Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: A Historical Tribute to the Worthlessness of the Grammys

  1. #1
    Super Moderator twitchy2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Milliways
    Posts
    55,115

    Default A Historical Tribute to the Worthlessness of the Grammys

    Jethro Tull, New Vaudeville Band and Katy Perry: A Historical Tribute to the Worthlessness of the Grammys



    On Wednesday night CBS aired the Grammy nominations in the form of a big concert, but the music died sometime in the first hour: Katy Perry earned an Album of the Year nomination, Glee garnered one for Best Pop Performance by a Duo or Group With Vocals (come on), and typically tepid Grammy bait like Lady Antebellum picked up six noms. While the Grammys are supposed to represent music’s biggest night on television, the ceremony remains what it has always been: a valentine to the recording industry, where popularity and obligation supersede quality. We’ve lined up our favorite reasons to loathe the Grammys (which is saying a lot coming from award-show junkies like us), and we hope you’re dragging the needle onto your prized Jethro Tull LP as you read along.

    · 1993 wasn’t just a solid year for women in rock; it was the definitive year. PJ Harvey, Aimee Mann, the Breeders, and most of all Liz Phair turned out albums that would define the decade’s surge in women’s alternative.

    Unfortunately, 1993 is also a year the Grammys decided to cancel the category of “Best Rock Vocal Performance — Female” and present a gender-neutral rock vocal award to five male nominees. In a close race, Meat Loaf beat out Bob Dylan.

    · 1992 was arguably a good year for Nirvana. “Smells Like Teen Spirit” pretty much transformed the music industry overnight, no? Well, that year’s Best Rock Song went not to the mulatto-mosquito anthem, but to Eric Clapton’s unplugged and non-rock version of “Layla.”

    · The Grammys’ most grating quality is its weird obligation to award legendary artists for less-than-stellar output in their latter days. (See, also: The Oscars.) The past decade’s Album of the Year winners alone have included known oldsters Steely Dan, Ray Charles, and Herbie Hancock.

    · While it’s hard to fault the Grammys for incorrectly predicting the future, their history of awarding the Best New Artist trophy to one-hit wonders is pretty bizarre. Some awardees include Bobbie Gentry, the Starland Vocal Band, Debby Boone, a Taste of Honey, Sheena Easton, Men at Work, Milli Vanilli, Marc Cohn, and Arrested Development.

    · The list of legends who’ve never won anything but Lifetime Achievement Grammys is predictably eye-popping: Janis Joplin, the Doors, the Who, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, and Bob Marley all qualify. In fact, only last year did Neil Young win his first Grammy — for “Best Boxed or Special Limited Edition Package,” an award given not for music, but CD artwork. And yes, there is an award for CD artwork. A better encapsulation of how tone-deaf the Grammys are could not be found.

    · I have to credit Cracked for this find: 1966’s Best Rock & Roll Recording (sounds dubious already, I know) went not to nominees the Beatles, the Beach Boys, the Mamas and the Papas, the Association, or even the Monkees. Nope, it went to a studio-musician novelty project called the New Vaudeville Band and their single “Winchester Cathedral.” Even your great-grandmother, that song’s intended audience, knows better. You should know that “Eleanor Rigby” and Jimi Hendrix’s personal choice for the greatest song in rock history, “God Only Knows,” were the losing tunes.

    · Since the amount of Grammy categories exploded sometime in the past 20 years (and oodles of “rap/sung collaboration”-style niches have sprung up), many performers have been over-rewarded. Beyonce’s a dynamite performer, but does she really deserve — ahem — 13 Grammys (plus the three she earned with Destiny’s Child)? Does Alicia Keys deserve 12? Compare that to artists who’ve been around much longer like seven-time winner Madonna, five-time winner Elton John, four-time winner Carole King, and zero-time winner Bjork, and the tally doesn’t quite add up.

    · The introduction of a Grammy for Best Hard Rock Performance in the 1989 ceremony sparked polite applause from the headbanger community, but their joy was short-lived. Flute-playing folkies Jethro Tull won the inaugural award over actual rockers like Metallica, AC/DC, Iggy Pop, and Jane’s Addiction. Figuring they had no chance of winning, Jethro Tull didn’t even show up to accept the award. The upset remains the Grammys’ signature moment in insanity.
    A Historical Tribute to the Worthlessness of the Grammys | Movieline
    "If you are not outraged, then you are not paying attention," Heather Heyer's facebook quote.

  2. #2
    Elite Member angelais's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Jon Hamm's pants
    Posts
    12,751

    Default

    I never watch the Grammys. They suck. I'd rather watch mold grow on a block of old cheese.
    Did you know that an anagram for "Conscious Uncoupling" is "Iconic Uncool Pus Guns"? - MohandasKGanja

  3. #3
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    51,883

    Default

    the grammys are an even bigger joke than the oscars. at least the oscars get it right once in a blue moon and reward a film or actor that actually deserves it. the grammys are consistantly, eternally shiteous.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  4. #4
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,801

    Default

    Are the grammys decided by a panel of people in the music industry? I guess I never gave much thought to who the decision makers are. Same for Oscars.
    "I've cautiously embraced jeggings"
    Emma Peel aka Pacific Breeze aka Wilde1 aka gogodancer aka maribou

    Yip, yip, yip in your tiny indignation. Bark furiously on, lady dog.

  5. #5
    Elite Member darksithbunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,544

    Default

    Like the last part of the article said, I stopped watching in 1989 and giving any credit to the Grammys when Metallica lost.

  6. #6
    Elite Member VenusInFauxFurs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Back in the boxed wine.
    Posts
    21,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sputnik View Post
    the grammys are an even bigger joke than the oscars. at least the oscars get it right once in a blue moon and reward a film or actor that actually deserves it. the grammys are consistantly, eternally shiteous.
    Pretty much.
    When your daughter plays "House," she pretends to be an annoying doctor with a pill-addiction and a limp.

  7. #7
    Hit By Ban Bus! rockchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    midwest USA
    Posts
    4,427

    Default

    I refuse to watch the grammies and would be ashamed to win one.

  8. #8
    Elite Member nancydrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In the black kid's pants
    Posts
    6,148

    Default

    The Grammys suck, people only watch to see who is wearing what.
    (276): Michelle Duggar likes to fuuuuck
    OK, I can't sing, I can't act, I'm dumb, I'm a hillbilly, but I can twerk, so whatever.-Miley Cyrus

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 21
    Last Post: January 27th, 2010, 08:38 PM
  2. M.I.A at the Grammys...erk!
    By Rondette in forum Famous Style
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: February 10th, 2009, 09:53 PM
  3. Duffy - Grammys
    By mrs.v in forum Famous Style
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: February 10th, 2009, 07:45 AM
  4. Replies: 15
    Last Post: April 8th, 2008, 01:44 AM
  5. Replies: 27
    Last Post: February 28th, 2008, 05:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •