Grammy Kvetching Thread

[Aaron]

To be fair, so is Arcade Fire's.

But they don't try to sound pitch perfect vocally on album like the other two.

[murlough23]

But they don't try to sound pitch perfect vocally on album like the other two.

Even compared to the album. I'm fine with their vocals on the albums, though Win Butler seriously had to grow on me. Live, it can sometimes be like, yee-owch, though I attribute that more to the group's breathless energy on stage rather than a lack of talent. I can see how if that were someone's first exposure to the band, they might not react so favorably.

To be honest, a fair number of my favorite bands don't really sing the greatest in a live setting. They're adequate, but the focus is more on the musicianship, the art, or the general spectacle than it is on being pitch-perfect. Hell, I could even say this about U2 sometimes.

[bloop]

TBH, a majority of my favorite bands don't sing well in the classical sense, and it isn't really what is appealing about them anyway.

[murlough23]

TBH, a majority of my favorite bands don't sing well in the classical sense, and it isn't really what is appealing about them anyway.

I'm generally OK with that as long as it's not egregiously off-key or otherwise painful (e.g. The Killers, The Strokes). Though some singers who sound fabulous on record do so much ridiculous running around and trying to pump up the energy on stage that it all but wastes the quality of their vocals (see Amy Lee from Evanescence - I know folks are way past over the band at this point anyway, but she had a good voice when she sat still and controlled it.)

[bloop]

http://youropenbook.org/?q=R+K+Fire&gender=any

[murlough23]

I'm totally gonna write a satirical Arcade Fire review from the POV of one of these clueless prepackaged pop music fans. If I can come up with a way to make it funny enough, at last.

[ewok20t3]

Music executive is ticked that Bieber didn't win any Grammy Awards; Takes out full page ad in New York Times. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/marketing-exec-steve-stoute-criticizes-159648

[murlough23]

Music executive is ticked that Bieber didn't win any Grammy Awards; Takes out full page ad in New York Times. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/marketing-exec-steve-stoute-criticizes-159648

Again, this is not the People's Choice Awards. Academy members are voting, not the general public. Who is most popular among members of the general public does not determine the winner. (It usually seems like they pick winners, and even nominees, to appease the populace - and I'm not saying that shouldn't be a factor, but this isn't the "Who Sold the Most Albums?" award.)

Maybe the voters simply made more of a conscious effort to choose the music they liked this year.

As for the comment about Bieber defining what a modern artist should be... L. O. L.

[bloop]

My criticism of the Grammys in the past was that they generally chose capable, but less relevant, dinosaurs (that they perhaps snubbed in years past) to hold their most coveted award rather than something truly groundbreaking - a pretty good album rather than the best.  The best stuff in any given year seemed to be too weird to the voters. The Steely Dan mention was well-received in that regard, but not because of Marshall Mathers.

[murlough23]

My criticism of the Grammys in the past was that they generally chose capable, but less relevant, dinosaurs (that they perhaps snubbed in years past) to hold their most coveted award rather than something truly groundbreaking - a pretty good album rather than the best.

That's been my complaint as well. "Oh, we recognize that name! People seem to still like 'em. Let's give 'em the award." The award given really seems like it has more to do with lifetime achievement than it does with the specific album or song nominated. This is possibly because many of the voters themselves are dinosaurs, but this year seems to disprove that theory, unless the academy demographics have shifted significantly in a short period of time.

The best stuff in any given year seemed to be too weird to the voters. The Steely Dan mention was well-received in that regard, but not because of Marshall Mathers.

Whatever's best artistically is likely to be off-putting to the mainstream, so I figure that with the Academy being made up of members of the (mostly mainstream) music industry, their votes are generally going to skew more mainstream. Arcade Fire's record isn't particularly "weird" in that regard; it's simply a solid rock album, which does play around a bit in terms of genre from track to track, but it's toes the line between art and accessibility reasonably well.

There's never going to be full-scale agreement on what makes the best art, but I figure such awards should be neither a popularity contest nor a fulfillment of obligation based on what the critics seem to be saying. The Grammys are supposed to be industry professionals voting for what they feel is the best. Right?

[bloop]

Unless repeated, this year's award is merely an outlier. Perhaps they lacked a clear dinosaur from which to choose this year.

I want them to just one year pick something great, groundbreaking, but utterly impenetrable to radio pop/rock fanz.

Did such an album come out last year? Eh, if it did, I'm not sure I heard it. So, Arcade Fire is fine. They're really good. I can't complain.

[murlough23]

I want them to just one year pick something great, groundbreaking, but utterly impenetrable to radio pop/rock fanz.

It probably won't happen. A lot of the voters are radio pop/rock fanz. They're in the industry helping that stuff to get made because it's the same stuff some of them personally enjoy listening to. I don't think all radio pop/rock is bad or undeserving of awards, per se, but to your point, it shouldn't always win out over the "impenetrable stuff" just due to a lack of mainstream, er, penetration.

