R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Grammys.  (Read 2269 times)

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Grammys.
« on: February 14, 2005, 12:08:53 pm »

who watched em, what did you think?

i'd like to see them create a new category called "dead guy of the year"

Logged

testtone

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
Re: Grammys.
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2005, 01:06:10 pm »

Overall, i thought they were awful. Last year, Johnny Cash - token dead guy - this year, Ray Charles - 8 grammys is more than just paying tribute. It's far and away not even his best record - not to mention that over 1/4 of all the sales of that record were recorded from Starbucks, which means that this will just encourage that trend (and my co-worker buying any piece of schlock they release)

The technical gaffe's were not as apparent as last year (dead mics, fucked up sound) but was far from perfect - especially on some of those group collaborations - speaking of which - the Tsunami benefit song was horrible - i truly wonder who is going to want to hear that P.O.S. again?

Also, Best New Artist - Maroon 5 for a record that was released in 2002? Hello?

The best part of the awards show for me though was the Loretta Lynn / Jack White acceptance with her continually messing with him and for his comment about how Country Music has never played her hit records and dropped the ball again. I wish they televised the Shortlist Awards or something similar - i wouldn't feel so crappy about my industry after seeing something REAL get nominated/ win something...

John Shanks (ashlee simpson, kelly clarkson, etc.) producer of the year...sheesh!
Logged

ericswan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 214
Re: Grammys.
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2005, 01:31:19 pm »

The Grammys are usually awful, but like a trainwreck, I have to watch....

Across the Universe was a train wreck; bad choice of a song and poorly performed.

Bono seemed embarrassed (rightly so) that they beat Green Day.

It was fun to watch Loretta Lynn mess with Jack White.

I loved Ray Charles, thought Bonnie Raitt's little thing was very appropriate, but the 8 Grammys for a fairly ho hum record was way too much. I also disagreed with this record winning the Engineering Grammy.

Alysia Keys looked great, now if she could just sing something without all the extra vocal acrobatics I mught actually like her.

Melissa Etheridge showed what rock and roll is really all about.
Logged
"Be yourself. Everyone else is taken." Oscar Wilde


Sacred Heart Studio
www.sacredheartstudio.net
www.myspace.com/sacredheartstudio

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: Grammys.
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2005, 01:40:01 pm »

i forgot about jack white....that was hilarious.

i loved when Loretta Lynn told jack he had to say something and his response was, "yes ma'am".

my other favorite moment was kayne west, first thing he says.....

"you better start playing the music now cause this is going to take a while......"

hahahahahaa

the tsunami tribute was brutally painful to watch.

U2......

well, yeah, they looked a bit surprised....but you gotta hand it to larry mullin, he took the chance to appologize to some fans instead of thanking anyone for the award.
Logged

mogwailoveyou

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 147
Re: Grammys.
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2005, 04:23:48 pm »

maroon 5 won best new band...? man i'm glad i didn't watch. i'm suprised that franz ferdinand didn't grab that one. then again i'm suprised that modest mouse didn't take that one, they're an up and coming band right? as far as the ray charles eulogy type gushing of awards it doesn't make a difference to me, i mean it's not like these critics have any grounds for their decisions anyways aside from record sales and a slight aversion (quickly disappearing) for rap and pop punk/emo... might as well waste them on someone who's too dead to show off their award on the next episode of cribs. no offense to ray, he, much like cash last year were great artists, but the man is dead!!! i seriously doubt he cares much about the award, and while you could say it's for the family and the fans, think about all of the living artists out there that have poured their souls into their work and are still alive to appreciate the award.

oh ya and to that starbucks cd comment, i was looking at their two valentines mixes for ideas, one was called "modern love songs" and the last three tracks were flaming lips - do you realize?, the cure - love song, and new order - bizarre love triangle... sounds modern to me! but then again their other cd, a covers cd had joseph arthur covering the smiths and calexico doing love will tear us apart, might actually be interesting.
Logged
mogwai love you and need you

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: Grammys.
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2005, 05:52:36 pm »

ray being dead and not around to apreciate his awards has little to do with it for me.  personally i think it's stupid to give a guy 8 grammys simply BECAUSE he died.  give him a lifetime achievement award.

the record that won so many grammys isn't even that great.....that's what gets me.

it's not about the music anymore.

