Grammy Nonsense

[Tim McG]

I stopped watching the Grammy's years ago. I was just getting too angry over the abject and pointless schlock being passed off as "music". Music is not some sort of commodity to be prepackaged in glitter, flash and dance. It is an Art form. I pine for the day when top quality musicians, and not just past successful people, finally get the respect and chance to record from the suits in the music industry. Plenty of fine talent goes unsigned or completely ignored and at the certain detriment of this noble endeavor. Lip synced disco pop rehash is not music, it is only ear pabulum for the musically illiterate.

The 60s, 70s and even a little bit in the 80s produced well written and musically relevant tunes and bands. That is, disco symptom "music" and the obligatory teeny-bop pop crap notwithstanding. Today it's all about the sex, glamour and dance. It's all show no substance. The more tattoos, cleavage and not so subtle sexuality equals more sales. The suits have turned everything into a marketing strategy replete with all the trappings of a carnival side show. No so back in the day. Music was the focus. Show took a back seat to quality.

When does it end?

[sonnymax]

The Grammys is about the industry, not the music. Always has been, always will. Imo, this annual criticism of an awards show is more nonsensical than anything the Grammys purports to be.

Now if you want to talk about music, I'm all ears.

[JSngry]

Yeah, I remember how my folks really dug all the pop music I listened to because of the focus on musical quality and the lack of sex and glamor and dance. In fact they encouraged me to take control of the TV, the car radio, and to turn my phonograph up louder that I really thought was healthy, to be honest.

Where did it all go wrong?

[A Lark Ascending]

We used to have really intellectual award ceremonies then. Like Miss World.

[Blue Train]

Just when has the Grammys, or Oscars ever been about good music or films? You can put together a better list every single year than what even get's nominated.....never mind the stuff that wins. Just when has it not been about sex, glamor and dance?

It's like he's Rip Van Winkle.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Blue Train

[ejp626]

I agree with this, but there can still be acts that make me go -- uggh. I actually didn't have any problem with Dr. John backing The Black Keys, but then to turn the New Orleans Preservation Hall Jazz Band into a backing horn line? Absolutely stupid and having no sense at all of what they are all about. I would have been a lot happier if Sharon Jones backing band (The Daptones?) had been performing with The Black Keys -- it would have been a much better fit.

Again, no real surprise, but I didn't think it made any sense for the Preservation Hall musicians to agree to participate. Having one's name out there more widely isn't that helpful if you become known for something you absolutely aren't...

[Christiern]

The Grammy awards should never be used as a measure of artistic quality—it's all too political and too driven by the bottom line to be taken seriously. I only watched the first hour last night, but five minutes would have sufficed. The show is still a colossal waste of time: horrendously inept production numbers and performances that inexplicably generate enthusiastic responses from the hearing-impaired teenagers who fill the balconies. Great music is still being created in our time, but it just doesn't make it to the Grammys, and one has to wonder why some of the truly talented continue to participate in this charade. The "music" is generally bad and often appallingly so. We can only speculate as to what it would be like if the voting wasn't rigged.

[Tim McG]

Yeah, I remember how my folks really dug all the pop music I listened to because of the focus on musical quality and the lack of sex and glamor and dance. In fact they encouraged me to take control of the TV, the car radio, and to turn my phonograph up louder that I really thought was healthy, to be honest.

Where did it all go wrong?

I'm not talking generational differences here, Jim. I am talking about the quality of music has suffered greatly under the weight of the recording industry's need to market product first rather than letting talent be their focus.

Basically, I was referring to the Pop [short for Popular] music of Bob Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel, Barbara Streisand among many, many others. To even suggest there is any realistic comparison to the sheer weight in numbers of piss poor music and performers of this day and age is to not understand the difference between the time periods and the way record companies sought out talent. A perfect example of what I'm talking about is Lady GaGa. She is a marvelous keyboardist and vocalist but she whores herself out to the recording industry with the showtime BS. She has the talent but instead goes for the wads of money the industry gives her just so they can market her glitz to the clueless minions they market to. The focus is no longer on the music it's on the bottom line. Back in the day, the focus was on the music to bring up the bottom line. There is a difference.

The Grammy awards should never be used as a measure of artistic quality—it's all too political and too driven by the bottom line to be taken seriously. I only watched the first hour last night, but five minutes would have sufficed. The show is still a colossal waste of time: horrendously inept production numbers and performances that inexplicably generate enthusiastic responses from the hearing-impaired teenagers who fill the balconies. Great music is still being created in our time, but it just doesn't make it to the Grammys, and one has to wonder why some of the truly talented continue to participate in this charade. The "music" is generally bad and often appallingly so. We can only speculate as to what it would be like if the voting wasn't rigged.

Agreed.

[7/4]

I missed it. Did anything happen?

[Blue Train]

Yeah, I remember how my folks really dug all the pop music I listened to because of the focus on musical quality and the lack of sex and glamor and dance. In fact they encouraged me to take control of the TV, the car radio, and to turn my phonograph up louder that I really thought was healthy, to be honest.

Where did it all go wrong?

I'm not talking generational differences here, Jim. I am talking about the quality of music has suffered greatly under the weight of the recording industry's need to market product first rather than letting talent be their focus.

Basically, I was referring to the Pop [short for Popular] music of Bob Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel, Barbara Streisand among many, many others. To even suggest there is any realistic comparison to the sheer weight in numbers of piss poor music and performers of this day and age is to not understand the difference between the time periods and the way record companies sought out talent. A perfect example of what I'm talking about is Lady GaGa. She is a marvelous keyboardist and vocalist but she whores herself out to the recording industry with the showtime BS. She has the talent but instead goes for the wads of money the industry gives her just so they can market her glitz to the clueless minions they market to. The focus is no longer on the music it's on the bottom line. Back in the day, the focus was on the music to bring up the bottom line. There is a difference.

The Grammy awards should never be used as a measure of artistic quality—it's all too political and too driven by the bottom line to be taken seriously. I only watched the first hour last night, but five minutes would have sufficed. The show is still a colossal waste of time: horrendously inept production numbers and performances that inexplicably generate enthusiastic responses from the hearing-impaired teenagers who fill the balconies. Great music is still being created in our time, but it just doesn't make it to the Grammys, and one has to wonder why some of the truly talented continue to participate in this charade. The "music" is generally bad and often appallingly so. We can only speculate as to what it would be like if the voting wasn't rigged.

Agreed.

First off like the Oscars....the Grammys were never about quality. They have always been about money and politics. Second off....you talk about quality of music (no matter the year...have you actually looked to see who has somehow been nominated for a Grammy in any genre but they actually won in comparison to who should have been nominated or won?)....then you break off Lady GaGa not only is a marvelous keyboardist, but vocalist (you can't make that up!)....while also pointing like everyone else thinks....she's not only ripping off Madonna's music....but her entire act. That's when she's not ripping off Marilyn Manson. I would love to see if there is a single other person on here who thinks Lady GaGa is "a marvelous keyboardist and vocalist".

Edited February 12, 2013 by Blue Train

[JSngry]

Back in the day, the focus was on the music to bring up the bottom line. There is a difference.

Yeah, the difference is that back then, the industry wasn't sure what would sell to the "youth market" or what wouldn't, so they put damn near anything out, good or bad. For every "classic" there were at least 1500 turds (and if I'm exaggerating, it's on the conservative side).

Of course, selective memory has it otherwise, it always does, but look at everything that was released and everything that charted and everything that didn't chart (and how many "lost classics" there are now that sunk like a stone back then). Not all that much was too much more than ear candy for the day's sweet tooths (and that has not changed one bit - "ear candy is the point of pop music, always has been always will be. And for the record, yes, I like ear candy!).

The industry was just throwing any damn thing out there to see what would stick. Now they know, and they really have since the mid-late 70s. It's just taken this long to really consolidate everything. ABC didn't support Steely Dan because they were really musical, ABC supported Steely Dan because they sold records and kept selling records.

Let's not confuse luck with intent.

[Tim McG]

My "spies" tell me some of the worst performances ever done on national TV occurred last night. Off key whistling for starters.

[Blue Train]

Has there been a single time when there wasn't a amnesic back in my day by an older generation(s)?

[Tim McG]

Back in the day, the focus was on the music to bring up the bottom line. There is a difference.

Yeah, the difference is that back then, the industry wasn't sure what would sell to the "youth market" or what wouldn't, so they put damn near anything out, good or bad. For every "classic" there were at least 1500 turds (and if I'm exaggerating, it's on the conservative side).

Of course, selective memory has it otherwise, it always does, but look at everything that was released and everything that charted and everything that didn't chart (and how many "lost classics" there are now that sunk like a stone back then). Not all that much was too much more than ear candy for the day's sweet tooths (and that has not changed one bit - "ear candy is the point of pop music, always has been always will be. And for the record, yes, I like ear candy!).

The industry was just throwing any damn thing out there to see what would stick. Now they know, and they really have since the mid-late 70s. It's just taken this long to really consolidate everything. ABC didn't support Steely Dan because they were really musical, ABC supported Steely Dan because they sold records and kept selling records.

Let's not confuse luck with intent.

Steely Dan sold records because they were good, Jim. Let's not confuse talent with marketability.

I already stated that Disco and teeny-bopper crap were not a part of my consideration. Of course there was crap, one hit wonders and a lot of garbage. But the focus was on the music, not the show. That is my principle complaint.

I have been to well over 250 concerts over the years dating back to 1971. I can tell you that the concert was always about showcasing the music. Light shows were rare and usually left to the psychedelic crowd. Now, pyrotechnics and glitz are the norm. If an artist is good looking, has ample cleavage and can dance to some pre-fabricated beat in a slinky short skirt, that's all the suits want. Am I saying album art back then didn't portray sexy images or include lyrics that were as sexual? No, not at all. But that wasn't the focus.

If by "throwing every damn thing out there" can include CSNY, Jimi Hendrix, Cream, Beatles, The Band, Led Zepplin, etc, ad nauseum, then I will eat my hat. You simply do not see that type of quality Pop act out there anymore. But you will see plenty of flash and dance.

Edited February 12, 2013 by GoodSpeak

[Blue Train]

JSngry

No point wasting your time.   I would like to think everyone else knows what is going on.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Blue Train

[JSngry]

Yeah, Steely Dan sold as many records as they did for the same reason Chuck Mangione did - it was a time when "sophistication" was "hip", and, for that matter, when "hip" was hip. Most people did not know any better/different, and really, should they have?

Was it a better time for music that aimed to be "different"? Sure it was. But that's not because "the industry" was sitting up there thinking, hey,. let's make this a better world through music". Oh HELL no!

Let's look at "Rock Era" pop music - Early R&B/Rockabilly wild men get co-opted by prefab teen idols & virginal girls (and, thank god, some not so virginal girl groups!), aples back in applecart, and then UH-OH, here comes Beatles & Dylan & Hendrix, WE'RE GONNA RULE THE WORLD, only before too much longer (and it took a little longer because the drugs got different and then cut back on and then replaced with mortgages) you got Corporate Rock unitl Punk comes along, but oh NO, they ain't gonna let THAT happen again, so Elvis Costello becomes a "star" by image, not sales, and tehn, ok, the New Wave side of punk got standardized enough to be manageable, but then Hip-Hop comes along, and NO WAY were they gonna let that bust out until the whole Gangsta thing came along, and, oh, cool, Negroes Killing Negroes, we can live with THAT, we can sell THAT to White Folks, and so on and so on and so on.

