BDGeek
2x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by BDGeek on Mar 15, 2021 16:50:05 GMT -5
The sheer volume of music that comes out every year, coupled with the need to "play the game" to win awards, make the Grammys so subjective. You could point to any year in Grammy history and probably find some commercially successful artist who appeared to be "snubbed" in terms of nominations or wins.
Does it truly matter at the end of the day? When I'm listening to my favorite artists, or discovering new ones, I'm not giving a single thought to how many Grammys they have. I'm just thinking about how much I enjoy the music itself.
The Grammys remain the most prestigious music award show and probably the best metric of the industry as whole, but they're not gospel of quality or commercial success. You'll enjoy them a lot more if you put less weight behind them, let the performances entertain you, root for your faves if they're nominated, and maybe find some new artists you like. The fact that NARAS churned out such a diverse roster of performers and winners this year is pretty impressive, given their lackluster history.
|
|
cjay
3x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2006
Posts: 3,046
|
Post by cjay on Mar 15, 2021 17:11:49 GMT -5
There are plenty of Icons and legends with spectacular discographies that don't have Grammys. So booo hoo to The Weeknd. Yeah it's odd that the biggest song of the year (possibly ever) didn't get nominated. But he probably would have felt entitled to win every award had he been nominated. It clear the Grammy voters didn't care for his material this go round. So had he been nominated just because he was big this year, they would have Mariah Carey'd him anyway. Life goes on. The Weekend will be fine.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,565
|
Post by jenglisbe on Mar 15, 2021 17:36:09 GMT -5
The sheer volume of music that comes out every year, coupled with the need to "play the game" to win awards, make the Grammys so subjective. You could point to any year in Grammy history and probably find some commercially successful artist who appeared to be "snubbed" in terms of nominations or wins. Does it truly matter at the end of the day? When I'm listening to my favorite artists, or discovering new ones, I'm not giving a single thought to how many Grammys they have. I'm just thinking about how much I enjoy the music itself. The Grammys remain the most prestigious music award show and probably the best metric of the industry as whole, but they're not gospel of quality or commercial success. You'll enjoy them a lot more if you put less weight behind them, let the performances entertain you, root for your faves if they're nominated, and maybe find some new artists you like. The fact that NARAS churned out such a diverse roster of performers and winners this year is pretty impressive, given their lackluster history. Yeah I don't think singling out any one artist makes sense or is important. I do think pointing out patterns is important and can be indicative of issues, though. I go back to how no Black woman has won Album of the Year or Record of the year in over 20 years. That means something.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,565
|
Post by jenglisbe on Mar 15, 2021 17:55:15 GMT -5
I wonder what social engagement is, though.
|
|
BDGeek
2x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by BDGeek on Mar 15, 2021 17:59:54 GMT -5
The sheer volume of music that comes out every year, coupled with the need to "play the game" to win awards, make the Grammys so subjective. You could point to any year in Grammy history and probably find some commercially successful artist who appeared to be "snubbed" in terms of nominations or wins. Does it truly matter at the end of the day? When I'm listening to my favorite artists, or discovering new ones, I'm not giving a single thought to how many Grammys they have. I'm just thinking about how much I enjoy the music itself. The Grammys remain the most prestigious music award show and probably the best metric of the industry as whole, but they're not gospel of quality or commercial success. You'll enjoy them a lot more if you put less weight behind them, let the performances entertain you, root for your faves if they're nominated, and maybe find some new artists you like. The fact that NARAS churned out such a diverse roster of performers and winners this year is pretty impressive, given their lackluster history. Yeah I don't think singling out any one artist makes sense or is important. I do think pointing out patterns is important and can be indicative of issues, though. I go back to how no Black woman has won Album of the Year or Record of the year in over 20 years. That means something. Does it though? It may just be pure coincidence and isn't necessarily deliberate on the part of the panel. The same claim could be made about Asian artists, LGBTQ+ artists, or any other marginalized group. That said, it could also be a product of systemic inequality (like literally every other field). If the NARAS base that votes in the general categories is largely white, male, heterosexual, and cisgender, is that a group I'd expect to gravitate toward a BeyoncΓ© album? Probably not. All the more reason to not put too much weight behind it and just support whatever art speaks to you.
|
|
Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815...