You've got your Radioheads who will achieve a good degree of mainstream recognition despite not actively trying to do anything mainstream with their sound (and sometimes actively trying to avoid doing this). Most of the rest who attempt this are probably going to remain obscure for a reason. Which is fine if they're making a conscious choice not to change anything for the sake of mainstream acceptance. But you can't buck the mainstream and then criticize the mainstream for not recognizing you. That's a cross you chose to bear.

(The mainstream could eventually change, of course, but I do not expect this to happen swiftly.)

Did such an album come out last year? Eh, if it did, I'm not sure I heard it. So, Arcade Fire. That's fine. They're really good. I can't complain.

It's good art and pretty catchy. It wasn't my favorite record last year, but it was up there. Maybe they just chose what they felt was a kick-ass rock record without looking any deeper into it. The fact that it's a pretty darn well-written record is incidental as far as the Grammys are concerned. (Then again, I can't assume that all voters who chose that album did so for identical reasons. Some may have listened very deeply to The Suburbs and found it to be good art, some may have highlighted a couple fun songs with a good groove; still others might have been disgruntled that Funeral didn't get the recognition it deserved six years ago and gave a vote to The Suburbs in lieu of Funeral.)

[bloop]

But you can't buck the mainstream and then criticize the mainstream for not recognizing you. That's a cross you chose to bear.

Maybe they shouldn't, but I sure can.

I think I just want an awards show that doesn't exist - something that really appeals to my "art is king" mentality. Such a show's ratings would probably be in the toilet. Since the Grammys are the mainstream awards show that comes closest to rewarding good art from time to time (granted, vs. the People's choice whatevers), perhaps I want a move even further in that direction.

[murlough23]

Maybe they shouldn't, but I sure can.

Which is fine - I bitch about that a lot, too. I'm just saying that the mainstream itself is gonna have to get fixed before an award show like the Grammys will start to have the kind of results you're hoping for. And even then, when the world of popular music is overrun with auteurs as weird as Radiohead, there's probably going to be some other obscure artist ahead of the curve that you'll wish was getting recognized, but that still isn't.

I think I just want an awards show that doesn't exist - something that really appeals to my "art is king" mentality.

It exists. It's called your Music Journal.

Such a show's ratings would probably be in the toilet.

That would be analogous to the album sales/hit single count of the nominated artists, I'd imagine. The nice thing about the indie world is that it's analogous to the mainstream music world as cable TV ratings are to network TV ratings. You need a lot less in order to avoid cancellation.

Since the Grammys are the mainstream awards show that comes closest to rewarding good art from time to time (granted, vs. the People's choice whatevers), perhaps I want a move even further in that direction.

I feel like that's putting too much importance upon a mostly outdated and out-of-touch inner circle within the music biz. How much does it really affect an artist to win a Grammy? I suppose a publicity bump can be expected for a short time, but long-term, is somebody gonna see your album from ten years ago on a rack and buy it just because it has that "Grammy Winner" sticker on it? A few gullible consumers probably will, but most people are gonna buy it because they heard a song or a handful of 'em that they themselves happened to enjoy. Your favorite avant-garde musician suddenly winning a Grammy is not gonna make everyone suddenly like them. (If anything, it'll make the pop/rock radio fanz go from not knowing anything about them to actively hating them, because that artist beat out their pet favorite for an award.)

I think this applies to the already hugely successful artists, too. Is Bieber winning a Grammy suddenly going to earn him droves of new fans? "Well gee, I didn't really think I'd be interested in his music before, but since he won a Grammy, I better check this kid out!" Probably not. The only people who care whether he wins an award have already been converted.

Just try not giving a shit about the Grammys. Honestly, it's easier on the blood pressure. When someone you like happens to win, hey, great stroke of luck for them. Otherwise, WHATEVER.

[bloop]

I don't want you to get the wrong idea. I'm not that perturbed by it. These are criticisms, not calls to arms.

[murlough23]

I don't want you to get the wrong idea. I'm not that perturbed by it. These are criticisms, not calls to arms.

They're fair criticisms. Let me put it another way: We're theorizing about how to cure a symptom when what's really needed is a cure for the disease.

[bloop]

If anything, it'll make the pop/rock radio fanz go from not knowing anything about them to actively hating them, because that artist beat out their pet favorite for an award.

Who said my goal is to bring more into the fold? I can enjoy this reaction from people, too!  

On a slightly related note, I listened to Esperanza Spalding's album, and it was good. Really good. I like their choice on that one.

[Aaron]

Who said my goal is to bring more into the fold? I can enjoy this reaction from people, too!  

On a slightly related note, I listened to Esperanza Spalding's album, and it was good. Really good. I like their choice on that one.

