| |
The Grammy Awards 2006
Member Since: 12/23/2004
Posts: 2,291
|
Over this issue of who should win a grammy and who shouldn't: The Grammy's is about artists not performers. It's for those who write and produce their own music, and can sing live. People who have input in the music that they give out. Yes, at times people who don't do these things have won, but that's usually the Pop category, (which you don't have to have talent for anway i.e. Britney Spears). Sometimes people don't win when they should have or people who shouldn't win do. I for one had no idea that U2 had a new album out this year. So this was a surprise to me. I'm still mad about the year when Beyonce won all those Grammy's for her mediocre leaning towards bad album. With the Grammy's you just don't know what will happen, it's kind of like the Oscars.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/27/2003
Posts: 10,192
|
THANK YOU MARQUIS !
I still don't understand how Ciara isn't deserving of a Grammy. Many similar artists have won a grammy before. Janet, Britney, Brandy, Jody Watley (no, I'm not trying to promote her, she won BNA in '88 so she's a good example), Mya, and several others. Ciara writes her own music and writes very well; Ciara sings, obviously no amazingly or great for that matter, but she can hold her own and doesn't dare to lyp-sync; and she carries her own original personality and style. Why is she not "grammyish" ?_?
I love how some of you decide to bring up the "Goodies" single. What's wrong with that song ? If some of you actually stopped being such tools (something Mockery called me earlier, thanks for the vocab!) to supposedly "edgy, original music", you would realize that the "Goodies" song is very well written by Ciara and converys more of a positive message than a negative one.
To Bam: You really killed that whole "Oh is the greatest R&B song in a while" bit. You continuously take my words out of context in order to make me look like an idiot and to prove your half-assed point.
Now concerning John Legend...You guys really think Legend is the real thing ? Do you believe that this guy is actually being honest with us ? I swear some of you HAVE TO BE socially inept or disabled. The fakeness is detectable. He's an egotistical man (he's part of Kanye's crew) who plays a piano and sings adult R&B. He does that knowing he'll win praise for doing so. He reminds me of Alicia Keys, though I do find her more believable than Legend.
To Fall Fort Minor: JL writes about real-life issues ? Then what does Ciara write about, bigfoot sightings and ol' nessy ??? No, she doesn't. Ciara is just as qualified as John Legend, if not, more.
And a final note concerning BNA: Don't take this as if if I'm obsessed with Ciara, though I am a fan. I just see potential in a newbie like her and so do the Grammy's. If they didn't, they wouldn't have nominated her.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by PANCOSNIC
I'm still mad about the year when Beyonce won all those Grammy's for her mediocre leaning towards bad album.
|
I'll admit, maybe 5 Grammys for her in a single show was too much and the same goes for Alicia Keys and Norah Jones. But to say that Beyonce didn't deserve at least multiple grammys for her work on DIL is ridiculous.
Beyonce writes and produces most of her music, along with having the voice of an angel. That is extremely rare in most genres. DIL was indeed a grower but within time, you would realize it's one of the best contemporay R&B albums in a long time.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/29/2004
Posts: 158
|
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 9/25/2001
Posts: 7,563
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by TonyBrownEyes
i'm glad she didn't win the grammy because.. BEST NEW ARTIST is a cursed grammy... lol... no1 has recovered from it except Alicia Keys.
|
Mariah had 2 diamond albums after she won so I'd say she recovered too lol
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/5/2005
Posts: 11,422
|
I also liked seeing Maroon 5 and BEP taking home an award eac as well.
Missy Elliot won the best music video award, which was cool, but I think there were better videos that could've gotten it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/15/2004
Posts: 101
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by PANCOSNIC
Over this issue of who should win a grammy and who shouldn't: The Grammy's is about artists not performers. It's for those who write and produce their own music, and can sing live. People who have input in the music that they give out. Yes, at times people who don't do these things have won, but that's usually the Pop category, (which you don't have to have talent for anway i.e. Britney Spears). Sometimes people don't win when they should have or people who shouldn't win do. I for one had no idea that U2 had a new album out this year. So this was a surprise to me. I'm still mad about the year when Beyonce won all those Grammy's for her mediocre leaning towards bad album. With the Grammy's you just don't know what will happen, it's kind of like the Oscars.
