Grammy backlash everywhere...

[ZiggyZiggs 29,957]

8 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Um...There are thousands of songs recorded and hundreds of albums released each year. It's no coincidence the large majority of the nominations are popular songs and albums in each genre of awards. Obscure, unknown artists and songs are not common. There are a few surprises every year, but that is a tiny minority of nominations.

My point reflects the facts. 

Exactly my point. The Grammys were set up for something else but it has now become a sad popularity contest. But u have to understand there are numerous other categories with artists we’ve never heard about

[codymonster 8,233]

3 minutes ago, lucastecala said:

Dude, you're so monumentally wrong. 

1) Grammy's allegedlly do not reward sales and chart positions (that's what, well, charts are for).

2) If they did, then I want justice for "Despacito", even though the racists in this website love to throw hatred towards latin music's most memorable song in years. 

3) Considering that the Grammys are supposed to reward musical excellence and craftsmanship you can't possibly mean that there hasn't been great music made by women this year, because then you're straight up being sexist yourself or you just haven't been paying attention. I promisse you there has been tons of great music created by women this year.

4) There's no such thing as reverse sexism (or racism, btw). Sexism and racism exist inside of a system of multiple forms of oppression that incide over women and black people and such oppression has deep historical and cultural roots. It's white men who have dominated, exploited, enslaved, harmed women and black human beings not the other way around. SO there can't be sexism against men because it is precisely being a men that grant an individual a huge amount of historically built priviliges.

I’m aware that sexism is around, I just don’t think the Grammys are sexist, due to women winning lots other years. So no, I’m not wrong, I just have a different opinion than you 

[RAMROD 102,126]

I wonder what kind of shxt they will pull next year.

Aside from being sexist, they managed to nominate some POC without actually let them win any except for the obvious; Rap categories lel

 

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

It’s what she deserves 

[Economy 45,762]

45 minutes ago, jaXXXon said:

Adele also won everything last year AND Taylor Swift won AOTY the year before that...

And in 2010 Beyonce was biggest winner

 

Like I've said before... Sometimes ppl reach Everytime women or non-caucasians don't dominate assuming it's racism or sexism Everytime

 

However there's no denying as a whole those are still issues nevertheless

[doppelganger 3,810]

Like the Oscars the makeup grammy voters are the problem. In what world does Ed and Bruno Mars win over more deserving nominees? I bop to Bruno but is it really Grammy worthy? 

 

[lucastecala 795]

1 hour ago, codymonster said:

I’m aware that sexism is around, I just don’t think the Grammys are sexist, due to women winning lots other years. So no, I’m not wrong, I just have a different opinion than you 

Only 9.3% of the nominees in the past five years have been women. So there's that. And no honey, not everything is a matter of opinion. Somethings are just facts with receipts.  

You're just being fooled by the fact two of the very few female winners in the past years happen to be the two that are probably the biggest names in pop culture (male or female): Adele and Taylor Swift, so those two couldn't possibly have been ignored even by the blatantly sexist recording academy. And because they're such global monumental acts their wins had a lot of impact and repercussion. But when you see the numbers of the big picture, the discrepancy is outrageous. 

[Batwings 12,809]

I've seen a lot of people arguing about this on social media today.

Several people have said, "The Grammys aren't sexist! Look at Adele, Beyonce, Taylor!" That's kind of like saying that because there are female CEOs, sexism doesn't exist. Statistically, women are nominated for Grammys much less frequently than men are.

I've also seen several people saying, "But these awards should be based on merit, not your gender or skin color!" And that's absolutely right. So why does a white guy with a guitar whisper singing about sex win an award over female powerhouse vocalists writing and performing deeply soulful songs about pain and trauma?

Regarding Bruno's wins, I've seen many people say, "But he's a great artist, and his music is really good!" I agree that Bruno is very talented, but at the same time, in a year that was rife with social and political turmoil and with a great deal of music responding to that turmoil, they chose to award feel-good pop fluff. There's a reason why silly comedies and action movies don't win Oscars. Just because it's feel-good doesn't mean it's artistry.

