Jump to content

💓 DAWN OF CHROMATICA 💓

Follow Gaga Daily on Telegram
question

Should no-shows win at award ceremonies?


StrawberryBlond

Should no-shows win at awards ceremonies?  

55 members have voted

  1. 1. Should no-shows win at awards ceremonies?

    • Yes
      29
    • No
      6
    • Depends
      20


Featured Posts

androiduser

the ONLY reason we're even discussing this and that some people are saying that the person who's not attending the show shouldn't get the award is because Ed won over Gaga this year.

I'm sure that the only justifiable reason for not attending the show would be fibromyalgia and broken hip, right? :nails:

Fans really need to get over their personal vendettas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond
22 hours ago, Harry said:

So you don't think recipients of accolades and acclaim should be decided based solely on the merit of the work alone? You think it should be down to superficial reasons and potential for "moments"? I find it bizarre that you deem yourself a music critic that takes music seriously but then claim you'd rather the criteria for awards be based on who will provide the most buzzworthy moment. I think that maybe speaks volumes on your willingness to be objective when it comes to giving critiques, no?

As I said, the nomination shows that they've already received an honour, that they're deemed good enough. That means that the pretentious upstarts can still notice that the academy likes their work even if they're not allowed to win. The actual winner is subjective and there's much more important things in the world than who wins at an awards show, so does it truly matter at the end of the day? We tune into the show to watch its attendees do stuff, not watch absentee names pick up awards courtesy of reps, it goes totally against the concept of having awards. And I already said that it's all very well if they weren't there for a good reason, so they can still stand a chance of winning but if they just couldn't be bothered/have no respect for the awards, then they shouldn't be allowed to win. Disagree if you want but I don't think that's unreasonable. I didn't say I thought the criteria should be based on "who will provide the most buzzworthy moment," I just said that somebody who's there should win, unless they have a good reason for not being there. I said I take music seriously, which means I also expect artists to show effort in every way they can. Attending prestigious awards shows are one of them. Awards are just a bit of fun, let's be honest. A pat on the back for a good job, no other industry outwith the arts does this. So, whoever wins doesn't change anything, so who cares if it only awards those who turned up? If these artists don't care, they won't care if they win, so the award is deemed meaningless whereas it would've had meaning if given to someone who would've appreciated it. We're see how pretentious these artists are when they're told that if they won't get off their high horses, they'll be winning no more awards in future. Then we'll see how much they truly care about winning. And no, I'm always objective when making reviews. I've put artists I don't like on best of lists all the time and have had to reluctantly put normally good artists on worst of lists. Deciding how good albums are and how I think awards shows are conducted are 2 completely different things. I just can't stand pretension and those who think they're too good.

20 hours ago, androiduser said:

the ONLY reason we're even discussing this and that some people are saying that the person who's not attending the show shouldn't get the award is because Ed won over Gaga this year.

I'm sure that the only justifiable reason for not attending the show would be fibromyalgia and broken hip, right? :nails:

Fans really need to get over their personal vendettas.

No, it's not because of that. I made this thread when I did (you'll notice that the Grammys were weeks ago, so it's a bit irrelevant now) because I'd literally just read a piece yesterday about the most memorable Oscar moments and it included bringing up the most infamous no-shows, like Katharine, Glenda and Woody, which is why I mentioned their names in my opener. It was this that made me decide to make this thread, the Ed thing was secondary.

