|
Poll: Most Undeserved AOTY Win of Past 10 Years
View Poll Results: Most Undeserved Win?
|
Come Away With Me - Norah Jones
|
|
3 |
0.74% |
Speakerboxxx/The Love Below - OutKast
|
|
12 |
2.97% |
Genius Loves Company - Ray Charles and Various Artists
|
|
6 |
1.49% |
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb - U2
|
|
12 |
2.97% |
Taking the Long Way - Dixie Chicks
|
|
10 |
2.48% |
River: The Joni Letters - Herbie Hancock
|
|
40 |
9.90% |
Raising Sand - Robert Plant & Alison Krauss
|
|
9 |
2.23% |
Fearless - Taylor Swift
|
|
220 |
54.46% |
The Suburbs - Arcade Fire
|
|
57 |
14.11% |
21 - Adele
|
|
35 |
8.66% |
Member Since: 4/9/2012
Posts: 16,749
|
i rarely agree with the grammy committee's choices. norah jones' album come away with me was boring as hell. sleep inducing stuff. had 0 spark. her ''feels like home'' album was much better IMO.
''the eminem show'' was the album that should have won that year. even elton john agreed.
the ray charles album was great and he did pass in 04 so i was happy that he won the AOTY grammy but i really wanted the diary of alicia keys to win since i feel like that record transcended an age gap while still remaining mainstream on Top 40 which is commendable.
im not a fan of country music or dixie chicks so i would of liked it if john mayer won for continuum in 2007 or JT for futuresex/lovesounds.
in 2008, amy winehouse should have won for back to black. the fame monster should have won in 2011.
i think fearless deserved to win in 2010, one of the few country albums i can stand to listen to.
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/15/2012
Posts: 15,569
|
River or 21.
Decisions, decisions...
Think I'll go with River.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/9/2011
Posts: 12,849
|
Quote:
Originally posted by CountryFriedChick
Looking back to the year Herbie won I forgot how deep the field was with the Foo Fighters, Vince gill, Herbie, Amy, and Kanye all up for AOTY that must have been one of the toughest decisions they've ever had to make.
|
Split votes? It was def the craziest move the committee has ever made (second to the Milli Vanili fiasco).
But they are all deserving for me. Yes the committee loves to nominated bunch of random records. But when it comes to choose the winner, they got it right.
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/28/2012
Posts: 1,659
|
Quote:
Originally posted by CountryFriedChick
Fair enough if you don't feel that way but why insult Taylor if you don't know her music? I mean with the metacritic scores and the sales and the critical acclaim plus her being an artist that writes her own songs and helped produce the album its not like she didn't put in the work to deserve the award. I feel Adele is a great artist that works hard and I hold nothing against her. Now did I think she should win? No but she would be my #3 after Kanye and Foo Fighters so she very much is deserving much like how Taylor is deserving of winning. Honestly all of the artists are to a degree worthy. I think my personal favorite on the list would be Herbie Hancock's followed closely by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss and Taylor would be toward the bottom along with Adele. Sadly the only album I didn't like at all on the list was Arcade Fire but I get the artistry behind it so they are definitely worthy too. and I apologize for my post I know it came off rude but you've been coming into every thread posting negative comments about Taylor and its just gotten annoying but that doesn't excuse my behavior so I apologize
|
Why apologize? You haven't offended me and I appreciate your point of view.
I just don't get why Taylor is so popular and acclaimed that's all
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/29/2010
Posts: 19,664
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix83
Why apologize? You haven't offended me and I appreciate your point of view.
I just don't get why Taylor is so popular and acclaimed that's all
|
So after bashing her in every thread you come clean now and admit that you donīt know much about her music? And while not knowing her music you are puzzled why she is so critically acclaimed?
Mkay. Dismissed.
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/19/2009
Posts: 10,504
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix83
Why apologize? You haven't offended me and I appreciate your point of view.
I just don't get why Taylor is so popular and acclaimed that's all
|
I felt I was rude I'm glad it didn't hurt your feelings. Now about Taylor when I first heard her I though she was this one hit wonder girl who didn't have much talent but over time that changed and the big turning point for me was when she released White Horse. After that I bought her debut and Fearless and have been hooked since . Finding out she wrote or co-wrote all her songs certainly helped too because I've always been very fond of songwriters and the work that is put in to write a good song
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/28/2012
Posts: 1,659
|
Quote:
Originally posted by muddysquirrel
So after bashing her in every thread you come clean now and admit that you donīt know much about her music? And while not knowing her music you are puzzled why she is so critically acclaimed?
Mkay. Dismissed.
|
I think you're slightly missing the point. I don't get how someone who doesn't have a single memorable song (because I don't know/haven't heard a single one of her songs and I listen to a lot of music) can possibly be such a popular/acclaimed artist. This is why I consider her to be a "local" act in that she must mainly appeal to US country fans. My theory is if she were that good, she would have at least a few well-known tracks here in the UK.
