Yeah, I agree with the OP. The Grammys hold no interest for me. (Grammys is spelled correctly as it's not the possessive. Just ask me- I never make no grimmatical mistakes or speling errers. )
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I didn't know where to post this, but Dave put this on his Facebook page from this year's Grammys.
I'm not sure if anyone notices, but it looks to me like Paul is trying to grab Dave's Love Gun.
I'm sorry I'm not sorry, but Dave Grohl is such a sell out. The FF have some solid material, but I feel like they're so limited. Most of their stuff is just radio happy, written to be on the radio crap. They're much close to Nickelback than anything that's genuine rock n roll, say for instance Jack White. Maybe that's the consensus on here, maybe not. But, I feel like Dave Grohl gets a pass because he was in Nirvana. He's overrated.
As i said above, i think its a case of indie culture no longer believing that success and commercial appeal equal selling out. and mainstream culture also embracing indie music and being more tolerant of music or art in general that is offbeat, experimental, low budget etc... And we see this across mediums. Its also true of film in the last 10-15 years as well. I think it has to do with embracing of music that isnt typically your preferred genre. Very few people are "only rock music" people. Back in the day, this was often the case. Nowadays you can be a fan of both Call me Maybe, and Pink Floyds Time. The public and culture at large seems to accept that bands have to put songs in movies and tv shows. And as a result few people these days abandon their favorite bands for reasons of "selling out". Its much more accepted and acceptable. It isnt the black mark that it once was. In fact, take a band like Grizzly Bear or the Shins. I'd argue they are as popular as they ever have been, and are both critically loved.
I also think there seems to be a belief prevalent, that bands nowadays can sell their music for commercial gain, but that most of the time these bands are selling a song or album theyve already written. The commercial appeal didnt influence the songs composition, or its content. They were approached by a tv show, or sent in their song to a tv show, and it was aired on Greys Anatomy. Thats different than writing music to be heard on tv, or letting a show or movie dictate a song be "commercial".
Lastly, I think the indie music scenes long lasting dominance plays a role. Most music scenes last a few years. Grunge lasted 4 years. Indie music has lasted in my view from Is This It's release to current times, and its as vibrant and important as it always was. The scene has had few major deaths, drug use and "rock star behavior" may be prevalent but its hidden or not discussed. You dont hear of Bright Eyes canceling a show because he's high, or hear that Sam Beam is stumbling out of bars drunk. The scene has been remarkable in this aspect.
I also think times have changed. Bands make no money off album sales. So they have to make money somehow. A smart band would utilize those outlets like tv, social media, commercials and movies to market their music and get some income. Tv is the new radio and has been for years. I cant tell you the last great song I heard on the radio was. But i can tell you that new band i heard on that episode of Parenthood I searched it online and found them. Its proved to work.
The Grammy's have become so horrendously bad I can't even stand watching for five minutes.
The last straw for me was when Grateful Dead were given a lifetime achievement award or something and the members of the band got to stand up in their lousy seats at the back of the auditorium and wave for 10 seconds. Then they immediately went to another Disney manufactured artist who has nothing to do with writing their own songs and has their outfits and dance moves arranged for them who performed another useless song to a paid "arm raising" crowd in the mosh pit.
Pathetic.
The Grammy's has NOTHING to do with real musicians at the top of their craft.
Getting a Grammy is like getting a Hamburgular Award from McDonalds.
Not all award shows are the same - the Grammy's is particularly bad.
The Grammy's have become so horrendously bad I can't even stand watching for five minutes.
The last straw for me was when Grateful Dead were given a lifetime achievement award or something and the members of the band got to stand up in their lousy seats at the back of the auditorium and wave for 10 seconds. Then they immediately went to another Disney manufactured artist who has nothing to do with writing their own songs and has their outfits and dance moves arranged for them who performed another useless song to a paid "arm raising" crowd in the mosh pit.
Pathetic.
The Grammy's has NOTHING to do with real musicians at the top of their craft.
Getting a Grammy is like getting a Hamburgular Award from McDonalds.
Not all award shows are the same - the Grammy's is particularly bad.
i disagree. they've changed, as Ive laid out above. In 2011 Arcade Fire won Best Album, and last year Bon Iver was among the most nominated artists and won best new artist. Frank Ocean being one of the most nominated this year also was a sea change. This board doesnt listen to much outside of rock and music associated with PJ. Channel Orange is one of the most impressive albums ive heard in a long time. Its boundary pushing and challenging in ways few albums are, in any genre. He is among the leaders of a new era of r and b.
Last year the Grammys also nailed it by nominating Adele and bestowing her with album of the year. 21 was the best pop album of the year, hands down. And probably among the top 2 or 3 pop albums of the last 20 years. Every song is a classic.
Even Mumford, anyone remember in 2009? They were just some no name indie band back then.
This board loves old guard rock and roll. And the Grammy's, like Rolling Stone, love that. By that standard people should love the Grammys
I think its clear the last few years the Grammys have changed, and like I said above, mainstream culture has embraced indie culture. The awards illustrate this point
The Grammy's have become so horrendously bad I can't even stand watching for five minutes.
The last straw for me was when Grateful Dead were given a lifetime achievement award or something and the members of the band got to stand up in their lousy seats at the back of the auditorium and wave for 10 seconds. Then they immediately went to another Disney manufactured artist who has nothing to do with writing their own songs and has their outfits and dance moves arranged for them who performed another useless song to a paid "arm raising" crowd in the mosh pit.
Pathetic.
The Grammy's has NOTHING to do with real musicians at the top of their craft.
Getting a Grammy is like getting a Hamburgular Award from McDonalds.
Not all award shows are the same - the Grammy's is particularly bad.
i disagree. they've changed, as Ive laid out above. In 2011 Arcade Fire won Best Album, and last year Bon Iver was among the most nominated artists and won best new artist. Frank Ocean being one of the most nominated this year also was a sea change. This board doesnt listen to much outside of rock and music associated with PJ. Channel Orange is one of the most impressive albums ive heard in a long time. Its boundary pushing and challenging in ways few albums are, in any genre. He is among the leaders of a new era of r and b.
Last year the Grammys also nailed it by nominating Adele and bestowing her with album of the year. 21 was the best pop album of the year, hands down. And probably among the top 2 or 3 pop albums of the last 20 years. Every song is a classic.
Even Mumford, anyone remember in 2009? They were just some no name indie band back then.
This board loves old guard rock and roll. And the Grammy's, like Rolling Stone, love that. By that standard people should love the Grammys
I think its clear the last few years the Grammys have changed, and like I said above, mainstream culture has embraced indie culture. The awards illustrate this point
Dude I'm totally with you. There is a lot of narrow views on this board from people who probably don't even watch the show.
Every year is a bit different but if you have an appreciation for music, and you watch the show you will see that there is as much if not more talent in the music business today as there was 20, or 40 years ago.
Even some of the acts that are not my cup of tea like JT, Bruno Mars et al are mad talented and give me hope for the future of music.
here is a more respectable awards show, even though it's an award show Eddie Vedder Inducts the Ramones into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Oi-SKOqVHA
The rock n roll HOF is run by all the people in Rolling Stone magazine. You ever read that mags top 5 albums? Talk about being dated...
people calling Dave Grohl a tool, really?
Pearl Jam - Rockin' in the Free World (Melbourne '95) w/ Dave Grohl on drums and Jack Irons on guitar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8tx9ycYDcA
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,378
As i said above, i think its a case of indie culture no longer believing that success and commercial appeal equal selling out. and mainstream culture also embracing indie music and being more tolerant of music or art in general that is offbeat, experimental, low budget etc... And we see this across mediums. Its also true of film in the last 10-15 years as well. I think it has to do with embracing of music that isnt typically your preferred genre. Very few people are "only rock music" people. Back in the day, this was often the case. Nowadays you can be a fan of both Call me Maybe, and Pink Floyds Time. The public and culture at large seems to accept that bands have to put songs in movies and tv shows. And as a result few people these days abandon their favorite bands for reasons of "selling out". Its much more accepted and acceptable. It isnt the black mark that it once was. In fact, take a band like Grizzly Bear or the Shins. I'd argue they are as popular as they ever have been, and are both critically loved.
I also think there seems to be a belief prevalent, that bands nowadays can sell their music for commercial gain, but that most of the time these bands are selling a song or album theyve already written. The commercial appeal didnt influence the songs composition, or its content. They were approached by a tv show, or sent in their song to a tv show, and it was aired on Greys Anatomy. Thats different than writing music to be heard on tv, or letting a show or movie dictate a song be "commercial".
Lastly, I think the indie music scenes long lasting dominance plays a role. Most music scenes last a few years. Grunge lasted 4 years. Indie music has lasted in my view from Is This It's release to current times, and its as vibrant and important as it always was. The scene has had few major deaths, drug use and "rock star behavior" may be prevalent but its hidden or not discussed. You dont hear of Bright Eyes canceling a show because he's high, or hear that Sam Beam is stumbling out of bars drunk. The scene has been remarkable in this aspect.
I also think times have changed. Bands make no money off album sales. So they have to make money somehow. A smart band would utilize those outlets like tv, social media, commercials and movies to market their music and get some income. Tv is the new radio and has been for years. I cant tell you the last great song I heard on the radio was. But i can tell you that new band i heard on that episode of Parenthood I searched it online and found them. Its proved to work.
Interesting reading, music, and well said.
It's interesting that you say "Very few people are 'only rock music' people. Back in the day, this was often the case." I would have to answer that back in the day before the day that was very much not the case. In the late sixties and early seventies when I was living is San Francisco I often went to shows that on the same night would have very diverse lineups at places like Fillmore West or Winterland. You might get Miles Davis or Herbie Hancock with Santana or Blue Cheer with Dan Hicks or Mother Earth on the same bill. It was not unusual to get blue grass rock and jazz on the same night- and we liked it all. We even liked classical music- most of my friends had classical records alongside their Doors and Hendrix albums along with a good selection of folk records. So if anything, I'd say from my perspective musical tastes seem more narrowed today. (But none of this is said to dismiss your words- I like what you say here!)
