Grammies
- Started
- Last post
- 40 Responses
- TheBlueOne0
Where's Prince and his Silhouette Curtain of Phallic Power? Now THAT woulda been a James Brown tribute...
- TheBlueOne0
Dixie Chicks? Record of the fucking year?? Oh my god...the suckage just keeps sucking...c'mon I hate George Bush as much as the next guy, but is this like the aging baby boomer grammy voters last ditch feeble attempt to send George Bush message?
- nocomply0
i am missing it and i don't care. i never watch that stuff. i'll catch the police on youtube tomorrow or something.
- barbtastic0
i don't understand why you're surprised by the suck... since when have the grammys ever been cool?
- OSFA0
are the chili peppers gonna close this farse?
- TheBlueOne0
since when have the grammys ever been cool?
barbtastic
(Feb 11 07, 19:47)True. One can hope though...and each year it just gets worse...
- dijitaq0
since when have the grammys ever been cool?
barbtastic
(Feb 11 07, 19:47)agree
- Jaline0
Exactly, barb.
--------------------------------...
"Prestigious or not, the Grammy Awards are notoriously conservative -- and often, just plain clueless -- in regards to the cultural zeitgeist. In their early days, when rock was in its adolescence and Motown and Bob Dylan supplied the soundtrack for a revolution, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences doled out Record of the Year trophies to Herb Alpert, Henry Mancini and Percy Faith. The year the Beatles issued their groundbreaking "Revolver" (1966), Frank Sinatra waltzed off with Record and Album of the Year honors.As a consequence of being behind the times, Grammy Awards often go to long-running acts that have seen much better days. 1994 was the year of eligibility for Nirvana's "In Utero," Pearl Jam's "Vs." and Smashing Pumpkins' "Siamese Dream." But the Rock Album of the Year winner? "Voodoo Lounge" by the Rolling Stones. Apparently the members of NARAS felt sorry for the Stones, having neglected to award them a single prize before that. "
http://music.msn.com/music/gramm…
-----------------------------
Also, The Dixie Chicks aren't that bad. At least compared to James Blunt and Carrie Underwood, imo.
- dahl0
While this years show sucked, you always hope for the best.
In a time, where radio and TV means little and YouTube and Myspace can break new bands, it really shows you how out of touch the Grammys are.
- elms0
Arvo Pärt - Da Pacem
"Best Choral Performance."
- TheBlueOne0
"The year the Beatles issued their groundbreaking "Revolver" (1966), Frank Sinatra waltzed off with Record and Album of the Year honors."
Truth told, I prob listen to Sinatra more than I do the Beatles..so I gotta give the grammies a pass on at one..
- ********0
Arvo Pärt - Da Pacem
"Best Choral Performance."
elms
(Feb 11 07, 21:22)Arvo Pärt are amazing, hands down.
- ********0
I didn't watch them, but I know they sucked
- indian_pole0
i thought it was good, sting's got some of the best moves on the bass, better now actually. and copeland is still a god (despite being a bit of a weird dude). the songs stand up for themselves too, timeless.
ok, it'll never be like it was, but i'm sure gonna be at one of the UK shows with a huge grin.
- Jaline0
I never watch the Grammies unless I have nothing better to do. Primarily because the music is not usually the type I listen to. Even the Junos (Canadian equivalent) are better, and that's pretty bad.
I do watch the Oscars, Emmy's, Globes when they first air,
and the People's Choice, Teen Choice, and MTV ones on reruns.
- elms0
Arvo Pärt - Da Pacem
"Best Choral Performance."
elms
(Feb 11 07, 21:22)Arvo Pärt are amazing, hands down.
letters
(Feb 12 07, 02:45)Arvo Pärt IS amazing
;)
- ********0
Arvo Pärt - Da Pacem
"Best Choral Performance."
elms
(Feb 11 07, 21:22)Arvo Pärt are amazing, hands down.
letters
(Feb 12 07, 02:45)Arvo Pärt IS amazing
;)
elms
(Feb 12 07, 06:55)indeed, IS is more accurate
- jevad0
bloody hell they sounded GREAT!!!