Grammys address controversial nominations (Manson, C.K, DaBaby, Chappelle)

[alsemanche 92,832]

President and CEO of the Recording Academy Harvey Mason Jr. has responded to the controversial Grammy nominations of artists like Marilyn Manson and Louis C.K., telling TheWrap that personal and criminal history won’t be taken into account for eligibility of its awards. Instead, the Recording Academy will exercise control over Grammy night invitees.

“We won’t restrict the people who can submit their material for consideration,” Mason Jr. said. “We won’t look back at people’s history, we won’t look at their criminal record, we won’t look at anything other than the legality within our rules of, is this recording for this work eligible based on date and other criteria. If it is, they can submit for consideration.”

He continued by explaining how the Academy could exercise discretion over who attends their events. Mason Jr. added, “What we will control is our stages, our shows, our events, our red carpets. We’ll take a look at anyone who is asking to be a part of that, asking to be in attendance, and we’ll make our decisions at that point. But we’re not going to be in the business of restricting people from submitting their work for our voters to decide on.”

https://consequence.net/2021/11/grammys-nominations-controversy-ceo-reacts-marilyn-manson-louis-ck/ 

[alsemanche 92,832]

The level of idiocy in this response... Expected nothing better from the Grammys anyway 

[LOVEDRUG 10,505]

dababy and marilyn only got nominated through kanye's album though, right? it's not like they actively sought to nominate those two, they just happened to get nominated because of their contribution to a popular album. 

don't know about the rest though.

[Ivy 12,299]

So they won't be going to the ceremonies then? 

[Guest]

If they won't look at people's criminal record, they could nominate also a killer if we take it to the extreme? That answer is simply stupid

[HosedDownGypsy 2,554]

I think this makes sense.

[Red 97,910]

And I thought my level of respect for this pop culture abomination couldn't go lower after 2020

[bloody g 31,739]

this is so dumb, let's give hitler a grammy too right?? art and artist should not be separated

[Dojo 19,365]

12 minutes ago, HosedDownGypsy said:

I think this makes sense.

i second this!

[Chlorine 47,976]

He’s putting the responsibility on the recording academy for voting on the nominations.

[salty like sodium 1,471]

45 minutes ago, alsemanche said:

The level of idiocy in this response... Expected nothing better from the Grammys anyway 

I mean ... Not really. If they are going to start banning everyone with a criminal record from applying, then quite a lot of musicians would be unable to submit their material for consideration. I think even Jay-Z wouldn't be eligible, and he's one of the most nominated performers in History ... I think preventing people from submitting work for consideration is the wrong kind of censorship, because ultimately the voters are the ones who will determine who the winner is so it makes no sense that the academy would be able to dictate who the voters should be allowed to vote for or not. Where their control lies is in terms of who they invite to attend the ceremony and perform on the stage, so everything they said makes sense to me. But maybe that's just me. 

The grammys are absolutely flawed in loads of other ways though lmao. Just I don't think this decision is that ridiculous, personally. 

[Bling 31,289]

Sad. Grammy's been over for a while now tho. The 2017 snubs of all the great female musicians was enough for me.

[BUtterfield 8 41,308]

So they’re basically saying that controversial ppl can be nominated but they won’t able to attend the award shows?

[Bleachella 2,932]

2 minutes ago, salty like sodium said:

I mean ... Not really. If they are going to start banning everyone with a criminal record from applying, then quite a lot of musicians would be unable to submit their material for consideration. I think even Jay-Z wouldn't be eligible, and he's one of the most nominated performers in History ... I think preventing people from submitting work for consideration is the wrong kind of censorship, because ultimately the voters are the ones who will determine who the winner is so it makes no sense that the academy would be able to dictate who the voters should be allowed to vote for or not. Where their control lies is in terms of who they invite to attend the ceremony and perform on the stage, so everything they said makes sense to me. But maybe that's just me. 

The grammys are absolutely flawed in loads of other ways though lmao. Just I don't think this decision is that ridiculous, personally. 

I don’t think anyone is asking people with any criminal records to be excluded from nominations but perhaps rapists and sexual predators would be a decent idea to exclude. Spotify did it, removing R Kelly and X from their official playlists. It’s not hard 

[LaLa 19,560]

I understand what he's saying, that it would be difficult to police everyone submitting. But it sure would be nice if the members voting for the nominations would consider just who they're voting for. That's where more work needs to be done -- too many people don't care that their peers are acting in harmful ways. And then it's shocked pikachu when you end up with an industry rife with predators.