Grammy's "best" rock categories...nominees

Drenis

tonyb wrote: »

Yep, lack of talent my friend. Music is now more about the show than the music itself. Foo fighters.....you'd have to pay me to go see them. Even then, you'd have to get me drunk first.

Adele was great, deserved her awards, no wild stage show she just belts it out. You wouldn't think a voice like that would come out of her....but it does. How is it that people with British accents can sing without them ?

Actually it was the first time I'd ever heard Adele speak and my jaw dropped. I turned to my girl looking for an answer. Even she didn't know Adele had such a deep accent. You would NEVER know. She belts it out is right... I'll be picking up her CD soon as... I hate to admit it but I've never heard her music entirely before.

Now can someone tell me how Foo Fighters took home almost every rock award? Would have liked to see Dream Theater win for their single and King's of Leon for their album.

Such disappointment...

steveinaz

I caught Adele on MTV Unplugged---Stellar. This gal is going places, like a rocket!

kuntasensei

I love how steveinaz cites a song from 1971 to make a comparison with Foo Fighters about current rock. Okay, dad... "Skater boy rock"? No one skates to anything like Foo Fighters. People skate to punk or metal (and most of that is mainstream overproduced crap now anyway, minus some of the small labels like Fat Wreck Chords still putting out solid punk rock).

Seriously, if you old-timers haven't given Wasting Light a listen, you're missing out. Solid ALL-ANALOG recording from a band that has proven they can 100% reproduce that sound on-stage (unlike so many of these manufactured bands today), and it was recorded in Grohl's garage studio. Bob Mould is great on Dear Rosemary and it's nice to hear Fee Waybill's voice again on Miss The Misery. Great to still have a rock band that is reverent of rock's past and embraces it. Kudos to them on their win (and for putting out the most solid rock album in the past year IMHO).

The bigger question is why anyone watches the Grammys EVER. You know what I was doing during the Grammys? Listening to the new Punch Brothers album. I'd rather be doing some 2-channel listening to some awesome bluegrass than watching an awards show! What the hell were you thinking? :razz:

Toolfan66

Bruno Mars was fun to watch, Katy Perry is just pure sex with those eyes of hers as well as everything south, Rhianna WOW!! to bad she can't sing, Adele stole the show IMO everybody at work has thought I was crazy because I talk her up so much, then BAM 6 Grammys!!! good for her..

The BEACHED OLDMEN sucked!!!!

kuntasensei

Oh, and Bruno Mars... Elvis called and he wants his EVERYTHING back. :cheesygrin:

Toolfan66

BTW The FOO FIGHTERS are ROCK SOLID!!!!

They are what Rock n Roll is about, and they do it as such!!!

heiney9

Foo Fighters are over rated IMO. Good, solid band.......but I fail to see the constant hype that surrounds them. It seems today you are considered GREAT, if you can just play solid. Lots and lots of solid bands out there. You have to be much more than just solid to achieve greatness in my book.

It's a shame the music business is so watered down these days, partly because of technology and opportunity. There is a plethora of average music out there. Discovering greatness today is like finding a needle in a huge haystack. Today's music is depressingly disposable and mediocre.

H9

headrott

Agreed Brock. God forbid that a band like Fleet Foxes would be nominated or perform on the Grammy's. The Fleet Foxes are a needle for certain.

Greg

kuntasensei

True, heiney9... and to be honest, this latest Foo Fighters album is the first one I've actually loved in a while. I think their last three albums had kinda' become more of the same due to their radio success. It's nice to hear a band get back to basics and put out something refreshing.

You're right about music being watered down now. It's an unfortunate result of digital tools. Now that ANYONE can make an album on the cheap, the market gets flooded with crap. It's also way too easy to make someone sound good on an album who can't sing to save their lives in real life. If you can't give the same performance on stage that you did on the album, you're not worth a damn to me. But then, that's why I think this is the best album I've heard in years:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/R8qIseFg77Q&quot; frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

zombie boy 2000

Song of the Year
1974 - Barbra Streisand: “The Way We Were”
1975 - Judy Collins: “Send in the Clowns”
1976 - Barry Manilow: “I Write the Songs”
1977 - Debbie Boone: “You Light Up My Life”
1978 - Billy Joel: “Just The Way You Are”

Helluva run you guys had in the '70's when music was soooo much better and The Grammys were at least getting it right.

tonyb

Who ever said the Grammys got it right....ever ? Kinda like the Academy awards, sometimes they get it right, most times not.

Every generation has it's golden music and turds to boot. Just seems talent is farther and fewer between these days....and like everything else, music or should I say "good" music, is subjective.

steveinaz

I remember in 1983 when Toto won 6 grammy's for Toto IV. Now talk about composition, melody, arrangement and execution.

zombie boy 2000

tonyb wrote: »

Who ever said the Grammys got it right....ever ? Kinda like the Academy awards, sometimes they get it right, most times not.

My point exactly. Which is why it amazes me when people use the Grammys as some sort of barometer for the current musical climate.

Midnite Mick

Watched a few acts not alot. I don't know if it was just my tv or what but the few acts that I did watch I thought the vocals were too low in the mix....I could hardly hear Bruce Springsteen and Bruno Mars...not that I like Bruno Mars. I thought McCartney was
okay although would have liked some duet type of thing with him and Diana Krall. I really liked Bonnie Raite.

Something I really don't get is how someone so incredibly talented, and should be so easy to market continues to fall under the radar. Yeah he has won a grammy many years ago but the guy is in the peak of his life and should be a star but gets no mainstream exposure. I am referring to Jonny Lang. Lie to Me continues to be one of my favourite albums...an album done when he was just 15 years old. He wasn't a childhood star but Justin Bieber is.....thats so gross.

my .02 cents.

