SlayGagaloo 16,152 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 * first of all I just don't take the "he/her bought an award " seriously, but there is still something about this year's Grammy awards that I don't understand. The ceremony was going well until the last award (and the most important one). The winning album 1989 was up against four albums that are equally or most of the times more "critically acclaimed" than it, although -commercially- they were nowhere near 1989's success. So my question is why (in your opinion) did they give it to tay -who already has one- again, but this time for an album that is simply not the best? P.S I usually don't rely on meatacritic tbh, but have you seen how 'to pimp a butterfly ' or even 'traveller' were received there? Over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
venusfly 17,885 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Because the Grammys love commercial success Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonkers 28,036 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Kanye, is that you? Remember to like and subscribe, and click on the bell icon to get the latest updates Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFamousLM 635 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Emotion deserved that award but from those that got a nomination 1989 was the best one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
venusian 4,686 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 kendrick shouldve gotten it period WELCOME TO THE TRAGIC KINGDOM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cocaine Heart 4,768 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Using "critically acclaimed" as a defense and response to everything is quite tiring. She won, accept and move on. We going to boo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Evans 8,917 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 you can tell her whole era was made to have that win as her big finale and now she's gonna keep everything lowkey until her next lead single I guarantee you she's not going to release any more singles even though she said she would sometimes the grammys prefer commercial success Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
braybray23 248 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Every person has a different perspective and taste. 1989 got the most votes apparently. There's not much more to it. My would of been for HBHBHB not an okra Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartySick 144,934 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 4 minutes ago, lg said: Because the Grammys love commercial success Unless you're Katy But it's true. Usually they just give it to the best selling artist. It's why I pretty much view the Grammys as a popularity contest and only watch or care when someone I like is performing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benji 20,113 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Well 1989 is strict pop but it didn't offer anything "new" which critics tend to favour like some of the most critically acclaimed pop albums. HOWEVER the crafting of pop music is impressive and to make an album filled to the brim with great pop music is worthy of Album of the Year to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwontell 7,312 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Well...just bc critics "say so", it doesn't mean what they say is an absolute truth (and I see that attitude around here so often)...the same goes for awards and sale numbers, for all that matters. I've seen countless critically acclaimed albums, multi awarded albums and best sellers be entirely forgotten a couple of years down the road...what truly matters, which is standing the test of time and having a real impact in culture is something that no award or critic can predict... To the Grammy voters Taylor's album was more deserving of the award...they're just a group of people, just as fallible as the critics, and that's how the chose. It's as simple as that... I guess what I'm trying to say is just bc the result doesn't please you, it doesn't mean it's wrong...I was also rooting for Kendrick, but I can 100% see why they would choose Taylor, so congrats to her... ATTENTION: (bad) jokes and sarcasm are still a thing, so don't take everything I say literally. Thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlayGagaloo 16,152 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share Posted February 17, 2016 1 hour ago, lg said: Because the Grammys love commercial success Interesting, but that definitely wasn't the case with TFM for example Over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
venusfly 17,885 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 3 minutes ago, PartySick said: Unless you're Katy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlayGagaloo 16,152 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share Posted February 17, 2016 1 hour ago, Bonkers said: Kanye, is that you? Over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Gaga 22,031 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Grammys has nothing to do with quality. It's a popularity contest. You want to watch them? fine, but you know what's coming. Lana Del Rey has 1 nomination, while Katy Perry has 13 nominations. In very rare occasions, popularity matches real talent (Adele, The Weeknd, Gaga) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.