Playlist

Posted by Sue Abell @ 8:59 AM Mon, Feb 11, 2008

Amy was bad, bad, bad and that's not good. But, the best part of the entire evening was Vince Gill's comment "I got my grammy handed to me by "a Beatle", I bet you can't say that Kanye". Touchee, Vince! Vince should get best line of the year.

Posted by Kip Mooney @ 10:44 AM Mon, Feb 11, 2008

This year marked my first Grammy boycott (after last year's Pop Group Vocal debacle--"My Humps"? Seriously?!) and it is safe to say this boycott will be renewed for next year. Herbie Hancock for Album of the Year? What, are my grandparents Grammy voters now? And when will they realize that the White Stripes are not the only alternative band worthy of awards? 'Neon Bible' was the best album of the year, period. And this was the Stripes' weakest album to date.

Posted by Christy Robinson @ 12:31 PM Mon, Feb 11, 2008

So Kip, tell us how Herbie Hancock's album didn't deserve the award. Because, you know, only *old* people listen to jazz.

Posted by Steve W @ 7:50 PM Mon, Feb 11, 2008

Let's recap: a female singer is recently out of REHAB. She writes and sings a song about REHAB. She could not perform REHAB in person at The Grammys because she could not get a visa in time due to her recent REHAB and drug investigations. And then she wins ***5 Grammy's*** on Sunday and everyone in media is still talking about REHAB on Monday. I don't care how good or bad the song is. Can anyone see the irony?

Posted by Kip Mooney @ 4:09 PM Tue, Feb 12, 2008

Christy: It really just shows how out of touch the Grammy voters are. They try and play to the younger crowd (especially in 2001 when Eminem and Radiohead were up for Album of the Year and they give it to Steely Dan). And last year, they didn't even nominate Timbaland for Producer of the Year (when he produced two of the year's best pop albums). And they still lament when no one watches the telecast. Could you name 5 people (not DMN staff writers) under the age of 55 who owned the Herbie Hancock album? I also think that they're just the most ridiculous awards show now. They've even surpassed the Emmys. 100s of categories, a wacky calendar of eligibility, and have a penchant for nominating anyone who used to be great, even if they are no longer deserving of awards (see: Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder, etc). And why must they always nominate the most treacly tunes for Song of the Year?

Posted by Christy Robinson @ 6:29 PM Tue, Feb 12, 2008

I guess what I'm getting at, Kip, is it seems you think music that appeals to "old" people shouldn't be considered for the highest of industry awards. And it also seems as if you're under the impression that only folks over 55 listen to jazz to begin with. I'm sure if you asked around the college campus, you'd find out that not everybody is listening to Rihanna and Good Charlotte. And it also seems you believe that album sales somehow denote quality. If that were the case, Herbie would definitely lose to Kanye, or Fergie, Backstreet Boys or even Barney's Greatest Hits, for that matter. If anything, what made the show interesting was a sleeper winning best album. It was a great surprise for someone with actual talent (and sans drama) to win the award. Maturity is not a liability in art, and I'm glad the voters were mature enough themselves to recognize that.

Posted by Mario Tarradell @ 11:38 AM Wed, Feb 13, 2008

Christy,
I couldn't have said it better myself. Too many times sales and youth rule industry awards. That's fine if it's a popularity contest, which many of them are. But if you portend to honor quality and talent, then the music should be the deciding factor. Nothing else. I like Herbie Hancock's CD. Would I play it daily? Probably not. It's more a museum piece of music than a casual listen. But it's VERY accomplished and well thought out. That said, I also like Amy Winehouse's CD, Vince Gill's CD and the Foo Fighters' CD. All were album of the year nominees. Like you, I was happy to see the sleeper win, the unexpected one be the victor. And that had NOTHING to do with age or popularity.

Posted by Kip Mooney @ 1:04 PM Thu, Feb 14, 2008

True, not every track in the Top 40 should be honored. Should Soulja Boy ever receive anything other than shameful looks? No, but the Grammys can't have it both ways: you can't constantly be coming with new categories no one's asking for (like Best Zydeco Album--with SEVEN nominees, no less) and awarding music that no one listens to in those major categories and still expect Gen Y to care about them.

Posted by Christy Robinson @ 2:22 PM Thu, Feb 14, 2008

It's adorable how each subsequent generation thinks it's the all to end all. Something tells me that Herbie and the Best Zydeco nominees are quite OK with the interest of those from Gen-X to the Greatest Generation. Hate to break Gen-Yers hearts, but they're not the Gen with the money and therefore aren't as desirable an ad target as some in that segment might like to believe. I don't remember hearing of network or Grammy big wigs wringing their hands over "But what can we do to draw ad revnue targeting the 12 to 27 age range and their part-time job income from Starbucks and American Eagle? Heavens, what are we going to DO?" The VMAs and Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards have that audience covered. I am interested, however, about what changes you think the Grammys could make to interest your age bracket more in its awards shows and not lose the interest of everyone else. They will have to continue evolving or die, but I don't think lowering artistic standards for best album or ridding itself of categories that recognize legit genres are the way to go. Unless they want to become another People's Choice Awards.

Posted by Mario Tarradell @ 3:28 PM Thu, Feb 14, 2008

Christy...Kip,
Look, I am the first to agree that the Grammy Awards have too many categories. It's more than 100 and that's exorbitant. But I don't think eradicating the best zydeco album category is the answer. Zydeco is a legitimate style of music. I'm all for recognizing music. Kip, I don't understand what your endless beef is actually. Look at the Oscars, the top money making films rarely get awarded and nobody seems to have a problem with that. If these award shows are going to be in the least bit credible they need to award ART, not commerce. I think Kip wants commerce awarded more than art because to him, to his generation, the splash of commerce is more entertaining. That's fine, I suppose. Sometimes commerce and art marry in perfect harmony. But most of the time they don't. The Grammys have made many blunders in the past. Milli Vanilli anyone? But Herbie's CD winning album of the year isn't one of them. He may not be popular, but he's credible. As Christy wrote, if the Grammys only recognized popularity, it might as well be the People's Choice Awards or the American Music Awards. Those "honors" truly mean nothing!

Posted by Kip Mooney @ 10:56 AM Fri, Feb 15, 2008

True. The music industry is so vast now that it's basically impossible to find an awards show that covers all the bases: you either have an overload trying to honor everything (like the Grammys), or you only honor the top sellers (like the AMAs or the Billboard Music Awards). And I think when you're the Grammys and you try to honor everything, you're going to end up alienating one generation or another. You either hold on to your phonograph generation or try and reach out to the iPod generation. It may just be too hard to please everyone. But I think it's obvious I'm the only one who dislikes/doesn't care about the Grammys anymore. This year was the third lowest-rated telecast ever. I think the Grammys only tend to take risks when they think it won't backfire in their face. Going back to the 2001 race: it would've been very bold to pick someone controversial like Eminem or an innovative group like Radiohead. But who do they pick? Steely Dan. And for an album that really wasn't any good. I just think that above all, the Grammys are irrelevant now.