Frank Ocean rants about Grammys, mentions 1989

[RAMROD 109,723]

There's always somebody who did this in award seasons but never was Asian or Latin people

 

[PunkTheFunk 124,471]

He's completely right, but he sounds bitter 

[PunkTheFunk 124,471]

4 minutes ago, Bebe said:

Uggh, I've been trying to word this in a way that doesn't seem shady - because it's not supposed to be - but it's hard.

I'll just say To Pimp A Butterfly deserved Album of The Year. That album was excellent musically, it was intelligent lyrically, it was socially conscious it was everything that makes a brilliant album and it's no doubt going to be remembered as a classic.

1989 was a huge record, and congratulations to Taylor for that, but compared to TPAB it doesn't reach the same bar of excellence - it doesn't achieve anything close to what TPAB achieves musically.

Why sugarcoat it -- TPAB made 1989 sound like Kidz Bop 

[Ooolong 4,440]

I truly, sincerely, genuinely dislike Taylor and her generic music, but shut up. 

This rant is stupid and lost any small form of credibility he had when it simply became about the fact he lost the award to Taylor. 

He said winning an award doesn't christen him successful, but he sure is making quite the deal about losing it.  

[Hauser 1,262]

I am no fan of Taylor but Frank Ocean is just not a good artist and does not have music good enough to go on rants mentioning Prince or Taylor Swift. 

[Morphine Prince 106,220]

4 minutes ago, Ooolong said:

I truly, sincerely, genuinely dislike Taylor and her generic music, but shut up. 

This rant is stupid and lost any small form of credibility he had when it simply became about the fact he lost the award to Taylor. 

He said winning an award doesn't christen him successful, but he sure is making quite the deal about losing it.  

To Pimp A Butterfly is not his album, it's Kendrick Lamar's. 

[Morphine Prince 106,220]

1 minute ago, Hauser said:

I am no fan of Taylor but Frank Ocean is just not a good artist and does not have music good enough to go on rants mentioning Prince or Taylor Swift. 

His debut is a masterpiece

 

[Bebe 17,094]

28 minutes ago, ZacharyMark said:

He's right about AOTY, but I'm getting some Kanye vibes here. However, with AOTY, that's something that is SOOO subjective. On success alone the award was clear. Based on writing/production? Maybe Kendrick. But the discussion was lost when he got arrogant. 

AOTY isn't that subjective though - of course it's subjective in the sense that people like different types of music - but you can still objectively look at the albums and see what album is the most complex, what album is more relevant socially, what album has the most depth, what album has the most basic chord structures, what album is the most unique ect. 

Take the Oscars - nobody would ever say "based on success alone the award is clear" - because the Oscars hand out their awards, or at least nominate movies, that display excellent filmmaking. 

Avengers: Age of Ultron was a hugely successful movie when it was released - far more successful than any of the nominees for Best Picture for that year - but it wasn't nominated and it didn't win. The Revenant was the favourite and Spotlight won.

The Grammy's is supposed to be like the Oscars, it's an award by the recording academy, but I think they lose a lot of credibility when they just nominate and give awards to the most popular artists.

1989 is like The Avengers - both are huge blockbusters. Do they represent absolute excellence in music and filmmaking though? No. Based on writing and production Kendrick should have won - there isn't really a maybe about it.

 

[Ooolong 4,440]

5 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Pimp A Butterfly is not his album, it's Kendrick Lamar's. 

Oh, mess, I even have a few songs from it.  

I always get them confused, I'm not sure why, lmao.

My statement still stands though, even if it isn't his album. If he claims these awards don't make him successful, which he likely applies to other artists (if he's smart enough), why make such a big deal about it? 

[migamiga 12,102]

Where are the lies though 

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

1 minute ago, Bebe said:

AOTY isn't that subjective though - of course it's subjective in the sense that people like different types of music - but you can still objectively look at the albums and see what album is the most complex, what album is more relevant socially, what album has the most depth, what album has the most basic chord structures, what album is the most unique ect. 

Take the Oscars - nobody would ever say "based on success alone the award is clear" - because the Oscars hand out their awards, or at least nominate movies, that display excellent filmmaking. 

Avengers: Age of Ultron was a hugely successful movie - far more successful than any of the nominees for Best Picture - but it wasn't nominated and it didn't win. The Revenant was the favourite and Spotlight won.

The Grammy's is supposed to be like the Oscars, it's an award by the recording academy, but I think they lose a lot of credibility when they just nominate and give awards to the most popular artists.

1989 is like The Avengers - both are huge blockbusters. Do they represent absolute excellence in music and filmmaking though? No. Based on writing and production Kendrick should have won - there isn't really a maybe about it.

 

Well it is. And it's clearly shown by the nominees. I never said that the Grammys purely take success when determining AOTY. I was merely saying that the award is subjective and is given out based on whatever agenda the voters have for that year. 

The Oscars are way more respected (sometimes) than the Grammys though in terms of merit. Or at least they should be. 

And at the end of the day, there will always be someone that isn't nominated or acknowledged. Someone even better than Kendrick. And like Frank said, he made success with no label. So why don't we talk about the artists with get just as high ratings and/or those who have yet to get a pinch of promotion just to get their music out. However, if the music industry was based on that, we wouldn't have Lady Gaga performing at the Grammys 3 years in a row.

Again, the point is that music is made by a lot of talented people. Sometimes awards aren't given to the right person, but that doesn't mean you should boycott a submission and then rant about how good artists aren't getting recognized. That's not how you win that fight.

[Bebe 17,094]

1 minute ago, ZacharyMark said:

Well it is. And it's clearly shown by the nominees. I never said that the Grammys purely take success when determining AOTY. I was merely saying that the award is subjective and is given out based on whatever agenda the voters have for that year. 

The Oscars are way more respected (sometimes) than the Grammys though in terms of merit. Or at least they should be. 

And at the end of the day, there will always be someone that isn't nominated or acknowledged. Someone even better than Kendrick. And like Frank said, he made success with no label. So why don't we talk about the artists with get just as high ratings and/or those who have yet to get a pinch of promotion just to get their music out. However, if the music industry was based on that, we wouldn't have Lady Gaga performing at the Grammys 3 years in a row.

Again, the point is that music is made by a lot of talented people. Sometimes awards aren't given to the right person, but that doesn't mean you should boycott a submission and then rant about how good artists aren't getting recognized. That's not how you win that fight.

"Well it is. And it's clearly shown by the nominees." Who, what, when, where, why, how?  I don't see how the Grammy nominees clearly show that you are unable to judge music, to a degree, objectively based upon the things I have listed and more. I think you missed my point.

The AOTY should be based on something more than some subjective "I like Taylor Swift more than Kendrick" it should be based on both works objective merits. 

"The Oscars are way more respected (sometimes) than the Grammys though in terms of merit. Or at least they should be. "

Yes I think they are, but that's the fault of The Grammys not rewarding excellence in music in the same way The Oscars reward excellence in filmmaking. The Grammy awards should be about excellence in music, when they award AOTY it should be for musical excellence, it shouldn't just be given to the blockbuster of the year.

"And at the end of the day, there will always be someone that isn't nominated or acknowledged. Someone even better than Kendrick. And like Frank said, he made success with no label. So why don't we talk about the artists with get just as high ratings and/or those who have yet to get a pinch of promotion just to get their music out. However, if the music industry was based on that, we wouldn't have Lady Gaga performing at the Grammys 3 years in a row."

None of this seems relevant to what I'm saying.

"Again, the point is that music is made by a lot of talented people. Sometimes awards aren't given to the right person, but that doesn't mean you should boycott a submission and then rant about how good artists aren't getting recognized"

All of this also seems irrelevant to what I'm saying  



My point to you was this:

The Grammy's should be based on musical excellence, while that is of course subjective to a degree, there are objective ways for us to measure excellence. We know TPAB is more complex musically, it is more intelligent lyrically, it is more socially relevant, it is more politically engaging, it is more unique. 

TPAB is objectively a better album, even if you subjectively like 1989 more  

When you said: "On success alone the award was clear. Based on writing/production? Maybe Kendrick."

I disagreed. The award shouldn't be based on success alone - it shouldn't be about "Oh well clearly the album should go to the blockbuster of the year" and based on writing/production Kendrick absolutely should have won objectively - there isn't a maybe in there.

[SarahYuko 1,002]

I only watched Gaga's performance last year. Was NOT there for the Swift ass-kissery. Ocean is right about 1989.

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

1 minute ago, Bebe said:

"Well it is. And it's clearly shown by the nominees." Who, what, when, where, why, how?  I don't see how the Grammy nominees clearly show that you are unable to judge music, to a degree, objectively based upon the things I have listed and more. I think you missed my point.

The AOTY should be based on something more than some subjective "I like Taylor Swift more than Kendrick" it should be based on both works objective merits. 

"The Oscars are way more respected (sometimes) than the Grammys though in terms of merit. Or at least they should be. "

Yes I think they are, but that's the fault of The Grammys not rewarding excellence in music in the same way The Oscars reward excellence in filmmaking. The Grammy awards should be about excellence in music, when they award AOTY it should be for musical excellence, it shouldn't just be given to the blockbuster of the year.

"And at the end of the day, there will always be someone that isn't nominated or acknowledged. Someone even better than Kendrick. And like Frank said, he made success with no label. So why don't we talk about the artists with get just as high ratings and/or those who have yet to get a pinch of promotion just to get their music out. However, if the music industry was based on that, we wouldn't have Lady Gaga performing at the Grammys 3 years in a row."

None of this seems relevant to what I'm saying.

"Again, the point is that music is made by a lot of talented people. Sometimes awards aren't given to the right person, but that doesn't mean you should boycott a submission and then rant about how good artists aren't getting recognized"

All of this also seems irrelevant to what I'm saying  



My point to you was this:

The Grammy's should be based on musical excellence, while that is of course subjective to a degree, there are objective ways for us to measure excellence. We know TPAB is more complex musically, it is more intelligent lyrically, it is more socially relevant, it is more politically engaging, it is more unique. 

TPAB is objectively a better album, even if you subjectively like 1989 more  

When you said: "On success alone the award was clear. Based on writing/production? Maybe Kendrick."

I disagreed. The award shouldn't be based on success alone - it shouldn't be about "Oh well clearly the album should go to the blockbuster of the year" and based on writing/production Kendrick absolutely should have won objectively - there isn't a maybe in there.

By the nominees. You just contradicted yourself by saying that the Grammys and Oscars should nominate the best of the best.

This post is about what Frank said, that's why we are talking about him.

The WHOLE point is that the award is subjective and that winners are literally determining by people who probably haven't listened to every album nominated in the field of music.

And yes, if we were to judge based on success, then the award was clear. Writing/production. Have you listen to every album released, label/no label in that time frame? Again subjective.

I don't get the points.

 

[FATCAT 60,100]

TPAB definitely deserved it.