Diamond Member
All Lives Canβt Matter Until Black Lives Matter
Joined: February 2008
Posts: 18,332
|
Post by Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815... on Mar 15, 2021 22:04:56 GMT -5
|
|
atg
2x Platinum Member
Joined: April 2016
Posts: 2,994
|
Post by atg on Mar 15, 2021 23:51:02 GMT -5
There are plenty of Icons and legends with spectacular discographies that don't have Grammys. So booo hoo to The Weeknd. Yeah it's odd that the biggest song of the year (possibly ever) didn't get nominated. But he probably would have felt entitled to win every award had he been nominated. It clear the Grammy voters didn't care for his material this go round. So had he been nominated just because he was big this year, they would have Mariah Carey'd him anyway. Life goes on. The Weekend will be fine. Someone stated out to me that some of the winners in the categories that the weeknd wouldβve been nominated in are just placeholders. And i couldnβt agree more with that statement. Thereβs no denying that ROTY wouldβve gone to Blinding Lights and if they didnβt do that, that wouldβve killed the grammys alone.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,565
|
Post by jenglisbe on Mar 16, 2021 7:29:27 GMT -5
Yeah I don't think singling out any one artist makes sense or is important. I do think pointing out patterns is important and can be indicative of issues, though. I go back to how no Black woman has won Album of the Year or Record of the year in over 20 years. That means something. Does it though? It may just be pure coincidence and isn't necessarily deliberate on the part of the panel. The same claim could be made about Asian artists, LGBTQ+ artists, or any other marginalized group. That said, it could also be a product of systemic inequality (like literally every other field). If the NARAS base that votes in the general categories is largely white, male, heterosexual, and cisgender, is that a group I'd expect to gravitate toward a BeyoncΓ© album? Probably not. All the more reason to not put too much weight behind it and just support whatever art speaks to you. It should be noted that the population is largely white and heterosexual. In other words, most voting bodies are going to be largely white and heterosexual. Of course we need more diversity and representation in a lot of areas, but that can only happen to a certain degree.
|
|
Choco
Diamond Member
lavender haze
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 27,082
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by Choco on Mar 16, 2021 8:25:49 GMT -5
Ratings would have been the same with The Weeknd, don't @ me.
Awards shows and linear TV are on the way out.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Mar 16, 2021 8:31:30 GMT -5
Does it though? It may just be pure coincidence and isn't necessarily deliberate on the part of the panel. The same claim could be made about Asian artists, LGBTQ+ artists, or any other marginalized group. That said, it could also be a product of systemic inequality (like literally every other field). If the NARAS base that votes in the general categories is largely white, male, heterosexual, and cisgender, is that a group I'd expect to gravitate toward a BeyoncΓ© album? Probably not. All the more reason to not put too much weight behind it and just support whatever art speaks to you. It should be noted that the population is largely white and heterosexual. In other words, most voting bodies are going to be largely white and heterosexual. Of course we need more diversity and representation in a lot of areas, but that can only happen to a certain degree. Seems like an odd stance change compared to what you were saying about Black women not taking the top award in over 20 years.
|
|
Choco
Diamond Member
lavender haze
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 27,082
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by Choco on Mar 16, 2021 9:03:04 GMT -5
Being a white straight guy shouldn't impact your ability to vote for the superior BeyoncΓ© album instead of Beck... but we know that's not how it works most of the time.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,565
|
Post by jenglisbe on Mar 16, 2021 9:17:37 GMT -5
It should be noted that the population is largely white and heterosexual. In other words, most voting bodies are going to be largely white and heterosexual. Of course we need more diversity and representation in a lot of areas, but that can only happen to a certain degree. Seems like an odd stance change compared to what you were saying about Black women not taking the top award in over 20 years. There are two separate things at play here. The make up of the voting body and then how that body votes are two separate things, even if both are ultimately part of the problem. My point with the previous reply is simply that for as long as the actual population is largely white and heterosexual, then of course the majority of Grammy voters (not to mention Senators and so forth) is going to be white and heterosexual. To what Choco said, that doesn't mean those voters shouldn't be able to expand what they like and vote for, though. That's why I said it's two separate things at play. (Having said that, the reality is most people relate to and like things that are similar to them. Whatever race/sexual orientation/etc the majority of voter is will affect the results. We would complain about any sort of pattern, is my point, and in a sense be justified in doing so.)
