Iron Maiden wins Grammy

[Saladbar]

Says who?

Says the music industry, the man.

 

[Saladbar]

Music has become so chopped up spread out over the last 10 years that it's pretty much impossible to award anyone anything for music.

You know you're absolutely right on this one, there's just so many bands out there and so many genres.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Says the music industry, the man.

hahaha but that's the thing... is there a man anymore? I wouldn't say so in terms of music. The Grammys and American Idol aren't really reflective of the industry at large like the Oscars is of movies. Grammys and Idol are more just TV entertainment productions for that audience that enjoys it.

 

[Saladbar]

Grammys and Idol are more just TV entertainment productions for that audience that enjoys it.

That's true but that audience are the huge masses that only listen to what the Grammys tell them to listen to and therefore it makes the $$$$$$.

Bottom line it's all about money dude. I highly doubt they give a shit about music at all.

 

[OrbWeaver]

Wow I didn't realize that bands that outsell most of the bands that play this festival like Nachtmystium and Alcest are "obscure." I also didn't realize that Dream Evil, Pagan's Mind, Orphaned Land, Rhapsody, Periphery, Symphony X, Radiohead, Magrudergrind, Wu Tang Clan, Jedi Mind Tricks, Aesop Rock, The Beastie Boys, Skrillex, Bar 9, Tiesto, Converge, Napalm Death, Nasum, The Smiths, Joy Division, Depeche Mode, Tears For Fears, U2, Tegan & Sara, Paramore, Frank Zappa, Tom Waits, The Beatles etc etc were black metal. Finally lol @ the generalized rationalization because you can't comprehend someone actually appreciating Lady Gaga. Sry that there's more to music than metal -- or specifically, symphonic "female fronted" metal.

LOL you feel the need to prove yourself to me.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

What can I say, I like your viciousness!

 

[skyrefuge]

Music has become so chopped up spread out over the last 10 years that it's pretty much impossible to award anyone anything for music.

Ok, obviously this topic has been hashed about on this board in other threads, but I'll take it up here again since I read some new data that pushes back a bit on the conventional wisdom, and is perhaps the final nail in the coffin of the Long Tail Theory:

The Top 40 Got More Popular in 2010:

The top 40 tracks continue to grab an even bigger share of the top 200 tracks, according to Billboard analysis of Nielsen SoundScan data. In 2010, the top 40 accounted for 43.5% of the top 200's sales, up slightly from 43.2% in 2009 and far higher than the 40.9% achieved in 2007.....What does it all mean? Well, it means the most popular songs are becoming more and more popular relative to other songs. The biggest hits are becoming even bigger....Aside from the extraordinary shares commanded by top songs in 2009, the trend has continued without a hiccup since iTunes started selling tracks in mid-2003.

Certainly there are other ways to measure music that would show an increasing fragmentation, but at least by this metric, a popularity contest like the Grammys still seems to be a reasonable reflection of this major segment of the music industry.

I suppose you're right.. it's in such a place where, if he's doing it on purpose, it still feels strange, but it does give an odd edge to the chorus.. but how could their producer not catch that and fix it in post?? Unless I have strange magical ears or something, which I doubt.

Ok, back on topic. Out-of-tune stuff doesn't stand out too much to me, so I can't judge that note directly, but my general understanding is that Iron Maiden stopped caring about recording perfect (or even reasonably-close!) performances in 1995, preferring to go for feel and "live" recording instead (much to the chagrin of poor Adrian Smith!) Note that the entire 'Final Frontier' album has approximately zero vocal overdubs, perhaps making it unique amongst metal albums recorded in the last decade (can anyone think of any others?)

Neil

 

[AeonicSlumber]

I don't really see what that has to do with anything and for the first time ever, I feel like you're completely missing the point. Take the Oscars. Alot of movies that get nominated and win are not the most popular or maintain the biggest box office draw. In fact, if that was the case, Avatar would've won every award it was nominated for -- but it did not. In fact, foreign films get nominated for the Oscars that don't even see official widespread releases in the US! Likewise, the Grammys is not an award ceremony that caters to even the most popular stuff. For example, Christian and gospel music DOMINATES the charts during the holiday season, but you never see any Christian or gospel artists performing during the Grammys. The Grammys is just a program like American Idol. It doesn't really reflect the music buying public. The reason why I'd say only a percentage of the highest-selling stuff actually gets nominated is simply because there is far too much music in the music pool to comb over everything that gets released -- whereas with movies and games its much easier to have broad sense of everything that came out this year because there are much fewer movies and games released in a year than albums. Hell, people were so infuriated that Gaga and Eminem lost this year that there were hundreds or even thousands of angry tweets this week wondering "WHO THE HELL IS THE ARCADE FIRE!?!?" when in reality, and as much as I love that band, they are arguably the most exposed indie rock band in existence right now. Though, the underlying point is that even the audience that actually watches the grammies that is trendy and in the know when it comes to the top 40 stuff didn't even know who The Arcade Fire is proves that there is just too large a pool of music for anyone to ever claim to be an authority on it.

I really don't get how a skeptic such as yourself can even believe that an authority on music of some sort should even exist since we both know that "good" and "bad" are pointless and needless ideals that don't exist in reality with respect to art. With video games and movies it's different. There are clear-cut things that we can make judgements on -- was the acting successful? Was the plot successful? Was the game fun? While these too illicit subjective responses, the responses do hold more objective authority than music criticism (and yes, award ceremonies are a form of criticism). Where would you set that standard? Sales? Not even the Grammies operates completely on that metric because A) sales are so much lower than what they were 10 years ago and you have bands that don't sell records but draw large crowds and B) who would vote on a band they don't like just because they outsell everyone else? So what else is the objective metric of judgment? It doesn't exist.

 

[OrbWeaver]

What can I say, I like your viciousness!

Oh, you! *hand wave*



Back on the subject, though Iron Maiden got a Grammy for what I feel is the weakest song on the album, it's nice to see them get some recognition on a broader scale. And hey, they seem pretty darn happy with their award, so pissing all over that seems kind of disrespectful to the band.

 

[skyrefuge]

I don't really see what that has to do with anything

Not a whole lot, really! I just saw that analysis of the top 40, thought it was an interesting bit of information, and your post was a good excuse to write about it. I think you read *way* more into my post than I intended (if in fact it's my post that you're referring to here, I'm actually not even sure!)

For example, Christian and gospel music DOMINATES the charts during the holiday season, but you never see any Christian or gospel artists performing during the Grammys.

Huh? There are plenty of gospel artists. I was only able to see a couple of performances this year (I had to tune in for Dre!), but if it was anything like past shows, I would guess that at least two-thirds of the acts marched out gospel choirs for the 3rd chorus!

I really don't get how a skeptic such as yourself can even believe that an authority on music of some sort should even exist

ha, of course I don't believe that! (again, maybe this isn't directed at me?)

With video games and movies it's different.

And actually I don't even agree with this. If you're making a qualitative measurement, *everything* is subjective, even movies and video games.

Neil

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Of course it's subjective, which is what I said. But measuring metrics exist that are more objective than with music. For example, most people would agree that Superman 64 and ET for the Atari are awful games because they are unsuccessful at being fun games. Is it possible that people find the fun in them? Sure, but there is much more of a scientific method to deciding what is "good" and what isn't than music because there is too much music that is too drastically different. For example, when there were only a few metal bands, the bands that were competent enough to play their stuff tightly and were able to write songs were the good ones. Nowadays, "not being able to play" is an artistic aesthetic, and we accept and understand this because there is so many bands out there that set that new standard of acceptance. Thus, our horizon of expectation of music drastically changes because of so many bands out there doing different things and it's accepted within the musical community to do so. The same thing is said of literature and visual art as well. So much of it exists and so many different things have been done to innovate the medium that the horizon of expectation is much broader and so many different kinds of said medium exist that it all becomes "acceptable".

 

[DuchessOfDork]

Back on the subject, though Iron Maiden got a Grammy for what I feel is the weakest song on the album, it's nice to see them get some recognition on a broader scale. And hey, they seem pretty darn happy with their award, so pissing all over that seems kind of disrespectful to the band.

Funny you say that, because it's actually my favorite song on the album! It's just that ONE NOTE that grabs me.. I dunno, maybe it's just me.

 

[ratanda]

Funny you say that, because it's actually my favorite song on the album! It's just that ONE NOTE that grabs me.. I dunno, maybe it's just me.

I just listened to it. Doesn't sound off key to me but maybe your ears are better than mine. Do you mean in every chorus or just the first time they do the chorus?

When he sings "ticket" and "ship" in the lines right after that, are those the same notes, just sung with less force?

I think I like this song.

 

[DuchessOfDork]

I just listened to it. Doesn't sound off key to me but maybe your ears are better than mine. Do you mean in every chorus or just the first time they do the chorus?

When he sings "ticket" and "ship" in the lines right after that, are those the same notes, just sung with less force?

I think I like this song.

No, it's just when he sings the "ahhh" part in "El Dor -ahhh- do", for the chorus. Every time he sings it, it's off key to me, but only very very slightly, which is why I can't tell if it was a choice, or if it's just that Bruce can't hit those notes like he used to.

Still, it's my favorite song on the album. It feels more like the old Iron Maiden than the proggy direction they've been going, which is fine, don't get me wrong! But it's not what I like about Maiden, so this one was my favorite.

 

[OrbWeaver]

It might be because he's singing a natural note during that part. Sometimes when singing a natural or a flat in a verse, it can sound a bit odd to some listeners. I haven't noticed anything sounding strange, personally. But then, I haven't listened to the song in awhile. At least, I think it may be a natural. I'd have to go back and listen to the song again. Memory is fuzzy.