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
As i said above, i think its a case of indie culture no longer believing that success and commercial appeal equal selling out. and mainstream culture also embracing indie music and being more tolerant of music or art in general that is offbeat, experimental, low budget etc... And we see this across mediums. Its also true of film in the last 10-15 years as well. I think it has to do with embracing of music that isnt typically your preferred genre. Very few people are "only rock music" people. Back in the day, this was often the case. Nowadays you can be a fan of both Call me Maybe, and Pink Floyds Time. The public and culture at large seems to accept that bands have to put songs in movies and tv shows. And as a result few people these days abandon their favorite bands for reasons of "selling out". Its much more accepted and acceptable. It isnt the black mark that it once was. In fact, take a band like Grizzly Bear or the Shins. I'd argue they are as popular as they ever have been, and are both critically loved.
I also think there seems to be a belief prevalent, that bands nowadays can sell their music for commercial gain, but that most of the time these bands are selling a song or album theyve already written. The commercial appeal didnt influence the songs composition, or its content. They were approached by a tv show, or sent in their song to a tv show, and it was aired on Greys Anatomy. Thats different than writing music to be heard on tv, or letting a show or movie dictate a song be "commercial".
Lastly, I think the indie music scenes long lasting dominance plays a role. Most music scenes last a few years. Grunge lasted 4 years. Indie music has lasted in my view from Is This It's release to current times, and its as vibrant and important as it always was. The scene has had few major deaths, drug use and "rock star behavior" may be prevalent but its hidden or not discussed. You dont hear of Bright Eyes canceling a show because he's high, or hear that Sam Beam is stumbling out of bars drunk. The scene has been remarkable in this aspect.
I also think times have changed. Bands make no money off album sales. So they have to make money somehow. A smart band would utilize those outlets like tv, social media, commercials and movies to market their music and get some income. Tv is the new radio and has been for years. I cant tell you the last great song I heard on the radio was. But i can tell you that new band i heard on that episode of Parenthood I searched it online and found them. Its proved to work.
Interesting reading, music, and well said.
It's interesting that you say "Very few people are 'only rock music' people. Back in the day, this was often the case." I would have to answer that back in the day before the day that was very much not the case. In the late sixties and early seventies when I was living is San Francisco I often went to shows that on the same night would have very diverse lineups at places like Fillmore West or Winterland. You might get Miles Davis or Herbie Hancock with Santana or Blue Cheer with Dan Hicks or Mother Earth on the same bill. It was not unusual to get blue grass rock and jazz on the same night- and we liked it all. We even liked classical music- most of my friends had classical records alongside their Doors and Hendrix albums along with a good selection of folk records. So if anything, I'd say from my perspective musical tastes seem more narrowed today. (But none of this is said to dismiss your words- I like what you say here!)
cool to read your perspective on this. I can see how the hippie scene would be open to alot of varying styles of music. But, I think today's music fans, specfically younger people, are just as open to various styles. Alot of it has to do with the iPod and Steve Jobs. And some of it has to do with illegal downloading, where we literally have access to gypsy music from Finland or folk music from Africa all for free, all downloadable. I think very few people fill up their iPods with only one genre of music. Mine is eclectic. Has everything from pop to hip hop, to rock to folk, to jazz etc... I think this is pretty common. In fact iPod's pretty much encourage it. It would be boring to fill up a 60 gig one with only rock music. Although of course its great music and im a huge fan, i just think there is so many other genres, styles, etc... that one could listen to. Theres so much music we have access to now. In the 60's, you had alot of great music, the bands you listed are all major influences on me, but if a record store, or a friend, or the radio wasnt playing something, you most likely couldnt find it. Now, we have free access to every single album in record history. At our fingertips. I find it hard to only listen to one genre or style. I listen to hundreds of albums every year. My most anticipated album of this year is a pop album. Great music knows no genre. A great song is a great song. It can be a pop song or a hip hop song, a balkan gypsy song. or a reggae tune. There are so many albums released every year. So much music. I could never only listen to one genre.
Thats one of the enduring legacies of Jobs and the iPod. It changed the music world.
people calling Dave Grohl a tool, really?
Pearl Jam - Rockin' in the Free World (Melbourne '95) w/ Dave Grohl on drums and Jack Irons on guitar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8tx9ycYDcA
Never called him a tool. But this is in 1995, wasn't a sell out then. I think he's overrated now. I guess it depends on standards, but this is a Pearl Jam forum. The FF music, save a few songs, is crap. I realize it's like my opinion, man. Their good songs are pretty solid I admit, then they have a bunch of crap that sounds like it was purely written just for appeal and to only sell records. Learnin to walk again, bla bla. Hey let's rally around that, that's REALLY deep stuff! "Look at this, most of these bands are like well designed bottles of bleach. It's beer and lifestyle music! I mean it's like the next world war will be sponsored by i don't know, what!"
Like I said before, he gets a pass for having been in Nirvana, And that part of him I do think is cool. But collectively that doesn't mean he is above getting called out. But I think the FF are much more Nickelback than The Strokes, or Jack White, or The Black Keys. Didn't even mention PJ with that, it's no comparison. Maybe I'm alone on this opinion, but it's what I think and I never hear anyone say anything negative about the FF or Dave Grohl. I don't completely dislike him, I just think he's overrated.
VA Beach 8/3/00, Council Bluffs 6/13/03, St. Paul 6/16/03, East Troy 6/21/03, The Gorge 7/22/06, 7/23/06, Chicago 8/23/09, KC 5/3/10, St. Louis 5/4/10, Dublin 6/22/10, Belfast 6/23/10, London 6/25/10, EV Minneapolis 7/2/11, EV Tulsa 11/18/12, Chicago 7/19/13, OKC 11/16/13, Phoenix 11/19/13, Pemberton 7/17/16, Missoula 8/13/18, San Diego 5/3/22, Denver 9/22/22, Sacramento 5/13/24, LA 5/21/24
These anti- grammy post by PJ fans really bug me... Do you hate the Grammy's JUST because of that speech? As if were not allowed to think differently than Ed? Or do you hate them for your own reasons? I will agree that the televised show may not appeal to everyone bc it does focus on popular music, but the Grammys as an honor and award are top of the line. I too find Eddie's speech to be the one totally uncalled for moment in PJ history. And honestly, I dont get why he feels how he does.
I have had the honor of being the production manager for 3 albums that have been nominated in the past 3 years. These noms are without a doubt the greatest honors I've ever received. And I've been truly heart broken that we havent won. The Grammy's are voted on by other music industry professionals... artists, producers, engineers, musicians etc. If you have 6 or more specific album credits you get to vote. So how is the most prestigious award, that is voted on by your peers lame in anyway? Apply this concept to whatever your job is. If your peers in your industry voted on who did the best work of the year and you were recognized, wouldn't you be honored? Im sick of this "awarding art is bullshit" argument. Art is subjective, but its also been awarded, celebrated and recognized for many, many years. You may not like who wins, or even who gets nominated, but the Grammys are music's highest award and personally I consider the noms my greatest achievement work wise. Lets not devalue them based on something Ed said nearly 20 years ago.
Further back and forth a wave will break on me, today...
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,378
cool to read your perspective on this. I can see how the hippie scene would be open to alot of varying styles of music. But, I think today's music fans, specfically younger people, are just as open to various styles. Alot of it has to do with the iPod and Steve Jobs. And some of it has to do with illegal downloading, where we literally have access to gypsy music from Finland or folk music from Africa all for free, all downloadable. I think very few people fill up their iPods with only one genre of music. Mine is eclectic. Has everything from pop to hip hop, to rock to folk, to jazz etc... I think this is pretty common. In fact iPod's pretty much encourage it. It would be boring to fill up a 60 gig one with only rock music. Although of course its great music and im a huge fan, i just think there is so many other genres, styles, etc... that one could listen to. Theres so much music we have access to now. In the 60's, you had alot of great music, the bands you listed are all major influences on me, but if a record store, or a friend, or the radio wasnt playing something, you most likely couldnt find it. Now, we have free access to every single album in record history. At our fingertips. I find it hard to only listen to one genre or style. I listen to hundreds of albums every year. My most anticipated album of this year is a pop album. Great music knows no genre. A great song is a great song. It can be a pop song or a hip hop song, a balkan gypsy song. or a reggae tune. There are so many albums released every year. So much music. I could never only listen to one genre.
Thats one of the enduring legacies of Jobs and the iPod. It changed the music world.
Yeah, I can see how today's medium (despite my stubborn insistence that analog sounds better than digital ) gives younger people today a lot of opportunity for diverse interests in all the arts and I'm glad to hear that is happening. Oddly, it's my experience that my generation became less open to variety as many of us aged. Not all- some of us are still open to new things. Hopefully younger generations won't stagnate so much that way.
By the way, your broad interest in music is quite impressive!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,378
These anti- grammy post by PJ fans really bug me... Do you hate the Grammy's JUST because of that speech? As if were not allowed to think differently than Ed? Or do you hate them for your own reasons? I will agree that the televised show may not appeal to everyone bc it does focus on popular music, but the Grammys as an honor and award are top of the line. I too find Eddie's speech to be the one totally uncalled for moment in PJ history. And honestly, I dont get why he feels how he does.
I have had the honor of being the production manager for 3 albums that have been nominated in the past 3 years. These noms are without a doubt the greatest honors I've ever received. And I've been truly heart broken that we havent won. The Grammy's are voted on by other music industry professionals... artists, producers, engineers, musicians etc. If you have 6 or more specific album credits you get to vote. So how is the most prestigious award, that is voted on by your peers lame in anyway? Apply this concept to whatever your job is. If your peers in your industry voted on who did the best work of the year and you were recognized, wouldn't you be honored? Im sick of this "awarding art is bullshit" argument. Art is subjective, but its also been awarded, celebrated and recognized for many, many years. You may not like who wins, or even who gets nominated, but the Grammys are music's highest award and personally I consider the noms my greatest achievement work wise. Lets not devalue them based on something Ed said nearly 20 years ago.
Personally, I don't hate the Grammys so much as just don't have an interest any more. They focus only on a thing layer of the great music that is out there. For that reason alone, I confer with Ed's comment that it doesn't mean anything.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
After reading this, I'd have to say the same. Very cool.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,378
It has also been pointed out to me that the Grammy awards are hand crafted. I did not know this. Credit should go where credit belongs.
My negative comments toward the awards were meant to question the usefulness of a system that mostly only rewards a narrow field of musicians- usually those with money and connections. My statements were not, however,constructive and useful. They were dashed of thoughtless comments. My bad.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
These anti- grammy post by PJ fans really bug me... Do you hate the Grammy's JUST because of that speech? As if were not allowed to think differently than Ed? Or do you hate them for your own reasons? I will agree that the televised show may not appeal to everyone bc it does focus on popular music, but the Grammys as an honor and award are top of the line. I too find Eddie's speech to be the one totally uncalled for moment in PJ history. And honestly, I dont get why he feels how he does.
