Grammy Awards

[Claus / Intromental]

One thing: If Beyonce or Lady Gaga were ugly or otherwise unattractive, would either of them have gotten a deal, much less sold any records? My guess: No. If this premise is true, then what sells them is not their talent, but their appeal to the masses that are obsessed with fashion and fantasy, rather than art.

Are you serious about this? Beyonce has such a talent as a singer and performer that even if she had been butt ugly (anyone mentioned Jennifer Hudson?) she would still have been a hit.

c.

 

[General Zod]

Beyonce has such a talent as a singer and performer that even if she had been butt ugly (anyone mentioned Jennifer Hudson?) she would still have been a hit.[

So in the world of Pop music, this is the ugly chick?

Zod

 

[mitchgx]

Somewhat tangential observation - when Zod (and I'm using him as an example out of convenience, not for any specific reason) says he doesn't like Pain of Salvation, it's attributed to taste and accepted fairly easily, even if others disagree. When he says he doesn't like Lady Gaga, he has to defend his views and some claim he's being closed-minded. You can change the poster and the bands involved, but the genre being discussed seems to cause a large shift in the tone of the response, whether or not the initial criticism warrants it...why?

I think if it started out with Zod (or anybody) saying, "I just don't like Lady Gaga, I don't like her voice, and I think she's overrated", then it would be a different tone in this thread. The issue is that Zod and others started by generalizing about "pop music" in general and implying that anybody that could be categorized as "pop" was by definition less talented than performers in other genres, and that's what some (including myself) are taking exception to.

 

[Claus / Intromental]

So in the world of Pop music, this is the ugly chick?

Zod

She had a good "hair day" in that picture

 

[General Zod]

She had a good "hair day" in that picture

Wow... that is a hell of a hair day. Quite the difference.

Zod

 

[Jasonic]

You're clueless. Beyonce has so much talent that it's not even funny. She is blessed with a voice and musicality most singers in the world can only dream of.

c.

Musicality?????
Sure, maybe she can carry a tune.

I don't know man.
I suppose I have a hard time calling a pop artist a musician.

A musician is someone who should be able to have some hand in writing either the lyrics or music.

Since most pop music is sung over samples and pre-recordings, I find it hard to call it anything more than "entertainment"

 

[Claus / Intromental]

Wow... that is a hell of a hair day. Quite the difference.
Zod

I do think though, that the pictures of Jennifer Hudson answers the question asked earlier in this thread about what happened to Pink's breasts. Looks like JH has enough for both of them.

 

[Jasonic]

WOW! That would make for a great "CAPTION THIS PICTURE" thread!!!

 

[Claus / Intromental]

Musicality?????
Sure, maybe she can carry a tune.

I don't know man.
I suppose I have a hard time calling a pop artist a musician.

A musician is someone who should be able to have some hand in writing either the lyrics or music.

Since most pop music is sung over samples and pre-recordings, I find it hard to call it anything more than "entertainment"

And what part of the memo about Beyonce being involved in the songwriting didn't you get?

 

[General Zod]

The issue is that Zod and others started by generalizing about "pop music" in general and implying that anybody that could be categorized as "pop" was by definition less talented than performers in other genres, and that's what some (including myself) are taking exception to.

I never once said this or anything like this. Feel free to search the thread and quote me if I'm wrong.

Zod

 

[Jasonic]

No one said that pop musicians are less talented in general.

I won't speak for Zod, but speaking for myself, I have a LOT more respect for an artist / group / band / etc who writes and plays both the music and lyrics, than a pop musician who simply sings over pre-sampled beats.

Once again, it baffles me that folks on THIS forum have issues with this point of view.
Maybe people feel the need to defend these artists because they like them.
That is fine.
No one is saying it is wrong to appreciate these artists.
I just personally do not respect them as "musicians"

As "entertainers", sure.....

 

[nomisofsiman]

You need to re-read my posts, as I know I am in the group of people you are addressing.

My problem is not so much with the music.

It's the fact that mainstream media's support of music in general has NOTHING to do with music, but more about "who ya know and who ya blow"

The foundation of heavy metal was built to be something outside of the norm, outside of the mainstream, to appeal to the youth who were looking for something more, something creative, something that spoke to them. Similar to punk rock.

The grammys celebrates music that is force fed to the masses.
The majority of the fans of the artists who won don't even purchase or listen to the full albums of these artists. They download whatever track is force fed to them on the radio. I think its disgusting when you hear things like, "Here's the new song from Taylor Swift!" when its a song that was on her CD released what, over a year ago already?

So when you say things like, "Embarrassed to be a metal fan" it carries VERY little weight with me. The grammys represent everything that heavy metal isn't. Maybe you want metal bands to be celebrated on a stage like the grammys. I certainly do not.

Don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying there is zero talent in pop music. I just personally think that Beyonce, Pink, Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, etc, is "Entertainment" and not music.

Just writing cliche'd lyrics and dancing over sampled beats is a far cry from a true metal band who actually WRITES their own music and lyrics.

Call me a "horn throwin' HAIL AND KILL mother f*cker" if you want.

The bottom line is I think with metal being so far removed from the mainstream these days, they should remove the catagory from the grammys. It's an insult to the genre.

I pretty much agree with everything Jason just said. I'm sure I'm one of the ones Claus is referring to as well. Thing is, I am not one of those who thinks everything that isn't metal isn't good. I think Lady Ga Ga and Pink especially are very talented. Bocelli for sure is talented and I actually like listening to him, same with Elton John. As I said on my previous post, I wasn't trying to knock any of the performances. My issue with the Grammys is that in general I find in most of the categories the best artists aren't being recognized. This force fed thing that Jason brings up is my biggest irritation of all.

