jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,535
|
Post by jenglisbe on Jan 30, 2018 9:04:22 GMT -5
I still find the "Finesse" performance odd. They cut out a verse so the performance was only 3 minutes. Along with that, Bruno didn't even sing the chorus, so in all he just sang 1 verse and a few ad-libs. Cardi B likely had more actual mic time.
|
|
¤ Matthea ¤
Gold Member
Joined: September 2009
Posts: 802
|
Post by ¤ Matthea ¤ on Jan 30, 2018 9:29:44 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. Agreed - I remember looking at year-end HDD lists for sales and streaming and males certainly dominated 2017. I'm female and generally I'm all for females winning awards. But I think Ed Sheeran deserved his two Grammy wins this year. Yeah, it's not a good look that 'Shape of You' won against 4 songs by female artists, but I don't particularly care about those 4 songs by female artists. 'Shape of You' was a big hit all around the world. It was a clear winner in that category. All I can say to female nominees, better luck next time. The relationship between quality and commercial success at the Grammys is complex. In the more mainstream genres and general field commercial success clearly matters a lot. As it should.
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,591
|
Post by Enigma. on Jan 30, 2018 9:38:28 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 9:39:08 GMT -5
I just feel like any awards (Grammys, Emmys, Oscars, Tonys, etc) are ultimately a bit of a crapshoot. I'm sure there is voter politics involved. I'm sure some voters are lazy. I'm sure some are racist. I'm sure some voters are sexist. I'm sure some are really honest and thoughtful with their initial nominations and final votes. I'm just saying that all of these things we say about nominations and winners are just a reflection of the voters, and there are far too many (very diverse) people voting to blame any one thing or, in many cases, even try to make sense of it. It's just how the votes fall, there is no right or wrong, fair or unfair. I may feel some things are unfair and try to justify it with my own reasons, but I recognize that many people feel differently.
Picking the "best" of anything with that many options and that many people voting - I feel like the only reason there is any consistency at all is because of what I said above - there are lazy voters who maybe go with what's popular and/or what they know, rather than really listening and giving thought to it.
I don't know, but I feel like artists who have been around long enough to have witnessed nominations and wins over the years, their stock in the Grammy award probably dwindles and it's not taken too seriously. It's just for fun, can be a long night, but admittedly a nice bonus if you win. Hell, even Bruno appeared to be very casually accepting (albeit drinking) and he won all of the 3 big awards. It's like a revolving door of people going through the motions, more and more so each year. And ratings are scary bad.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,535
|
Post by jenglisbe on Jan 30, 2018 10:12:50 GMT -5
Can we also get past the notion that something has to be obviously socially conscious to be important? I thought Bruno's statement when he won AOTY was actually kind of beautiful; he said when he performed at 15 the cover songs brought people from different countries together, and that was his goal with this album. That's socially conscious even if the songs aren't about racism or sexual violence.
Also, Logic's statement at the end of the "1-800" performance was powerful, mostly because of his delivery. Wow.
|
|
|
Post by boysilver400 on Jan 30, 2018 10:48:09 GMT -5
“Women need to step up” wtf. That is the most close minded thing I’ve ever heard, especially after the Praying performance.
|
|
leonagwen
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 14,823
|
Post by leonagwen on Jan 30, 2018 12:29:24 GMT -5
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,535
|
Post by jenglisbe on Jan 30, 2018 12:44:20 GMT -5
Keep in kind people have been criticizing the Grammys for DECADES. That is what led to the panel change in the mid-90s (so, over 20 years ago).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 14:23:58 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. Given what 14887fan said earlier about the show essentially being held hostage by AEG and Live Nation's constant battling, I think that likely explains Jay's sudden leap into the general nominee circle (he signed a 10-year deal with LiveNation last year). Next year we'll probably see an overhanded push for AEG-aligned artists. As much as we've talked about Lorde and Ed not performing hardly anyone has mentioned Jay-Z also declining to do so - and I personally find that much more curious than the other absences. I've been trying to come up with a decent speculation for why he'd do so and can't think of anything. 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: FWIW 'diverse' can mean two different things when complaining about the Grammys - clearly willapted was referring to race and not genre, and I cannot think of another year that had four minorities and an international nominee. This actually WAS the most diverse AOTY ever, in that regard. This century, AOTY has only had true genre diversity - as in, five albums from five different genres - twice, in 2016 and 2008. In 2008, Herbie Hancock won (I believe Amy was favored to sweep so it was a mild upset); in 2016, 1989 won (against a full set of 'current' competitors). If that is any indication, the majority of voters are more likely to have an internal meltdown at the wide range of sound and vote for the most "traditional" pop album as a defense mechanism if presented with a genre-diverse set of nominees, which frankly just underscores will's point more. The most blatant attempt at 'Will you please stop calling us racist now?!" diversity yet, and the show still couldn't bring itself to award one of those 'diverse' nominees a win. I love Bruno and 24K to pieces but I'm also fully convinced that his status as an A-list pop act is what has allowed him to have so much success with an r&b labeled album. 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? Whether rightly or wrongly, most people tend to have different perceptions of/expectations from male and female performances in both acting and music, thus rewarding (e.g. a male actor might be lauded for a scene where he breaks down in tears, but then a woman might not b/c she's "expected" to be able to do that; a male crooner might be commended for his smooth vocals, but a woman with the same range will be dismissed b/c she doesn't belt or hit high notes). Also, IRL I've encountered a lot of men who do not listen to music from women, period. Conversely, there are those who only enjoy women, either vocally or as a performer. As long as there are people who think like this on either side, genre categories are the only way to protect each genre from the other side's biases (even if the stats play out evenly on paper, the actual results can be off from year to year). The album and song categories have never been split like this though, which IMO makes sense because those awards don't honor the performance. Those focus on the work (which may have involved one or more people of a different gender) as much as or more than the person presenting said work. I also think this year really exposed the pitfalls in rewarding commercial success above all. It was a male-dominated season so the award results just imported the societal sexism over and rubbed salt in the wound. Separate categories would have partially negated the heavy emphasis on sales and likely given 'critical' successes like Kesha and SZA the wins that many felt they deserved. Lorde might have gotten a female pop solo nod that way, making her AOTY presence seem less incongruous. I mentioned in some other post, but when you look through the full winners' list this year there are actually several female winners this year. It's just that they were unfortunately tucked away in categories that few people care about - including Portnow himself, apparently. He could have easily saved his own skin by pointing that out instead of babbling about women needing to step up, but there is a strong sense there that he doesn't even know the winner stats for his own show. Also, the genre album categories do still have 'vocal' in them. It's a titular anachronism that needs to be removed now that they've ditched the instrumental categories.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,535
|
Post by jenglisbe on Jan 30, 2018 14:52:18 GMT -5
Whether rightly or wrongly, most people tend to have different perceptions of/expectations from male and female performances in both acting and music, thus rewarding (e.g. a male actor might be lauded for a scene where he breaks down in tears, but then a woman might not b/c she's "expected" to be able to do that; a male crooner might be commended for his smooth vocals, but a woman with the same range will be dismissed b/c she doesn't belt or hit high notes). Also, IRL I've encountered a lot of men who do not listen to music from women, period. Conversely, there are those who only enjoy women, either vocally or as a performer. As long as there are people who think like this on either side, genre categories are the only way to protect each genre from the other side's biases (even if the stats play out evenly on paper, the actual results can be off from year to year). The album and song categories have never been split like this though, which IMO makes sense because those awards don't honor the performance. Those focus on the work (which may have involved one or more people of a different gender) as much as or more than the person presenting said work. I think those are valid points, but it seems like society is moving away from strict gender roles/stereotypes. I like that the Grammys were ahead of the curve in that regard, and I think changes like that are what help with culture change (it reframes thinking). In other words, I see doing away with the gender split as lining up with where culture is heading, so to bring them back would be regression. I agree, but here you seem to be advocating for the Grammys not following society, which lies in contraction with what you said about gender differences. They also could have just nominated Kesha or Lana del Rey in AOTY instead of Lorde, and then there would have been consistency. That brings up a new point; my guess is the panel that does general nominations don't know the genre nominees? They just get the top 20 vote getters. Maybe if they knew the genre nominees they'd aim for a bit of consistency. I bet if they knew Kesha was in Pop Album and not Lorde, it might have changed something.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 15:38:10 GMT -5
I agree, but here you seem to be advocating for the Grammys not following society, which lies in contraction with what you said about gender differences. Not advocating one way or the other on that, really, just pointing out the 'pros' of splitting categories by gender. There's only one con, but it's a big enough one that it's valid all on its own and you already stated it - why do we keep insisting on 'perceiving' the genders differently? I don't know that eradicating the dividing line is doing anything to get people to step away from that old mindset, but I can see why one would argue it's a start. Honestly, I'm just a stan who wants my faves to have more chances to win lol. Purely subjective, so I didn't mention that. Stepping back into my box of attempted objectivity, I feel that if you have an awards show primarily reliant on at-large votes, then the results should reflect just that, the votes of whoever is allowed to cast them. If that means it reflects some deeply ingrained misogyny, then so be it - in fact that helps in a weird way because it lays the issue out in plain sight where it can't be brushed under the rug. Misogyny is not just restricted to rich old white guys running labels and studios. It's happening on EVERY level, in big ways and small, and we all need to acknowledge the roles many people play (often unwittingly) in keeping that system going. The voting/committee/back to voting approach makes it difficult for that kind of acknowledgement to happen. The panel tries to make choices that they think will make everyone happy; they never nail it. Then they turn the final results back over to the voters, who invariably negate most of whatever the panel was trying to make happen. Then everyone wants to blame "The Grammys," but these awards shows are perceived as being small entities run by old white men, when the truth is that there are at least three different rungs of power involved here and they all had a hand in it. So the anger is often misdirected or scattered. We take a year to cool off and then pick back up with the exercise in futility all over again. I don't think the panel is doing a very good job at its assigned task, but I also think the assigned task is placed at an awkward midpoint in the voting process that almost renders doing a good job impossible. Either give the panel final say or scrap its existence entirely. Supposedly the panel doesn't know anything other than the names they're given - I believe it's 20 for each category? - and they're not told the vote order for that 20. The producers of the show are also supposedly not told who won anything when deciding what to present or who to invite to perform. I've always been highly dubious about this lack of knowledge though.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,535
|
Post by jenglisbe on Jan 30, 2018 16:51:17 GMT -5
Honestly, I'm just a stan who wants my faves to have more chances to win lol. Purely subjective, so I didn't mention that. Lol this I respect, and tbh I think that is where most people are coming from on most issues. As in, when people are upset Lorde didn't perform, it's because they like Lorde. Had an AOTY they didn't like been denied a performance of their own music, I doubt those same people would have said anything. I can't argue with that point; it's valid. But then where do you foresee change happening once that problem is known? I think that was true at least at one point, as I have no doubt they didn't know Trisha Yearwood was beating LeAnn Rimes 20 years ago immediately after Rimes performed. That was what changed them having nominees perform right before their category was presented. What is the lag time between voting ending and when we start hearing about performers? Obviously by the time the last performers are announced the results could be in, but are they in before the first round or two of performers are announced?
|
|
BDGeek
2x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by BDGeek on Jan 30, 2018 18:36:19 GMT -5
I support Pulse doing a hostile takeover of the Grammy committee. Can you imagine? An entire three-hour ceremony devoted to Kelly, Britney, Cardi B, and Carly Rae Jepsen.
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,022
|
Post by felipe on Jan 30, 2018 20:27:51 GMT -5
The producers of the show are also supposedly not told who won anything when deciding what to present or who to invite to perform. I've always been highly dubious about this lack of knowledge though. Do they really want us to believe that? Didn't they decide to televise the award to "Best Musical Theater Album" in the year that Hamilton won - and right after its performance, by the way? And the first award this year was "Best Rap/Sung Performance", right after Kendrick's performance, what a coincidence.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,535
|
Post by jenglisbe on Jan 30, 2018 21:52:30 GMT -5
Do they really want us to believe that? Didn't they decide to televise the award to "Best Musical Theater Album" in the year that Hamilton won - and right after its performance, by the way? And the first award this year was "Best Rap/Sung Performance", right after Kendrick's performance, what a coincidence. But Hamilton was the obvious winner and had also renewed interest in musical theater. There have been plenty of times when a performer didn't win the award. I go back to LeAnn Rimes performing "How Do I Live" and then losing to someone else who sang the song. Look at Mariah Carey in 2006 when they thought she'd sweep and didn't televise any of her genre awards and then it looked like she didn't win a thing. There are other examples, too.
|
|
tinawina
2x Platinum Member
Betrayed and Heartbroken. Kelly weeps.
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by tinawina on Jan 30, 2018 22:36:04 GMT -5
I don't really know if anything can be doen to "fix" the Grammys. In the end, thousands of people from all around the music industry will vote... representing a wide array of genres. Voting always is going to tilt towards what's most acessible to the largest number of people. You can't really change it.
|
|
bat1990
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2004
Posts: 12,974
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by bat1990 on Jan 31, 2018 1:49:35 GMT -5
On the topic of diversity and the Grammy's sucking, here's a look at the number of women featured on the Billboard Year-End Hot 100 over the past 40 years including features, duets, and female-fronted bands/projects.
2017 34 2016 41 2015 39 2014 37 2013 38 2012 41 2011 53 2010 47 2009 47 2008 40 2007 28 2006 37 2005 37 2004 34 2003 40 2002 47 2001 44 2000 39 1999 41 1998 42 1997 44 1996 43 1995 42 1994 38 1993 30 1992 33 1991 36 1990 37 1989 34 1988 31 1987 34 1986 32 1985 28 1984 25 1983 20 1982 21 1981 23 1980 25 1979 31 1978 29 1977 18
|
|
magik
Gold Member
Joined: November 2015
Posts: 506
|
Post by magik on Jan 31, 2018 3:02:47 GMT -5
Complaining about gender equality and wanting separate categories is, I don't know...counterproductive. Bringing back separate gender categories would imply that women are not good enough to compete against men. And there isn't any indication that the category is tilted to one side of the gender spectrum. Males and females have been fairly honored equally in each category since the overhaul. So, there's really no need for the separation. The categories are just fine the way they are. The bottom line is, men had a much better 2017 than females based on numbers and critical acclaim. And before the overhaul, the female and male vocal categories were basically two or three notable songs then filler. If anything, Pop Solo has generated a lot less filler.
Women and men have been competing on American Idol, The Voice, and other talent competitions for years, so I don't get the argument that there are different perceptions for male or female vocal performances. After all, "Royals" by Lorde and "Happy" by Pharrell were hardly vocal showcases, but both have won Pop Solo.
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,022
|
Post by felipe on Jan 31, 2018 7:39:42 GMT -5
I don't really know if anything can be doen to "fix" the Grammys. In the end, thousands of people from all around the music industry will vote... representing a wide array of genres. Voting always is going to tilt towards what's most acessible to the largest number of people. You can't really change it. But isn't there a way to change it? Look at movie awards: they nominate successful movies but they also award indie, small, challenging films. It's not like they're giving out all the awards to Thor and Guardians of the Galaxy.
|
|
magik
Gold Member
Joined: November 2015
Posts: 506
|
Post by magik on Jan 31, 2018 7:48:36 GMT -5
Do they really want us to believe that? Didn't they decide to televise the award to "Best Musical Theater Album" in the year that Hamilton won - and right after its performance, by the way? And the first award this year was "Best Rap/Sung Performance", right after Kendrick's performance, what a coincidence. But Hamilton was the obvious winner and had also renewed interest in musical theater. There have been plenty of times when a performer didn't win the award. I go back to LeAnn Rimes performing "How Do I Live" and then losing to someone else who sang the song. Look at Mariah Carey in 2006 when they thought she'd sweep and didn't televise any of her genre awards and then it looked like she didn't win a thing. There are other examples, too. Britney infamously lost BNA to Christina Aguilera right after her performance. Lady Gaga also lost SOTY to Beyoncé right after opening the show.
|
|
ZAYN
7x Platinum Member
Everything that kills me makes me feel alive.
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by ZAYN on Jan 31, 2018 8:03:26 GMT -5
I support Pulse doing a hostile takeover of the Grammy committee. Can you imagine? An entire three-hour ceremony devoted to Kelly, Britney, Cardi B, and Carly Rae Jepsen. Yes. A BIG YES to my edits of your quote. LOL
|
|
tinawina
2x Platinum Member
Betrayed and Heartbroken. Kelly weeps.