|
|
back2blk
4x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: September 2020
Posts: 4,560
|
Post by back2blk on Mar 16, 2021 9:44:41 GMT -5
Seems like an odd stance change compared to what you were saying about Black women not taking the top award in over 20 years. There are two separate things at play here. The make up of the voting body and then how that body votes are two separate things, even if both are ultimately part of the problem. My point with the previous reply is simply that for as long as the actual population is largely white and heterosexual, then of course the majority of Grammy voters (not to mention Senators and so forth) is going to be white and heterosexual. To what Choco said, that doesn't mean those voters shouldn't be able to expand what they like and vote for, though. That's why I said it's two separate things at play. (Having said that, the reality is most people relate to and like things that are similar to them. Whatever race/sexual orientation/etc the majority of voter is will affect the results. We would complain about any sort of pattern, is my point, and in a sense be justified in doing so.) To also add to that, look at how long it took for Rap and Latin categories to even make the live TV Broadcast. The Grammys has definitely catered to a very specific demographic.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,565
|
Post by jenglisbe on Mar 16, 2021 9:55:58 GMT -5
There are two separate things at play here. The make up of the voting body and then how that body votes are two separate things, even if both are ultimately part of the problem. My point with the previous reply is simply that for as long as the actual population is largely white and heterosexual, then of course the majority of Grammy voters (not to mention Senators and so forth) is going to be white and heterosexual. To what Choco said, that doesn't mean those voters shouldn't be able to expand what they like and vote for, though. That's why I said it's two separate things at play. (Having said that, the reality is most people relate to and like things that are similar to them. Whatever race/sexual orientation/etc the majority of voter is will affect the results. We would complain about any sort of pattern, is my point, and in a sense be justified in doing so.) To also add to that, look at how long it took for Rap and Latin categories to even make the live TV Broadcast. The Grammys has definitely catered to a very specific demographic. Oh I agree in regards to what they show, and even what they reward. I also think it has a lot to do with genre and is more indirectly related to race. I say that because many Black artists have been rewarded in the big categories - from Stevie Wonder in the 70s to H.E.R. the other night - but they tend to be seen as "serious musicians." What is less rewarded is hip-hop and producer-driven music. That is music tied to Black culture, but I go back to something I've said a lot in these threads; most of the Grammy voters are musicians. They aren't famous, per se, but they are musicians who depend on gigs, being session musicians for recordings, etc. It makes sense to me they would like and vote for music they see as being about musicianship. There is of course craft and talent that goes into any kind of quality music, but I'm not sure all voters recognize it.
|
|
back2blk
4x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: September 2020
Posts: 4,560
|
Post by back2blk on Mar 16, 2021 10:08:58 GMT -5
To also add to that, look at how long it took for Rap and Latin categories to even make the live TV Broadcast. The Grammys has definitely catered to a very specific demographic. Oh I agree in regards to what they show, and even what they reward. I also think it has a lot to do with genre and is more indirectly related to race. I say that because many Black artists have been rewarded in the big categories - from Stevie Wonder in the 70s to H.E.R. the other night - but they tend to be seen as "serious musicians." What is less rewarded is hip-hop and producer-driven music. That is music tied to Black culture, but I go back to something I've said a lot in these threads; most of the Grammy voters are musicians. They aren't famous, per se, but they are musicians who depend on gigs, being session musicians for recordings, etc. It makes sense to me they would like and vote for music they see as being about musicianship. There is of course craft and talent that goes into any kind of quality music, but I'm not sure all voters recognize it. I wonder if there's any resentment with the fact that hip hop and producer-driven music is so more commercially successful.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,565
|
Post by jenglisbe on Mar 16, 2021 10:48:55 GMT -5
Oh I agree in regards to what they show, and even what they reward. I also think it has a lot to do with genre and is more indirectly related to race. I say that because many Black artists have been rewarded in the big categories - from Stevie Wonder in the 70s to H.E.R. the other night - but they tend to be seen as "serious musicians." What is less rewarded is hip-hop and producer-driven music. That is music tied to Black culture, but I go back to something I've said a lot in these threads; most of the Grammy voters are musicians. They aren't famous, per se, but they are musicians who depend on gigs, being session musicians for recordings, etc. It makes sense to me they would like and vote for music they see as being about musicianship. There is of course craft and talent that goes into any kind of quality music, but I'm not sure all voters recognize it. I wonder if there's any resentment with the fact that hip hop and producer-driven music is so more commercially successful. Perhaps, but why would they resent that genre specifically but then reward huge acts like Adele and Bruno Mars? I just think it's because a lot of voters haven't adapted to how hip-hop is created. A lot of hip-hop/R&B uses production more than live musicians. Hip-hop albums also tend to use a lot of different writers and producers, so it's 'music by committee' more than traditional singer/songwriter music (when Beck beat Beyonce for AOTY, he was literally the only producer on his album whereas Beyonce's album had 15-20 credited producers).
