Gardener said:The grammy awards have always been incredibly lame, though, haven't they?
I think I gave up on them in 1967.
They haven't improved any since.
Stinger said:At least through the 70' and 80's and most of the 90's it was still music, lame but still music. Most of it now reminds me of the "rhythm" bands we had in kindergarten. And why do some believe screaming and anger substitute for vocal inflection and tone?
Gardener said:Yeah, I hear what you're saying. I certainly do not get excited by the vast majority of popular music these days for the same reason. It's just that I've always seen the Grammy's as rewarding mediocrity for the most part and pretty much an exercise in celebrating the INDUSTRY of Musical industry and not the music.
Just think of all the great albums from when you were younger and compare your list to those that actually won. I don't know your musical tastes, but whether it is Abraxus, Dark Side Of The Moon, Tommy, Layla, The Yes Album, Abby Road, Eat A Peach, John Barlycorn, Thick as a Brick, or who knows what, it's almost guaranteed to not be on the list -- especially if it was innovative in any way.
If I were to vote for Grammy albums, though, the last two would be "Twin Cinema" by New Pornographers and "Funeral" by Arcade Fire.
Arch Enemy said:I don't even know who all won.
If you guys tell me Green Day one, then I am going to go shoot myself.
HTColeman said:Whoever had the idea to mix those genres, should be fired immediately. I mean come on, Ciara and Maroon 5? Mary J. Blige and U2? They were all horrible, not to mention that not everyone can sing live...