Logged

drumsound

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: Grammys.
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2005, 12:17:13 am »

I haven't watched in years.  Even the couple of years I was a member I didn't watch.  I didn't even look at the nominations list this year.

It's no surprise to me that:
A) Ray Charles got a lot of awards for a mediocre record
B) U2 one.  I'm pretty sure they have bought the entire planet.
Logged

NelsonL

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1233
Re: Grammys.
« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2005, 10:07:33 am »

I didn't get to see the award show itself, but before we went out that night we had some of the red carpet coverage on the tube.

By far the most absurd thing I've seen in a long while was slipknot being interviewed with their masks on.

Inane question from interviewer: "So you guy tour a lot huh?"

Muffled yet earnest reponse: "Yeah we're heading back out next month cause it's all about the fans ya know?"

Man, I couldn't contain myself. It was like a Pynchon novel.

Logged

Ross Hogarth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2512
Re: Grammys.
« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2005, 12:36:39 pm »

It just get 's weirder and weirder
Now that hip hop has garnered it's place in the market share and slash is a veteran   the grammy's are trying to please all people all the time
the opening of maroon 5 / los lonely boys/ Franz Ferdinand and kanye west was so absolutely bizarre it only got weirder from there
slash w/ velvet revolver as the backup band for a beatles song with stevie wonder and the gang?
the southern rock with Tim McGraw as out of tune as any one singer could ever be?
giving John Mayer the song of the year for "Daughters" ?maybe he should have won best sappy song by a young guy ... or maybe best use of a song for future product placement ..like for a disposable douche ...
Why not give U2 a few more Grammy's...
Why not honor Ray as this years dead guy no matter how mediocre his record is ..it is another way of pumping up our little Muppet Norah Jones ...
Yes Alicia Keyes kicks butt and yes my girl Melissa Etheridge bald and all made Joss Stone look like one of the girls that walk out with the Grammys, or bring a bottle of Sparklets water for Melissa, basically window dressing.
This is our industry.
Predictably embarrassing.
Logged

The practice of forgiveness is our most important contribution to the healing of the world.

The standard of success in life isn't the things. It isn't the money or the stuff. It is absolutely the amount of joy that you feel.

www.hoaxproductions.com

mogwailoveyou

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 147
Re: Grammys.
« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2005, 02:12:20 pm »

well i have a sneaking suspicion that pretty soon indie music (or anything "underground") will be owning the grammy's (or at least best new artists.) the lists will look more like today's shortlist... i could be wrong but i don't know... i can see dizzee rascal and madvillian taking over the rap/r&b categories, the shins, sigur ros, and bright eyes taking over the rock categories and somewhere in the background axl rose weeps, tears flowing from each somber braid of hair. conor oberst cries with him.
Logged
mogwai love you and need you

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: Grammys.
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2005, 03:17:18 pm »

mogwailoveyou wrote on Fri, 18 February 2005 13:12

well i have a sneaking suspicion that pretty soon indie music (or anything "underground") will be owning the grammy's (or at least best new artists.) the lists will look more like today's shortlist... i could be wrong but i don't know... i can see dizzee rascal and madvillian taking over the rap/r&b categories, the shins, sigur ros, and bright eyes taking over the rock categories and somewhere in the background axl rose weeps, tears flowing from each somber braid of hair. conor oberst cries with him.



that would be just as funny and sad as it is now.

but i seriously doubt that underground "indie rock" will ever break into the grammys

it's not about good music (as we all know) it's about voting members.

i'm not even sure that i can vote........
Logged

mogwailoveyou

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 147
Re: Grammys.
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2005, 04:49:43 pm »

i don't know, i mean i know tweedy and the rest of wilco's crew aren't exactly underground but they are definately not hoobastank, and they picked up alternative album. i bet you next year conor oberst takes best new artist... i could be wrong but i'm almost willing to put money on it. not that i can stomach the kid at all.
Logged
mogwai love you and need you
Pages: [1]   Go Up