|
what a generally stupid commentary that could have been said in fewer words and lines. the grammys reward what they consider to be promisin talent. such talent maybe in the power of song interpretation (Whitney; yes, she won album of the yr wit Bodyguard and was severally nominated), songwriting etc. and for u to say Beyonce was undeservin of her grammies just shows how naive u r. even if u think her album was bad, look at the competiition for the categories she was nominated in b4 u start runnin ur stinkin mouth
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/1/2005
Posts: 12,107
|
I haven't been around for any of the discussion, but I would just like post my opinion on "Track Of The Year" (Green Day - Boulevard Of Broken Dreams) and "Album Of The Year." (U2)
Looking at the contenders for "Track Of The Year," I notice the clear favorite "We Belong Together" with 19 weeks @ #1 and "Hollaback Girl," the most digitally downloaded song last year. Obviously, I thought one of those would win, however, as you can see, "Boulevard Of Broken Dreams" took home the Grammy with a peak @ #2? Even, "Gold Digger," which I loathe, would have been a more plausible choice in this situation (Although, we would have to suffer through Kanye West's ego speech afterwards).
"Album Of The Year" was taken by (U2) this year, but once again, I find this whorribly wrong. The top two best selling albums last year was:
01.Mariah Carey "The Emancipation Of MiMi"
02.50 Cent "The Massacre"
I don't see U2 there? Why have they won this title?
Although, I am sure people will argue that the Grammy's are based on quality and would go on to denounce Mariah Carey, Gwen Stefani, 50 Cent, and even Kanye West, but surely, I thought "fairness" would play a part. Literally, is it sooo hard to figure that those who reached #1 for the longest would deservedly win? I have never taken the Grammy's seriously, as they have never gone by the facts.
Ex: A couple of years ago, not to take away from her talent, but Norah Jones took home about 7 Grammy's, but upon speaking to my friends at the local high school, maybe 2 had heard of her? If she was sooo great, how come she was well-known?
Anyways, 2005 was the year of Mariah Carey and 3/8 Grammy's, in lower categories, is simply not veasible.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/10/2005
Posts: 167
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Exodus
I haven't been around for any of the discussion, but I would just like post my opinion on "Track Of The Year" (Green Day - Boulevard Of Broken Dreams) and "Album Of The Year." (U2)
Looking at the contenders for "Track Of The Year," I notice the clear favorite "We Belong Together" with 19 weeks @ #1 and "Hollaback Girl," the most digitally downloaded song last year. Obviously, I thought one of those would win, however, as you can see, "Boulevard Of Broken Dreams" took home the Grammy with a peak @ #2? Even, "Gold Digger," which I loathe, would have been a more plausible choice in this situation (Although, we would have to suffer through Kanye West's ego speech afterwards).
"Album Of The Year" was taken by (U2) this year, but once again, I find this whorribly wrong. The top two best selling albums last year was:
01.Mariah Carey "The Emancipation Of MiMi"
02.50 Cent "The Massacre"
I don't see U2 there? Why have they won this title?
Although, I am sure people will argue that the Grammy's are based on quality and would go on to denounce Mariah Carey, Gwen Stefani, 50 Cent, and even Kanye West, but surely, I thought "fairness" would play a part. Literally, is it sooo hard to figure that those who reached #1 for the longest would deservedly win? I have never taken the Grammy's seriously, as they have never gone by the facts.
Ex: A couple of years ago, not to take away from her talent, but Norah Jones took home about 7 Grammy's, but upon speaking to my friends at the local high school, maybe 2 had heard of her? If she was sooo great, how come she was well-known?
Anyways, 2005 was the year of Mariah Carey and 3/8 Grammy's, in lower categories, is simply not veasible.
|
These are the Grammy´s for God sake these are not the Billboard Awards. these are based on quality not on sales
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 9/24/2001
Posts: 10,763
|
Exactly. The Grammys could give less than a ---- who sells the most. That's why we have the Billboard Awards.
The Grammys are meant for "quality" and while that's always circumspect, they do tend to get it right some of the time. Did U2 deserve Album over Kanye or Record over Kanye, Mimi or Gwen? Absolutely Not. But it's understandable WHY thye won (because they are U2, and thus are establishment, so they must win everything with a lacking album that I cannot stand).
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/1/2005
Posts: 12,107
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Mikal
Exactly. The Grammys could give less than a ---- who sells the most. That's why we have the Billboard Awards.
The Grammys are meant for "quality" and while that's always circumspect, they do tend to get it right some of the time. Did U2 deserve Album over Kanye or Record over Kanye, Mimi or Gwen? Absolutely Not. But it's understandable WHY thye won (because they are U2, and thus are establishment, so they must win everything with a lacking album that I cannot stand).
|
Yeah, I understand, but I just think records should have something to do with it, as not everybody thinks, for example, U2 is exactly "quality."  
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 10/21/2001
Posts: 25,547
|
If we're talking Billboard Music Awards, then you're making the right argument Exodus....but this is the Grammys as you then stated. Some of these people are just happy to be nominated even if they don't win. Of course the largely nominated artists won't say the same thing though.....
Do I personally think U2 should've won Album Of The Year? To be honest, yes. They've also won 24 grammys now I think......24!?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/8/2006
Posts: 129
|
i'm sorry but Kanye West's album, and Mariah's Emancipation of MiMi.. can't even compare to U2.. or even Gwen's album due to the fact that there albums sound is very customized to there style and different. Also lyrically u2's album is amazing in comparison to Kanye's. Come on.. giving a grammy too... "SHE AINT MESSING WITH NO BROKE -----S"...Lyrically is crap.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/28/2003
Posts: 9,476
|
I'm sick and tired of people saying that awards shouldn't be handedout due to chart position! Hell, that should at least be considered. No one even knew U2 had an album out for God sakes. So instead of basing Grammy award recipiants on the opinions of a bunch of old men sitting at a round table. I just think that the opinions of the masses should AT LEAST be taking into consideration!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/18/2004
Posts: 3,295
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Mr. Hero
I'm sick and tired of people saying that awards shouldn't be handedout due to chart position! Hell, that should at least be considered. No one even knew U2 had an album out for God sakes. So instead of basing Grammy award recipiants on the opinions of a bunch of old men sitting at a round table. I just think that the opinions of the masses should AT LEAST be taking into consideration!
|
It cmame out in 2004 with almost selling one million in one week and their tour was one of the biggest tours of 2005...who didnt know they had an album 
Well I liked the grammy winners!! I agreed with many of the winners that was given out. Ciara doesnt deserve a grammy cuz she doesnt make good music..her cd was so generic man!! ITs not even FUNNY!!!!!
But like I said..I agree with almost everything except for song of the year winner, and even if I wouldve picked another winner for other categories...I still understand why the grammys chose them.
And Marquis...the grammys ARE BASED ON SALES too!!! Look at metacritic and look at their reviews...many of the TOP ALBUMS arent even nominated. I mean Fiona Apple had one of the best reviewed albums of 2005 but Kelly won because she was one of the biggest artists of 2005.
Sales get you nominated, quality gets you the win. Ex. Mariah and Usher nominated for album of year....Ray Charles and U2 winning those years. Yes sometimes it doesnt work that way, but most of the time it does.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/8/2006
Posts: 129
|
Ciara is good at what she does. But some of the best weren't rewarded at Grammy's until later on in there careers. I Don't like when New artists are given Grammy's and tons of overhype. Because then that effects the rest of there career. Look at Mariah, Madonna, and Mary J. Blige they weren't rewarded Grammy's until middle of there careers. And so many undeserving have gotten them.. so it doesn't really matter. An award doesn't define an artist..
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/28/2003
Posts: 9,476
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by BAM!!!
It cmame out in 2004 with almost selling one million in one week and their tour was one of the biggest tours of 2005...who didnt know they had an album
Well I liked the grammy winners!! I agreed with many of the winners that was given out. Ciara doesnt deserve a grammy cuz she doesnt make good music..her cd was so generic man!! ITs not even FUNNY!!!!!
But like I said..I agree with almost everything except for song of the year winner, and even if I wouldve picked another winner for other categories...I still understand why the grammys chose them.
