[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Grammys





>From: "David Dean" <kingmaker at earthlink_net>
>Reply-To: "David Dean" >Maybe I'm biased, but the biggest oversight of the 
>Grammys is not
>recognizing Over-theRhine.

One of 'em, to my mind, but not everyone can grasp OtR.  Have you missed my 
recent story about how the girls I work with called them "depressing" and 
"torture".  OtR are not for the masses.  Some girls really do "jut wanna 
have fun".

Then again, there is the theory that, if you introduce any music to the 
public gradually, and tell them its going to be the "next big thing", they 
will generally embrace it.  This theory has taken on a life of its own, and 
it is now called "radio" and "MTV".  Seems to be working to boot.

The problem with the Grammys is that they are tunnel visioned
>to the mainstream commercial aspects of the industry.  I remember when U2
>would have laughed at a Grammy nomination.

Yeah, but they sold out years ago.  Midnight Oil, on the other hand, 
boycotted the Austrailian Music Awards in 1990, when the won multiple 
categories.  I just wanted to say that. :-)

But, since I brought up the Oils AND my co-workers, I'd like to point 
something out here.  The Oils hits collection contains numerous top forty 
songs- from Australia.  When I play it at work, some of my co-workers can 
only really get into the one top twenty US hit, which is not the class of 
the disc, BTW. Why is that?  Melodies that pleased the Oz public can't quite 
please my American pop lovin' co-workers?  Does that makes sense?  Taken in 
the context of the mass marketing brain-wash of the radio, it sure does.  
Familiarity breeds acceptance.

Need more evidence?  The same girl that only digs the ONE Oils tune likes to 
sing along when the radio spins some Dido, yet turned to me during "Gve Me 
Strength" and said, "all these songs sound the same- they all go blah, blah, 
blah, blah, blah."  Clueless?  Yes, but also a mindless sheep, like most 
people are, clueless or not.

If the Grammys truely rewarded
>artists for the best achivements among their peers, then they wouldn't
>nominate Steven Tyler and Aerosmith EVER again (stop the screaming already)

Oh, but that "She just loves my big ten inch record of my favorite blues" 
song is so darn clever and witty!

  This list has discussed a number of interesting and certainly
>talented bands that deserve recognition.

Sure, but recognition can have costly and devastating consequences on a 
band, like the aforementioned U2.

To my mind, the Grammys and all of
>the other award shows are a crock.

Yeah, they are a clever way to generate sales, nothing more.  Though they've 
gotten better on the pedigree of nominees.  Paul Simon deserved some 
recogniton for his latest, for instance, and the Grammy's provided it.

Did Lucinda Williams get a nod?  "Essence" is ten time better than "Car 
Wheels", in my mind, so it probably didn't.  Aren't P.O.D up for something?

And for what its worth, U2 hasn't put
>out a record worthy of their talent since Joshua Tree.
>(Begin flaming now)

That's a bit harsh.  "ATYCLB" is pretty good.

Grammys-schammys indeed,

Matt

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups: