| |
Poll: More Impressive: Grammy vs Billboard Hot 100 #1 single
|
View Poll Results: More Impressive: Grammy vs Billboard Hot 100 #1 single
|
|
Grammy
|
   
|
87 |
53.05% |
|
Billboard Hot 100 #1 single
|
  
|
77 |
46.95% |
Member Since: 6/19/2012
Posts: 29,579
|
It's funny because you need to have some degree of commercial success to even get noticed by the Grammys. Just look at all the recent winners in major categories. They've been doing pretty well for themselves, haven't they?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/27/2012
Posts: 18,963
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lazerbeamz
And where exactly did he say that he believes that they are unknown/have a remarkable career  ?
He was trying to make a point that you hear the name of the people with more #1s (Katy, Madonna, Rihanna, etc.) WAY more than you hear Vladimir Horowitz, Henry Mancini or Patt Metheny, the people with the most Grammys.
I swear some people need every post simplified, and don't try to deny what I wrote above because it's true.
#1s can give you relevancy that a Grammy can't. |
But this thread isn't about importance but which is more impressive.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 43,973
|
At the end of the day, both a Grammy and a #1 song mean nothing but a Grammy is slightly better.
And let's be honest, all of you saying a Grammy is worthless will change your tune once your faves get one.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/6/2014
Posts: 21,185
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Opacho
loads of horrible songs have gone #1.
|
Loads of these "horrible " songs went number one because the american public listened, liked and probably bought the song, so that doesn't really mean that they are "horrible" for the american public.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/27/2012
Posts: 18,963
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Artemisia
So many songs have this and still can't reach number 1. At the end of the day people have to like your song enough to request it on radio, stream it, and give away money for it.
|
And so many songs don't win Grammy's....
Obviously not everyone can be #1 but it's much simpler to do the work to get a number 1 than to get a Grammy.
Think about it. To get a number one you can really push it so that you maximize your chances. What do you do for a Grammy? Go to the Committees houses with cookies? Not only that, but you're competing not just with what's hot in that week, but what's been released for an entire YEAR.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 9/12/2011
Posts: 9,897
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sazare
I never said horrible songs don't go #1. But unlike the Grammys, which seem to have exactly zero meaning, relevance, or importance beyond what the academy claims it has, a #1 song actually MEANS something.
|
I can't tell you who went #1 in July of 2013 but I can tell you who won AOTY at the 2013 Grammys without looking it up.
I'm not disagreeing with you, actually, but to say Grammys mean nothing it delusion at its best. Grammys remain the most important award any musician can win.
Quote:
Originally posted by Artemisia
It's funny because you need to have some degree of commercial success to even get noticed by the Grammys. Just look at all the recent winners in major categories. They've been doing pretty well for themselves, haven't they?
|
Yeah they often times go hand in hand which is why they're both important.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/10/2012
Posts: 7,072
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rihinvention
Critically, a grammy. Commercially, a #1 single. Over time, a #1 single. With the exception of ATRL stans and people in the industry, no one remembers who has won what grammys. Everyone remembers a successful single that dominated radio at a specific point in time though. It creates nostalgia and reminds people of that time.
|
This, basically.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 9/12/2011
Posts: 9,897
|
But you can literally fake your way to number one. You can pay radio stations to play your song, use bots to get views, etc. The way the Billboard formula is rigged has removed the work it used to take go number one. So if Grammys don't mean anything then neither do hit songs.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/3/2014
Posts: 19,477
|
People can disagree with Grammys though because they're so subjective. They're based on someone's opinions.
You can't disagree with a #1 song because it's quantifiably measured to determine what was the #1 song for that week. And even if it's only #1 for 1 week, it'll still be dominating radios for a minimum of 3 months. Everyone will know it and remember it. Whereas Grammys are the water-cooler talk one Monday morning in late January when all the girls at work gossip about the dresses. Besides, they're overshadowed by the acting awards like the Golden Globes and the Oscars. And like I said before, there are so many music award shows around now that the Grammys have lost a lot of their prestige. Some artists don't even bother going.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/13/2012
Posts: 29,559
|
A Grammy, even though I think the Grammys are questionable in general.
No one except stans gives two ***** if you have a #1 single or just peaked in the top 10 instead... a lot of the most beloved, memorable songs ever never hit #1. But a Grammy is a nice personal achievement, and then you always get introduced as "X time Grammy-award winning artist _____" when you appear somewhere.
Grammys can also boost your sales. RAM shot right back into the top 10 after it won AOTY, I believe 21 had a series of huuuuge weeks after Adele swept the Grammys, etc. Grammys could also help secure your place in the industry when you're new. I felt like Lorde's big wins so quickly could help her secure her place rather than fade into one/two-hit-wonder status.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 22,877
|
Quote:
Originally posted by theus231
Loads of these "horrible " songs went number one because the american public listened, liked and probably bought the song, so that doesn't really mean that they are "horrible" for the american public.
|
A terrible argument.  If a song has mass popular appeal among the biggest range of people, that means it's the most simplified, digestible and formulaic tune possible.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 34,846
|
Depends.
I'd rather have a Grammy tbh
I can touch it. Can I touch a number one? Nope.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Hits are a more impressive accomplishment. They're a testament to the way that the public perceives one's work, rather than a small, select group of critics.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dinosauer
A terrible argument. If a song has mass popular appeal among the biggest range of people, that means it's the most simplified, digestible and formulaic tune possible. |
Not necessarily, no. There have been plenty of hits with artistic merit, originality, or other elements that go against being the most generic thing out there.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/27/2012
Posts: 18,963
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rihinvention
People can disagree with Grammys though because they're so subjective. They're based on someone's opinions.
You can't disagree with a #1 song because it's quantifiably measured to determine what was the #1 song for that week. And even if it's only #1 for 1 week, it'll still be dominating radios for a minimum of 3 months. Everyone will know it and remember it. Whereas Grammys are the water-cooler talk one Monday morning in late January when all the girls at work gossip about the dresses. Besides, they're overshadowed by the acting awards like the Golden Globes and the Oscars. And like I said before, there are so many music award shows around now that the Grammys have lost a lot of their prestige. Some artists don't even bother going.
|
Still, the Grammys are the most prestigious music award. As if anyone cares about the other ones.
And isn't this about impressiveness? It's more impressive to win an award voted on by a panel of experts than to simply be the quantified #1 song voted by purchases and streaming by the American public who don't exactly have great taste.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 34,855
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Opacho
I can't tell you who went #1 in July of 2013 but I can tell you who won AOTY at the 2013 Grammys without looking it up.
I'm not disagreeing with you, actually, but to say Grammys mean nothing it delusion at its best. Grammys remain the most important award any musician can win.
|
That's hardly a high bar, though.
Quote:
Originally posted by Opacho
Keep making things up to make yourself feel better. Every mainstream musician wants a Grammy and every label wants to represent a "Grammy Award winning" artist.
|
What did I make up? 
Plenty of artists have remarked as to how the Grammys are a joke. Bon Iver even said as much on stage at the Grammys as he accepted his Grammy for Best New Artist.
Quote:
Originally posted by Superpower
Yes it did. Her follow up album sold more and she has been doing more collabs. She went from being a nobody to having a recognizable and bankable name.
|
Her most recent album, the one she released since her Grammy win, peaked at number 10 on the US charts. Her album before that peaked at number 34, and the one before that peaked at number 138. Her star was obviously already steadily rising up to that point.
And since her Grammy win, she's only done one collab with an even moderately high-profile artist, Janelle Monaé. Hardly any lucrative career openings came of her win.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/3/2014
Posts: 19,477
|
Quote:
Originally posted by swissman
Still, the Grammys are the most prestigious music award. As if anyone cares about the other ones.
And isn't this about impressiveness? It's more impressive to win an award voted on by a panel of experts than to simply be the quantified #1 song voted by purchases and streaming by the American public who don't exactly have great taste.
|
Well I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree because I think it's more impressive to have the general public purchase and stream a song so much that it becomes so big it defines a generation. A song that's played so much that people actually get sick of it, but when they revisit it a few years later, it reminds them of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing. A song that's CONSTANTLY playing on the radio. A song that EVERYONE'S listening to, bopping to and singing. I hear 'Tik Tok' and I'm instantly transported back to the summer of 2009-10 right after I finished high school and went to Schoolies - it's like Australia's version of Spring Break, but it's only for people who've just finished high school. That song was everywhere. I have so many good memories of that summer. When I hear that song, it's like I'm back there again. Did it win a grammy? No. And I don't care.
How a few rich, old, white men sitting in a room in LA decide to vote doesn't really impress me.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/4/2009
Posts: 6,471
|
Grammy's. My fave has fifteen. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/6/2010
Posts: 6,945
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 43,331
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
