Well, the year they Phil Collins the Album of the Year for No Jacket Required after he got ripped off for the Oscar for Best Song (which went to Stevie Wonder’s puke-inducing “I Just Called to Say I Love You” over PC’s “Against All Odds (take a look at me now)”) put an end to my giving a flaming rat’s ass about who wins or loses. The Milli Vanilli thing was hilarious, though.
My question to you: What else was nominated? Remember, sometimes when lists of award-winners are bad, the stuff availible for nomination wasn’t any better.
I’m pretty sure the Beatles never won a Grammy while they were together as well - not even “Abbey Road”.
Look, the problem for me now regarding the Grammy’s - at least to a passionate music nut across the Pacific down here in Australia - is simply that they’ve introduced so many friggin categories that well - to be honest - they’ve just plain watered down the value of a Grammy to being little more than what the organisers claim makes them different from the raft of other music awards shows like “The American Music Awards” or “The VH1 Music Awards” or “The MTV Music Awards” blah blah blah.
It seems to me now that if you’re in the music biz in America nowadays, they bloody well hand out awards left right and centre like they’re some sort of candy - none of which actually have any substance.
For me, stupid distinctions like the differences between “Rock” and “Hard Rock” and “Metal” blah blah blah - well, here’s my analogy… imagine if the Oscars had a “Best Picture” award (which they do) but imagine if they had 20 different versions of the “Best Picture” award? Imagine if there was a “Best Picture featuring an African American in a lead role”, and “Best Picture featuring an Urban White Woman in a supporting role”, and “Best Picture featuring comedy which does NOT feature swearing” etc etc etc… getting my drift now?
The Grammy’s have introduced so many piss weak categories which meld and change as the fashions come and go, and worse yet, almost all of those categories in some way reflect urban demographics WITHIN the United States and not the world in general, well… it’s just a joke in the final analysis - it’s got to the point where there are enough categories nowadays you can almost go and buy yourself a Grammy.
The solution, as it seems to me, is for the Grammy Awards to actually follow the Oscars and really CUT DOWN the number of awards. I mean really, really cut it down - to like about 12 or 15 and then be fucking done with it.
You’d have stuff like, “Best Male Vocal” of the year - and nothing else. And “Best Female Vocal” - and nothing else. “Best Produced Album” and nothing else. “Best Song” and nothing else. “Best Album” and nothing else. “Best Band”, “Best Debut Act”, “Best Virtuoso Moment” etc… etc…
And if truth be known, it would actually impress me to see an album like “London Calling” go up against an album like something “RUN DMC” would have made… and I’d accept the winner…
But 104 categories? Fuck, my grandma could probably get nominated for at least one - such is the potential catchment area.
Govenor Quinn, it took me long enough just to find a list of the winners; maybe Duck Duck Goose could find the nominations, but I can’t.
But this was 1965. I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember the year, but I certainly am. And I assure you that the peak of Roll & Roll in 1965 was neither Roger Miller nor the Statler Brothers.
Boo Boo Foo, The Beatles won 10 Grammy awards from 1964 - 1970, six of which were directly for musical performance (the rest for packaging and engineering and the like). They were the only acceptable face of rock in those days.
That’s not what all the magazine ads and the instore displays (providec courtesy of her record company) said when the album was first released. She was touted as punk, and it’s fucking hilarious.
Not that I mind of course; she could call herself Polka Queen of the Amazon for all I care, but she was certainly promoted as being punk.
Yeah, and of course the Emmys are bunk. They’ve always been bunk, always will be, and that’s just the way it is. Nothing good from '02 was nominated there. No Interpol, no Wilco, no Streets, no Talib Kweli, no Blackalicious not even any Vines.
The Grammys are nominated by old people for old people and to pretend that they have any relevance to modern music is laughable. But, ehh… it’s just the Grammys.
The Grammys are of no consequence at all.
The top critically reviewed albums of 2002 were by The Flamming Lips, The Streets, Beck, Wilco and Queens of the Stone Age. How many nominations did they get?
If Cher had farted out something this year, she would have been nominated.
I’m not old enough, but I believe that. It’s just that, quite often, the biggest fun with bad Grammy picks is when either 1) they’re confused, and nominate A LOT of undeserving material, or 2) There’s at least one pick that deserves it, but it goes to a dumb selection anyway.
Personally, any system under which the Beatles get 1 Album of the Year award and Paul SImon (with or without Garfunkel) 3 has some major problems.
Let me also agree that Beck’s Sea Change, and Wilco’s Yankee Hotel Foxtrot were the two best albums of last year, and neither of them got a nomination for album of the year. Wilco didn’t even get nominated in the alternative category.
It’s a complete joke. The Grammys are nothing more than the record industry patting itself on the back and throwing bones to the artists that make the most money.
Thanks Exapno - I stand corrected. For some reason, I’ve always heard the popular urban myth that the Beatles never once won a Grammy while they were still together. Hmmm… can’t trust urban myths it would seem!
You know, it’s a bloody hard thing to be sure - this Grammy business. Most of us would concede that a real masterpiece collection like Natalie King Cole’s - “Unforgettable” in 1991 was deserving of it’s accolades - regardless of whether it’s our cup of tea or not.
But by and large, that’s the exception to the rule. The problem as I see it with the music business is this - it’s just so easy to have so many imposters of greatness - and often, it’s only with the benefit of hindsight (a bit like after an artist is dead) that we really get to appreciate how great someone, or a band, was at the time.
I wouldn’t mind some of the choices if they were purely based on merit, but I point blank refuse to believe Steely Dan’s effort a few years ago was superior to their effort with “Gaucho” in 1980 - and yet the album two years ago was the one which got the accolades. Stuff like that is what gets the ridicule it seems to me.
What?!? You mean in the year that Nevermind was released?!?
I think that just proves that the Grammys are bunk.
But here’s the thing - Nevermind only became a milestone AFTER 1991 due to the development of the grunge movement and the devoted hero worship countless millions of angst ridden teenagers lavished upon Kurt Cobain after his death. Ask Neil Young how he feels about Kurt Cobain and you’ll get a different story, I assure you.
At the time, there was no way you could read the future. Innumerable pompous rock criticis who get paid to pontificate on this sort of shit still try to do so of course - but no one can read the future, really. Hence, if you assess Nevermind purely on it’s technical merits in terms of production, Butch Vig is the first to admit his role as a producer on that album was nothing wondrous - he merely let the band get their stuff down on tape as quickly as he could. As he often says when people ask him how to get the “Nirvana” sound - “You wanna sound like Nirvana? Start writing songs like Kurt Cobain”.
Whereas, when the Grammy people were considering Natalie King Cole’s effort - purely at a technical level, it was clear to everyone that the musicianship, and the arrangements, and the recording standards employed on “Unforgettable” were obviously outstanding - arguably the best of all time. Anyone who tries to argue that “Nevermind” is a superior album to “Unforgettable” is actually buying into the area of cultural worth, and chooses to ignore the technical brilliance of “Unforgettable” entirely.
Accordingly, I reiterate - “Nevermind” is a classic example of what I was referring to in my earlier post. The album was NOT a mega huge seller in 1991 - contrary to popular belief. It actually sold more copies in 1994 after Cobain’s death than it did while he was alive - on a per annum basis. According to billboard.com - “Nevermind” sold 1.8 million copies in the USA in 1991 - a solid result, but not the earth shattering figure that revisionist historians would have us believe. It has ended up selling a squillion copies over a 10 year period - no doubt about that. But I repeat - at the time, it was just another solid rock album. It didn’t break any new ground that the Pixies hadn’t already covered in 1988 and 1989. And even Kurt himself conceded this.
Given this, then, we get into the entirely non conclusive area of subjective assessment - and last time I checked, my observations are as valid as anyone’s - regardless of your own personal tastes gex gex - namely, they are this… “Unforgettable” was obviously magnificently produced - chock a block full of luscious rich ‘torchlight’ classics. In this context, it deserved the kudos it received. “Nevermind”, conversely, was not a major breakthrough in terms of production values. Butch Vig often remarks upon this. Indeed, recent albums seem demonstrably “louder” if you play them after playing “Nevermind”.
Nonetheless, Nevermind was an album which signalled the arrival of a terrific songwriter with a great rythm section behind him - a songwrite who ALSO seemed to embody the voice of a generation - for whatever that is worth.
Of course, the problem with being a voice of a generation is that you never realise it’s happening while it’s actually happening - you have to wait for the era to pass before it becomes manifest.
This is why you read stupid headlines in “Rolling Stone” for example which headline acts like The Vines as “Rock is Finally Back”. It’s a stupid headline because the editors are trying to ‘second guess’ yet another era - whilst the truth is that good musos have never gone away - indeed QOTSA’s efforts over the last 3 years demonstrably shat on stuff by either The Strokes or The Vines - and all of us are aware of QOTSA going all the way back to the KYUSS era.
Let alone Foo Fighters or Pearl Jam or RHCP or you name it - I’ve made my point.