Stra 6 Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 lbr the grammys has always been more of a money machine then the oscars when you see movies that are nominated and win for the oscars ,you might not like of the choices or winners, but you can admit they were great films that earned their acclaim. with the grammy's, the best usually doesn't win most of the time. i mean taylor swift won aoty do i have to remind you with that lol. Stop looking down on the money. Money spent is the greatest indication of value, you can say how great a film is but if you are not willing to pay to go see it than you obviously are lying to yourself. The Oscars are way too self-indulgent. Taylor Swift's album was a good solid pop/country album with successful singles (thanks Kanye). I hate country so Taylor Swift is as far I as I would go, I would have preferred Lady Gaga or The Black Eyed Peas to win but they didn't so what My favs didn't win. Doesn't mean anything Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cherry 17 Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Stop looking down on the money. Money spent is the greatest indication of value, you can say how great a film is but if you are not willing to pay to go see it than you obviously are lying to yourself. The Oscars are way too self-indulgent. Taylor Swift's album was a good solid pop/country album with successful singles (thanks Kanye). I hate country so Taylor Swift is as far I as I would go, I would have preferred Lady Gaga or The Black Eyed Peas to win but they didn't so what My favs didn't win. Doesn't mean anything Umm, the two biggest hits off that album came well before Kanyegate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Gump 1 Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Stop looking down on the money. Money spent is the greatest indication of value, you can say how great a film is but if you are not willing to pay to go see it than you obviously are lying to yourself. The Oscars are way too self-indulgent. Taylor Swift's album was a good solid pop/country album with successful singles (thanks Kanye). I hate country so Taylor Swift is as far I as I would go, I would have preferred Lady Gaga or The Black Eyed Peas to win but they didn't so what My favs didn't win. Doesn't mean anything my point was, there are already enough award shows that reward sales; the american music awards, billboard awards, vmas etc... even the people choice awards for the fans. the grammys is supposed to be more respected than that, and yes they do reward a coupe indie acts a year, they still have this all american family friendly mentality where they aren't rewarding actual innovation. another example is where was animal collective's groundbreaking album merriweather post pavilion, the album that topped every critics list in 2009 and was actually accessible enough to have their attention. why was this album ignored over the nominated albums that didn't bring anything substantial or interesting to the music scene other then just having hit singles or appealing to old men (the grammy committee) that reward albums that remind them of "real music" (arcade fire, adele, mumford and sons). or how about i bring up how skrillex has 6 grammy's while burial, a real pioneer in dubstep, has never been recognized by the committee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stra 6 Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Umm, the two biggest hits off that album came well before Kanyegate. If I remember correctly some of her singles surged in sales and in the charts after "Kanyegate." She was riding that wave all the way to the Grammys and the win. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stra 6 Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 my point was, there are already enough award shows that reward sales; the american music awards, billboard awards, vmas etc... even the people choice awards for the fans. the grammys is supposed to be more respected than that, and yes they do reward a coupe indie acts a year, they still have this all american family friendly mentality where they aren't rewarding actual innovation. another example is where was animal collective's groundbreaking album merriweather post pavilion, the album that topped every critics list in 2009 and was actually accessible enough to have their attention. why was this album ignored over the nominated albums that didn't bring anything substantial or interesting to the music scene other then just having hit singles or appealing to old men (the grammy committee) that reward albums that remind them of "real music" (arcade fire, adele, mumford and sons). or how about i bring up how skrillex has 6 grammy's while burial, a real pioneer in dubstep, has never been recognized by the committee. First of all, the Grammys are older than all those irrelevant award shows you mentioned. Secondly, some of those are teenagers voting for their favorites online which do not reflect sales at all. And thirdly, some are chosen by a panel of "experts" Whats in bold is the same issue as the Oscars I already told you about which is why the Grammys is so similar tot he Oscars. and EDM is relatively new to the Grammys so of course they will get it wrong today, and tomorrow most likely, but this is where it starts. Now that EDM artists and producers can become part of the voting process. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Gump 1 Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 First of all, the Grammys are older than all those irrelevant award shows you mentioned. Secondly, some of those are teenagers voting for their favorites online which do not reflect sales at all. And thirdly, some are chosen by a panel of "experts" Whats in bold is the same issue as the Oscars I already told you about which is why the Grammys is so similar tot he Oscars. and EDM is relatively new to the Grammys so of course they will get it wrong today, and tomorrow most likely, but this is where it starts. Now that EDM artists and producers can become part of the voting process. but like i said about the oscars, at least they try to nominate the best reviewed movies of the year, even nominating them before they're released while the grammys still tend to favor commercial blockbuster albums. that's the differences with them. not to mention the cutoff dates are ridiculous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion Heart 15,041 Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Arcade Fire #15 ▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gidone 65 Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 how come drake and the xx are higher? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Gump 1 Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 how come drake and the xx are higher? why do you disagree with the xx? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stra 6 Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 but like i said about the oscars, at least they try to nominate the best reviewed movies of the year, even nominating them before they're released while the grammys still tend to favor commercial blockbuster albums. that's the differences with them. not to mention the cutoff dates are ridiculous. So you prefer movies to be chosen by 20 critics and would like to see the same thing done to music? If it was up to more than just 20 critics and viewers and their wallets could weight in, The Artist, the least unoriginal movie in the history of movies, would not have been nominated. The Kings Speech? Yeah no. The Oscars likes to pretend the best stories and films created every year, are films made with 1980s technology and old reused plots and subplots. The Grammys time frame is much better, after time passes, listeners become more subjective. The Oscars and filmmakers try to use the Oscar as a promotional tool which is even more cynical and completely inartistic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intriguing Penguin 0 Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Rolling Stone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Gump 1 Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 So you prefer movies to be chosen by 20 critics and would like to see the same thing done to music? If it was up to more than just 20 critics and viewers and their wallets could weight in, The Artist, the least unoriginal movie in the history of movies, would not have been nominated. The Kings Speech? Yeah no. The Oscars likes to pretend the best stories and films created every year, are films made with 1980s technology and old reused plots and subplots. The Grammys time frame is much better, after time passes, listeners become more subjective. The Oscars and filmmakers try to use the Oscar as a promotional tool which is even more cynical and completely inartistic. no, because i know the grammy's is just a promotional opportunity and the grammy committee never even heard of metacritic. which is why i don't put it in the same league as the oscars i'm fine with it being another award show that awards generic popular music and major label artists as long as it isn't taken seriously as an important award show anymore that isn't rewarding the best of music. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterGrease 53 Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 I really don't think it should matter what position she's at, she made the list which is great. Who cares if Madonna is five spots higher? Both of them made huge splashes with their debuts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gidone 65 Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 why do you disagree with the xx? dont get me wrong, I love them, the album is great. its just that I was surprised to see them rank much higher than albums that were more commercially successful + had better reviews, that were more popular. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Gump 1 Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 dont get me wrong, I love them, the album is great. its just that I was surprised to see them rank much higher than albums that were more commercially successful + had better reviews, that were more popular. the fame didn't have better reviews then the xx and commercial success and popularity should be irrelevant when choosing the best, but then again, it is rolling stone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.