|
|
shayonce
2x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 2,197
|
Post by shayonce on Mar 16, 2021 11:08:22 GMT -5
nobody really care about the long lost of credit as much as y'all and stan twiter.. lol like.. Bruno won the SOTY with 6 name on credit.
it's more about just sound/image. Adele and Bruno was more traditional in sound and enjoyed by older generation. wider audience from age/race/genre meaning more votes.
Adele would be winning fine even if she had 10 name on credit as long as she can keep that old sound/image and appeal to older audience.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Mar 16, 2021 11:42:04 GMT -5
Seems like an odd stance change compared to what you were saying about Black women not taking the top award in over 20 years. There are two separate things at play here. The make up of the voting body and then how that body votes are two separate things, even if both are ultimately part of the problem. My point with the previous reply is simply that for as long as the actual population is largely white and heterosexual, then of course the majority of Grammy voters (not to mention Senators and so forth) is going to be white and heterosexual. To what Choco said, that doesn't mean those voters shouldn't be able to expand what they like and vote for, though. That's why I said it's two separate things at play. (Having said that, the reality is most people relate to and like things that are similar to them. Whatever race/sexual orientation/etc the majority of voter is will affect the results. We would complain about any sort of pattern, is my point, and in a sense be justified in doing so.) I think mainly the point I was going on was that you've mentioned the issue of Black women not being represented for the main award, but when someone mentioned LGBT artists, you kind of reverted back to "Of course we need more diversity and representation in a lot of areas, but that can only happen to a certain degree." I think most of us know that the point of representation isn't so much having equal winners men vs. women, or Black vs. white, or gay vs. straight, etc, etc. It's about reaching a point where people of non-white, non-straight backgrounds can have a shot at receiving recognition without having to go above and beyond to do it while white artists can win just because. In recent years where this has become an issue, we've had triumphant albums by Black artists who have showcased Black topics in their music in a way that was almost universally well received. Adele's 21 was seen as a landmark album in many ways, even beyond the success and sales numbers of it. But 25 won the award a few years later, while it is a splendid album, there's little that differentiates it from 21, an album that already won, yet Lemonade, an album that touches on Black themes and women's issues in a way that resonated with many people, lost to it. Now, one could say 25 touched and resonated with many people too so why should Lemonade win over that? That's probably something someone else could explain better than I could. I'd say a lot of it goes into the story behind told, how it was told, and that Lemonade was presenting something new and different in a way that worked. 25 was 21 repeated. Then again when 1989 beat To Pimp A Butterfly. I'm white, so I know Kendrick's album wasn't made with someone like me in mind, whereas 1989 probably was. But the level of detail that went into Kendrick's album, plus the importance of its subject matter, and relevance of its timing. The fact a Black artist can put so much into an album and it still not win just because the reach is smaller, whereas the reach of albums by Beck and Mumford & Sons is small too and they still won. It's almost as if in order to win the award nowadays, you have to appeal to the widest audience - unless you're a white male with default credibility as a musician. But it even goes beyond that into what's been discussed on this page: production and how people view music written by 1 or 2 songwriters vs. many. I find so much music is viewed through a classic rock white male lens where in order to be seen as being credible, you need to play live instruments, you need to write your own songs, and you have to write them with as few people as possible, otherwise you're a hack. But the rock lens only works with rock music. Different genres have different requirements that make them their own and I think that's also part of why other genres of music (and as such, other artists who aren't white men) are easily dismissed, because they follow different rules. To go even further, I believe the dismissal of pop music is a gender issue. Rock music is seen as a masculine genre, tough, strong, raw, sexual (in a manly way). Pop music isn't. It's soft, catchy, easy to consume, smooth, polished - qualities you might say are... feminine. And of course, pop music is also sexy, but not in a masculine way, and therefore, often wrong). Male pop stars are seen as "pussies", wimps, weak, or feminine. Music "purists" (re: rock music purists) dismiss pop music because of these so when a song comes out that is a super earworm, it's dismissed as trash unless you're a pop music fan. Yet, I would argue it's as hard to write a good melody as it is to write good lyrics. So, unless you're a woman who writes music to be accepted by men (and you kind of have to because it's still a male dominated field), you'll