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/16/2005
Posts: 16,872
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix83
My theory is if she were that good, she would have at least a few well-known tracks here in the UK.
|
Declaration of Independence, man. Taylor does not have to get the approval of anybody in the UK to be considered good.
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/15/2011
Posts: 41,028
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix83
I think you're slightly missing the point. I don't get how someone who doesn't have a single memorable song (because I don't know/haven't heard a single one of her songs and I listen to a lot of music) can possibly be such a popular/acclaimed artist. This is why I consider her to be a "local" act in that she must mainly appeal to US country fans. My theory is if she were that good, she would have at least a few well-known tracks here in the UK.
|
You have a very flawed theory.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/9/2011
Posts: 12,849
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix83
I think you're slightly missing the point. I don't get how someone who doesn't have a single memorable song (because I don't know/haven't heard a single one of her songs and I listen to a lot of music) can possibly be such a popular/acclaimed artist. This is why I consider her to be a "local" act in that she must mainly appeal to US country fans. My theory is if she were that good, she would have at least a few well-known tracks here in the UK.
|
During the Fearless era, she had two worldwide hits. You would think that she would write ANOTHER hit single to continue her worldwide domination, right? No. Assuming you know the unspoken rules to get your songs played by the radio, during Speak Now era, she had NO hit single as big as the LS/YBWM. Why? Because the shortest track there was 3:37 long, while the longest was 6:44, while the rest mostly were 3:50++. She took the consequences and it paid off with the praise from the critics. Not many acts on the mainstream scene have the balls to take the risks with writing & composing the whole album by him/herself (co-produce too) and sticking to the guns with releasing songs longer than 4 minutes like that.
And ofc, with basically 'flop' singles, what else do you expect? Singles' job is to promote the album. But those singles NEED to fit the radio-ready single formats to be hit singles (a.k.a well-known tracks). She has none, so radio ditched her. Simple as that.
She chose to go for the 'quality' instead of 'quantity'. As we all know, selling boat-loads of copies & having radio played your songs =/= you're good. Some exceptions do happen sometimes, but it's rare. Having massive success =/= you're good. It's too difficult to explain. There were & are many acts that don't sell a lot of copies but critically acclaimed. What makes her different then them? Woody Guthrie had NO hit album, NO hit single, NOT a touring act, but today's people still talked about him. Bruce Springsteen was also labelled as a local act once despite able to fill arenas across the globe.
Why I disagree with you at the first place:
1) You talked about her success only, WITHOUT listening to the music first
2) You only use UK & US.
(Sorry for the ****ery and whatever errors there. 6AM in Australia and haven't slept. )
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/19/2009
Posts: 10,504
|
Quote:
Originally posted by thediscomonkey
During the Fearless era, she had two worldwide hits. You would think that she would write ANOTHER hit single to continue her worldwide domination, right? No. Assuming you know the unspoken rules to get your songs played by the radio, during Speak Now era, she had NO hit single as big as the LS/YBWM. Why? Because the shortest track there was 3:37 long, while the longest was 6:44, while the rest mostly were 3:50++. She took the consequences and it paid off with the praise from the critics. Not many acts on the mainstream scene have the balls to take the risks with writing & composing the whole album by him/herself (co-produce too) and sticking to the guns with releasing songs longer than 4 minutes like that.
And ofc, with basically 'flop' singles, what else do you expect? Singles' job is to promote the album. But those singles NEED to fit the radio-ready single formats to be hit singles (a.k.a well-known tracks). She has none, so radio ditched her. Simple as that.
She chose to go for the 'quality' instead of 'quantity'. As we all know, selling boat-loads of copies & having radio played your songs =/= you're good. Some exceptions do happen sometimes, but it's rare. Having massive success =/= you're good. It's too difficult to explain. There were & are many acts that don't sell a lot of copies but critically acclaimed. What makes her different then them? Woody Guthrie had NO hit album, NO hit single, NOT a touring act, but today's people still talked about him. Bruce Springsteen was also labelled as a local act once despite able to fill arenas across the globe.
Why I disagree with you at the first place:
1) You talked about her success only, WITHOUT listening to the music first
2) You only use UK & US.
(Sorry for the ****ery and whatever errors there. 6AM in Australia and haven't slept. )
|
Kid you never fail with your posts
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/28/2012
Posts: 1,659
|
Quote:
Originally posted by vuelve88
Declaration of Independence, man. Taylor does not have to get the approval of anybody in the UK to be considered good.
|
No of course not but it's clear her fan base is mainly US country music fans.
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/1/2010
Posts: 65,177
|
This thread is still going on?
Anyway, out of all the Taylor fans, thediscomonkey is the main one who can put up an argument without being rude, obnoxious or bitchy (though I love Fearless and JakeKills ). That's why I respect her.
