Latest on MJJC

2009 Grammy Awards nominations

vncwilliam said:
well milli vanilli is the fault of people, not the trophy. to me, seeing MJ getting recognized like that, in the past was always better than him getting lambasted.
Click to expand...
I'm not even talking about whether or not they sang on the album, just that it was nominated in the 1st place. If the voters are really judging what the "best" is, why does a record company, movie studio, the performer, or whatever have to "submit" something to be "judged". Shouldn't they have heard the stuff they're judging and pick what they like and not what someone solicited to them, (who pay money to the "academy/judges", which is where they get the money to give away those "gift baskets" and the like)? How about the Shelby Lynne "best new artist", when she had several albums before?
 
DuranDuran said:
There's thousands of albums released each year and I seriously doubt that someone listened to all of them.
Click to expand...

you bring up great points against realistically awarding music, and especially in our superficial marketing-heavy industry.

but i don't agree that acknowledge art en mass through awards has to be about egoism. i have always protested that art is never a competition and it doesn't even need the competitive drive amongst individuals like most sports. but it would be great if they saw such a process as purely championing the progress/evolution of the music of their time.

in an ideal industry, i'm all for rewarding, sponsoring and acknowledging 'outstanding achievement' however subjective the decisions will be. and i think it's a good idea to have professionals judging fellow professionals, with no alterior agendas or businesspersons corrupting the process.

what did you think of Herbie's Mitchell tribute album getting the recent Grammys?


Yeezy2008 said:
Lupe should be takin best rap album.
Click to expand...
agreed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dri
DuranDuran said:
I'm not even talking about whether or not they sang on the album, just that it was nominated in the 1st place. If the voters are really judging what the "best" is, why does a record company, movie studio, the performer, or whatever have to "submit" something to be "judged". Shouldn't they have heard the stuff they're judging and pick what they like and not what someone solicited to them, (who pay money to the "academy/judges", which is where they get the money to give away those "gift baskets" and the like)? How about the Shelby Lynne "best new artist", when she had several albums before?
Click to expand...

it could be because the academy may have missed something that was on the radio so the artist submits it.
 
vncwilliam said:
it could be because the academy may have missed something that was on the radio so the artist submits it.
Click to expand...

Then what is the "bribe" for? As I said before, out of thousands of albums released, why are the ones that are picked happen to be the biggest sellers. I thought the award was for the "Best", not who sold the most. The "best" won't get good ratings (but the most popular will), which is why things like polka album or traditional blues recording are never televised.
arXter said:
what did you think of Herbie's Mitchell tribute album getting the recent Grammys?
Click to expand...
This proves my comment before about awards being a marketing gimmick (the same as someone dying improve sales). This record wasn't doing anything, the week after it won, it jumped into the top 10.
 
DuranDuran said:
Then what is the "bribe" for? As I said before, out of thousands of albums released, why are the ones that are picked happen to be the biggest sellers. I thought the award was for the "Best", not who sold the most. The "best" won't get good ratings (but the most popular will), which is why things like polka album or traditional blues recording are never televised.

This proves my comment before about awards being a marketing gimmick (the same as someone dying improve sales). This record wasn't doing anything, the week after it won, it jumped into the top 10.
Click to expand...

well, somebody will always be dissatisfied as u can see by this thread, so they might as well pick the most popular.
 
The Grammys go for the most popular albums that appeal to kids who don't know better. :lol: To be frank though, I think the net has as much to do with some of the nominations. No one nominates on "craft" anymore. And to be frank while it is a very revolutionary project, Thriller really set the template to what we see now: it was a popular album that appealed to everybody, sold massive sales and that artist was its most popular artist that year. Nowadays you be shocked if any artist MJ's age got any nominations unless it was for sympathy votes. The Grammys can they nominate for the "best" but usually someone's treasure is another's trash. I just think awards are overrated.
 
lol..man i'm seein ads for the frammys all over the place right now. something called 'grammy museum live' is being plastered all over free papers in this area. i think they're trying to make themselves legit in the eyes of the public again. :lol:
 
Thanx a bunch arXter. I was looking thruuu the list real quick. "Boyz II Men"!!! I'm a big fan, but let's be serious. The Grammies had to put them on the list cuz there ain't many talents in the current mainstream to make a decent list. I wish to hear how they think about their nomination.

LOL Frammies. Thank you, vncwilliam. I've just learned another word for the Grammies. Grannies was all I got.
 
Lil Wayne, my God...