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by tinawina on Jan 31, 2018 8:25:20 GMT -5
I don't really know if anything can be doen to "fix" the Grammys. In the end, thousands of people from all around the music industry will vote... representing a wide array of genres. Voting always is going to tilt towards what's most acessible to the largest number of people. You can't really change it. But isn't there a way to change it? Look at movie awards: they nominate successful movies but they also award indie, small, challenging films. It's not like they're giving out all the awards to Thor and Guardians of the Galaxy. Yeah but the movies they award reflect the tastes of thier voting body... I wasn't making the case for only commercial music winning. I was saying the music accessible to the most voters who tend to be musicians/producers/songwriters/engineers across genres will win. The awards are not chosen by a panel of just fans of current music that appeals to younger skewing populations. People considered innovative and forward leaning on pulse or among tastemakers are not necessarily going to appeal to, say, a sound engineer with 30 years in the heavy metal field or a jazz saxophonist. I love Kendrick, but if you are not deep into hip-hop he can sound like a guy making weird voices and talking too fast to understand. Plus he uses samples... a huge chunk of the voting population doesn't really consider that having as much "artistic merit" as someone who plays an instrument. And another example... Beyonce doesn't play instruments or write her own songs in the traditional sense. That will always put her at a disadvantage in general voting categories because too many members come from genres where musicianship is everything. SO when it comes down to it they are never going to award her over someone like Adele or Beck. They just won't. I don't know how you change it really.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,535
|
Post by jenglisbe on Jan 31, 2018 13:31:35 GMT -5
Complaining about gender equality and wanting separate categories is, I don't know...counterproductive. Bringing back separate gender categories would imply that women are not good enough to compete against men. And there isn't any indication that the category is tilted to one side of the gender spectrum. Males and females have been fairly honored equally in each category since the overhaul. So, there's really no need for the separation. The categories are just fine the way they are. The bottom line is, men had a much better 2017 than females based on numbers and critical acclaim. And before the overhaul, the female and male vocal categories were basically two or three notable songs then filler. If anything, Pop Solo has generated a lot less filler. Women and men have been competing on American Idol, The Voice, and other talent competitions for years, so I don't get the argument that there are different perceptions for male or female vocal performances. After all, "Royals" by Lorde and "Happy" by Pharrell were hardly vocal showcases, but both have won Pop Solo. And funnily enough, despite women not having a great year commercially, they were still of the 5 nominees in Pop Solo. 80% of the nominees were women, yet people are saying the category is unfair to women! It makes no sense to me. But isn't there a way to change it? Look at movie awards: they nominate successful movies but they also award indie, small, challenging films. It's not like they're giving out all the awards to Thor and Guardians of the Galaxy. Yeah but the movies they award reflect the tastes of thier voting body... I wasn't making the case for only commercial music winning. I was saying the music accessible to the most voters who tend to be musicians/producers/songwriters/engineers across genres will win. The awards are not chosen by a panel of just fans of current music that appeals to younger skewing populations. People considered innovative and forward leaning on pulse or among tastemakers are not necessarily going to appeal to, say, a sound engineer with 30 years in the heavy metal field or a jazz saxophonist. I love Kendrick, but if you are not deep into hip-hop he can sound like a guy making weird voices and talking too fast to understand. Plus he uses samples... a huge chunk of the voting population doesn't really consider that having as much "artistic merit" as someone who plays an instrument. And another example... Beyonce doesn't play instruments or write her own songs in the traditional sense. That will always put her at a disadvantage in general voting categories because too many members come from genres where musicianship is everything. SO when it comes down to it they are never going to award her over someone like Adele or Beck. They just won't. I don't know how you change it really. I agree with all of this and it echoes stuff I've been saying for years. One thing I think they can change is the voting body, though. The Oscars made a move to increasing diversity in their membership (and thus voting). Maybe the Grammys can make more of an effort to increase diversity among voters and also weed out voters who, say, aren't actively recording or something (and are probably older and not in touch with current trends). I'm not sure of the rules on sustaining membership and more so voting rights. Newsweek did an article on it that provides some info but it still a bit unclear: www.newsweek.com/who-votes-grammys-793998They make a valid point that the Grammys voting body is much larger than the Oscars, so being well-known is going to count even more. I think the Oscars also use ranked voting, with #1 votes determining things. If the Grammys don't use that, perhaps it could help, too (that rewards passion voting a bit more, so smaller movies - and thus musicians - who can get #1 votes from people end up doing better).
|
|
tinawina
2x Platinum Member
Betrayed and Heartbroken. Kelly weeps.
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by tinawina on Jan 31, 2018 17:43:37 GMT -5
^^^^^^^ I hadn’t even thought about ranked voting. That’s a great idea and it really could help.
|
|
dwhite725
Gold Member
Joined: December 2016
Posts: 871
|
Post by dwhite725 on Feb 1, 2018 2:27:35 GMT -5
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? Are you serious? Male and female voices are completely different. You can't honestly say Ed Sheehan had a better vocal performance that anyone else in that category. I dont really care about the numbers, because it also diminishes either sexes in both categories. They have been split as male and female for YEARS. It's like saying the Oscars and Emmys and every other awards show should only honor a single artist. I don't think the #metoo Or Times Up is striving to get both genders under one category. The Grammys did that to save money. And it was a stupid decision.