Mike

nwohlford

zombie boy 2000 wrote: »

Song of the Year
1974 - Barbra Streisand: “The Way We Were”
1975 - Judy Collins: “Send in the Clowns”
1976 - Barry Manilow: “I Write the Songs”
1977 - Debbie Boone: “You Light Up My Life”
1978 - Billy Joel: “Just The Way You Are”

Helluva run you guys had in the '70's when music was soooo much better and The Grammys were at least getting it right.

Just like the 70's the best music rarely wins Grammys, but there is lots of great music out there. Probably even more than with earlier generations as I think the internet and digital music has made it easier to bands to get there stuff out there and get discovered. Look at Bon Iver, who won two awards last night. It was just in 2007 that Justin Vernon recorded For Emma, For Ever Ago by himself and then self released it. While their music is not for everyone, it is definitely unique and interesting music that merits a listen (and was at the top of many critics best of the year lists for what that is worth).

And Arcade Fire did win best album last year, so occasion really good music does win the big awards.

Toolfan66

I never said anything about "greatness" I just said they are Solid and they do it well. Is there really any Rock N Roll band that has come out in the last 10 years that would be considered Greatness? along the same Greatness as The Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Boston, AC/DC, Black Sabbath etc etc... I doubt it....



And yes I would rate TOOL/NIN as "greatness" this is my opinion of course but they have been around a lot longer then ten years!!

kuntasensei

And hey, unlike Led Zeppelin, at least Foo Fighters puts out original music instead of putting out other people's song without giving them credit. :cheesygrin:

squeeb

kuntasensei wrote: »

And hey, unlike Led Zeppelin, at least Foo Fighters puts out original music instead of putting out other people's song without giving them credit. :cheesygrin:

Maybe if they would have they would have won a Grammy like Lenny Kravitz for "American Woman" and their career would have gone somewhere!!!

kuntasensei

Yeah... cover tunes should never win a Grammy. If they're gonna give cover artists Grammys, then Me First And The Gimme Gimmes should win all of them FOREVER.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iLjNGcd1whQ&quot; frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

steveinaz

Yeah, Zeppelin never put out anything original....:rolleyes:

kuntasensei

They never put out anything I can stand, and that's all that matters to me, sir. :biggrin:

Vuroth

kuntasensei wrote: »

I love how steveinaz cites a song from 1971 to make a comparison with Foo Fighters about current rock. Okay, dad... "Skater boy rock"? No one skates to anything like Foo Fighters.

I think Kurt Cobain rolled over in his grave at the notion of an ex-Nirvana member being "skater boy"-ish in any way.

kuntasensei wrote: »

The bigger question is why anyone watches the Grammys EVER. You know what I was doing during the Grammys? Listening to the new Punch Brothers album. I'd rather be doing some 2-channel listening to some awesome bluegrass than watching an awards show! What the hell were you thinking? :razz:

Kuntasensei managed to post pretty much everything I was thinking as I read the thread. If I punch myself in the crotch with brass knuckles, I don't come on here and complain about it. If you actually sit and watch the grammys....caveat emptor.

They never put out anything I can stand, and that's all that matters to me, sir.

Robert Plant is one of the 5 most irritating vocalists I've ever heard, and I'm including Tiny Tim in that list. My thoughts on zeppelin have always been somewhere between Page makes them decent, and they'd have been decent if they'd gone out and gotten someone who could sing....

Drenis

kuntasensei wrote: »

They never put out anything I can stand, and that's all that matters to me, sir. :biggrin:

Opinions are like **** holes... everyone has one.

Vuroth wrote: »

Robert Plant is one of the 5 most irritating vocalists I've ever heard, and I'm including Tiny Tim in that list. My thoughts on zeppelin have always been somewhere between Page makes them decent, and they'd have been decent if they'd gone out and gotten someone who could sing....

Not everyone listens to Led Zeppelin for the vocals.

kuntasensei

Drenis wrote: »

Not everyone listens to Led Zeppelin for the vocals.

No, most of them now listen so they have something to do while their old man meds kick in. :cheesygrin:

mhardy6647

Vuroth wrote: »

...
Robert Plant is one of the 5 most irritating vocalists I've ever heard, and I'm including Tiny Tim in that list. My thoughts on zeppelin have always been somewhere between Page makes them decent, and they'd have been decent if they'd gone out and gotten someone who could sing....

oh, I dunno... Plant starts to sound like Pavarotti once one's spent a little quality time listening to David Lee Roth squealing.
I am not sure that even a better vocalist would have helped most of Led Zeppelin's 12-year-old feigns macho swagger.

heiney9

Wow...we went from crappy Grammy performances to bashing Led Zeppelin. I fail to see the connection.

Led Zeppelin was one of the greatest bands in the history of music. Those that don't know, don't know that they don't know.

H9

kuntasensei

You're right... The connection is as tenuous as say... comparing Foo Fighters to Yes. (See what I did there?)

Toolfan66

Well considering Zeppelin still makes more money every year then anyone posting here, I think they must have done something right!!! and don't go giving me the you don't know what anyone makes crap because if any of us had that kind of money the last thing we would be doing is posting on the Polk Audio fourm..

Toolfan66

kuntasensei wrote: »

You're right... The connection is as tenuous as say... comparing Foo Fighters to Yes. (See what I did there?)

I would listen to the Foo Fighters over YES any day of the week. (see what I did there?)

heiney9

kuntasensei wrote: »

You're right... The connection is as tenuous as say... comparing Foo Fighters to Yes. (See what I did there?)

YES has more musical talent in a single pinky than the Foo Fighters. I am not even a huge YES fan, but I do appreciate great musicianship and YES has that in spades.

H9

Note: pure musical talent doesn't always relate to popularity or music sales........unless you are speaking about Led Zeppelin.