The Grammy - Irrelevant?

M

Matt Bo Eder

Guest
I didn't want to derail a thread here on Hal Blaine's Grammy-winning streak, so I decided to start a whole 'nother discussion. Are the Grammies even relevant?

Whenever I think of the Oscars, The Grammies, or the Tony's....I see an industry basically congratulating itself for another year of making products for us to buy. The general public doesn't vote on any of those awards, so consequently, the general public probably wouldn't understand why the winner won. Look at "Best Picture" for the Oscars - when was the last time a familiar movie actually won that category? The membership votes and then the TV show tells us what was "the best" and we buy into it like sheep (?).

Likewise with the Grammies, when was the last time you agreed about who the "Best New Artist" was? Or the "Best Recorded Performance"? Thanks to the internets, there are huge pockets of people who can support just their favorite artists, and these people are on the fringe of other groups' radars, yet they can exist - even without Grammy recognition.

I think these awards shows are nothing but an industry appearing to be "one big happy family" patting each other on the back. Or am I way out of line?

Again, I'm not bitter about not being a part of it, I just ask the question. Those awards shows lost all their relevance to me some 30 years ago.
 
M

Matt Bo Eder

Guest
You don't think this is some kind of a "gimme", though? Those two guys have been staple jazz artists for some 50 years by now. Who wouldn't agree with that? I'll bet the other nominees in that category felt like those two guys should get it too ;)

The Grammy's, like the Oscars and the Tony's, tend to give a little to everybody so as to appease a majority of people who may be watching it at home, or are out there consuming the arts. So Chick's Grammy kinda' balances out the "Best New Artist" winner Meghan Trainor, no? They acknowledge artists 'in the know', yet make the masses happy with their fave pop video diva. Imagine if the Grammies didn't do that; they'd lose advertisers, they'd lose viewers, they'd lose their time on prime time television! It would become a small banquet in the Hollywood Hills somewhere.

I'm sorry - I'm being a real cynic tonight.

But wait, I really think Weird Al's grammy (his fourth?) was deserved though - there just isn't anything funnier out there, and Al himself (along with his organization) are always out there working, like musicians should be. As Bermuda explained to me one time, even on this big world tour, they were playing small lousy places where they couldn't even set up everything they use for their show, as well as huge theaters too. I'm glad I got to catch the show at a nice big theater.
 
Yes. The Grammy is irrelevant. It's an industry award show and nothing more. Nobody gets worked up about the Best Plumber of the Year, and they actually do more for you :p
 

mikel

Platinum Member
I am of the a similar view. Its corporate back slapping. If you sell millions of records during a career, make lots of money and enjoy the process but never get an award from the critics, who cares?

Personally I would rather make the fans and myself happy than please the critics.
 
M

Matt Bo Eder

Guest
I am of the a similar view. Its corporate back slapping. If you sell millions of records during a career, make lots of money and enjoy the process but never get an award from the critics, who cares?

Personally I would rather make the fans and myself happy than please the critics.
You sound like RUSH ;)
 
M

Matt Bo Eder

Guest
Yes. The Grammy is irrelevant. It's an industry award show and nothing more. Nobody gets worked up about the Best Plumber of the Year, and they actually do more for you :p
I got worked up when my plumber cousin showed up to re-pipe my house with a crew of seven guys. I went out and bought them sandwiches from Togo's and made it a big party ;)

They still finished the job in five hours.
 

Odd-Arne Oseberg

Platinum Member
Don't really care about the Grammies. It's just one of my favourite albums and it got one.

From the intro when Vinnie does his things and John starts his riff on Raju. Instant magic.
 

Hollywood Jim

Platinum Member
You might be right Bo. But I won't complain about any music award show.
Let's have 10 music award shows a year. I like them.
It gives me a chance to see how bad, or on occasion good, the artists are.
How many live TV music shows on are there? Remember all of the TV music shows there used to be. Where did they all go?


.
 

fastchops

Junior Member
I didn't want to derail a thread here on Hal Blaine's Grammy-winning streak, so I decided to start a whole 'nother discussion. Are the Grammies even relevant?
i couldn't tell you the last time i watched any of the award shows. only super mainstream people care.
 

Woolwich

Silver Member
In the UK there's an award (maybe made by the BBC, the fact that I can't remember tells you all you need to know) made for the most promising unknown artist or new artist or whatever. This artist will then more than likely go on to achieve success. However the way I've always seen it is not that they've been recognised and we've all stood back to watch them rise to glory, it's more a case of that because they've been identified people jump on the bandwagon and MAKE them a success.
In terms of the Chick Corea award, these 'lifetime achievement' awards are often given because whoever awards them realises that either their total body of work has been worthy of recognition &/or they've lost out in the past to artists who didn't stand the test of time and really should have been the ones getting the award in the first place.
The closest thing to The Grammys that we have in the UK are The Brits (formerly the Britannia Music Awards) & you can pretty much tick off in advance who will win what, not because they're not the best, just because there IS no competition. The ridiculousness of it all was highlighted several years back when they created a category specifically to give The Darkness an award. The band crashed and burned shortly afterwards (although have subsequently reformed and are playing and writing better than ever before by all accounts) & have never been recognised since and I'm not sure if the category created for them has been filled by another band either.
 
I'd argue that the Grammys are more relevant than ever. The most recent broadcast got 25 million viewers, making it the biggest live music show on TV--by a pretty wide margin. Neilsen ranks it as the highest social entertainment TV show (non-sports) of the year.. It more than doubled the ratings of any other show that night.

Not only does that give little-known performers an enormous stage to reach people (many of whom don't listen to radio anymore), it gives top-selling artists a huge bump in sales.

That's why Lady Gaga performs, why Taylor Swift performs.

How many people in the Grammy audience had actually heard a Motorhead song before Dave Grohl delivered his tribute?

Plus, the people watching over-the-air TV are the most likely to buy an actual CD.
 

GruntersDad

Administrator - Mayor
Staff member
Peoples Choice Awards....just another popularity contest. No merit in my mind. Grammies, Oscars, Tony's are all the different groups celebrating and congratulating themselves. I have no problem with that. No harm done, but I don't watch. I worked at a hospital for 15 years that belonged to several associations that are self promoting for marketing purposes. Again no harm no foul. All awards are as relevant as you wish to make them. Back in my swim team coaching days, at the end of the year we held awards ceremonies, and part of my speech was that awards serve two purposes. Reward those deserving and to inspire others to try harder.
The Drummies.....do you vote?
 

larryace

"Uncle Larry"
I'll see your irrelevance and raise it by saying that most pop music today is irrelevant.

I don't really mean that.

However, maybe it's the people who are saying the Grammies are irrelevant... that are irrelevant.

Meaning that the world of pop no longer has anything of value to people 40 and over, and the Grammies are for the under 30 segment..

It's a possibility.
 
When's the last time you bought what we used to call "a single?"

Pop music has always reflected the taste mainly of the 13-year-old girls who buy pop singles. It's always been that way
 

DrumEatDrum

Platinum Member
They've always been Irrelevant.

Bands like Pink Floyd, The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Doors, etc, have been either been completely ignored (or only given awards well after that fact).

Even the Beatles only earned a small handful during their actual existence.
 
Top