Obnoxious Listeners - Latest Comments in Oscar > Grammy

Re: Oscar > Grammy

oneillbp — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:03:55 -0000

You prefer me to kick him out of the house?

Re: Oscar > Grammy

Dan — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:01:14 -0000

Somebody's been hanging out with my nephew a little too much...

Re: Oscar > Grammy

Mike — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:44:42 -0000

Wow

Re: Oscar > Grammy

oneillbp — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:17:32 -0000

So, what you are saying is that Shakespeare, van Goh, and Michelangelo all deserve Grammys? Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re: Oscar > Grammy

Mike — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:41:04 -0000

"artistic or technical achievement" - that there says it all (and btw thanks for finding that - I was looking for some sort of description like that when I was writing this post but I couldn't find it). That's what the Grammys SHOULD be about; my claim is that they are not.

Your second paragraph seems a long roundabout way of saying art is subjective. And you are right; all art is subjective. But you know what, Shakespeare was a better writer than the author of Nancy Drew, and van Gogh was a better artist than the cartoonist who illustrated the Peanuts comics, and Michelangelo was a better sculptor than I when I was in kindergarten playing with play-doh. You can call these statements 'opinions' if you want, but here on planet earth they are facts. Much in the same way, anyone with an intimate understanding of what it takes to create a musical album, and some shred of objectivity, can hear that [for example] Pink Floyd displays more artistic and technical talent than does Ace Of Base. If you disagree with me on this point that's fine; we are clearly not going to convince each other otherwise, and I will definitely not back down from this position.

Just to make sure this is crystal clear, let me illustrate what I mean by 'objectivity'. I like the movie Wet Hot American Summer more than Schindler's List. But as an objective viewer (or perhaps an 'obnoxious' one) I am well aware that Schindler's List is in fact the better of the two films. This is the type of objectivity that the Grammy voters seem to lack in my opinion (either that or they simply lack the knowledge one would expect of "artists and technical professionals").

Re: Oscar > Grammy

oneillbp — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:24:14 -0000

Another example of the "experts" getting it wrong; http://www.google.com/hostedne...

Re: Oscar > Grammy

oneillbp — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:13:46 -0000

Help me understand your definition of Album of the Year? And how does that differ from the Academy's definition? (yeah, good luck with that....) I can't find the Academy's criteria for what this might be beyond a fairly vague statement listed on grammy.com which says the Grammy "is truly a peer honor, awarded by and to artists and technical professionals for artistic or technical achievement, not sales or chart positions".

Unless you agree completely with another's definition of what "the best" truly is...there is a very good chance you aren't going to agree with who they vote to receive awards either. I'm not sure that's really a complex concept. Say that your opinion of "higher caliber" is another man's opinion of garbage. Or that your "best of the year" is another man's opinion of crap of the year. So, should that man feel that you suck? Or does that mean that man should feel like you are insulting his intelligence because you tried to tell him something you liked? Effectively that's what I feel you are saying on one level.

I guess the key difference is making the connection that you probably don't have the power to sell millions of records or influence millions of people with your opinion. I still appreciate all of us questioning things and thinking out of the box - fighting the notion that we are a society of lemmings is a good, positive thing.

Re: Oscar > Grammy

Mike — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:24:11 -0000

Your entire argument seems to be that the Grammys are allowed to suck because there's just too much music out there. Fine, I was never expecting obscure artists like Indukti or Demians to be acknowledged anyway. But how is this an excuse for "music experts" to nominate albums by artists like Nelly and the Backstreet Boys [these are just two examples; the list is endless] for album of the year? I think if you pick 20 albums completely at random you're likely to find at least one of higher caliber than those. We already know that these artists sell many, many albums - these stats are compiled by the RIAA and are reflected by the artists' recording contracts - but why must the Grammys insult our intelligence by suggesting that they actually produce music that's capable of being called the "best of the year"?

Re: Oscar > Grammy

Mike — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:48:59 -0000

a) Fourth paragraph, first sentence: "Now this isn’t meant to be rock-solid evidence that the Oscars are infallible and the Grammys a sham"

b) I understand why many people didn't like the script and/or storyline to NCFOM, after all it's something different and unique and thus is likely to turn people off at first (like Mos's 'The New Danger' or M.I.A.'s 'Kala'). In fact, go back to your M.I.A. post and read my comment followed by your response... I could pretty much respond the same way here that you did there.

c) I know we agree that sometimes an album has to be listened to many times before it's appreciated (again, think The New Danger) - why should movies be so different?

d) I thought the acting and directing were great in this film, although like I said, I understand if people didn't like the script/storyline.

Re: Oscar > Grammy

Mike — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:30:46 -0000

yeah, I think it's generally accepted that politics play a big role in pretty much all of the entertainment industry award shows (the Razzies are one exception that come to mind though, lol). Here's a quote from Maynard Keenan that's cited in the Wiki article for Grammy: "I think the Grammys are nothing more than some gigantic promotional machine for the music industry. They cater to a low intellect and they feed the masses. They don't honor the arts or the artist for what he created. It's the music business celebrating itself. That's basically what it's all about." The second-to-last sentence touches on what you were talking about - the awards are more for the music business (i.e. the record companies) than the actual art of creating music.

As for Porcupine Tree, I will never understand why they aren't international superstars. So much of their stuff is so accessible, specifically their stretch of albums from Signify to Deadwing... maybe they just don't want to be famous so they can instead live somewhat normal lives and make music in peace???

Re: Oscar > Grammy

Mike — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:09:40 -0000

Wow, this editorial seems to have created much more controversy than I was expecting... awesome!

Re: Oscar > Grammy

Dan — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:58:58 -0000

Really? Is that the best response you have? Haha! I never said the NARAS didn't understand it. I implied money was the reason they didn't care.

Re: Oscar > Grammy

oneillbp — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:47:25 -0000

Okay Cutright Jr.....just for the record (no pun intended) you compared yourself to the NARAS. You some how think that your ability to understand that Coldplay didn't deserve a grammy equates to the Academy being able to understand this...do you really mean to give them this much credit or are you only trying to just discredit yourself? Again....a completely ridiculous comparison! And again...making all of your points there after.....flawed!

Re: Oscar > Grammy

Dan — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:45:52 -0000

First of all.. it didn't take me 45 minutes to know that Coldplay didn't deserve a grammy and it didn't take me 45 minutes to know that Metallica still sucks. It also doesn't take 90 minutes to know that any of the Futurama movies will never get an Oscar (that doesn't mean I don't love Futurama!).

Secondly, you're not suggesting that the reason bands like Avishai Cohen, Opeth, Riverside, Demians, etc. haven't won a grammy is because the Academy simply hasn't had time to hear it, are you? They would simply say who are these guys and who cares?!

Politics are involved on both sides, and these politics involve mass public perception and corporate sponsorship... even it if its only minimal. No one would watch the Grammy's if the only bands that won were only ones that eclectic listeners love.

I think we can all agree that you have not heard the best music out there. The best musicians simply don't get the exposure they deserve. If you don't believe that, then you've given up finding new music or you're content with listening to whatever you just happen to come across with no effort, and you probably think the Grammy winners make sense anyway. Yet every winner in the last Grammy awards (and for every one before that I can remember) has had mass media exposure (whether I knew them or not).

Now, you might try to argue movies have mass media exposure too, but they don't have a free venue to push themselves on the public before the awards. And aside from writing (and maybe acting), movies need lots of money to be done well(i.e. the production quality). Unfortunately, great acting typically comes at a big price too. My point is that great movies ineluctably develop media attention because the large number of people involved and the large amount of money required in the creation and production processes. Music, however, requires one person all to his or herself.

While I appreciate you trying to appeal to a physicist with numbers... I say, the real problem with the Grammy's is most certainly numbers. It's just that those numbers follow a dollar sign. Length of the respective products is a moot point.

Re: Oscar > Grammy

oneillbp — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:13:32 -0000

My thought is that this a completely ridiculous comparison! And that's saying it nicely!

The number of major motion pictures released in the US for the year 2008 was less than 600.

The number of albums on labels released in the US for the year 2008 is estimated at 37,000!! (And you figure on an average of 10 songs per album - do the math...370,000 songs!)

If I pull average lengths out of the air, I'm gonna guess on the low side that albums would be around 45 mins; movies 90 mins. So, to review every album released last year, you are looking at over 1,100 days just to listen to them all once. Movies on the other end would take you just over 37 days to watch them all.

So then you take the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, Inc. - organizations of roughly the same number of professionals (6,000). How in the hell can you have the same expectations of their respective awards? I'm just not getting your argument, not that you don't make valid, intelligent points which I happen to agree with - but for the simple fact that they are all based on a flawed comparison!

I do agree that innovation and change don't come without questioning things and thinking out of the box. So I'll give you credit there...

Re: Oscar > Grammy

Dan — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:14:48 -0000

I definitely agree with the radio statement... there's no analogous form of openly broadcasted media for movies before the awards. I never thought of it that way, but makes a lot of sense!

Re: Oscar > Grammy

Dan — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:12:42 -0000

While I feel your pain (not a fan of the movie either), but remember when Coldplay won a Grammy for plagiarizing? Mike just said the Oscars are better than the Grammys...

Re: Oscar > Grammy

nirav — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:39:30 -0000

What about No Country For Old Men? That won best movie in 2008 and I have to say that was the worst movie I've seen on the Oscars list. I rather have watched paint dry then put myself through that non-sensical film.

Re: Oscar > Grammy

4chords — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:58:03 -0000

I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head with that last paragraph. I think that it is easier to perceive quality in some of the so-called artists on the radio simply by picking out the ones that are better (or worse) than most of the other groups and artists with songs playing there as well. For example, most non-fangirls would agree than U2 is better than The Jonas Brothers, or that Green Day put more craft into their American Idiot album than the average mainstream band puts into their entire discography. However, somehow a band like Porcupine Tree doesn't get nominated for anything more than Best Made-for-Surround, which, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't even get shown on TV, though I've never watched the Grammys for more than ten minutes. It probably does have to do with the amount of money made by the album, but I think that politics plays into it as well. Huge records companies and chart-topping bands have a lot of pull and generate a lot of attention. What average person will care if a Polish progressive metal band they've never heard of doesn't get the recognition they deserve? On the flip side, a gigantic number of people would have something to say about it if Coldplay got snubbed by the Grammys, not to mention Coldplay's record company, and the members of the band themselves, whereas Mariusz Duda doesn't expect any Grammy attention anyway, and if he did, not many people would pay attention, because the media and tablets wouldn't bother with him, since he hasn't got the name to draw a lot of sales.