On the performance issue, only problem I do have with the Grammys just like the VMAs is I feel that the only way people can make a great performance is to put two artists that should not be playing together. It's one thing for this to happen on occasion but it seems to happen far too frequently on these shows. As Jason said, I find a lot of these artists to be more entertainers than the cream of the crop in terms of musicians. There are exceptions to this though.

Like Jason said, and I've been thinking for years it's not that metal isn't the showcase of the show. It shouldn't be. It was never intended for the masses. The problem I have more than any other is that from the nominees to the winners (for the most part) they don't seem to know what they're doing and I just wish they would abolish that category. Maybe keep the hard rock and mix some metal into there but the metal category shouldn't be if who's voting on it doesn't get it.

 

[Jibrille]

I never once said this or anything like this. Feel free to search the thread and quote me if I'm wrong.

Zod

How else do you interpret a comment like this?

[*]We can deliberate what it says about the American culture, that the only way truly talented people, like Andre Bocelli and Elton John, can get five minutes of our precious TV time is by performing with the likes of Lady Gaga.[/LIST]Zod

 

[mitchgx]

A musician is someone who should be able to have some hand in writing either the lyrics or music.

Well, the problem here is you're saying that Frank Sinatra, Yo-Yo Ma, and Luciano Pavarotti (just naming what I could think of off the top of my head) aren't "musicians".

On a related topic, I don't think *anybody* on this forum is going to defend the Grammys themselves. They're a complete and utter joke. The discussion is just about some of the performances (and performers) that were on the Grammy telecast.

 

[nomisofsiman]

Have you seen what Lady Gaga looks like?

I was just gonna say the same thing. The problem I have with Gaga is while I just said, I think she's talented to a certain extent, I feel the majority of her popularity is due to shock value. She has these bizarre outfits and looks, and that's why she's talked about.

 

[nomisofsiman]

I also noticed that asking most people “what do you listen to” and getting the reply “everything” typically says the person doesn’t have much interest besides music as background noise.

This is my number one pet peeve...or at least close to it. I had a friend a while back and asked that exact question and his reply? Whatever is popular. This is what I don't understand with a number of people in society. I would think you would either like something or didn't like something -- not just because it's popular or not.

 

[General Zod]

How else do you interpret a comment like this?

We can deliberate what it says about the American culture, that the only way truly talented people, like Andre Bocelli and Elton John, can get five minutes of our precious TV time is by performing with the likes of Lady Gaga.

Where in that statement do I generalize anything? Here is what mitchgx accused me of:

The issue is that Zod and others started by generalizing about "pop music" in general and implying that anybody that could be categorized as "pop" was by definition less talented than performers in other genres, and that's what some (including myself) are taking exception to.

My statement was not general in the slightest, nor does it state anything mitchgx accuses me of stating. In fact, the statement couldn't be more specific, as it specifically names three performers. The only thing I'm guilty of is suggesting that both Andre Bocelli and Elton John are more talented than Lady Gaga. Somebody... anybody... please raise your hand if you disagree.

The other implication you can draw from that statement, is that the only way our American Idol culture is going to grant Andre and Elton that wide a national audience, is if they're performing with Mary J. Blige and Lady Gaga. Again, if you think if ABC was running a concert featuring Elton and Andre, while CBS was running one featuring Mary and Lady Gaga, that ABC would garner higher ratings, raise your hand.

Zod

 

[Jibrille]

I was just gonna say the same thing. The problem I have with Gaga is while I just said, I think she's talented to a certain extent, I feel the majority of her popularity is due to shock value. She has these bizarre outfits and looks, and that's why she's talked about.

I think it's helped her eclipse many other pop artists. If you look back over the last 30-40 years, almost all the biggest names have had that shock value at one time or another. Whether or not she ends up among those names we won't know for several years. However, she also has crossover appeal. A lot of people who do not listen to current pop music on a regular basis have become fans of her. Those people don't need to listen to her music to appreciate the strange aspects of her persona and yet they do. It helps that she draws heavily on 70s and 80s pop/rock and glam rock.
Hell, her name comes from a Queen song.

 

[Claus / Intromental]

The only thing I'm guilty of is suggesting that both Andre Bocelli and Elton John are more talented than Lady Gaga. Somebody... anybody... please raise your hand if you disagree.

Raises hand - Elton didn't write his own lyrics.

PS: before anyone gets their nuts in a bunch, this is a tongue-in-cheek comment (no, not tongue in john cheek either)

 

[mitchgx]

I never once said this or anything like this. Feel free to search the thread and quote me if I'm wrong.

OK, I'll give it a shot.

• We can discuss the demographics of it, and delve into the fact that the only element that defines Pop music is its appeal to the lowest common denominator.
• We can debate the financial aspects of it, given the consolidation within the music industry, and debate whether it's any longer even a genre of music or simply a large marketing campaign, whose ultimate goal is sell HDTVs and Coca Cola.
• We can talk about its societal impacts, and how its glorifying of auto-tuned, would be strippers, creates unhealthy body-issues for little girls, and furthers the stereotype that beauty and talent are inseparable.
• We can deliberate what it says about the American culture, that the only way truly talented people, like Andre Bocelli and Elton John, can get five minutes of our precious TV time is by performing with the likes of Lady Gaga.

Zod

How are your first three bullets not generalizations about pop music? And you state as fact that pop music appeals to the "lowest common denominator". Sounds like a derogatory blanket statement about pop music to me.

Whatever; there's not a lot of point to this argument (welcome to the interwebs!!!). But don't try and imply that you never said anything about pop music in general.