I have had the honor of being the production manager for 3 albums that have been nominated in the past 3 years. These noms are without a doubt the greatest honors I've ever received. And I've been truly heart broken that we havent won. The Grammy's are voted on by other music industry professionals... artists, producers, engineers, musicians etc. If you have 6 or more specific album credits you get to vote. So how is the most prestigious award, that is voted on by your peers lame in anyway? Apply this concept to whatever your job is. If your peers in your industry voted on who did the best work of the year and you were recognized, wouldn't you be honored? Im sick of this "awarding art is bullshit" argument. Art is subjective, but its also been awarded, celebrated and recognized for many, many years. You may not like who wins, or even who gets nominated, but the Grammys are music's highest award and personally I consider the noms my greatest achievement work wise. Lets not devalue them based on something Ed said nearly 20 years ago.
To me it's not so much that the Grammy's are crap, as it is that if they're going to be enjoyed or respected, it has to be with the understanding that there is a hugely mainstream lens to what is even considered for Grammys, and that in any given year that you look at ALL the albums that were released and then look at what is nominated and what wins, there are almost always albums that never even are noted/recognized with a nomination that some believe blow away whoever the nominees and winners are.
Granted, taste plays hugely into this as well. I don't really pay attention to the Grammys anymore and haven't for years, but back when I'd actually know who was nominated, I often had examples I could cite of awesome bands/performers who had not even been on the Grammy radar but were better (in my opinion obviously) than anyone who was nominated. In a way it's kind of like why the Village Voice's Pazz and Jop awards often looked totally different from the Grammys and Billboard awards (and now MTV and VH1 awards), all of which except the Grammys are almost exclusively based on how many units were sold/how popular the videos are and NOT on any actual measure of quality.
That said, I was fortunate to go to the Grammys in person one year and I had an absolute blast! What I did like about them when I did watch was the opportunities for unusual performances/collaborations, the tributes to people who'd passed away, and the occaisional great speech even though they actually don't give many actual awards away during that 3 hr show. But as a musical version of a fashion/reality show/variety show, the Grammys could be fun now and then, and the year I attended I left with a ton of great memories. I just don't enjoy it as a serious measure of quality that includes ALL types of music, it is mostly very mainstream. And there is a place for that, so to you (who I quoted), you really should be proud of your nominations, it really does mean something. We just don't all agree on what it does mean, but it is an accomplishment to be recognized int he mainstream!
I just think that anyone who thinks the Grammies are bullshit shouldn't attend them and walk up on stage and accept the award and say a rude speech. It's cool if they think they're bullshit (I think they are - art shouldn't be judged in a competition, or, if it is judged, shouldn't be voted on by a few people who think they know what's the best art). But I think it's stupid to attend the damn show, which is clearly attended by nominees who by and large are at least proud enough of being nominated to go, and shit on the whole thing. Bad form, Ed..... I really appreciated when Ed said that he regretted doing that; said he was in a pissy mood. But on the other hand, I appreciate the sentiment enough to be glad that at least Jeff would have said the same thing if he had the balls... But Jeff wasn't is such a bad mood that night, and, back then, was infinitely more polite than Eddie.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yeah, I agree with the OP. The Grammys hold no interest for me. (Grammys is spelled correctly as it's not the possessive. Just ask me- I never make no grimmatical mistakes or speling errers. )
Uh, correct... The contraction is indeed it's....
But this usage is the possessive, no apostrophe....
Just curious, why do you think that the Grammy's are such a bad thing? Besides that Eddie says so? It's a bunch of people reaching the pinnacle of recognition for their craft. Why be a hater, when you can just let other people have their fun at zero expense to you?
because it's odd to tell someone they are the best at something when it's merely an opinion and completely subjective, not to mention how can you reward someone for something when you haven't heard every band everywhere that fits into that category? I know of SEVERAL bands that are way better than anything on those stages, but since they aren't on the academy's radar, they can't win. that alone makes it preposterous.
awards are for salespeople. something you can actually measure. I'd prefer for the grammy's to not even be an awards show, but more of a musical showcase. Just performances. or at least make it about sales, which would be more in line with what the grammy's are about anyway.
I watch the oscar's, but that because I live in Canada and I'm not always aware of good movies/tv series that we don't always know about up here until they get nominated.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
These anti- grammy post by PJ fans really bug me... Do you hate the Grammy's JUST because of that speech? As if were not allowed to think differently than Ed? Or do you hate them for your own reasons? I will agree that the televised show may not appeal to everyone bc it does focus on popular music, but the Grammys as an honor and award are top of the line. I too find Eddie's speech to be the one totally uncalled for moment in PJ history. And honestly, I dont get why he feels how he does.
I have had the honor of being the production manager for 3 albums that have been nominated in the past 3 years. These noms are without a doubt the greatest honors I've ever received. And I've been truly heart broken that we havent won. The Grammy's are voted on by other music industry professionals... artists, producers, engineers, musicians etc. If you have 6 or more specific album credits you get to vote. So how is the most prestigious award, that is voted on by your peers lame in anyway? Apply this concept to whatever your job is. If your peers in your industry voted on who did the best work of the year and you were recognized, wouldn't you be honored? Im sick of this "awarding art is bullshit" argument. Art is subjective, but its also been awarded, celebrated and recognized for many, many years. You may not like who wins, or even who gets nominated, but the Grammys are music's highest award and personally I consider the noms my greatest achievement work wise. Lets not devalue them based on something Ed said nearly 20 years ago.
regardless of what Ed thinks, I've always thought awarding art is odd. But I also found it odd that if he felt that way, why were they there in the first place? I mean, if you think the show is a sham, how could you "just be here to enjoy the show" as he claimed they were doing?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
These anti- grammy post by PJ fans really bug me... Do you hate the Grammy's JUST because of that speech? As if were not allowed to think differently than Ed? Or do you hate them for your own reasons? I will agree that the televised show may not appeal to everyone bc it does focus on popular music, but the Grammys as an honor and award are top of the line. I too find Eddie's speech to be the one totally uncalled for moment in PJ history. And honestly, I dont get why he feels how he does.
I have had the honor of being the production manager for 3 albums that have been nominated in the past 3 years. These noms are without a doubt the greatest honors I've ever received. And I've been truly heart broken that we havent won. The Grammy's are voted on by other music industry professionals... artists, producers, engineers, musicians etc. If you have 6 or more specific album credits you get to vote. So how is the most prestigious award, that is voted on by your peers lame in anyway? Apply this concept to whatever your job is. If your peers in your industry voted on who did the best work of the year and you were recognized, wouldn't you be honored? Im sick of this "awarding art is bullshit" argument. Art is subjective, but its also been awarded, celebrated and recognized for many, many years. You may not like who wins, or even who gets nominated, but the Grammys are music's highest award and personally I consider the noms my greatest achievement work wise. Lets not devalue them based on something Ed said nearly 20 years ago.
If something bothers you, then it's your problem, not the other person's. (just had to say that since you are bothered by people being anti-Grammy).
Artists, true artists, care about their art, not what the commercial industry thinks about their art. The industry known as the Grammys is a very politicized one, that "claims" excellence in music, which is art. Art, at its very core, is subjective. So being judged for your art is pretty much a slap in the face, as EV may have taken it. Who is anyone, industry excellence or not, to give awards based on art? Seriously? People are wrapped up in the idea of being the best our there. But true artists don't give a shit on being the best, they only care about making their art, owning it, sharing it to those who truly appreciate it, and hopefully capitalizing on it enough to make a decent living.
Awards are for people wrapped up in ego and image. Perhaps artists have more depth to know that awards really, in the grand scheme of things, means shit. I heard that Gotye (who won for record of the year) said that he doesn't want to be known for a single, he wants the world to hear the rest of his work because he's about so much more, yet the Grammys and others are only interested in that one song.
Comments
the contraction for "it is" is it's:
http://garyes.stormloader.com/its.html
Yeah, I agree with the OP. The Grammys hold no interest for me. (Grammys is spelled correctly as it's not the possessive. Just ask me- I never make no grimmatical mistakes or speling errers.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Dave Grohl only writes hits:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oojzmjJ3ugE
He looks like a cool dude; I'd love to hang out with him. Hahaha
Disclaimer: I know about three Foo Fighters song, so I can't judge their music and don't want to.
I also think there seems to be a belief prevalent, that bands nowadays can sell their music for commercial gain, but that most of the time these bands are selling a song or album theyve already written. The commercial appeal didnt influence the songs composition, or its content. They were approached by a tv show, or sent in their song to a tv show, and it was aired on Greys Anatomy. Thats different than writing music to be heard on tv, or letting a show or movie dictate a song be "commercial".
Lastly, I think the indie music scenes long lasting dominance plays a role. Most music scenes last a few years. Grunge lasted 4 years. Indie music has lasted in my view from Is This It's release to current times, and its as vibrant and important as it always was. The scene has had few major deaths, drug use and "rock star behavior" may be prevalent but its hidden or not discussed. You dont hear of Bright Eyes canceling a show because he's high, or hear that Sam Beam is stumbling out of bars drunk. The scene has been remarkable in this aspect.
I also think times have changed. Bands make no money off album sales. So they have to make money somehow. A smart band would utilize those outlets like tv, social media, commercials and movies to market their music and get some income. Tv is the new radio and has been for years. I cant tell you the last great song I heard on the radio was. But i can tell you that new band i heard on that episode of Parenthood I searched it online and found them. Its proved to work.
That can never happen, ever, in the entire history of time that should never happen.
PJ: 2011-09-03 2011-09-04
The last straw for me was when Grateful Dead were given a lifetime achievement award or something and the members of the band got to stand up in their lousy seats at the back of the auditorium and wave for 10 seconds. Then they immediately went to another Disney manufactured artist who has nothing to do with writing their own songs and has their outfits and dance moves arranged for them who performed another useless song to a paid "arm raising" crowd in the mosh pit.
Pathetic.
The Grammy's has NOTHING to do with real musicians at the top of their craft.
Getting a Grammy is like getting a Hamburgular Award from McDonalds.
Not all award shows are the same - the Grammy's is particularly bad.
I'm with you.