|
|
dwhite725
Gold Member
Joined: December 2016
Posts: 871
|
Post by dwhite725 on Feb 1, 2018 2:57:56 GMT -5
Complaining about gender equality and wanting separate categories is, I don't know...counterproductive. Bringing back separate gender categories would imply that women are not good enough to compete against men. And there isn't any indication that the category is tilted to one side of the gender spectrum. Males and females have been fairly honored equally in each category since the overhaul. So, there's really no need for the separation. The categories are just fine the way they are. The bottom line is, men had a much better 2017 than females based on numbers and critical acclaim. And before the overhaul, the female and male vocal categories were basically two or three notable songs then filler. If anything, Pop Solo has generated a lot less filler. Women and men have been competing on American Idol, The Voice, and other talent competitions for years, so I don't get the argument that there are different perceptions for male or female vocal performances. After all, "Royals" by Lorde and "Happy" by Pharrell were hardly vocal showcases, but both have won Pop Solo. The changing was a way of the Grammys saving money. It wasn't really about gender equality when they did it. Why didn't every awards show do the same thing? The Grammys give out how many gold covered or actual gold statuettes? A hell of a lot compared to every other awards show. They paired down other categories the save year to save money bc they had to add on categories. It's not like anyone is calling for a male and female record of the year. That has never been and should never be. When it comes to performance, I do believe there should be a distinction like the Grammys always had. It can't happen now though. Especially after Neil's comment. They never changed it for social awareness though
|
|
shayonce
2x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 2,197
|
Post by shayonce on Feb 1, 2018 5:38:32 GMT -5
yes. there're different perceptions for male and female artists. there's much higher standard for female artists from music and performing side to "their appearance". it's more difficult for women to achieve success and also to be considered as artist. female artists always questioned for their work, they're not good enough, they didn't write, label work , blah blah. then you have male audiences who not into female artist because it's gay, girl thing, not for the man. lol also male artists get easy pass all the time. where's drag for bruno's 9 writer credit soty? or ed sheerans's again copy issue? or male artists having big co-writers. and people are only seeing at pop nominations, look at other genres. less women. look at technical side, less women.
|
|
shayonce
2x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 2,197
|
Post by shayonce on Feb 1, 2018 6:05:18 GMT -5
there's no way to really do something right with current massive popular vote. it would be interesting If committee choose the winner like cannes awards ish. but then committee's choice doesn't mean right.. there're always some politics, agenda. just like kanye wasn't nominated back in the day, or david bowie was not nominated last year, or how the current soty/roty is just hit single list.
I said it last year, the problem is also from lack of music awards or big critic/quality consent. oscar has those from multiple international film festivals to industry awards, and all the regional critics awards. there're clear standout and works that have support from them, big exposures and overall consent. grammy doesn't have this, and as someone said, it's like movies like avengers getting best films of the year situation right now.
|
|
magik
Gold Member
Joined: November 2015
Posts: 506
|
Post by magik on Feb 1, 2018 14:55:47 GMT -5
Nope. I don't see any major distinction between male and female vocals besides the fact that majority males are tenors and females are altos and sopranos, but those "vocal performance" categories were never really about that anyway.
Yes, women has to work twice as hard as men, but that has NOTHING to do with separating Pop Solo into male and female, or any of the categories, especially when Pop Solo has been dominated nominations wise by females and the wins have been dominated by Adele (a female) + the other categories have been equally males and females. So, there is NO need for separate categories in this day and age. And that's not the solution to any gender problem. Men dominated last year and that was reflected in the wins. Sorry. Who in their right mind thought Ed Sheeran's "Shape of You" - the biggest hit of the year and by far the biggest song in Pop Solo - was losing Pop Solo? All that Kesha nonsense was always wishful thinking. "Praying" was not that big of a hit (peaking outside of the 20s on the charts), and all of the wins there have gone to #1 or #2 hits since its inception, male or female. That's a problem with the voting body, not the category or a gender problem.
|
|
Choco
Diamond Member
lavender haze
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 27,057
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by Choco on Feb 1, 2018 16:22:26 GMT -5
Ed Sheeran's "Shape of You" - the biggest hit of the year and by far the biggest song in Pop Solo - was losing Pop Solo? ... and all of the wins there have gone to #1 or #2 hits since its inception, male or female. That's a problem with the voting body, not the category or a gender problem. I don't agree with some of your points, but the above is certainly true. The only reason people even doubted Ed's wins was because the committee didn't allow him on the general categories, which IMO might have helped his chances on the Pop field because it was the only way to recognize the biggest song of the year and one of the biggest albums in recent years.
|
|