..Varun..
Platinum Member
Boy, i wish that i didnt love you so..
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ..Varun.. on Feb 9, 2006 10:17:11 GMT -5
GOOD!!! noone needs to see them overlook mariah's categories
|
|
oinapead
Platinum Member
Joined: October 2005
Posts: 1,042
|
Post by oinapead on Feb 9, 2006 10:31:41 GMT -5
grammys is so commercial and predictable, that it makes me sick, it's definitely not about music
|
|
MikeCheck12
Diamond Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 15,880
|
Post by MikeCheck12 on Feb 9, 2006 10:38:22 GMT -5
I be 'Lost' beat the Grammy's, too, at the 9pm hour.
|
|
PT08
Platinum Member
Joined: April 2004
Posts: 1,874
|
Post by PT08 on Feb 9, 2006 10:39:37 GMT -5
Idol sure put a whooping on the Grammy's. I knew that would have happened though. They moved The Grammy's from Sunday to Wednesday to get out of the way of Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy only to end up opposite the Idol juggernaut and Lost. Bad scheduling if you ask me. I'm betting next year it will be on Monday night. That move worked for The Golden Globes since its the only night where there isn't a juggernaut show on. Awards shows just don't have the lure anymore though. The CMA Awards had an 11.1/17 rating this year (which is great for a Country awards show), while the Grammy's had a 12.3/19. The Grammy's should have a much bigger rating than the CMA's. The AMA's, Billboards and Radio Music Awards all bombed in the ratings.
|
|
shandrim
2x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2004
Posts: 2,008
|
Post by shandrim on Feb 9, 2006 10:55:13 GMT -5
Awards shows just don't have the lure anymore though. They don't have that lure because shows like the Grammys stopped being awards shows and turned into variety shows instead. They have more performances than they do awards. Common, a measly 11 awards handed out during a 3 and a half hour show? That's ridiculous. The red carpet arrivals show revealed many more awards than the actual ceremony did.
|
|
bobbie
New Member
Joined: February 2006
Posts: 47
|
Post by bobbie on Feb 9, 2006 11:22:12 GMT -5
Idol sure put a whooping on the Grammy's. I knew that would have happened though. They moved The Grammy's from Sunday to Wednesday to get out of the way of Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy only to end up opposite the Idol juggernaut and Lost. Bad scheduling if you ask me. I'm betting next year it will be on Monday night. That move worked for The Golden Globes since its the only night where there isn't a juggernaut show on. Awards shows just don't have the lure anymore though. The CMA Awards had an 11.1/17 rating this year (which is great for a Country awards show), while the Grammy's had a 12.3/19. The Grammy's should have a much bigger rating than the CMA's. The AMA's, Billboards and Radio Music Awards all bombed in the ratings. Whatever the CMA's and the quality of their show is far greater than the Grammys and maybe if they showcased country more with the performers and awards given onstage instead of only Pop and Rap their ratings would be higher. Country is sure doing better overall in records and defintley touring than Pop and Rap.
|
|
|
Post by Love Plastic Love on Feb 9, 2006 11:25:35 GMT -5
Awards shows just don't have the lure anymore though. They don't have that lure because shows like the Grammys stopped being awards shows and turned into variety shows instead. They have more performances than they do awards. Common, a measly 11 awards handed out during a 3 and a half hour show? That's ridiculous. The red carpet arrivals show revealed many more awards than the actual ceremony did. Yeah-plus the performances just seem weird to me now. Its like "lets see what crazy mashups we can come up with and allow some artists to go on forever while severely chop other artists times" Sometimes it works (Madonna and Gorillaz) and sometimes I am left turning the channel. I mean, overall I think there are other problems with awards shows that are also present in the music industry in general. But the structure of the shows and performances are a problem. Somehow, the CMAS manage to be more effective and have very similar ratings to the grammys. I wonder why they are unaffected by the severe downturn in ratings and interest.
|
|
mangaka
Platinum Member
Joined: March 2004
Posts: 1,945
|
Post by mangaka on Feb 9, 2006 12:16:25 GMT -5
From ZAP 2 IT:
"LOS ANGELES (Zap2it.com) Fast National ratings for Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2006
"American Idol" and "Lost" weren't really affected by CBS' telecast of the Grammy Awards Wednesday night, but they may have pulled viewers from the Grammys, which fell short of recent years.