"I don't think it means anything. That's just how I feel." --love and respect the honesty.
you ever looked at someones iPod playlist?
i disagree. they've changed, as Ive laid out above. In 2011 Arcade Fire won Best Album, and last year Bon Iver was among the most nominated artists and won best new artist. Frank Ocean being one of the most nominated this year also was a sea change. This board doesnt listen to much outside of rock and music associated with PJ. Channel Orange is one of the most impressive albums ive heard in a long time. Its boundary pushing and challenging in ways few albums are, in any genre. He is among the leaders of a new era of r and b.
Last year the Grammys also nailed it by nominating Adele and bestowing her with album of the year. 21 was the best pop album of the year, hands down. And probably among the top 2 or 3 pop albums of the last 20 years. Every song is a classic.
Even Mumford, anyone remember in 2009? They were just some no name indie band back then.
This board loves old guard rock and roll. And the Grammy's, like Rolling Stone, love that. By that standard people should love the Grammys
I think its clear the last few years the Grammys have changed, and like I said above, mainstream culture has embraced indie culture. The awards illustrate this point
Dude I'm totally with you. There is a lot of narrow views on this board from people who probably don't even watch the show.
Every year is a bit different but if you have an appreciation for music, and you watch the show you will see that there is as much if not more talent in the music business today as there was 20, or 40 years ago.
Even some of the acts that are not my cup of tea like JT, Bruno Mars et al are mad talented and give me hope for the future of music.
The rock n roll HOF is run by all the people in Rolling Stone magazine. You ever read that mags top 5 albums? Talk about being dated...
I am still shocked that Metallica got in.
Pearl Jam - Rockin' in the Free World (Melbourne '95) w/ Dave Grohl on drums and Jack Irons on guitar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8tx9ycYDcA
Interesting reading, music, and well said.
It's interesting that you say "Very few people are 'only rock music' people. Back in the day, this was often the case." I would have to answer that back in the day before the day that was very much not the case. In the late sixties and early seventies when I was living is San Francisco I often went to shows that on the same night would have very diverse lineups at places like Fillmore West or Winterland. You might get Miles Davis or Herbie Hancock with Santana or Blue Cheer with Dan Hicks or Mother Earth on the same bill. It was not unusual to get blue grass rock and jazz on the same night- and we liked it all. We even liked classical music- most of my friends had classical records alongside their Doors and Hendrix albums along with a good selection of folk records. So if anything, I'd say from my perspective musical tastes seem more narrowed today. (But none of this is said to dismiss your words- I like what you say here!)
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
cool to read your perspective on this. I can see how the hippie scene would be open to alot of varying styles of music. But, I think today's music fans, specfically younger people, are just as open to various styles. Alot of it has to do with the iPod and Steve Jobs. And some of it has to do with illegal downloading, where we literally have access to gypsy music from Finland or folk music from Africa all for free, all downloadable. I think very few people fill up their iPods with only one genre of music. Mine is eclectic. Has everything from pop to hip hop, to rock to folk, to jazz etc... I think this is pretty common. In fact iPod's pretty much encourage it. It would be boring to fill up a 60 gig one with only rock music. Although of course its great music and im a huge fan, i just think there is so many other genres, styles, etc... that one could listen to. Theres so much music we have access to now. In the 60's, you had alot of great music, the bands you listed are all major influences on me, but if a record store, or a friend, or the radio wasnt playing something, you most likely couldnt find it. Now, we have free access to every single album in record history. At our fingertips. I find it hard to only listen to one genre or style. I listen to hundreds of albums every year. My most anticipated album of this year is a pop album. Great music knows no genre. A great song is a great song. It can be a pop song or a hip hop song, a balkan gypsy song. or a reggae tune. There are so many albums released every year. So much music. I could never only listen to one genre.
Thats one of the enduring legacies of Jobs and the iPod. It changed the music world.
Never called him a tool. But this is in 1995, wasn't a sell out then. I think he's overrated now. I guess it depends on standards, but this is a Pearl Jam forum. The FF music, save a few songs, is crap. I realize it's like my opinion, man. Their good songs are pretty solid I admit, then they have a bunch of crap that sounds like it was purely written just for appeal and to only sell records. Learnin to walk again, bla bla. Hey let's rally around that, that's REALLY deep stuff! "Look at this, most of these bands are like well designed bottles of bleach. It's beer and lifestyle music! I mean it's like the next world war will be sponsored by i don't know, what!"
Like I said before, he gets a pass for having been in Nirvana, And that part of him I do think is cool. But collectively that doesn't mean he is above getting called out. But I think the FF are much more Nickelback than The Strokes, or Jack White, or The Black Keys. Didn't even mention PJ with that, it's no comparison. Maybe I'm alone on this opinion, but it's what I think and I never hear anyone say anything negative about the FF or Dave Grohl. I don't completely dislike him, I just think he's overrated.
I have had the honor of being the production manager for 3 albums that have been nominated in the past 3 years. These noms are without a doubt the greatest honors I've ever received. And I've been truly heart broken that we havent won. The Grammy's are voted on by other music industry professionals... artists, producers, engineers, musicians etc. If you have 6 or more specific album credits you get to vote. So how is the most prestigious award, that is voted on by your peers lame in anyway? Apply this concept to whatever your job is. If your peers in your industry voted on who did the best work of the year and you were recognized, wouldn't you be honored? Im sick of this "awarding art is bullshit" argument. Art is subjective, but its also been awarded, celebrated and recognized for many, many years. You may not like who wins, or even who gets nominated, but the Grammys are music's highest award and personally I consider the noms my greatest achievement work wise. Lets not devalue them based on something Ed said nearly 20 years ago.
