Grammy's 2015

unlost dogs

Oh my God, I think Adele is Claireack. I can just picture Claire saying, "Oh my, I've got a bit of snot..."

Dr. Delight

Wait, I think Im part of Adeles entourage as well. Hold on guys.

eeriepadave

Newch91 wrote:

Well that was a shocker.

well surprise surprise

Pamela0222

Well deserved. IMO

unlost dogs

Ahhhh, Sir Paul.

Stardog3..

unlost dogs wrote:

Ahhhh, Sir Paul.

Classic.

Newch91

unlost dogs wrote:

Ahhhh, Sir Paul.

Only way to end it. I hope Joe Walsh shows up and plays on "The End".

Loulou

Wooooooooooooo now THAT is music!!!

musicismylife78

Pamela0222 wrote:

Well deserved. IMO

indeed. one of the most predictable years ive ever seen, i mean that in a good way as im a fan of adele. but the moment rolling in the deep hit radio in october of 2010, yes 2010, it was clear this album was going to be an absolute monster.

Newch91

Loulou wrote:

Wooooooooooooo now THAT is music!!!

Fantastic end!

unlost dogs

My faith was restored by that last bit.

Yes.

Newch91

I'm hoping that performance is on YouTube in the next hour.

samjam

All in all, not a terrible show! Always gonna have a good chunk of Top 40 music that pleases the masses, but the Grammy's always do incorporate some great new acts, classic acts, and collaborations in there as well. Adele's sweep was 1000% deserved. Surprise of the night for me: Foster the People absolutely killing (in a good way!) 'Wouldn't It Be Nice' then seeing that The Beach Boys still have it! So happy for Foo Fighters and Bon Iver too. And Sir Paul (+ Dave, Bruce, Joe) closing the show--couldn't have asked for much more!

Better Dan

Newch91 wrote:

I'm hoping that performance is on YouTube in the next hour.

That was awesome!!! Overall, I enjoyed the grammy's this year..Bruce, Sir Paul x2, Beach Boys, Civil Wars, Foos, Adele

Better Dan

unlost dogs wrote:

This chick singing "I Feel Pretty" scares me.

That was awful!! I was cringing and laughing during it..my wife said it was ugly. Horrible song, horrible performance.

Newch91

samjam wrote:

All in all, not a terrible show! Always gonna have a good chunk of Top 40 music that pleases the masses, but the Grammy's always do incorporate some great new acts, classic acts, and collaborations in there as well. Adele's sweep was 1000% deserved. Surprise of the night for me: Foster the People absolutely killing (in a good way!) 'Wouldn't It Be Nice' then seeing that The Beach Boys still have it! So happy for Foo Fighters and Bon Iver too. And Sir Paul (+ Dave, Bruce, Joe) closing the show--couldn't have asked for much more!

I thought Foster the People butchered "Wouldn't It Be Nice", well, mainly the singer. That song was built for someone with a high pitched voice. Still an amazing reunion and performance of "Good Vibrations".

musicismylife78

samjam wrote:

All in all, not a terrible show! Always gonna have a good chunk of Top 40 music that pleases the masses, but the Grammy's always do incorporate some great new acts, classic acts, and collaborations in there as well. Adele's sweep was 1000% deserved. Surprise of the night for me: Foster the People absolutely killing (in a good way!) 'Wouldn't It Be Nice' then seeing that The Beach Boys still have it! So happy for Foo Fighters and Bon Iver too. And Sir Paul (+ Dave, Bruce, Joe) closing the show--couldn't have asked for much more!

any band that can create a catchy as hell song like pumped up kicks, a song thats about a school shooting and abuse, and have it be insanely hooky and happy sounding, is pretty much a genius as far as im concerned. ive viewed it as this past summers Young Folks. and as far as top 40 music pleasing the masses, the last few years that line has become increasingly blurred and irrelavent in my opinion. I think maybe shifting on both sides took place, not sure when but its been going on awhile. the civil wars are a pop/folk/country band played on top 40 radio, bon iver is well known to parents and little sisters around the world, foster the people is an indie pop band, the foos are about as mainstream as you can get, adele is pop. And deadmau5 is loved by teens around the globe. The whole show is top 40. But i dont think thats a bad thing. top 40 is often a slur. i think it should be embraced

musicismylife78

in the tradition of last years, "who the hell is arcade fire" statements from millions of grammy viewers, we now have the inevitable "who the hell is bon iver". tweets and facebook posts from bewildered viewers. Hey who is Bonybear?

http://who-is-bon-iver.tumblr.com/

Newch91

musicismylife78 wrote:

samjam wrote:

All in all, not a terrible show! Always gonna have a good chunk of Top 40 music that pleases the masses, but the Grammy's always do incorporate some great new acts, classic acts, and collaborations in there as well. Adele's sweep was 1000% deserved. Surprise of the night for me: Foster the People absolutely killing (in a good way!) 'Wouldn't It Be Nice' then seeing that The Beach Boys still have it! So happy for Foo Fighters and Bon Iver too. And Sir Paul (+ Dave, Bruce, Joe) closing the show--couldn't have asked for much more!