Who let that moron get its majesty, the Microphone and SPIT ALL OVER IT?!
 
troubleman84 said:
The Grammys go for the most popular albums that appeal to kids who don't know better. :lol: To be frank though, I think the net has as much to do with some of the nominations. No one nominates on "craft" anymore. And to be frank while it is a very revolutionary project, Thriller really set the template to what we see now: it was a popular album that appealed to everybody, sold massive sales and that artist was its most popular artist that year. Nowadays you be shocked if any artist MJ's age got any nominations unless it was for sympathy votes. The Grammys can they nominate for the "best" but usually someone's treasure is another's trash. I just think awards are overrated.
Click to expand...
They're nominated, but not shown in the broadcast. Herbie Hancock was a fluke. Jazz is something not nominated in a major catagory, because it only sells to a small audience. It probably was considered because it happened to be Joni Mitchell songs. B.B. King and Tony Bennett tend to be regular nominees, but again not shown. The award shows try to get an older audience by having "reunion/comeback" acts like The Police, Prince, Simon & Garfunkel, The Time, Tina Turner, or Genesis. But they either put them at the beginning of the show that many people miss or stick them with a young act.
 
troubleman84 said:
Nowadays you be shocked if any artist MJ's age got any nominations unless it was for sympathy votes.
Click to expand...
in terms of the progress of music and its relevance to future generations , artists at that age are usually past their prime. Al Green's album was great, but not relevant to influencing the next generation considering it was a rehash of 70s work. of course the state of the industry is messed up anyway, but i agree that awards are definitely overrated anyway.


DuranDuran said:
arXter said:
what did you think of Herbie's Mitchell tribute album getting the recent Grammys?
Click to expand...
This proves my comment before about awards being a marketing gimmick (the same as someone dying improve sales). This record wasn't doing anything, the week after it won, it jumped into the top 10.
Click to expand...
DuranDuran said:
Herbie Hancock was a fluke. Jazz is something not nominated in a major catagory, because it only sells to a small audience. It probably was considered because it happened to be Joni Mitchell songs.
Click to expand...
what's wrong with that?
 
I am happy to see that Jasmine Sullivan and Boys II Men who are from Philly and went to the EXACT same high school (CAPA) are nominated for Grammys. Good for them. Good for John Mayer, Neyo, Estelle, Coldplay, Chrisste, etc for being nominated. I do not know what to say about Lil Wayne being nominated eight times for crap music. Where is Janet and Erykah?
 
arXter said:
but not relevant to influencing the next generation
Click to expand...
Yeah, only the people that are on American Idol are influenced by acts on award shows, lol. People like Kraftwerk, George Clinton, James Brown, Marvin Gaye, David Bowie, Run-DMC, The Beatles, etc. have won little or not at all and are more influentual than Usher or whoever wins today. The old acts that tour like The Stones, The Police, The Eagles, Prince, Bruce Springsteen, Madonna, Genesis, or Van Halen make more money than new acts. It's doubtful that someone will be interested in seeing today's performers 20 or 30 years from now. Nobody in the academy was interested in Santana until he got a bunch of New Jacks and sold a bunch of records. It's a sham.
 
DuranDuran said:
People like Kraftwerk, George Clinton, James Brown, Marvin Gaye, David Bowie, The Beatles, etc. have won little or not at all
Click to expand...
and in their prime they should have.

i'm not at all defending the corrupt industry's awards, but saying that artists like Mike or Al today will not have an influential impact on the future of music - they already did that.

there are cats out there who are doing some creative, influential and innovative stuff, especially in electronic-music, that deserve at the least the recognition more than half the muppets who are being nominated and winning major awards today, let alone being heavily marketed to the masses who'd buy into anything.

i am for awards and mass recognition, just not the way it's being handled.
 
arXter said:
and in their prime they should have.

i'm not at all defending the corrupt industry's awards, but saying that artists like Mike or Al today will not have an influential impact on the future of music - they already did that.

there are cats out there who are doing some creative, influential and innovative stuff, especially in electronic-music, that deserve at the least the recognition more than half the muppets who are being nominated and winning major awards today, let alone being heavily marketed to the masses who'd buy into anything.

i am for awards and mass recognition, just not the way it's being handled.
Click to expand...

But as it's been pointed out, the Grammys were always a corrupt system. It took Marvin eight nominations and a 22-year solo career to get a Grammy and the best thing was he won it LIVE. But still Marvin and people like him who have been some of the most influential musicians ever should've gotten more Grammys than they got but we are dealing with the Shammies though so expect to lose even though you won (in a sense) if you get my drift. :lol:
 
Bee said:
I am happy to see that Jasmine Sullivan and Boys II Men who are from Philly and went to the EXACT same high school (CAPA) are nominated for Grammys. Good for them. Good for John Mayer, Neyo, Estelle, Coldplay, Chrisste, etc for being nominated. I do not know what to say about Lil Wayne being nominated eight times for crap music. Where is Janet and Erykah?
Click to expand...
Erykah is nominated for her Honey video. I'm happy about BoyzIIMen too. I hope if they wins, the album sales gets a boost. Talkin practical benefits for them. BTW, didn't know Jasmine Sullivan went to that high school.
 
you know what i don't understand about Mariah - she is SO DAMN TALENTED and lately she is rather whispering and sighing in her songs than using that MONSTER VOICE. hope this changes in the future :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top