I've been fuming about the Grammys since last night. I just don't think of it as a relevant award anymore. I know people will say, "Oh, you're just sour about it because Gaga didn't win, and if she did win, you wouldn't feel that way!" That's not necessarily true. I've been watching the Grammys my entire life, and I love keeping up with the music industry. However, there's been a dramatic shift in the past few years where the Grammys have started to award popularity and bland feel-good fluff over artistic creativity. In order for me to take them seriously again, there are going to have be some changes in the ways that the nominations and awards are handled because right now, they're really not awarding excellence.

 

[Whispering 18,865]

17 minutes ago, ZiggyZiggs said:

Exactly my point. The Grammys were set up for something else but it has now become a sad popularity contest. But u have to understand there are numerous other categories with artists we’ve never heard about

You haven't heard about them because you don't follow that genre of music closely. 

That wasn't your point.

The Grammys have been reflecting the past year in music for decades now. 

[ZiggyZiggs 29,957]

55 minutes ago, Whispering said:

You haven't heard about them because you don't follow that genre of music closely. 

That wasn't your point.

The Grammys have been reflecting the past year in music for decades now. 

dude my point was the grammys arent awarding artistic excellence. forget about the million other artists who no one knows about. they can't even give awards to deserving artists who everyone knows about lol. my point is the grammys are a farce and has been for a couple years now and i stand by that.

[Ronk 14,334]

5 minutes ago, doppelganger said:

Like the Oscars the makeup grammy voters are the problem. In what world does Ed and Bruno Mars win over more deserving nominees? I bop to Bruno but is it really Grammy worthy? 

 

Exactly.  But how do you find voters who will only reward talent, musical excellence, and craftsmanship?  People vote for their faves, and for artists who's individual style or sub-genre they like best.  And will not vote for someone if they didn't like something the artist said or did, even outside the music arena.  And sometimes gender is a consideration.  Voters can be swayed by anything, so the talent and excellence of an artist may not be rewarded.

One thing consistent about the Grammys is that they are always proclaimed to be "over".

[malazam 15,710]

Can someone tell me how many awards were handled to women this year? Or how many categories were won by one? Thank you.

[codymonster 8,233]

38 minutes ago, lucastecala said:

Only 9.3% of the nominees in the past five years have been women. So there's that. And no honey, not everything is a matter of opinion. Somethings are just facts with receipts.  

You're just being fooled by the fact two of the very few female winners in the past years happen to be the two that are probably the biggest names in pop culture (male or female): Adele and Taylor Swift, so those two couldn't possibly have been ignored even by the blatantly sexist recording academy. And because there such global monumental acts their wins had a lot of impact and repercussion. But when you see the numbers of the big picture, the discrepancy is outrageous. 

You sound like such a brat. I have my opinion, you have yours. I hear your facts and understand what you’re saying, but I respectfully think what I think. 

[Thomas P 18,429]

2 hours ago, ZiggyZiggs said:

you should be mad he won soty tho, cuz the songwriting on that song, no depth at all lol.  

None of the other nominees either though. I love 1800, but I thought it fell flat with its message till the video came out. Honestly the only lyrically deep song was 4:44 by Jay Z, and I bop to That’s What I Like a lot more. 

[doppelganger 3,810]

23 minutes ago, Ronk said:

Exactly.  But how do you find voters who will only reward talent, musical excellence, and craftsmanship?  People vote for their faves, and for artists who's individual style or sub-genre they like best.  And will not vote for someone if they didn't like something the artist said or did, even outside the music arena.  And sometimes gender is a consideration.  Voters can be swayed by anything, so the talent and excellence of an artist may not be rewarded.

One thing consistent about the Grammys is that they are always proclaimed to be "over".

Had Ed been nominated he’d sweep AOTY/ROTY. They’re a conservative bunch and offered a choice between (i) a kiwi millennial whose politics make America nervous (ii) two rappers (iii) a pair of Puerto-Ricans (iv) a talented biracial musician that sells nostalgia. Bruno was the least uncomfortable choice.