Jump to content
other

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


Featured Posts

salty like sodium
7 minutes ago, Bleachella said:

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 

But then that's the issue is where do you draw the line, because Jay Z literally stabbed a person in 1999, etc. Ultimately cancelling people permanently makes no sense: if someone commits a crime they should just be executed or jailed forever and ever without ever having the opportunity of being a part of society? :triggered: I personally don't want to associate with predators and I'd avoid them and refuse voting for them but ultimately, every human being has rights, no matter how vile they are, for example the right to apply to a job or to have a fair trial (or in this case, to be nominated for an award for their work). :messga: And Spotify may have removed R Kelly from their playlists but they didn't remove him from their streaming service. That's literally EXACTLY what the Grammies are doing ... They are removing problematic people from their red carpet/awards ceremony/performance stages (i.e. their playlists) but not from their nominations list (i.e. their catalog). Like Spotify isn't doing anything better lmao :triggered: If Spotify removed R Kelly's music completely from the streaming catalog, now THAT would be a different story.

Edited by salty like sodium
Link to post
Share on other sites
Andreu

Maybe then take the stupid rule in which someone who sings a 30 second verse on an album gets an AOTY nom in the same way the main artist of the album does Big Brother Shrug GIF by Big Brother After Dark

before there was love there was silence
Link to post
Share on other sites
alsemanche
18 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. 

greys areas exist, they don't have to condemn every single case. They should 100% not even consider works from people like the four men listen above. They're literally honoring rapists and harassers... And voters aren't free of blame either, whoever voted for Manson or DaBaby or whatever is a huge part of the problem. If you have an allegedly prestigious award ceremony (lol), the least you can do is monitor who you're nominating and awarding. Otherwise they're blatantly saying that they give 0 f*cks about those crimes and about the people who were affected by them. Imagine you're sitting in the audience and your rapist is getting awarded right in front of you.  

Soft, soothing, and succulent
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ProfessionalClown

I mean, this makes sense tho. Roman Polanski, as horrible of a person he is, has made some masterpieces and one of my fave movies ever (Rosemarys Baby) and deserves the accolades for it, but he is still a disgusting person. He still did horrible things. But he did still make a few masterpieces.

Link to post
Share on other sites
salty like sodium
1 hour ago, alsemanche said:

greys areas exist, they don't have to condemn every single case. They should 100% not even consider works from people like the four men listen above. They're literally honoring rapists and harassers... And voters aren't free of blame either, whoever voted for Manson or DaBaby or whatever is a huge part of the problem. If you have an allegedly prestigious award ceremony (lol), the least you can do is monitor who you're nominating and awarding. Otherwise they're blatantly saying that they give 0 f*cks about those crimes and about the people who were affected by them. Imagine you're sitting in the audience and your rapist is getting awarded right in front of you.  

I'm just going to refer you to my comment above and leave it there

1 hour ago, salty like sodium said:

But then that's the issue is where do you draw the line, because Jay Z literally stabbed a person in 1999, etc. Ultimately cancelling people permanently makes no sense: if someone commits a crime they should just be executed or jailed forever and ever without ever having the opportunity of being a part of society? :triggered: I personally don't want to associate with predators and I'd avoid them and refuse voting for them but ultimately, every human being has rights, no matter how vile they are, for example the right to apply to a job or to have a fair trial (or in this case, to be nominated for an award for their work). :messga:

Whether they win or not is then up to the voting body, who, I hope, is smart enough to not vote for them. The fact they were nominated by the voting body in the first place, however, is not a great sign. :bear:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jennie Kim

I believe the majority of music fans still think the Recording Academy is like 5 people choosing who gets a nomination/win every year.

If the the record is popular between musicians it's going to be nominated, period. When you say "The Grammys are trash" you're talking about the music industry including some of your favorite musicians.

The Grammys are peer voted. 

If "The Grammys" lack integrity for nominating former convicts and abusers, and your fave is still submitting their work every year,  your faves are trash too because they are "The Grammys" as well. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
boyerased
2 hours ago, Bleachella said:

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 

I mean it’s exactly like that. Grammy didn’t remove their eligibility (spotify library) but can remove them from the show (playlist).

I’d rather they not be nominated honestly. Surely there are better tracks to consider and validating them in some ways give them the platform. They really should make changes but carefully. There are many gray areas (not with these people but the academy) and it might set a dangerous precedence for them or put themselves in a corner. Especially that legally the last two are clear. 

  • YAAAS 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dennis

I think the voters are reasonable. Look at how they completely shut out Morgan Racist, despite having the biggest album of the year.

Just trust the voters to snub the most controversial picks. It'll work out more often than not.

Edited by Dennis
Link to post
Share on other sites
salty like sodium
25 minutes ago, Dennis said:

I think the voters are reasonable. Look at how they completely shut out Morgan Racist, despite having the biggest album of the year.

Just trust the voters to snub the most controversial picks. It'll work out more often than not.

Did you miss the part where it says in no uncertain words that the voters are the ones who picked the nominees this year (for the first time ever)? :huntyga:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...