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/28/2012
Posts: 1,659
|
Quote:
Originally posted by thediscomonkey
During the Fearless era, she had two worldwide hits. You would think that she would write ANOTHER hit single to continue her worldwide domination, right? No. Assuming you know the unspoken rules to get your songs played by the radio, during Speak Now era, she had NO hit single as big as the LS/YBWM. Why? Because the shortest track there was 3:37 long, while the longest was 6:44, while the rest mostly were 3:50++. She took the consequences and it paid off with the praise from the critics. Not many acts on the mainstream scene have the balls to take the risks with writing & composing the whole album by him/herself (co-produce too) and sticking to the guns with releasing songs longer than 4 minutes like that.
And ofc, with basically 'flop' singles, what else do you expect? Singles' job is to promote the album. But those singles NEED to fit the radio-ready single formats to be hit singles (a.k.a well-known tracks). She has none, so radio ditched her. Simple as that.
She chose to go for the 'quality' instead of 'quantity'. As we all know, selling boat-loads of copies & having radio played your songs =/= you're good. Some exceptions do happen sometimes, but it's rare. Having massive success =/= you're good. It's too difficult to explain. There were & are many acts that don't sell a lot of copies but critically acclaimed. What makes her different then them? Woody Guthrie had NO hit album, NO hit single, NOT a touring act, but today's people still talked about him. Bruce Springsteen was also labelled as a local act once despite able to fill arenas across the globe.
Why I disagree with you at the first place:
1) You talked about her success only, WITHOUT listening to the music first
2) You only use UK & US.
(Sorry for the ****ery and whatever errors there. 6AM in Australia and haven't slept. )
|
Thanks for the essay.
She's the only supposedly major female artist whose songs are completely unfamiliar to me. (To be honest her name was unfamiliar to me until I realised she was the girl who Kanye interrupted hilariously at that awards show)
I'm not judging her just on the UK and US (although I will admit I consider those the 2 most important markets) but I am saying her appeal is quite limited compared to other artists. Limited both geographically and in terms of mainly being liked only by country music fans.
Anyway I'm done on this topic, it's getting boring.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/9/2011
Posts: 12,849
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix83
Thanks for the essay.
She's the only supposedly major female artist whose songs are completely unfamiliar to me. (To be honest her name was unfamiliar to me until I realised she was the girl who Kanye interrupted hilariously at that awards show)
I'm not judging her just on the UK and US (although I will admit I consider those the 2 most important markets) but I am saying her appeal is quite limited compared to other artists. Limited both geographically and in terms of mainly being liked only by country music fans.
Anyway I'm done on this topic, it's getting boring.
|
Will it surprise you that I discovered her in 2006 through a website that cover about indie release from Country? You should have judged from the music instead of what you've heard about her. Prejudice has never been a good thing. To be honest, I did the same with Lana Del Rey. The difference is, I keep my uneducated mouth shut and not talking **** about her. When I was done giving a spin to her LPs, that's when I started giving my opinion about her music. Not talking about how successful she is. I personally think it's dumb to talk about one thing that you don't really know.
And are you comparing her to the likes of Rihanna/Katy Perry/Lady Gaga? That you're on the wrong light.
Last, if only you know Country (that is Country, NOT Mainstream Country).
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/16/2005
Posts: 16,872
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix83
No of course not but it's clear her fan base is mainly US country music fans.
|
And what's wrong with having fans from the #1 superpower nation in the world?
Is that something to feel bad about? You are trying to suggest that her worth as an artist is dependent on whether you, a random person in the UK, knows about her.
You can't even recall that the award show she was on was the VMAs. Perhaps, it is more a fault of your own memory than anything Taylor Swift is doing.
#July4th1776
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/28/2012
Posts: 1,659
|
Quote:
Originally posted by vuelve88
And what's wrong with having fans from the #1 superpower nation in the world?
Is that something to feel bad about? You are trying to suggest that her worth as an artist is dependent on whether you, a random person in the UK, knows about her.
You can't even recall that the award show she was on was the VMAs. Perhaps, it is more a fault of your own memory than anything Taylor Swift is doing.
#July4th1776
|
Not suggesting that at all, just suggesting that her music only appeals to a narrow group of people.
Oh and it's not that I don't recall the award show, I never knew in the first place...don't really watch award shows. I just heard about the Kanye incident because it was well publicised.
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/16/2005
Posts: 16,872
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix83
Not suggesting that at all, just suggesting that her music only appeals to a narrow group of people.
Oh and it's not that I don't recall the award show, I never knew in the first place...don't really watch award shows. I just heard about the Kanye incident because it was well publicised.
|
What's wrong with that? Is the mark of a good song its ability to appeal to everyone, including some random guy in the UK? Should all music be created with the aim of appealing to as many people as possible?
Simon & Garfunkel are very popular, respected, and successful. Their music appeals to a narrow group of people. There's nothing wrong with that.
Sorry, UK dude, Taylor Swift is not going to cater to your interests just so you can feel that she is worthy enough or popular enough.
#1776
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/31/2011
Posts: 16,937
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/15/2011
Posts: 13,205
|
|
|
|
|
|