instance where we're voting for Album of the Year, for example, Bruno's album is probably the least polarizing and would probably still get the most votes. Unfortunately, in any instance where you have a large group of people contributing, whether it's an open vote a la VMAs or Teen Choice Awards, or closed 'to the Academy but still open to thousands of members' like the Grammys, the results still lean toward popularity. I used to imagine the Grammy committee being a small group of people who sat around a table over the course of a week or two and listening to every submission before voting. Wouldn't that be lovely. I almost wonder if it would be better to have a smaller panel of judges who did just that for each category of their own expertise.
|
|
willapted33
9x Platinum Member
blonded
Joined: February 2017
Posts: 9,369
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by willapted33 on Jan 30, 2018 1:16:00 GMT -5
Grammy recap: very disappointed
Somehow they managed to f*ck up the most diverse set of nominees ever and still pick the safest choice in each category. Alessia Cara over SZA, Khalid & Uzi - safe. That's What I Like over 4:44 and 1-800 - safe. 24k Magic over Humble, OJ and Redbone - safe. Bruno over literally all the other nominees for AOTY - safe. Ed over Kesha - safe. Kendrick over Tyler for rap album - safe. idk about the other genres, but in the ones I just mentioned each pick is safe and just wrong. How are they gonna pick SOY over Praying and Cara over SZA. Grammys are still a joke.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 1:34:33 GMT -5
Devil Marlena Nylund I assumed a hostile takeover would by default mean entirely scrapping the current system for something new, which is why I'm in favor of said takeover lol. I like the idea of combining your idea with mine. Every category gets hundreds or even thousands of submissions - even the most avid music consumer has likely not heard every album submitted in a given year. But a whittled down list of songs and albums with a couple of weeks to take it all in seems doable. But then before that, I would probably advocate even more for doing away with the AOTY/ROTY/SOTY categories entirely, and upping the prestige of the respective genre categories (which means creating a sorely needed pop song category). It's almost startling how many casual music fans don't view any of the awards other than the Big 4 relevant at all. Like this Vox article from last year that declares, "At the Grammys, talent is split into so many different categories that winning an award doesnβt matter nearly as much. It would be like if the Oscars split the Best Picture category into nine genres of movie and awarded each film a gold statue." The writer of this article doesn't seem to comprehend that if you ignored all the genre awards (which IMO should be relevant in their own right), the lack of diversity among winners would be even more glaring and problematic than it already is (and also, would it actually take away from the prestige of an Academy Award if the Oscars had a few extra 'genre' categories? I don't think so). But at the end of the day it's ultimately not reasonable to expect someone who doesn't enjoy hip-hop to vote for a hip-hop album that he doesn't enjoy just out of the kindness of his heart.
|
|
Glove Slap
Administrator
Sweetheart
Downloading ΰΌΊΰΌΰΌ» Possibilities
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 29,480
Staff
|
Post by Glove Slap on Jan 30, 2018 1:51:32 GMT -5
I support Pulse doing a hostile takeover of the Grammy committee. You should look at some of the Rankdown results before you say that. Devil Marlena Nylund is absolutely right, it wouldn't be any different. I'm still laughing at someone trying to describe Praying, Million Reasons, and What About Us as "forward thinking". Not to underplay their messages or impact, but "forward thinking" is absolutely one of the most incorrect statements you can make musically about any of them, and it's a clear example of people just going by emotion, which is how most voting groups in general vote. People will vote for what they like or what they want to win the most usually, and come up with some outward reasoning to justify it. This is the law of large numbers at play again; the bigger the number of voters, the bigger the chance of a project of mass appeal and/or impact for that time winning, especially in the general categories. Something like Can't Slow Down beating out the relatively explicit Purple Rain, and to a lesser extent Born In The U.S.A. where the title track was critical of the treatment of Vietnam veterans falls into this as well. I'd really like to see the breakdown of the number of voters by genre.
|
|
Chelsea Press 2
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
The way I feel is sexual, when you're next to me
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 69,058
|
Post by Chelsea Press 2 on Jan 30, 2018 2:06:32 GMT -5
What in the f**king f**k was that Subway Karaoke skit? Why was is it so un-funny? It's shameful that they showed that when Lorde could have easily performed. WHY?!