And no, there are multiple justifiable reasons for missing a show, of which I mentioned in my opener, like bereavement, a break up, etc. There's no personal vendetta here, it's a genuine, unbiased question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry
2 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

As I said, the nomination shows that they've already received an honour, that they're deemed good enough. That means that the pretentious upstarts can still notice that the academy likes their work even if they're not allowed to win. The actual winner is subjective and there's much more important things in the world than who wins at an awards show, so does it truly matter at the end of the day? We tune into the show to watch its attendees do stuff, not watch absentee names pick up awards courtesy of reps, it goes totally against the concept of having awards. And I already said that it's all very well if they weren't there for a good reason, so they can still stand a chance of winning but if they just couldn't be bothered/have no respect for the awards, then they shouldn't be allowed to win. Disagree if you want but I don't think that's unreasonable. I didn't say I thought the criteria should be based on "who will provide the most buzzworthy moment," I just said that somebody who's there should win, unless they have a good reason for not being there. I said I take music seriously, which means I also expect artists to show effort in every way they can. Attending prestigious awards shows are one of them. Awards are just a bit of fun, let's be honest. A pat on the back for a good job, no other industry outwith the arts does this. So, whoever wins doesn't change anything, so who cares if it only awards those who turned up? If these artists don't care, they won't care if they win, so the award is deemed meaningless whereas it would've had meaning if given to someone who would've appreciated it. We're see how pretentious these artists are when they're told that if they won't get off their high horses, they'll be winning no more awards in future. Then we'll see how much they truly care about winning. And no, I'm always objective when making reviews. I've put artists I don't like on best of lists all the time and have had to reluctantly put normally good artists on worst of lists. Deciding how good albums are and how I think awards shows are conducted are 2 completely different things. I just can't stand pretension and those who think they're too good.

Okay so you have confirmed that you don't think acclaim should be given out on an honest an non-bias basis. Thanks! I'll bear that in mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond
18 minutes ago, Harry said:

Okay so you have confirmed that you don't think acclaim should be given out on an honest an non-bias basis. Thanks! I'll bear that in mind.

At an awards ceremony, not in general. How many times do I have to say it? And you've called me thick before? Just get out my face, seriously. Everyone's getting on my back lately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad Monster Kid

Of course. An award should never be based on if they attend the ceremony. It should solely be based on the persons work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oriane

Yes, artists not showing up is not a reason not to award them, even if they trash the ceremony and the concept of awards. I find it very hypocritical though that some of these artists claim they don't care about the awards, because their work was submitted to the academy, so they must have had some say in it...

You popped my heart seams, all my bubble dreams
Link to post
Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond
13 minutes ago, Oriane said:

Yes, artists not showing up is not a reason not to award them, even if they trash the ceremony and the concept of awards. I find it very hypocritical though that some of these artists claim they don't care about the awards, because their work was submitted to the academy, so they must have had some say in it...

Don't you think that then renders the award meaningless if they're not going to appreciate it? But you make a very good point that I never thought of - if they don't care, why do they submit their material in the first place? People who say that they don't care about awards usually secretly do, they just don't want to appear uncool by saying it. The same way they make songs about how they don't care, which only proves how much they do care. If they didn't, such a song topic could not be further from their thoughts.

Along the same lines of awards being meaningless, let's bring up how Sam Smith said in an interview when he was nominated for his very first Grammys that he felt he wasn't that good to win and that if he did, he'd give it to Beyonce because she'd be so much more deserving. That is one of the most vomit-inducing things I've ever heard an artist say. Have some pride in your work, for crying out loud. If you don't think your work is good enough, why did you choose to pursue a recording deal at all? I can't stand that kind of faux-humilty and ass kissing. And I would be so insulted if someone gave me their Grammy out of pity. And I'd be even more insulted if I was part of the Grammy committee who was responsible for that win whose decision was made a mockery of. Maybe that was why Sam never got nominations for his second album!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry
45 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

At an awards ceremony, not in general. How many times do I have to say it? And you've called me thick before? Just get out my face, seriously. Everyone's getting on my back lately.

I'm confused? You opened a thread and asked for opinions? Sorry that you don't like people disagreeing, I guess...

Link to post
Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond
2 minutes ago, Harry said:

I'm confused? You opened a thread and asked for opinions? Sorry that you don't like people disagreeing, I guess...

Oh ho, classic "turn it all around" manipulation technique. But it doesn't fool me. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me but you seem to revel in every moment of disagreement. Is there ever anything we've actually agreed on? And you insist on being so overly rude whenever you do it, making it overly personal, making assumptions about what my opinion on an issue says about my character as a whole and why it's a sign that I shouldn't be taken seriously. As I've said many times before, get off your high horse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oriane
7 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Don't you think that then renders the award meaningless if they're not going to appreciate it? But you make a very good point that I never thought of - if they don't care, why do they submit their material in the first place? People who say that they don't care about awards usually secretly do, they just don't want to appear uncool by saying it. The same way they make songs about how they don't care, which only proves how much they do care. If they didn't, such a song topic could not be further from their thoughts.

Along the same lines of awards being meaningless, let's bring up how Sam Smith said in an interview when he was nominated for his very first Grammys that he felt he wasn't that good to win and that if he did, he'd give it to Beyonce because she'd be so much more deserving. That is one of the most vomit-inducing things I've ever heard an artist say. Have some pride in your work, for crying out loud. If you don't think your work is good enough, why did you choose to pursue a recording deal at all? I can't stand that kind of faux-humilty and ass kissing. And I would be so insulted if someone gave me their Grammy out of pity. And I'd be even more insulted if I was part of the Grammy committee who was responsible for that win whose decision was made a mockery of. Maybe that was why Sam never got nominations for his second album!

Yes, I admit I feel it's unfair when an artist says they don't care and still have the award, whereas their rivals care about that and don't have anything. But I still wouldn't appreciate it if the academy only rewarded artists who proved they really cared about the award, by showing up etc. At the end of the day, you want to know whose work was considered the most deserving, not which artist said the most beautiful things about the academy.

I have mixed feelings about this Sam Smith situation. In a way, I understand what he's saying. There are times as an artist, when you know you didn't do your best, and you admit there were better artists that year. I think the pressure of the label can force some artists to release their work even though they know it's not great and it could be better, but they don't have time to do it... Maybe this is how he felt. But why submitting then ? Giving your award to another artist is nice on the principle but it doesn't mean anything. After all, it's not about the trophy, it's about the academy's decision. Why would Beyoncé care about bringing that trophy back home ? She knows the academy didn't think her work was good enough to get it.

You popped my heart seams, all my bubble dreams
Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry
1 minute ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Oh ho, classic "turn it all around" manipulation technique. But it doesn't fool me. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me but you seem to revel in every moment of disagreement. Is there ever anything we've actually agreed on? And you insist on being so overly rude whenever you do it, making it overly personal, making assumptions about what my opinion on an issue says about my character as a whole and why it's a sign that I shouldn't be taken seriously. As I've said many times before, get off your high horse.

Telling me to get off my high horse is a very rude thing to say, StrawberryBlond! My feelings are hurt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

androiduser
47 minutes ago, Oriane said:

Yes, artists not showing up is not a reason not to award them, even if they trash the ceremony and the concept of awards. I find it very hypocritical though that some of these artists claim they don't care about the awards, because their work was submitted to the academy, so they must have had some say in it...

Usually the work is submitted by their record company or their film studio, because it's major promo for the album or the movie, so the studio executives will push for a nomination regardless of the artist's personal view of the award shows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond
12 minutes ago, Harry said:

Telling me to get off my high horse is a very rude thing to say, StrawberryBlond! My feelings are hurt.

There you go, playing innocent again. You've said far worse to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it should have any effect. The voting is done weeks in advance. They shouldn't change the winner, or go to the runner up if someone doesn't show.

In the case of the Grammys, they only show like 8 awards. So if an artist doesn't show up, don't televise that category.

In the case of VMAS and AMAS and those lesser shows, they already do make deals with artists (eg we will give you this award if you perform).

If the show wants buzzworthy moments, then the producers just have to be more creative. Ed Sheeran isn't coming? Fine, televise another category.

I think it's different with the Oscars because all categories are televised. I also think an Oscar is FAR more prestigious than a Grammy. So it's very rare for a no show.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...