Terminalcoffee discussion

note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Feeling Nostalgic? The archives > I hate that Coldplay won song of the year

Comments Showing 1-24 of 24 (24 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Sally, la reina (new)

Sally (mrsnolte) | 17333 comments Mod
But I'm happy that the Allison Krauss/Robert Plant album won lots of kudos. And I liked seeing MIA dance around in a see-through preggo costume. Radiohead's performance was kick ass.

Any other thoughts about the Grammys? I'm tired. (see peanut thread blunder for proof.) Goodnight friends.

message 2: by Matthieu (last edited Feb 08, 2009 10:33PM) (new)

Matthieu | 1009 comments Fuck Coldplay. They're nothing compared to Radiohead. That performance of 15 Step was the highlight of the night.

message 3: by RandomAnthony (new)

RandomAnthony | 14536 comments I didn't watch, but Coldplay is perfect Grammy bait. Bland, sterile music for people who don't care much about music.

message 4: by Gus (new)

Gus Sanchez (gussanchez) The Grammys are still relevant?

message 5: by Félix (new)

Félix (habitseven) KD I wish you would just tell us your true thoughts on that.

message 6: by Félix (new)

Félix (habitseven) Better than what?

message 7: by Shana (new)

Shana (shanac55) | 98 comments I agree! RA, you hit the nail on the head. I wish I could have watched and seen the Radiohead performance!

message 8: by Sarah (new)

Sarah | 13815 comments I missed Radiohead, and pretty much the rest of it...didn't feel the need to watch. I agree with RA and KD.
I did flip it on long enough to enjoy pregnant M.I.A. for the ten seconds we were allowed before the "rap summit", since she was only singing their sample of her nominated song.
And I'm happy that Adele beat the Jonas Brothers for best new artist, a)because she wasn't manufactured by Disney, b)because she looks like a real person, not a Barbie doll, c)because she's actually new, unlike past years when the category has seemed to stand for "best artist that we got around to noticing this year, even if she already has seven albums under her belt".

message 9: by Sally, la reina (new)

Sally (mrsnolte) | 17333 comments Mod
I agree, Sarah Pi. I don't think she was really given the stage to perform her nominated song in the same way that, say, Radiohead or the Allison Krauss/Robert Plant duo was. All I could think was so now Kanye West sings during every award show?

I think the Grammys are relevant to the music industry the same way the Academy Awards are. Not everyone is given their due, and not all the varieties of artists are represented, but it is a moment in which the bigwigs of the industry are given due recognition of their hard work. It gives artists a goal to work towards.
I thought it was cool that Lil' Wayne won best rap artist, and I thought he made a really nice acceptance speech.

message 10: by Sarah (new)

Sarah | 13815 comments Speaking as a musician, I might argue a little with the idea that the Grammys are relevant to the music industry the same way the Academy Awards are.

The Grammys only look at the tip of the iceberg, and refuse to acknowledge that the majority of their industry is hanging out under the water. There's some good stuff that shows up on the long form ballot, but the nominating system is archaic. Hell, the Plant/Krauss album - which I enjoyed - was released in October of 2007.

I think the Academy Awards and the Golden Globes do a better job (not perfect -- just better) of looking holistically at their industry. They seem to get more pleasure out of rewarding the occasional indie.
The Grammys just feel like a pat on the back for a few big names, year after year, regardless of the merit of their work.
The fact that Katy Perry was nominated for best pop vocal performance - and allowed to perform - is an example. Sure, it was popular. But is the song or the vocal performance really one of the top five of the year in that genre? Not by a long shot.

message 11: by Sally, la reina (new)

Sally (mrsnolte) | 17333 comments Mod
I don't know much about the establishment that runs the Grammys, what they refuse to acknowledge.
But I think that any recognition of an artist's work is commendable.

Sure it is only the tip of the iceberg, and there should be many more artists, genres, venues appreciated. As far as I know it is based upon pop music, trends, fads, current cultural waves. What is wrong with a bit of fanfare?

I'm not your everyday conniseour of top forty music, but I do like to watch just to see what is happenning.

I guess I'm in the minority in liking most of these award shows. I find them fascinating. But I don't really have the credentials to back up why I do. I just like what I like. I'm not trying to persuade anyone to agree with me, however.

message 12: by Sarah (new)

Sarah | 13815 comments Nothing wrong with fanfare, and I like the movie awards...I just get grumpy about the music establishment...

message 13: by Lori (new)

Lori Screw the Grammys, Chris Brown broke Rihanna's jaw!

message 14: by Sally, la reina (new)

Sally (mrsnolte) | 17333 comments Mod
Yes, the music business is really just another giant corporation running amok. As is being debated in many different threads today it seems, something is wrong with our world today, symptoms abound everywhere, it seems.

message 15: by Kevin (new)

Kevin  (ksprink) | 11469 comments the Grammy's are the bubblegum of the music world. it is like a People Magazine cook-out. it prob is highly entertaining to those who actually buy Jonas Bros. songs off of iTunes. i don't particularly need a kiss- ass-love-in with all the "artists" who can play 3 chords and sing through an auto-tuner to fulfill my music jones

message 16: by Sally, la reina (new)

Sally (mrsnolte) | 17333 comments Mod
Does that include Stevie Wonder and the Rev. Al Green? I'm not going to defend Coldplay, but I don't think lumping in all of the music of the Grammys into any one category.

message 17: by Sarah (new)

Sarah | 13815 comments Stevie Wonder and Al Green are worthy of respect. So are lots of the people who performed. My beef isn't with them.

message 18: by Kevin (new)

Kevin  (ksprink) | 11469 comments the feel of it is not what i like in music no matter who they add. always is too many sappy sound bite moments. i would prefer Austin City Limits to the Grammy's any day

message 19: by Sarah (new)

Sarah | 13815 comments Oohh..that's starting to get at it. Awards shows treat music like montages, or museum pieces. A collaboration between two great artists should sound even greater, but somehow Grammy collaborations seem sort of self-congratulatory and forced. I want music to be a little messier?

message 20: by Kevin (new)

Kevin  (ksprink) | 11469 comments i want to hear people perform like they would in the garage with no one else watching. here is my example:

i bet that bette midler sings the exact same way at home by herself as she does on stage. i also bet that whitney houston does not. it is about passion and not performance. by the same token i'll bet that edie brickell does and chris brown does not

if an artist loves the music i normally do too, usually if they are just trying to entertain me, i am not

message 21: by Félix (new)

Félix (habitseven) Wow I really get that. Thanks, Kevin.

message 22: by [deleted user] (new)

Actually I get it too Kevin.

message 23: by Vanessa (new)

Vanessa (buckythecat) I'm agreeing with most things on here. I'm with Sally, though, too. I always watch them. Maybe it's a holdover from my early teens, I dunno. I pretty much don't know who have of the artists even are, but it's kind of a snapshot of "popular music," so I check it out. And then I'm done with that music for a year.

message 24: by Sally, la reina (new)

Sally (mrsnolte) | 17333 comments Mod
Thanks Vanessa. I wonder if it is habit for me too. I also like to watch because although I'm not a fan of most of the nominees/winners, when I'm watching I can usually catch a great performance or two.

back to top
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.