|
|
dwhite725
Gold Member
Joined: December 2016
Posts: 871
|
Post by dwhite725 on Jan 30, 2018 2:22:08 GMT -5
You missed the point on that discussion. The point is that itβs a critique on the industry as a whole. The point really soared over your head. Thatβs the issue. The industry is heavily male dominated from all angles. And thereβs no logical reason for it other than gatekeeping. If you were thinking that was a direct response to any discussion within this thread, it wasn't. It was a response to a general trend I've seen of people specifically blasting the Grammys itself for the male-to-female ratio of its nominees, and their referencing of that report to try to back up their criticism. In my opinion the ratio of the sexes in the industry as a whole reaches far beyond the Grammy Awards and it isn't fair to hit out against the Grammys for the under-representation of women in their nominations when there are so much fewer woman who are even there to be nominated. I completely agree with you about the industry as a whole. As someone with a close second hand experience of the industry in both the US and Jamaica I have learned of how much of a guy's club the music industry is and how difficult it is for women to advance up the ranks. Some people will try to argue that it's just a situation of women not being interested and try to compare it to the lack of females within automotive mechanics or trucking but I don't think that comparison holds water. BUT EVEN THEN the question could be asked as to why there is such a disinterest of women in the profession because there is no certainly no biological reason for it, so... I just have to ask...why are there no Male or Female Vocal awards anymore? That was a way to save money on statuettes. But I've always thought it was the worst decision ever as in Grammy history a male, at least in the general categories, will receive a win over a female. And personally, I don't think it's fair. Male and female voices are so different. I don't know the stats since that has changed, I'm sure Adele certainly affected the pop solo. No female in the pop category should have lost to Ed. For his win it should've been pop record, not vocal. There was no point in consolidating those awards. They only air 8-10 categories on air. Like Britney Spears Business manager said they mus have financial problems.
|
|
dwhite725
Gold Member
Joined: December 2016
Posts: 871
|
Post by dwhite725 on Jan 30, 2018 2:32:09 GMT -5
Let's be real. I thought about this after my last post, but the music industry is in shambles right now. They don't know which way to go. The Grammys has always shown they are beyond the pack worse than the industry. I'm honestly still shocked Jay-z got nominated for anything. I figured the Grammy voters weren't on Tidal.
|
|
Chelsea Press 2
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
The way I feel is sexual, when you're next to me
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 69,058
|
Post by Chelsea Press 2 on Jan 30, 2018 3:29:04 GMT -5
Let's be real. I thought about this after my last post, but the music industry is in shambles right now. They don't know which way to go. The Grammys has always shown they are beyond the pack worse than the industry. I'm honestly still shocked Jay-z got nominated for anything. I figured the Grammy voters weren't on Tidal. Everyone knows how Pia Zadora actually got nominated for a Golden Globe and won it so it's not that far-fetched that Jay-Z could get nominations for an awful album on a pretentious streaming service that no one uses in the same way.
|
|
born
Diamond Member
can't come to the phone right now
BLACK LIVES MATTER
Joined: August 2014
Posts: 12,465
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by born on Jan 30, 2018 4:21:24 GMT -5
Grammy recap: very disappointed Somehow they managed to f*ck up the most diverse set of nominees ever and still pick the safest choice in each category. Alessia Cara over SZA, Khalid & Uzi - safe. That's What I Like over 4:44 and 1-800 - safe. 24k Magic over Humble, OJ and Redbone - safe. Bruno over literally all the other nominees for AOTY - safe. Ed over Kesha - safe. Kendrick over Tyler for rap album - safe. idk about the other genres, but in the ones I just mentioned each pick is safe and just wrong. How are they gonna pick SOY over Praying and Cara over SZA. Grammys are still a joke. I wouldn't really call the nominees diverse considering 80% of the AOTY nominations were Urban (R&B or Rap). But sure, they tried to sell that so why not :sip2:
|
|
Dylan :)
Diamond Member
smth 'bout youu
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 12,501
|
Post by Dylan :) on Jan 30, 2018 4:57:30 GMT -5
Although I completely agree with this, in a separate point/just a general point, it is worth looking up the treatment of Irish people when they emigrated to the US during the famine (I believe Glove Slap already mentioned this) Very much aware β took several classes on it. No disrespect meant towards anyone in the Irish community, but I apologize if I offended! Glad you got the gist of what I meant by my post! No problem! Sometimes I feel people like to ignore what happened to Irish people in the past, intentionally or not, and even many people who are also Irish, just because 1) it was in the past and 2) because that treatment doesnβt really exist anymore. Not that I thought you did, but just in case anyone here did! Thank you for understanding :)
|
|
Chelsea Press 2
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