FOX won the night's ratings race, averaging an 11.9 rating/18 share. CBS took second with an 11.2/17. ABC came in third with a 7.3/11, while NBC, 5.8/9, was fourth. The WB's 2.1/3 was good for fifth, beating UPN's 1.2/2. Among adults 18-49, FOX's 8.1 rating led the way, beating out CBS' 7.3. ABC was third in the ad-friendly demographic with a 4.5. NBC averaged 3.0, The WB 1.3 and UPN 0.6.
"American Idol" easily won the 8 p.m. hour for FOX with a 16.1/24. The opening of the Grammys posted a 9.9/15 for CBS. "George Lopez" and "Freddie" averaged 4.3/7 for ABC to finish third, ahead of "The Biggest Loser: Special Edition" on NBC. The WB's "One Tree Hill" was fifth at 2.1/3. UPN trailed with "South Beach."
CBS took the lead at 9 p.m. as the Grammys scored a 12.2/18, beating the 11.3/16 for "Lost" on ABC. FOX dropped to third with "Bones," 7.8/11. "The Biggest Loser" improved to 4.7/7 in its second hour. A "Beauty and the Geek" repeat held steady for The WB. "Veronica Mars" couldn't lift UPN out of sixth.
The Grammys held the lead at 10 p.m., scoring an 11.6/19 in their final hour. "Law & Order" averaged 9.4/15 for NBC, and ABC's "Invasion" delivered a 6.3/10."
Basically:
8-9pm: 9.9/15 9-10pm: 12.2/18 10-11pm: 11.6/19
|
|
NORTHCOAST
4x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 4,285
|
Post by NORTHCOAST on Feb 9, 2006 12:54:42 GMT -5
I think the Grammy telecast should got to cable where the performers and winners can get a little crazy without censors. That might liven things up!
My radio station played Kelly's Grammy performance of BOY this morning. They just played her first acceptance speech and the DJ commented that it was his favorite moment from the show. They also have played some clips of Bono and Kanye. After the Kanye clip the female DJ scoffed at his arrogance. :)
Did you see that article that said a Grammy performance is actually more important than a Grammy win in regards to CD sales. They basically said that even if you lose you win if you give a good performance.
|
|
mangaka
Platinum Member
Joined: March 2004
Posts: 1,945
|
Post by mangaka on Feb 9, 2006 13:37:03 GMT -5
(Thanks to YAHOO article)
TOTAL VIEWERS (8-11:30): 17.6M
(The #2 least watched show since Nielsen began to track it. The #1 was in 1995 with 17.2M)
8-9pm: 15.1M (timeslot with less viewers... performed: GORILLAZ & MADONNA, JOHN LEGEND, COLDPLAY & U2)
|
|
|
Post by singingsparrow on Feb 9, 2006 13:42:07 GMT -5
Some are surprised U2 won Best Album. I'm not at all, for although the album may have been ou for over a year and that can affect chances somewhat, the competition was rather weak overall with the exception of Kanye West, but I don't think many have really warmed up to Kanye yet. Music fans certainly hear his name hyped a lot, but he also doesn't seem to yet have a devoted cult following.
2005 was definitely a year for Mariah commerically, but commerical sales certainly didn't guarantee Eminem and 50 Cent Best Album Grammys. "The Emancipation of Mimi" certainly isn't a bad album, but it's not a great album either. It is very much a conservative album musically, with the soul you'd expect from Mariah, and though its reviews were certainly a jump from "Charmbracelet", they still weren't stellar (61 average on MetaCritic)
Gwen Stefani? Probably the weakest nominee on the list from the beginning. Her reviews for her album actually came out superior to Mariah's, but it doesn't hold itself together as an album nearly as much compared to the other nominees. It was really only a number of successful pop singles that ever boosted her to this nomination to begin with, but she had nothing else to back any chance of winning.