Point being simply when you have Good Pop Music (whatever that is, I mean, geez, how subjective can you get?) it's because people find it, want it, and by god The Industry WILL see to it that you can get it. And when people DON'T want Good Pop Music, they'll not look for it, and The Industry will see to it that you can get something else. Always. Because that's what they do.

And whenever anything "different" is popular, you can take it to the bank that it will get standardized and de-volved and sold like a cheap whore on New Years Eve - and that there will be plenty of takers until at least January 5th.

[JSngry]

1968 nominees for Record Of The Year:

Up, Up and Away (Winner)

By the Time I Get to Phoenix

My Cup Runneth Over

Ode to Billie Joe

Somethin' Stupid

In 1968!

Now, I'll take the 3 out of the 5 (4 if I can allow for the Frank/Nancy trivia, which I can maybe once every five years or so), but if we're gonna look at it in "industry" terms, what the hell does any of that have to do with 1968 other than they all were safe records that sold a lot to people who liked safe music?

You got Ed Ames holding hands with Jimmy Webb. That does not happen if anybody's main priority is giving a fuck about "quality music". Especially in 1968!

Besides, look at the Top 100 songs of 1968: http://www.musicoutfitters.com/topsongs/1968.htm

Take away what I like as Ear Candy and what's left is a fair amount of good R&B (but nowhere near as much as was being made) and...more Ear Candy (just not for my ears) and Empowered Young People Music...

Which is still what you get in Pop Music today - Ear Candy & Empowered Young People Music.

[Blue Train]

Walk away from the hole.

Pitchers and Catchers tomorrow!

[Tim McG]

Yeah, Steely Dan sold as many records as they did for the same reason Chuck Mangione did - it was a time when "sophistication" was "hip", and, for that matter, when "hip" was hip. Most people did not know any better/different, and really, should they have?

Was it a better time for music that aimed to be "different"? Sure it was. But that's not because "the industry" was sitting up there thinking, hey,. let's make this a better world through music". Oh HELL no!

Let's look at "Rock Era" pop music - Early R&B/Rockabilly wild men get co-opted by prefab teen idols & virginal girls (and, thank god, some not so virginal girl groups!), aples back in applecart, and then UH-OH, here comes Beatles & Dylan & Hendrix, WE'RE GONNA RULE THE WORLD, only before too much longer (and it took a little longer because the drugs got different and then cut back on and then replaced with mortgages) you got Corporate Rock unitl Punk comes along, but oh NO, they ain't gonna let THAT happen again, so Elvis Costello becomes a "star" by image, not sales, and tehn, ok, the New Wave side of punk got standardized enough to be manageable, but then Hip-Hop comes along, and NO WAY were they gonna let that bust out until the whole Gangsta thing came along, and, oh, cool, Negroes Killing Negroes, we can live with THAT, we can sell THAT to White Folks, and so on and so on and so on.

Point being simply when you have Good Pop Music (whatever that is, I mean, geez, how subjective can you get?) it's because people find it, want it, and by god The Industry WILL see to it that you can get it. And when people DON'T want Good Pop Music, they'll not look for it, and The Industry will see to it that you can get something else. Always. Because that's what they do.

And whenever anything "different" is popular, you can take it to the bank that it will get standardized and de-volved and sold like a cheap whore on New Years Eve - and that there will be plenty of takers until at least January 5th.

Then how do you explain the continued success of Donald Fagen post-SD? ABC still supported him? C'mon, he was that good. It was because of it he continued to sell recordings. Period. If Fagen tried to break into the business today, the suits would want to see him dance first.

How do you further explain young people's love of 70s rock bands? It is because they were that good. They have withstood the test of time and I am willing to bet the ranch people 20 or 30 years from now will wonder why in the hell Beyounce or Frank Ocean were ever given a music contract.

The fact of the matter is it is not about what people want, it is about what people are TOLD what to want. Why you can't see that by way of comparison seriously baffles me...no disrespect intended, I assure you.

Edited February 12, 2013 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

1968 nominees for Record Of The Year:

Up, Up and Away (Winner)

By the Time I Get to Phoenix

My Cup Runneth Over

Ode to Billie Joe

Somethin' Stupid

In 1968!