any band that can create a catchy as hell song like pumped up kicks, a song thats about a school shooting and abuse, and have it be insanely hooky and happy sounding, is pretty much a genius as far as im concerned. ive viewed it as this past summers Young Folks. and as far as top 40 music pleasing the masses, the last few years that line has become increasingly blurred and irrelavent in my opinion. I think maybe shifting on both sides took place, not sure when but its been going on awhile. the civil wars are a pop/folk/country band played on top 40 radio, bon iver is well known to parents and little sisters around the world, foster the people is an indie pop band, the foos are about as mainstream as you can get, adele is pop. And deadmau5 is loved by teens around the globe. The whole show is top 40. But i dont think thats a bad thing. top 40 is often a slur. i think it should be embraced

My parents don't know who Bon Iver is.

musicismylife78

Newch91 wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

samjam wrote:

All in all, not a terrible show! Always gonna have a good chunk of Top 40 music that pleases the masses, but the Grammy's always do incorporate some great new acts, classic acts, and collaborations in there as well. Adele's sweep was 1000% deserved. Surprise of the night for me: Foster the People absolutely killing (in a good way!) 'Wouldn't It Be Nice' then seeing that The Beach Boys still have it! So happy for Foo Fighters and Bon Iver too. And Sir Paul (+ Dave, Bruce, Joe) closing the show--couldn't have asked for much more!

any band that can create a catchy as hell song like pumped up kicks, a song thats about a school shooting and abuse, and have it be insanely hooky and happy sounding, is pretty much a genius as far as im concerned. ive viewed it as this past summers Young Folks. and as far as top 40 music pleasing the masses, the last few years that line has become increasingly blurred and irrelavent in my opinion. I think maybe shifting on both sides took place, not sure when but its been going on awhile. the civil wars are a pop/folk/country band played on top 40 radio, bon iver is well known to parents and little sisters around the world, foster the people is an indie pop band, the foos are about as mainstream as you can get, adele is pop. And deadmau5 is loved by teens around the globe. The whole show is top 40. But i dont think thats a bad thing. top 40 is often a slur. i think it should be embraced

My parents don't know who Bon Iver is.

my point is, he's not the depressed guy in the cabin anymore, with an album recorded in a bedroom. he's friends with kanye. he's been on snl and appeared on colbert. he's been on the fallon show and is friends with the roots, he just appeared with the roots the other day. his new album was near the top of every list for best album of 2011. the bands nominated and that performed were top 40. indie is top 40 now. yes, there is the who is bon iver stuff that goes on, that i just posted about. but bon iver is a big deal, as are all the bands that appeared on the show.
I dont think it was a matter of the grammys stepping up their game and providing a better show than normal, or an ok one. i think its peoples shifting attitudes to bands like arcade fire, bon iver, and the like. The last couple years the big award winners at the grammys have all been indie labels, xl recording for adele, merge for arcade fire, and jagjaguwar for bon iver.

indie is the new pop. adele could in many ways be considered indie because she's on the same label as sigur ros, radiohead, beck, the horrors, mia, the xx, vampire weekend.

adam42381

Pamela0222 wrote:

adam42381 wrote:

Pamela0222 wrote:

QUESTION: What is the difference between Record of The Year and Album of the Year?

Anyone?

Record of the Year is for the recording of a single song. Album of the Year is for an album of songs. For Record of the Year the performer wins the award whereas the Song of the Year goes to the songwriter.

Ah THANK YOU!!!

No problem. Record/album are often used interchangeably. In this case, it can be a bit confusing.

DewieCox

What the hell was up with the Whitney Houston tribute? I thought Jennifer Hudson was supposed to be some amazing singer. She sounded like a dude.

EmBleve

I was back and forth so I didn't see most of it...but I did get to see Adele, and she was incredible.

Dr. Delight

EmBleve wrote:

I was back and forth so I didn't see most of it...but I did get to see Adele, and she was incredible.

She was. Not a fan of the Rolling in the Deep song, but her other stuff is very likeable. No frills, no choreography, just her on stage singing into a mic. You gotta appreciate that.

EmBleve

Dr. Delight wrote:

EmBleve wrote:

I was back and forth so I didn't see most of it...but I did get to see Adele, and she was incredible.

She was. Not a fan of the Rolling in the Deep song, but her other stuff is very likeable. No frills, no choreography, just her on stage singing into a mic. You gotta appreciate that.

and that was the song I was hoping she would sing. But yeah, alot of her stuff is good. She seems like a class act. And I couldn't get over that looonng ovation. woow.

Champagne Breakfast

aside from all of the great things already said about Adele, ... here's a true artist who doesnt use twitter or any other social media to exploit herself as a look at me celebrity. Of course her label & management use it for news and updates etc but point being she is being recognized and selling albums because of her true genuine talent.
her performance last night was a testament to that and it was so great to see someone win bc of her talent, great songs and a great record. i think everyone there appreciated that and it gives a sense of relief in a way that this can still be the case.

Newch91

Sad, very sad.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/who-is-paul-mccartney

Suziemay

DewieCox wrote:

What the hell was up with the Whitney Houston tribute? I thought Jennifer Hudson was supposed to be some amazing singer. She sounded like a dude.

I thought she was amazing.

RedMosquito22

Not sure if anyone caught Sexual Chocolate's Whitney Houston tribute performance last night. If you didn't see it, you missed the best performance of the night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nHRERLEM2eE

Newch91

Clarence Clemmons' tribute was scrapped.

http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/springstee ... z1mJAXmlQn