Finally, Paul McCartney was understandably seen as a dark horse to some, the man who could have stolen the award just because of sentimental appeal. However, there are two major factors working against Paul in winning: 1) he wasn't an artist who passed away like Johnny Cash or Warren Zevon to escalate the sentimental appeal, and 2) his album has done little commerically.
U2's win makes perfect sense to me. U2 have both the sentimental appealing and an enormous fan following among all demographics. They have the commerical success to back them up with this album going triple platinum. They have splendid reviews here also (78 Average on MetaCritic). U2 strikes a frequent chord with all kinds of listeners which Kanye West hasn't really done yet.
And finally, the competition was just weak. The absence of Coldplay's "X&Y" really left a HUGE hole in the competition; an album which has gotten reviews not quite as strong as "A Rush Of Blood To The Head" but still strong (70 Score On MetaCritic), commerical success and a strong fan/listener base. System Of A Down also had a lot of momentum this past year.
Sincerely, Noah Eaton
|
|
|
Post by Pink Champagne Ricochet on Feb 9, 2006 14:30:57 GMT -5
of course the ratings sucked!! the idiots put it up against AI and Lost! I know Sunday's out because of Desperate Housewives (and the Super Bowl last week), but they should've put it on Monday! what big shows air on that night? Next year Clay Aiken is gonna sweep the pop categories!! You just watch y'all Hells yeah! Aiken for male pop vocal... pop album... hell, female pop vocal while we're at it. He's pretty ambiguous... OK, I asked for it but female pop vocal is reserved for Natasha Bedingfield's "Unwritten"!! (BTW, she so should've been nominated for pop vocal album. Kelly totally deserved the win, but I wish Natasha hadn't been totally snubbed...Best New Artist would've been nice too, although maybe they'll nominate her next year and say she "gained recognition" then and she might actually have a shot since John Legend isn't there.)
|
|
|
Post by reception on Feb 9, 2006 14:31:59 GMT -5
|
|
benmcd2000
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 1,377
|
Post by benmcd2000 on Feb 9, 2006 14:34:51 GMT -5
I think Kayne’s arrogance hurt his chances to win the big award. You can’t go out and say if you don’t win album of the year there’s going to be problems and expect to get the majority of votes from academy members. They usually like to stick with the safest choice and U2 was just that this year. Perhaps Kayne will think twice next time if he really wants to win the big prize.
|
|
Damage
5x Platinum Member
86'a.
Joined: October 2005
Posts: 5,458
|
Post by Damage on Feb 9, 2006 15:11:03 GMT -5
I bet he'll just keep talking yang. Honestly the entertainment value is gone now. Now he needs to let his talent do the talking.
U2 was definitely worthy of the win. Plus, Kanye's got 8 million projects to do anyway, he shouldn't have time to talk any more.
|
|
Slinky
6x Platinum Member
Retired
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 6,777
|
Post by Slinky on Feb 9, 2006 16:39:09 GMT -5
they should've put it on Monday! So everyone can watch 24 instead? ;)
|
|
cnelson575
Gold Member
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 520
|
Post by cnelson575 on Feb 9, 2006 17:17:32 GMT -5
Even with the lowest hour scoring almost a 10.0 that is still alot of viewers. Plus just the press and news about the show effect the sales of the artist there. I have heard peforming increases your sales overall more than who wins the awards.
Anyone hear about the moment Kelly Clarkson met Madonna her most exciting star encounter, though, was with another pop superstar. 'I met Madonna, and she's really cool and beautiful,' said Clarkson. 'You always think, 'Oh, it's Photoshop.' But, no, she's beautiful.' So what did the Idol say to her idol? 'I said, 'Oh my god, you're beautiful, and you have the best thighs.'' Madonna's response: 'OK, I'll send them to you.'
|
|
|
Post by babyboylrtm on Feb 9, 2006 17:18:12 GMT -5
I have not heard one damn thing about Christina Aguilera
|
|
|
Post by 7thfairway on Feb 9, 2006 17:25:24 GMT -5
I have not heard one damn thing about Christina Aguilera Xtinas performance was the most dissapointing of the night to me. I hadn't heard her perform live in a year and I was eager to hear her voice but it seemed thinner, less expressive, and, sadly, deeply disconnected from the material and melismatic as ever - not.good.
|
|
Damage
5x Platinum Member
86'a.
Joined: October 2005
Posts: 5,458
|
Post by Damage on Feb 9, 2006 17:36:05 GMT -5
Xtina = rusty
|
|
sunpeach
New Member
Joined: June 2010
Posts: 166
|
Post by sunpeach on Feb 9, 2006 17:42:16 GMT -5
I was shocked at the Grammy's ratings. Especially that Idol did so well. I mean, c'mon, on this Grammy, you had some of the biggest music stars of ALL TIME on it. Madonna is a legend. Paul McCartney- it's his first time to play the show and the Beatles are, without question, the biggest music act of the entire last century- you have Mariah, 17 number ones, you have U2- probably the greatest rock band of all time behind the Beatles and the STones- I mean, if you can't get ratings with that line-up, you are in trouble.
The only person who could have beefed up the ratings is Michael Jackson. Whatver can be said about, there's one thing for sure- when he's performing, people tune in- maybe not for the right reasons, but that guy can pull in an audience.
|
|
Ragin
6x Platinum Member
Everybody Wants a Piece of the Action!!!
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 6,487
|
Post by Ragin on Feb 9, 2006 18:15:34 GMT -5
Actually, I thought this year they did a nice job of bringing it back to music. If it were about politics, there is NO WAY Clarkson would have won, OR been asked to perform. That was about ratings. They thought the young girls would tune in in mass. Didn't happen. Looking forward to next year's AMAs. So you prove my point then? It clearly isn't about politics if it's about ratings, is it?
|
|
|
Post by Pink Champagne Ricochet on Feb 9, 2006 18:31:44 GMT -5
If the Grammys wanted ratings, they would've had Clay Aiken perform. If they could let that moron from LFO on....
|
|
cnelson575
Gold Member
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 520
|
Post by cnelson575 on Feb 9, 2006 18:52:19 GMT -5
The grammys did not even say anything in there advert about Madonna opening the show, which was odd to me. So your average viewer would not have been aware.
|
|
Damage
5x Platinum Member
86'a.
Joined: October 2005
Posts: 5,458
|
Post by Damage on Feb 9, 2006 19:07:35 GMT -5
If the Grammys wanted ratings, they would've had Clay Aiken perform. If they could let that moron from LFO on.... LOL...thank god that didn't happen. the artists that performed were the artists on the sly & the family stone tribute album. that or they were legends or nominated for multiple grammys.
|
|
|
Post by Pink Champagne Ricochet on Feb 9, 2006 19:12:50 GMT -5
all of you will see this time next year...all you people want to doubt. it just pains me to see no-talents like Ciara on that stage when true singers are ignored. At least some actual talent got recognized this year.
|
|
MusicJunkie
6x Platinum Member
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 6,807
|
Post by MusicJunkie on Feb 9, 2006 19:22:10 GMT -5
I have not heard one damn thing about Christina Aguilera I haven't heard one thing about Coldplay! They were COMPLETELY ignored this year. That's a shame considering all the hype they had when X&Y was released. :(
|
|
spooky21
Diamond Member
Secretly I'm so amused that nobody understands me.
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 11,669
|
Post by spooky21 on Feb 9, 2006 19:24:11 GMT -5
Damn, looks like Mariah had the hottest party last night. I was just reading that they were even turning some people away.
|
|
Damage
5x Platinum Member
86'a.
Joined: October 2005
Posts: 5,458
|
Post by Damage on Feb 9, 2006 19:31:57 GMT -5
trust me, it pained a lot of people that ciara was singing, lol.
but hey, many stars have their strengths and their weaknesses.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2006 19:31:59 GMT -5
Hey, did anyone notice Ryan Seacrest was beeped out at one point as he spoke with Maroon 5? I was walking out of the room and missed what the edited out. Anyone know? And it really is lame that This Love was nominated and won. Just pathetic that they could double dip like that. Keith Urban won a Male Country Vocal Performance Grammy for "You'll Think of Me." I think that's the same exact song, and category, that he was nominated for last year and lost in. I guess the Grammy people are getting to be as loose as the ACMs and CMAs with their "eligibility rules."
|
|