Now, I'll take the 3 out of the 5 (4 if I can allow for the Frank/Nancy trivia, which I can maybe once every five years or so), but if we're gonna look at it in "industry" terms, what the hell does any of that have to do with 1968 other than they all were safe records that sold a lot to people who liked safe music?

You got Ed Ames holding hands with Jimmy Webb. That does not happen if anybody's main priority is giving a fuck about "quality music". Especially in 1968!

Besides, look at the Top 100 songs of 1968: http://www.musicoutf...psongs/1968.htm

Take away what I like as Ear Candy and what's left is a fair amount of good R&B (but nowhere near as much as was being made) and...more Ear Candy (just not for my ears) and Empowered Young People Music...

Which is still what you get in Pop Music today - Ear Candy & Empowered Young People Music.

That was one year, Jim. Anybody can find crappy music as winners.

I'm talking about a three decade span.

[JSngry]

But the 5th Dimension was NOT crappy! That was one helluva good song and a GREAT Pop record! Jimmy Webb during that time? Freakin' In The Zone.

But that's not why it won, trust me.

Here - see for yourself, Record Of The Year, year by year, winners and nominees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammy_Award_for_Record_of_the_Year

You got your music, then you got your music business (getting the music made) then you got your Music Industry (selling the music that gets made), and then you got your Grammys (celebrating the selling of some of the music that gets made).

Don't get me wrong, I still have an abiding love of Pop Music (it seldom loves me back these days, but it's entitled, as am I), but the last time - literally - that I watched or "cared" about the grammys was 1969. I kid you not.

[JSngry]

And Beyonce can sing. Don't let the show fool ya'. the lady DOES have skills.

[JSngry]

Then how do you explain the continued success of Donald Fagen post-SD? ABC still supported him? C'mon, he was that good. It was because of it he continued to sell recordings. Period. If Fagen tried to break into the business today, the suits would want to see him dance first.

They would look to see if he had something they could sell. It would be dance, or it would be irony, or it would be alienation, or perky, something. Back in the day, Steely Dan sold "Quirk", that was how they gained momentum, not GREAT MUSIC, but "quirky music". And there was a market for that then. Quirk was something you could sell, and then pivot the quirk into "musicianship" and "impeccable production" and other such other tings to sell to people would will buy it. But ask you average Steely Dan fan from, say, 1978, hey, what's going on in this music, what makes it different, what are they doing with the words, why do these records sound so good, everything's so clear, how does that work? Most would not know or care at all, most of the rest would probably have a few subliminally absorbedPR blurs ready to paraphrase, and a few geeks who actually know music and record making would have answers that none of other fnas would want to hear, because, you know, that stuff's BORING.

People will sell what people are buying, and they will not try to convince you to buy otherwise until you convince them that you want something else.

So, like, I don't blame a shoe store for not having a meat case in the center isle.

[Blue Train]

Even though I warned you to not fall into the troll's hole....you fell.

How can anyone look @ post #12 and not realize you're not dealing with a troll? As in, he either literally started an entire thread and continues to argue about something that post makes very clear he never saw (his "spies" told him about it.), or he really needs help....while acting like 1968 was somehow abnormal...when it was the same any year anyone could check.

Once again, step away from the hole. Pitchers and Catchers!

Edited February 12, 2013 by Blue Train

[sonnymax]

I would love to see if there is a single other person on here who thinks Lady GaGa is "a marvelous keyboardist and vocalist".

I don't know if I'd call GaGa "a marvelous keyboardist and vocalist", but I do like some of what I've seen and heard thus far. Rather than merely "ripping off" Madonna's music, I think she's a talented artist who's picked up the torch and carried it further in terms of celebrating diversity. More power to her!

Oh, and one more thing. Given your checkered history on this board, I find it ironic that you should be calling someone else a troll.

Edited February 12, 2013 by sonnymax