be dismissed. Music doesn't have to have lyrical depth to be good. Entire genres of music are made where the beat or the production is the primary driver of what makes it stand out, and in some settings, feeling the music through the beat is the most important attribute than what the lyrics are saying. Adding to that, music made for gay audiences also fail to get respect outside of them unless they've been straight-washed and filtered for the masses. Granted, by definition, music for gay audiences that is filtered for the masses is no longer music for gay audiences anymore, but maybe the same can be said about music made for Black audiences, or women, or any other group. The issue here really comes down to the judges/voters and why they vote why they do. Do they have the ability to recognize that even though Lemonade and To Pimp A Butterfly (or even albums like Future Nostalgia, Born This Way, or whatever album by Kylie/Madonna/Cher is seen as a gay win) have a more limited audience than 25, 1989 or 24k Magic, they are still triumphant achievements, or can they only vote for what they relate to?
|
|
Choco
Diamond Member
lavender haze
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 27,082
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by Choco on Mar 16, 2021 11:45:29 GMT -5
Bruno actually won SOTY with a track that credits 8 different writers lol. Previous highest amount of credited writers to get the award was 4.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,565
|
Post by jenglisbe on Mar 16, 2021 12:28:58 GMT -5
There are two separate things at play here. The make up of the voting body and then how that body votes are two separate things, even if both are ultimately part of the problem. My point with the previous reply is simply that for as long as the actual population is largely white and heterosexual, then of course the majority of Grammy voters (not to mention Senators and so forth) is going to be white and heterosexual. To what Choco said, that doesn't mean those voters shouldn't be able to expand what they like and vote for, though. That's why I said it's two separate things at play. (Having said that, the reality is most people relate to and like things that are similar to them. Whatever race/sexual orientation/etc the majority of voter is will affect the results. We would complain about any sort of pattern, is my point, and in a sense be justified in doing so.) I think mainly the point I was going on was that you've mentioned the issue of Black women not being represented for the main award, but when someone mentioned LGBT artists, you kind of reverted back to "Of course we need more diversity and representation in a lot of areas, but that can only happen to a certain degree." I think most of us know that the point of representation isn't so much having equal winners men vs. women, or Black vs. white, or gay vs. straight, etc, etc. It's about reaching a point where people of non-white, non-straight backgrounds can have a shot at receiving recognition without having to go above and beyond to do it while white artists can win just because. In recent years where this has become an issue, we've had triumphant albums by Black artists who have showcased Black topics in their music in a way that was almost universally well received. Adele's 21 was seen as a landmark album in many ways, even beyond the success and sales numbers of it. But 25 won the award a few years later, while it is a splendid album, there's little that differentiates it from 21, an album that already won, yet Lemonade, an album that touches on Black themes and women's issues in a way that resonated with many people, lost to it. Now, one could say 25 touched and resonated with many people too so why should Lemonade win over that? That's probably something someone else could explain better than I could. I'd say a lot of it goes into the story behind told, how it was told, and that Lemonade was presenting something new and different in a way that worked. 25 was 21 repeated. Then again when 1989 beat To Pimp A Butterfly. I'm white, so I know Kendrick's album wasn't made with someone like me in mind, whereas 1989 probably was. But the level of detail that went into Kendrick's album, plus the importance of its subject matter, and relevance of its timing. The fact a Black artist can put so much into an album and it still not win just because the reach is smaller, whereas the reach of albums by Beck and Mumford & Sons is small too and they still won. It's almost as if in order to win the award nowadays, you have to appeal to the widest audience - unless you're a white male with default credibility as a musician. But it even goes beyond that into what's been discussed on this page: production and how people view music written by 1 or 2 songwriters vs. many. I find so much music is viewed through a classic rock white male lens where in order to be seen as being credible, you need to play live instruments, you need to write your own songs, and you have to write them with as few people as possible, otherwise you're a hack. But the rock lens only works with rock music. Different genres have different requirements that make them their own and I think that's also part of why other genres of music (and as such, other artists who aren't white men) are easily dismissed, because they follow different rules. To go even further, I believe the dismissal of pop music