Yeah, I can see how today's medium (despite my stubborn insistence that analog sounds better than digital
By the way, your broad interest in music is quite impressive!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Personally, I don't hate the Grammys so much as just don't have an interest any more. They focus only on a thing layer of the great music that is out there. For that reason alone, I confer with Ed's comment that it doesn't mean anything.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
After reading this, I'd have to say the same. Very cool.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
My negative comments toward the awards were meant to question the usefulness of a system that mostly only rewards a narrow field of musicians- usually those with money and connections. My statements were not, however,constructive and useful. They were dashed of thoughtless comments. My bad.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Congrats on making it civil and intelligent, too.
Bravo, everybody.
To me it's not so much that the Grammy's are crap, as it is that if they're going to be enjoyed or respected, it has to be with the understanding that there is a hugely mainstream lens to what is even considered for Grammys, and that in any given year that you look at ALL the albums that were released and then look at what is nominated and what wins, there are almost always albums that never even are noted/recognized with a nomination that some believe blow away whoever the nominees and winners are.
Granted, taste plays hugely into this as well. I don't really pay attention to the Grammys anymore and haven't for years, but back when I'd actually know who was nominated, I often had examples I could cite of awesome bands/performers who had not even been on the Grammy radar but were better (in my opinion obviously) than anyone who was nominated. In a way it's kind of like why the Village Voice's Pazz and Jop awards often looked totally different from the Grammys and Billboard awards (and now MTV and VH1 awards), all of which except the Grammys are almost exclusively based on how many units were sold/how popular the videos are and NOT on any actual measure of quality.
That said, I was fortunate to go to the Grammys in person one year and I had an absolute blast! What I did like about them when I did watch was the opportunities for unusual performances/collaborations, the tributes to people who'd passed away, and the occaisional great speech even though they actually don't give many actual awards away during that 3 hr show. But as a musical version of a fashion/reality show/variety show, the Grammys could be fun now and then, and the year I attended I left with a ton of great memories. I just don't enjoy it as a serious measure of quality that includes ALL types of music, it is mostly very mainstream. And there is a place for that, so to you (who I quoted), you really should be proud of your nominations, it really does mean something. We just don't all agree on what it does mean, but it is an accomplishment to be recognized int he mainstream!
Absolutely. How can anyone take this guy seriously?
2010: Newark 5/18 MSG 5/20-21 2011: PJ20 9/3-4 2012: Made In America 9/2
2013: Brooklyn 10/18-19 Philly 10/21-22 Hartford 10/25 2014: ACL10/12
2015: NYC 9/23 2016: Tampa 4/11 Philly 4/28-29 MSG 5/1-2 Fenway 8/5+8/7
2017: RRHoF 4/7 2018: Fenway 9/2+9/4 2021: Sea Hear Now 9/18
2022: MSG 9/11 2024: MSG 9/3-4 Philly 9/7+9/9 Fenway 9/15+9/17
2025: Pittsburgh 5/16+5/18
Uh, correct... The contraction is indeed it's....
But this usage is the possessive, no apostrophe....
because it's odd to tell someone they are the best at something when it's merely an opinion and completely subjective, not to mention how can you reward someone for something when you haven't heard every band everywhere that fits into that category? I know of SEVERAL bands that are way better than anything on those stages, but since they aren't on the academy's radar, they can't win. that alone makes it preposterous.
awards are for salespeople. something you can actually measure. I'd prefer for the grammy's to not even be an awards show, but more of a musical showcase. Just performances. or at least make it about sales, which would be more in line with what the grammy's are about anyway.
I watch the oscar's, but that because I live in Canada and I'm not always aware of good movies/tv series that we don't always know about up here until they get nominated.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
because he's an amazing actor (besides all of his tim burton stuff, which is basically all the same character)
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
regardless of what Ed thinks, I've always thought awarding art is odd. But I also found it odd that if he felt that way, why were they there in the first place? I mean, if you think the show is a sham, how could you "just be here to enjoy the show" as he claimed they were doing?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
If something bothers you, then it's your problem, not the other person's. (just had to say that since you are bothered by people being anti-Grammy).
Artists, true artists, care about their art, not what the commercial industry thinks about their art. The industry known as the Grammys is a very politicized one, that "claims" excellence in music, which is art. Art, at its very core, is subjective. So being judged for your art is pretty much a slap in the face, as EV may have taken it. Who is anyone, industry excellence or not, to give awards based on art? Seriously? People are wrapped up in the idea of being the best our there. But true artists don't give a shit on being the best, they only care about making their art, owning it, sharing it to those who truly appreciate it, and hopefully capitalizing on it enough to make a decent living.
Awards are for people wrapped up in ego and image. Perhaps artists have more depth to know that awards really, in the grand scheme of things, means shit. I heard that Gotye (who won for record of the year) said that he doesn't want to be known for a single, he wants the world to hear the rest of his work because he's about so much more, yet the Grammys and others are only interested in that one song.