And Marquis...the grammys ARE BASED ON SALES too!!! Look at metacritic and look at their reviews...many of the TOP ALBUMS arent even nominated. I mean Fiona Apple had one of the best reviewed albums of 2005 but Kelly won because she was one of the biggest artists of 2005.
Sales get you nominated, quality gets you the win. Ex. Mariah and Usher nominated for album of year....Ray Charles and U2 winning those years. Yes sometimes it doesnt work that way, but most of the time it does. |
I know a lot of people who were COMPLETELY oblivious about U2's "new" album. There is absolutely no denying the fact that their album didn't have as big an impact as 2 or 3 of the other albums that were nominated in that category! Hell, just search the web and you'll find a lot of people who were furious at u2 winning album of the year. I doubt you even own that album! There ain't enough words that you, or anybody else, can say to get me to believe that u2 deserved that Grammy.
And Ciara's album was good. And like I said before, it all comes down to perspectives. You don't like Ciara's album. Which is fine. I could care less. But the IMPACT (and I can't seem to stress that word enough) that she had on music in general was FAR beyond some of the others this year, and that is undeniable, and that can be proven with facts and statistics. That girl should have taken home the "Best New Artist" award and I don't care what you or no one else says about that issue! And again, there are PLENTY of people who can tesify to that.
Moreover, I'm not saying that "sales" are the only thing that should be recognized when trying to figure out grammy recipiants. I think that more importantly, what should be considered is the IMPACT that certain artist had on music that particular year. And as far as I'm concerned, Mariah, Ciara, and Kanye should have left that building with a handful of Grammy's!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/8/2006
Posts: 129
|
BEST NEW ARTIST award is CURSED.. lol.. thank god she didnt take it .
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/8/2006
Posts: 129
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Nick
Mariah had 2 diamond albums after she won so I'd say she recovered too lol
|
LOL OK.. Mariah,Alicia,Christina.. ii guess that's it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/1/2005
Posts: 12,107
|
I am going to have to agree with Marquis on this one. Not to take anything away from U2, but that Grammy was simply undeserving. In this situation, sales records give you a nomination, but from there, "quantity" (definition by a few) give you the actual win, which is wut really counts.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/18/2004
Posts: 3,295
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Mr. Hero
I know a lot of people who were COMPLETELY oblivious about U2's "new" album. There is absolutely no denying the fact that their album didn't have as big an impact as 2 or 3 of the other albums that were nominated in that category! Hell, just search the web and you'll find a lot of people who were furious at u2 winning album of the year. I doubt you even own that album! There ain't enough words that you, or anybody else, can say to get me to believe that u2 deserved that Grammy.
And Ciara's album was good. And like I said before, it all comes down to perspectives. You don't like Ciara's album. Which is fine. I could care less. But the IMPACT (and I can't seem to stress that word enough) that she had on music in general was FAR beyond some of the others this year, and that is undeniable, and that can be proven with facts and statistics. That girl should have taken home the "Best New Artist" award and I don't care what you or no one else says about that issue! And again, there are PLENTY of people who can tesify to that.
Moreover, I'm not saying that "sales" are the only thing that should be recognized when trying to figure out grammy recipiants. I think that more importantly, what should be considered is the IMPACT that certain artist had on music that particular year. And as far as I'm concerned, Mariah, Ciara, and Kanye should have left that building with a handful of Grammy's!
|
I dont own U2s album but it got great reviews unlike someone like Mariah. And I have hers and it is "good" at best. If U2 didnt win, who wouldve got it...MAriah(she didnt make a GREAT album), Paul(he didnt have no hype) and Gwen(her album was just not gonna win, shouldnt have been nominated.) So we got U2 verses Kanye West who IMO had the best album in that category. However, Kanye is just TOO COCKY for his own good and I KNEW that grammys would not award him with that award and I was right.
Ciara could make an IMPACT all she want on her lil BET fans she got. But grammys "best new artist" award is for the artist who they believe can make the greatest impact on the world with longevity, not just having a lil hit album with generic hits. John Legend album was raved around the world and people can look to him for quality music in years to come and not just think of him as a generic hit maker. Ciara was hardly involved in her album..she hopped on Jazzy Phae a$$ and other hot producers of the time and she got a lil hit album. John Legend put forth the effort and time to make a GREAT r&b album.
|
|
|
|
|
|
