Thomas P 18,479 Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 5 minutes ago, Biotic said: Oh sorry didn't realise you meant nominations and not wins I think Gaga has a chance if she continues pushing for quality which she so far is doing. They don't give a **** about quality. Sam smith got 4 awards... I’m a simple guy to please, if you like Melodrama, we chill. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry 26,836 Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Well first of all it doesn't really matter. It would be awesome for her to one day win AOTY just for the moment it would create but the Grammys are all over the place. And honestly if an album like 1989 can win AOTY then I see no reason that an electronic pop one couldn't. But like @Klou said, it is mostly about ratings and money. They just chuck in a few token "acclaimed" critical darlings every now and then to keep a kind of balance and illusion of credibility. It's a shame as the Grammys are arguably the only music award ceremony that people really take seriously yet it has so many flaws that make it seem pointless - in my opinion. Also Daft Punk won a few years back and that was very much a dance record. Also I'd hate to think that Gaga would make music just to please Grammy voters and/or get critical acclaim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lextyr97 20,129 Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, Thomas P said: The Fame Monster deserved the award over the Suburbs. No. Fvcks. Given The Fame deserved the award over Fearless. He's. A. Monster. The Grammys just don't like her. That's it. There's no other explanation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrawberryBlond 14,934 Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 What gets me is that there doesn't seem to be a solid formula to win. It doesn't seem to matter what direction you go in. The academy will make it so you can't win... You make a very commercial album to get big sales to get that nomination. You get the nomination, but not the win. The award goes to an act who sold nowhere near as much as you but got amazing critical acclaim (Arcade Fire with The Suburbs, Beck with Morning Phase). So, you release a well-written, deep album about serious topics and make it non-commercial to give the Grammys what they want. You get the nomination, but not the win. It goes to a super commercial album that sold mega millions (Adele with 21, Taylor with 1989). Lately, I've noticed that the academy works on a 50/50 method. That is, a commercial album wins, followed by a critically acclaimed one the next year. Commercial, acclaimed, commercial acclaimed. So, judging by that criteria, the 2017 will involve a critically acclaimed album winning. I think so many people were outraged by Kendrick losing out to 1989 this year that the academy will want to redeem itself. But that means that the 2018 ceremony will likely go back to commercial again...which will throw a spanner in the works for Gaga's experimental Joanne record to stand a chance. Typical. You know, if she gets nominated and loses again, I'd rather the academy just stopped nominating her. It'll have gotten beyond a joke. I notice they tend to stop nominating people when they've set records like 'most nominations without winning in a single night' and that kind of thing. Better than building them up constantly just to bring them down again. They might stop nominating Katy real soon for that very reason. I don't know if the academy work like the Oscars do in the sense that they give an award to someone who's always been a bridesmaid but never a bride, as a consolation for all their years of good service but bad luck. But if anyone deserves it, it's Gaga. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReidOne 12,427 Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Here's the thing about the Grammy's... the voters hold the "Grammy" brand in a ridiculously high esteem. It's been this way for decades. It's clear from the voting over the years that voters are hesitant to award outright "pop/dance" music as the industry perceives it is perceived as cheap, formulaic and trendy. They fear that voting for pop/dance acts in the major music categories will damage the Grammy brand or look "foolish" if they vote for something trendy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewYorkCity 10,536 Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 6 hours ago, TylerBR97 said: Born This Way deserved the win over 21. I. Do. Not. Care. this so much. That overrated piece of boring heartbreaking GPAppealing ballads can not compite with the complex and amazing album that is born this way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bye 3,947 Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 8 hours ago, Thomas P said: They don't give a **** about quality. Sam smith got 4 awards... He had a good album... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas P 18,479 Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 5 hours ago, Biotic said: He had a good album... Mmkay... C'est votre opinion. I’m a simple guy to please, if you like Melodrama, we chill. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.