Her, Mumford & Sons, and Florence and the Machine were all more worthy of winning over drake and bieber

[ewok20t3]

Music executive is ticked that Bieber didn't win any Grammy Awards; Takes out full page ad in New York Times. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/marketing-exec-steve-stoute-criticizes-159648

Arcade Fire's manager responds. http://www.brooklynvegan.com/archives/2011/02/a_letter_from_a_2.html

[murlough23]

Damn. Hell of a letter for a Blackberry. And he makes some great points. We could argue merit 'til the cows come home since that's such a subjective thing, but he did a good job of illustrating how the odds were stacked pretty well against Arcade Fire and they won despite not pulling in any special favors.

One nitpick: No on-stage gimmicks? So what was with all the people riding bikes around them and stuff? Not complaining... it was a cool gimmick. But still a gimmick, albeit a less expensive one than Muse's fancy light show.

[bloop]

I don't think one could too effectively argue merit in the case of The Arcade Fire's album vs. everything else that made the shortlist, though. 

[murlough23]

I don't think one could too effectively argue merit in the case of The Arcade Fire's album vs. everything else that made the shortlist, though. 

Not here. But it's apparently not so obvious to the general public.

[ajyouthguy]

here are Mark Moring's thoughts on the Christian music nods in the grammy noms for this year...largely irrelevant but i know it's entertaining at least to some of us to see who they come up with and what we can scratch our heads about each time this comes around...

Brandon Heath has been nominated for three Grammy Awards -- Best Contemporary Christian Music Album (Leaving Eden), Best Gospel/Contemporary Music Performance ("Your Love"), and Best Contemporary Christian Music Song ("Your Love," co-written with Jason Ingram).

Heath's nominations are deserved -- Leaving Eden is a fine album -- and it's especially good to see indie gems Gungor getting a nod for Best Contemporary Christian Album (Ghosts Upon the Earth), arguably the most creative worship record to come along in years. Three of the other album nominees -- Leeland (The Great Awakening), Mandisa (What If We Were Real), and Chris Tomlin (And If Our God Is for Us . . .) are unsurprising but mostly left me thinking, Meh. But the fifth album nomination, Royal Tailor for Black & White, is a real head-scratcher. Mediocre boy-band pop? In 2011? Seriously?

The Grammy folks were a little more on target with their nominees for Best Gospel Album, with Kim Burrell (The Love Album), Andrae Crouch (The Journey), Kirk Franklin (Hello Fear), Mary Mary (Something Big), and Trin-i-Tee 5:7 (Angel & Chantelle Deluxe Edition). Mary Mary ("Sitting with Me") and Franklin ("Hello Fear") also picked up noms for Best Gospel Song.

Joining Heath in the running for Best Contemporary Christian Music Song were Laura Story ("Blessings"), Jamie Grace ("Hold Me"), Chris Tomlin ("I Lift My Hands"), and Matthew West ("Strong Enough").

Other notable nominations with Christian and spiritual content include Emmylou Harris's Hard Bargain and Levon Helm's Ramble at the Ryman for Best Americana Album; Alison Kraus & Union Station's Paper Airplane, Jim Lauderdale's Reason and Rhyme, and Ralph Stanley's A Mother's Prayer in Best Bluegrass Album; and The Civil Wars' Barton Hollow for Best Folk Album. The Civil Wars, featuring former CCM star Joy Williams, were also nominated for Best Country Duo/Group Performance for "Barton Hollow."

[bloop]

Grammys = ho hum.

Then again, I said that last year and they go and hand out the big award to The Arcade Fire.

I plain don't care that much about Christian music this year. Much of it strikes me as a motley collection of also-rans I won't care about in 20 years that seem to dominate so many of my friends' lists. Granted, they aren't bad (most of my friends do have some taste).

[murlough23]

Glad that Gungor's getting some recognition. Wish it could be something more meaningful than Grammy recongition, but I'll take what I can get. At least they dug deeper than just nominating the same usual suspects like they do most years. That is not a particularly commercial album so I'm surprised it even gets recognition within the CCM bubble.

[Aaron]

Know how Royal Tailor gets nominated? Someone gets paid off with a handsome sum of money.

[bloop]

I am happy to say before this moment, I would not have been able to tell you wtf a Royal Tailor was. I'd think you mean someone working for the British royal family.

[murlough23]

I am happy to say before this moment, I would not have been able to tell you wtf a Royal Tailor was. I'd think you mean someone working for the British royal family.

Same here. Sounds like I should probably remain ignorant.

[Aaron]

Jill Scott was shocked that she got no nominations.  I am too but not really.  the academy is pretty inane

[spacebrat311]

Back to the earlier complaints about what the Grammy's aren't, I find what they are sort of confusing. Because they aren't, after all, the People's Choice Awards, but they don't function as a critical consensus either. They could choose to exist in the space that the Academy Awards do for film, but they aren't exactly that. I'm just not sure it's clear what it means that an album or artist receives a Grammy.