The way I feel is sexual, when you're next to me
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 69,058
|
Post by Chelsea Press 2 on Jan 30, 2018 6:37:48 GMT -5
|
|
Troublemaker
4x Platinum Member
Tasteless Heaux
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 4,854
|
Post by Troublemaker on Jan 30, 2018 7:44:57 GMT -5
In retrospect, Iβm happy SZA didnβt win BNA. In the last decade people who have won it havenβt lived up to the hype of their debut
|
|
deepston
5x Platinum Member
Nightmare Dressed Like a Kitty
just like a folk song, our love will be passed on
Joined: August 2017
Posts: 5,661
|
Post by deepston on Jan 30, 2018 8:22:35 GMT -5
UPDATED: In time zone-adjusted ratings, the Grammys delivered a 5.9 rating among adults 18-49 and 19.81 million viewers. Thatβs down 24 percent in both adults 18-49 and viewers vs. last yearβs awards. Itβs the lowest 18-49 rating the Grammys have ever recorded and the least-watched ceremony since 2009.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Jan 30, 2018 8:28:03 GMT -5
In Canada, the Grammys weren't on Global (or CTV) so unless you had cable, you were SOL. Luckily I had access to tv with cable but it wasn't at my house otherwise I'd have been SOL too.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,534
|
Post by jenglisbe on Jan 30, 2018 8:29:15 GMT -5
Not to underplay their messages or impact, but "forward thinking" is absolutely one of the most incorrect statements you can make musically about any of them, and it's a clear example of people just going by emotion, which is how most voting groups in general vote. People will vote for what they like or what they want to win the most usually, and come up with some outward reasoning to justify it. Yup. It's the same with politics where people feel what they feel (say, opposing gay marriage) and then stretch to attach some reason to it (i.e. the Bible).
|
|
upsidedown
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2012
Posts: 10,604
|
Post by upsidedown on Jan 30, 2018 8:31:01 GMT -5
I just cant at the Grammy prez telling women to "step up" when Kesha poured her heart and soul out into Praying (and arguably Gaga for Million Reasons, etc.) only to lose to Ed Sheeran's song about a woman's hot body over a cheap Sia knockoff sample.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,534
|
Post by jenglisbe on Jan 30, 2018 8:37:37 GMT -5
If you were thinking that was a direct response to any discussion within this thread, it wasn't. It was a response to a general trend I've seen of people specifically blasting the Grammys itself for the male-to-female ratio of its nominees, and their referencing of that report to try to back up their criticism. In my opinion the ratio of the sexes in the industry as a whole reaches far beyond the Grammy Awards and it isn't fair to hit out against the Grammys for the under-representation of women in their nominations when there are so much fewer woman who are even there to be nominated. I completely agree with you about the industry as a whole. As someone with a close second hand experience of the industry in both the US and Jamaica I have learned of how much of a guy's club the music industry is and how difficult it is for women to advance up the ranks. Some people will try to argue that it's just a situation of women not being interested and try to compare it to the lack of females within automotive mechanics or trucking but I don't think that comparison holds water. BUT EVEN THEN the question could be asked as to why there is such a disinterest of women in the profession because there is no certainly no biological reason for it, so... I just have to ask...why are there no Male or Female Vocal awards anymore? That was a way to save money on statuettes. But I've always thought it was the worst decision ever as in Grammy history a male, at least in the general categories, will receive a win over a female. And personally, I don't think it's fair. Male and female voices are so different. I don't know the stats since that has changed, I'm sure Adele certainly affected the pop solo. No female in the pop category should have lost to Ed. For his win it should've been pop record, not vocal. Why should there be a difference in males and females in terms of the categories? Is there an inherent difference that matters when it comes to making music? I never understood the separation to begin with, so the combination makes more sense to me. I don't know their reasoning for doing it, but I don't see the big deal. I'd also like to see the match on males vs females in terms of winners. Since they combined genders for Pop Solo 4 of 7 winners have been female. In R&B Performance 4 of 7 winners have been female. In Country Solo 4 of 7 winners have been female, despite country being a male-dominated genre. The other genres are certainly more male-dominated in their winners, but considering how few female rock singers and even rappers there are right now, it would be odd to have a Female category for those genres. There may have been more male winners in the general cateogories - I have no idea - but it's not like females can't win. Adele and Taylor Swift have won twice recently. Over the years artists from Carole KIng to Alanis Morissette to Judy Garland to Lauryn Hall to Barbra Streisand to Bonnie Raitt to Natalie Cole and more have won Album fo the Year, for instance. That certainly isn't on the level of relevant hip-hop continually being passed over in Album of the Year. The categories don't say "Vocal" anymore do they?
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,534
|
Post by jenglisbe on Jan 30, 2018 8:42:26 GMT -5
I just cant at the Grammy prez telling women to "step up" when Kesha poured her heart and soul out into Praying (and arguably Gaga for Million Reasons, etc.) only to lose to Ed Sheeran's song about a woman's hot body over a cheap Sia knockoff sample. Did he mean it in a "pour your heart out" kind of way? I didn't see his entire quote. As we've discussed here, the major winners tend to combine popularity with a non-threatening element. That's why Ed Sheeran won that category; he had the biggest song of the group and is a respected musician. In theory Portnow could have meant the females needed to step up commercially (like it or not, the past year was a poor year for females relative to males in a commercial sense). I am NOT defending him - the comment was in poor taste no matter how he meant it - just wondering if we are discussing the correct point. Clearly when a female has a great year - see Adele and Taylor Swift - the Grammys will reward them.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,534
|
Post by jenglisbe on Jan 30, 2018 8:51:39 GMT -5
We can't really simply it to "they." Keep in mind that in terms of the winners of the big categories, we are talking about thousands of voters who are voting separately. It's not really a situation where you can say "they" all got together and had a specific intent. There can be some disconnection between noiminations and winners because of the panel that selects the final nominees from top vote gettters. They surely have some specific intent with the nominees. Still, that panel was created to alleviate issues that arose from nominations being decided by the body at large. What was clear 25 years ago, and is still clear from the winners we get, is a majority of voters respond to a certain kind of artist (and more so don't respond to music such as hip-hop). So, as long as the nominees and winners are chosen by different bodies we will get some inconsistency, BUT that inconsistency is still better than if we left nominations and winners up to all voters. Hip-hop wouldn't even get major nominations then. I just wish voters would take things like vote splitting into account. Stop nominating 4 'urban' acts with 1 mainstream white act. Stop nominating the same artist/s in all 3 general categories and spread the love a bit so there isn't a sweep (except in a case like the year of 21 where an Adele sweep made some sense). That's admittedly my fault for not making clear the distinction, because 'they' will always read as ambiguous even if it's not in my head. But in the post you quoted at least, I am referring more to the panel and to the show producers more so than the body. That is, giving Kesha a prime spot on the show gave the feeling that there was a lot of support behind her when it turns out there wasn't at all, from the voters at large OR the Grammy bigwigs (and certainly not from the general field panel who didn't select her for anything). The panel chose to exclude Ed and include Lorde (going against what the voters likely had to say about it), but then the producers chose not to honor Lorde's nomination on its face with a solo performance slot over some petty AEG ish. The inconsistency starts at the top. With that in mind, I put a lot of onus on the panel to avoid the vote splitting potential (conspiracy theory cynthia might even question if the panel members do that on purpose). "The voters," as an entity, are actually frustratingly consistent af with their end results even with them spreading across all genres and industry positions. I had two longish paragraphs about how the show's producers should handle things based on whether it went in a 'mainstream' or 'critical acclaim' direction that I then deleted before posting. But if they were to go with the latter I think they should ditch the second round of open voting entirely. Just have one round of voting for each category and give the blue ribbon panel (or genre panel) the list of the top twenty albums/songs in each category to vote on; the top five in each category are announced as 'nominees' and then the ultimate winner is announced at the show. The panels would still catch flack over the years for some of their choices, but I think this would cut down on a lot of discrepancies and give the show a more 'acclaimed' feel than the popularity fest that it is right now. Adele's 2012 sweep has its own little quirk; the AOTY nominees that year were Adele, three of her pop album competitors, and Foo Fighters. Everyone expected Kanye to get in too (I believe that was the MBDTF year), but he didn't, and I remember thinking that was a really transparent and unnecessary play to ensure an Adele win by making sure no other album could have a sizable voter bloc to itself. I'm sure she would have swept regardless. But if he had won...so what? She still would have won ROTY and SOTY. I get all of that and can't disagree...BUT I also see another element to it. Imagine if TPTB kept in mind the voters will always go safe and then aligned performances with that. Imagine how boring the show would be. But even more than that, the voting body wouldn't even get exposed to Kendrick Lamar, SZA, etc. Neither would a lot of the public. In the end, even if those artists don't win often, I think having them perform gives them a platform that is important. And maybe it will help across time both in the industry and with the public. It certainly can't hurt as much as if those artists didn't perform at all. I mean, if I have to pick between Kesha having a Grammy moment but losing her award and Kesha not doing anything at all, I'd choose the former.