is a gender issue. Rock music is seen as a masculine genre, tough, strong, raw, sexual (in a manly way). Pop music isn't. It's soft, catchy, easy to consume, smooth, polished - qualities you might say are... feminine. And of course, pop music is also sexy, but not in a masculine way, and therefore, often wrong). Male pop stars are seen as "pussies", wimps, weak, or feminine. Music "purists" (re: rock music purists) dismiss pop music because of these so when a song comes out that is a super earworm, it's dismissed as trash unless you're a pop music fan. Yet, I would argue it's as hard to write a good melody as it is to write good lyrics. So, unless you're a woman who writes music to be accepted by men (and you kind of have to because it's still a male dominated field), you'll be dismissed. Music doesn't have to have lyrical depth to be good. Entire genres of music are made where the beat or the production is the primary driver of what makes it stand out, and in some settings, feeling the music through the beat is the most important attribute than what the lyrics are saying. Adding to that, music made for gay audiences also fail to get respect outside of them unless they've been straight-washed and filtered for the masses. Granted, by definition, music for gay audiences that is filtered for the masses is no longer music for gay audiences anymore, but maybe the same can be said about music made for Black audiences, or women, or any other group. The issue here really comes down to the judges/voters and why they vote why they do. Do they have the ability to recognize that even though Lemonade and To Pimp A Butterfly (or even albums like Future Nostalgia, Born This Way, or whatever album by Kylie/Madonna/Cher is seen as a gay win) have a more limited audience than 25, 1989 or 24k Magic, they are still triumphant achievements, or can they only vote for what they relate to? Related to this, I love how Dua Lipa mentioned in her acceptance speech for Pop Album that she thought she had to make serious music for it to be good/important but then realized making happy music is just as important.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2021 13:31:52 GMT -5
nobody really care about the long lost of credit as much as y'all and stan twiter.. lol like.. Bruno won the SOTY with 6 name on credit. 8 names like Choco said, but Bruno is literally the only SOTY winner who ever did that. Also worth noting that of the SOTY winners with four credited writers, Single Ladies is the only one that was sung by a solo artist; the others were all sung by groups where most or all of the members are credited on the song (I'd guess there's actually sort of a reverse logic at play here where a group is less likely to win if most of the group didn't contribute anything other than vocals, hence why no boy bands ever took home an award). That indicates that Bruno is very much an exception rather than a rule. If results are any indication, many voters DO care about that sort of thing. Now, I do agree with you to an extent that image has something to do with it, though I'd probably replace the word 'image' with 'reputation.' The day after 24K Magic's big Grammy sweep, a music producer posted a video breaking down the production techniques Bruno used in the title track. At around the 4 minute mark in the video he picks out a guitar chord and then pulls out his own guitar to play it....when he plays back the isolated riff in the song he makes a point to say, "Definitely played" and explains why (you can hear the guitarist's fingers sliding as he moves from note to note). This guy got a degree in jazz and worked with rock and country bands. These are the kinds of behind-the-scenes session musicians Bruno is making an impression on. On the other end of the voter spectrum, every older legend who has ever met or worked with him (Nile Rodgers and Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis for example) has praised Bruno for his musicianship. Babyface outright said when he worked with Bruno that Face 'didn't have to do much' because Bruno already knew what he was doing. These guys know firsthand that Bruno himself can compose from scratch; the samples and extra hands on deck are just incidental. Combine all that with the fact that Bruno was a songwriter and producer for others before he was a recording artist himself, and it's easy to see how most of the voters viewed Bruno differently...most likely, the voters as a whole assume he is the main writer/composer on his music, more comparable to a Quincy Jones-esque bandleader than as someone simply biting old sounds, pushing buttons, or riding off a bunch of other people's input. That's a luxury that other artists with several shared credits don't usually have outside their genre.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2021 13:46:04 GMT -5
On a related note to my above post, it is somewhat ironic that Beyonce was the prior 'exception to the rule' example in SOTY, because I'm pretty convinced the reason she has never been able to win AOTY is because there is a large portion of the voting crowd that simply does not see or respect her as an artist who makes a significant contribution to her own music. The number of writers and constant questioning of how valid her own writing credits are, are always the first two things that are thrown in her fans' face when people question her self-titled and Lemonade losses.
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,607
|
Post by Enigma. on Mar 16, 2021 13:58:10 GMT -5
Being a white straight guy shouldn't impact your ability to vote for the superior BeyoncΓ© album instead of Beck... but we know that's not how it works most of the time. Most of the critics applauding BeyoncΓ©'s music are actually white men.
|
|
Glove Slap
Administrator
Sweetheart
Downloading ΰΌΊΰΌΰΌ» Possibilities
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 29,483
Staff
|
Post by Glove Slap on Mar 16, 2021 23:11:18 GMT -5
Popping in to say:
YESSSSSS Taylor!
YESSSSSS Dua!
Kinda missed the sweeps though ngl. And it's still all tainted by what they did to Abel.
In 12 months I think we will know where Ed Sheeran stands with the public and with the Grammys.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,565
|
Post by jenglisbe on Mar 17, 2021 8:56:50 GMT -5
Someone on another board did a random sample of some high-profile white artists and some high-profile black artists. It didn't reveal anything we didn't know and if you traded out some of these artists for others it would look a bit different, but it's still startling to see:
Beyonce, Jay, Kanye, Kendrick, Rihanna and Drake:
Total General Field Nominations: 64 Total General Field wins: 1 GF Win Percentage: 1.56%
Billie Eilish, Adele, Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, Ed Sheeran and Coldplay:
General Field Nominations: 50 General Field Wins: 18 Win Percentage: 36%
|
|
Ty
Diamond Member
good vibes and R&B
Joined: March 2009
Posts: 12,796
|
Post by Ty on Mar 17, 2021 9:52:33 GMT -5
I feel like it tells less about race but more about the genres of music that get awarded in the big 4.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,565
|
Post by jenglisbe on Mar 17, 2021 10:01:04 GMT -5
I feel like it tells less about race but more about the genres of music that get awarded in the big 4. I agree, but isn't race still indirectly a part of it? I mean, if the kind of music associated with Black artists is the kind of music voters won't embrace, it's still ultimately a race issue.
|
|
Rican@
8x Platinum Member
[Only dry eyes, I would love on you for years]
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,974
|
Post by Rican@ on Mar 17, 2021 10:03:43 GMT -5
I feel like it tells less about race but more about the genres of music that get awarded in the big 4. But we have the exception of the rule, Bruno who did a R&B album and won. Personally, race and genre go hand in hand when it comes to panel. If Bruno was black, he wouldnβt won.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Mar 17, 2021 10:06:31 GMT -5
I feel like it tells less about race but more about the genres of music that get awarded in the big 4. But we have the exception of the rule, Bruno who did a R&B album and won. Personally, race and genre go hand in hand when it comes to panel. If Bruno was black, he wouldnβt won. Iβd say even more itβs about who the music is for.
|
|
back2blk
4x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: September 2020
Posts: 4,560
|
Post by back2blk on Mar 17, 2021 10:41:03 GMT -5
I feel like it tells less about race but more about the genres of music that get awarded in the big 4. But we have the exception of the rule, Bruno who did a R&B album and won. Personally, race and genre go hand in hand when it comes to panel. If Bruno was black, he wouldnβt won. You really need to stop with this narrative. Bruno may not identify as African American or Black American, but there is black in the groups that make up his racial identity, and I will call you out on it every single time when you deny him the right to possess his own identity. Not to mention, he is a proud person of color, whose heritage is not a mystery. The conversation here is in the advantage that white privilege holds over marginalized groups, of which Bruno fits that categorization. ANYWAYS!!! Carry on.
|
|