[bloop]

If the Academy Awards were like the Grammys, the nominees for this year would include Twilight and Transformers alongside legitimately good films that didn't rake $ in. The Academy doesn't always get it right, but I could respect the Grammys if they were just a bit more like that.

[murlough23]

I think the Oscars and the Grammys share a sort of self-congratulatory thread, in that it's all industry bigwigs patting one another on the back. The difference is that the bigwigs in the Academy are more likely to be filmmakers doing it for the art, while those in the recording industry are more likely to be record execs doing it for the cash. I could be wrong and maybe a good number of actual musicians vote in the Grammys... but the results would often seem to indicate that popular consensus matters more there than it does to the Academy.

[bloop]

I don't know what the breakdown of their membership is, but looking into their application, it would seem that musicians can be voting members.

The only thing about that is Nickelback qualifies as well as Radiohead would. Just because they're artists doesn't mean they really are.

That doesn't really explain the difference, though. I'm sure Michael Bay is a voting member of the Academy.

Voting Member

This classification is for creative and technical professionals who qualify in at least one of the categories of eligibility. All recordings must be commercially released in the U.S. either through traditional distribution channels or recognized online retail settings.

Traditional Distribution:
If you have received technical or creative credit in any one qualifying category on at least six tracks or equivalent, you qualify. All recordings must have been commercially released in the United States and distributed through recognized retailers. One qualifying credit must have been released within the last five years.

Digital Distribution:
If you have received technical or creative credit in any one qualifying category on at least 12 tracks or equivalent, you qualify. All recordings must have been commercially released in the United States and distributed through recognized online music retailers. Applicants must be actively promoting themselves in their chosen field. One qualifying credit must have been released within the last five years.

[ajyouthguy]

This applies to the Doves, but I'm sure it's not that different with Grammys either.  Shaun Groves wrote it a few weeks ago in a blog entry about some changes the Dove Awards were making, that in his mind were a good thing.  I thought it was very raw and real though, especially the parts i include below...

In 2002 I was nominated for five Dove Awards. Those nominations stood no chance of becoming wins though. A slanted voting process has sapped the Dove Awards of meaning and credibility for me and so many other informed artists. But recent changes made by the Gospel Music Association may be a move toward greater meaning.

Just as artists sign contracts with record labels, record labels enter into contracts with distribution companies for an agreed upon split of revenues and for a set length of time. My first record, released in 2001, was with now-defunct Rocketown Records. Rocketown distributed its records, mine included, through Word Distribution.

When the first round of 2002 Dove Award voting took place, Word Distribution employees – hundreds of them – were “encouraged” to vote for me and my album. And so I was undeservingly nominated in several categories.

But between the nomination process and final voting, Rocketown informed Word Distribution that it would not be renewing its distribution deal with the company. During that same period, INO Records, who represented the very talented Sara Groves (no relation) and Mercy Me among others, committed to a long-term distribution deal with Word.

Before final voting, an e-mail was sent out from on-high at Word Distribution to managers encouraging them to encourage their staff to vote for INO artists and albums in several categories. Rocketown artists were not recommended in any categories. (One of these managers forwarded the e-mail to me with his sincere apologies.) A Dove Award win is a publicity opportunity, a sticker on the next album release, a marketing bullet point. Dove Award wins for INO artists in 2002 would profit Word in the future, whereas wins for Rocketown would not. For the first time in five years, Rocketown didn’t win a single Dove Award and for the first time in history an artist with five nominations walked away empty-handed.

It is easy to predict who will win in each Dove Award category if you can add.. Each artist benefits from the cumulative block voting of his record label, his label’s “secular” owner (Universal, Sony, etc), his publisher and his label’s distribution company. The artist with the largest companies behind him wins unless those companies have numerous artists in a category. In such a case company votes are sometimes split, allowing an artist with smaller companies behind him to win.

No earthly award gives an artist value in any Christian sense of the word but Dove Awards, because of this numbers game, don’t measure artist or artistic value in any secular sense of the word either. It is simply an award given to the artist who has signed a contract with the record label that has signed contracts with companies who have the most employees.

[spacebrat311]

That doesn't really explain the difference, though. I'm sure Michael Bay is a voting member of the Academy.

True, but knowing a little bit about the Academy... for every Michael Bay, there are at least five college film professors who got one union credit and are totally into artsy films.

[bloop]

True, but knowing a little bit about the Academy... for every Michael Bay, there are at least five college film professors who got one union credit and are totally into artsy films.

Yeah, that may explain it. I'm not certain it would be this way for music. I'd imagine musicians don't even make up a very large portion of the voting body.