|
|
upsidedown
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2012
Posts: 10,604
|
Post by upsidedown on Jan 30, 2018 8:51:57 GMT -5
I just cant at the Grammy prez telling women to "step up" when Kesha poured her heart and soul out into Praying (and arguably Gaga for Million Reasons, etc.) only to lose to Ed Sheeran's song about a woman's hot body over a cheap Sia knockoff sample. Did he mean it in a "pour your heart out" kind of way? I didn't see his entire quote. As we've discussed here, the major winners tend to combine ppo[ularity with a non-threatening element. That's why Ed Sheeran won that category; he had the biggest song of the group and is a respected musician. In theory Portnow could have meant the females needed to step up commercially (like it or not, the past year was a poor year for females relative to males in a commercial sense). I am NOT defending him - the comment was in poor taste no matter how he meant it - just wondering if we are discussing the correct point. Clearly when a female has a great year - see Adele and Taylor Swift - the Grammys will reward them. This was his full quote: βIt has to begin withβ¦ women who have the creativity in their hearts and souls, who want to be musicians, who want to be engineers, producers, and want to be part of the industry on the executive levelβ¦ [They need] to step up because I think they would be welcome,β he said. βI donβt have personal experience of those kinds of brick walls that you face but I think itβs upon us β us as an industry β to make the welcome mat very obvious, breeding opportunities for all people who want to be creative and paying it forward and creating that next generation of artists.β Sounds like he was talking about creativity, which again, just taking the Pop category, many blow out Ed in that respect. Also, I see your point, but it's also not the star's fault if they aren't as commercially successful. Of course ballads like Praying or Million Reasons are not going to be as commercially successful as Shape of You, which is arguably more generic.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,534
|
Post by jenglisbe on Jan 30, 2018 8:58:12 GMT -5
Did he mean it in a "pour your heart out" kind of way? I didn't see his entire quote. As we've discussed here, the major winners tend to combine ppo[ularity with a non-threatening element. That's why Ed Sheeran won that category; he had the biggest song of the group and is a respected musician. In theory Portnow could have meant the females needed to step up commercially (like it or not, the past year was a poor year for females relative to males in a commercial sense). I am NOT defending him - the comment was in poor taste no matter how he meant it - just wondering if we are discussing the correct point. Clearly when a female has a great year - see Adele and Taylor Swift - the Grammys will reward them. This was his full quote: βIt has to begin withβ¦ women who have the creativity in their hearts and souls, who want to be musicians, who want to be engineers, producers, and want to be part of the industry on the executive levelβ¦ [They need] to step up because I think they would be welcome,β he said. βI donβt have personal experience of those kinds of brick walls that you face but I think itβs upon us β us as an industry β to make the welcome mat very obvious, breeding opportunities for all people who want to be creative and paying it forward and creating that next generation of artists.β Sounds like he was talking about creativity, which again, just taking the Pop category, many blow out Ed in that respect. Also, I see your point, but it's also not the star's fault if they aren't as commercially successful. Of course ballads like Praying or Million Reasons are not going to be as commercially successful as Shape of You, which is arguably more generic. That's a weird quote by him for a few reasons. Of course, the same things are true in the movie industry - just like the music industry needs more women as engineers, producers, etc the movies need more women directing, doing cinematography, and so on. Out of that the Grammys are a symptom of the issue just like the Oscars. But the Oscars have done more to help lead change (at least publicly), and the Grammys should take note. I can't imagine the Academy president ever saying females in the movie industry need to step up.
|
|