JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Grammys

I usually don't watch the Grammys. But tonight is unusually good. Anybody else watching?

...ahem...well, poor Smokey. Anyway, its still going on and on even though they seem to have given out record of the year. I have work tomorrow so I am going to bed! Somebody watch and tell me tomorrow if the "robots" do a duet with Paul McCartney. Or Ringo with LL Cool J. Whatever....out.

The sound engineering was AWFUL? Did anyone else feel the same way?
Even the presenters, speaking, were difficult to hear clearly at times.
For a show that is supposed to recognize excellence in sound recordings, I think it was pretty unforgivable.

The Sound is ALWAYS terrible at the Grammy's.... worst of any music show year after year. They get some right because I think a lot of pre-recorded stuff is mixed in, but the lead vocals on Metallica were so low he may as well not have been there singing (though I wonder if they were trying to mask his weakened voice?).

The show had some great moments. P!NK, an original JPF member from the mid 90's, was awesome as usual, and I was SOOOOO happy to see JPF member and multi JPF nominee Kacey Musgraves win for Country album of the year!!! That was awesome. That is two message board members who have scaled the heights of country music success, Chris Young and now Kacey! I haven't checked out the overall winners list to scout out other JPF winners, but I thought that was awesome! Reminded me of when Susan Gibson, writer of Wide Open Spaces, our JPF Song of the Year before the record industry noticed it and the Dixie Chicks made it an anthem, and seeing her up on stage accepting with the Chicks when they won for their performance of her song. (They called her up from the audience.. a great moment!).

Brian

Ever since they began focusing on the music and unique musical moments and performer combinations, the Grammys have become the best night on the planet for music lovers.

Ringo and Paul together, absolute legends of country music playing a CM classic etc etc etc

add inspirational individual performances (how can you NOT absolutely love Taylor Swift's performance of All Too Well, or Pink combining Cirque de Soleil bits into her performance)

plus a truly emotional mass wedding\promise ceremony

and this has to go down as a classic evening

and yeah, the sound engineers did have some issues...there were totally mute moments, sound level issues etc...which were irritating...but the "totality" made for an unforgettable evening, at least for me.

Actually, for a show that is supposed to recognize excellence in music, a whole lot of visual and performance based (music) gets showcased. As well as political and social agenda pushing. The awards havent been based on music in quite some time, or ever, just commercially successful music

Does Dave Grohl HAVE to be on EVERY GRAMMY show? I like him but he's becoming the Billy Chrystal of the Grammys.

Did Smokey Robinson seem to mock Steven Tyler's rendition of "you really got a hold on me" He had a reaction like "okkkkk, ahh, thanks for that Steven"

As usual, it had some good moments, and some forgetable moments.

I enjoyed Musgraves, she reminds me of Dolly, only brunette, and gorgeous.

Yeah, agreed....disappointing as usual. Talent wise, Pink's got it, though I wish she'd do more straight RnB or Traditional Blues....and lose the swing. Have to agree with the internet banter that it was too soon to repeat a trick that was very effective in it's debut....can't deny her talent. The commercialism, the ass kissing, the poor sound quality, the weird match-ups (Robin Thicke and Chicago...really?)...it's like watching the Pro-Bowl...The talents there but it's mostly a popularity contest.
I was particularly miffed by the "Best Rock Song" winner, "Cut Me Some Slack," performed and written by (among others, to include D Grohl),Paul McCartney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBd9330h9kI

Are you serious? Please!!

It's a popularity contest! SO much good music was over-looked!

NEVER again!

As a voting member I'd like to point out that this is an incorrect statement to make. There is a lot of music that IS getting a very fair shake at chance for a GRAMMY. There's a slew of bands that are popular right now because the system is changing.

It's all perspective.

I think "fairness" is perspective too.

My understanding is that artists pay money to be considered. they or the record companies send the record in with the fee, and only a certain thousand or so are eligible to even be involved.

If they have 10,000 artists submitting, I cant imagine that somebody sits there and listens to every album, analyzes it for songwriting, musicianship, singing (especially when autotune is on everything) etc etc etc.

If there is a criteria I dont know what it would be, but i would guess that if the people voting never heard of you, you stand no chance.

But if that's wrong thats fine, it just seems that the artists that you hear plastered all over radio all year long, are the ones that win, so if Taylor Swift wins, did 40 year old people vote for her, or did teenagers vote for her

"and the grammy for best anti-grammy song goes tooo"

You're right Jody...it is about perspective....and from MY perspective, my opinion is that it is a popularity contest and a lot of good music goes unnoticed. To suggest that my opinion is wrong and yours is right because you are a "voting member" means naught. In my opinion and from my perspective, a lot of music goes unnoticed and money, power and politics plays a role in the Grammy's, as it does with most American institutions.

We are ALL forming an opinion based on our vast and unique (and yes, perhaps uniformed) perspectives, primarily because Jeff asked what we felt about the show, so, we all share our opinions about the Grammy's.

My statement was not wrong, it was simply made from a perspective different than yours and one you disagree with. Please, learn the difference.

Learning the in's and out's of the voting and how the shows produced, WON'T change the fact that this years Grammy's show was too commercial, political, the sound was horrible and a lot of good music went unnoticed......period!

Besides, there is something inherently wrong with other people telling ME what music is "BEST." Your perspective within the industry is admirable but does not qualify you or any other voter to suggest to the rest of us what is "best", nor does it qualify you to rebuke any other opinion about the show.

There is NO REQUIREMENT to listen to ANYTHING to vote for the winners. It's simply a case of voting for the names. I have no doubt that in the early consideration phase, someone is listening to submissions. And the initial list of stuff you can vote for is long, but mostly unknown names, so people vote for the names, unless they know the artist outside of the Grammy process.

Popularity contest is fine. It is what it is. Kacey isn't the most popular country artist, so at least she won over the stuff she was up against. (I like Taylor Swift, but her album was a pop album).

Jody, as a voter, you know you aren't required to listen to anything. When people vote for "album of the year" they especially are not required to listen to all the eligible albums, so out of a list often app. 1000 albums long, how many people have heard more than 20 of the eligible albums before voting? I bet less than 1% have heard 10 of them. So it's a popularity contest plain and simple.

The JPF awards required people to actually listen to all the music in a given category before they could vote and have their vote counted. Until the Grammys at least go that far, it's not based om quality of music but rather success in the industry with deserving artists who have captured people's attention enough, often due to their work, to be popular enough to get the recognition. So I think that much of what is nominated and wins deserves recognition for being a commercial and popular success. That's a big deal in this competitive industry. I preferred our awards for recognizing music based solely on merit without any focus on who it was, but rather whether the music moved you. (Of course the Grammy's have stolen that phrase in many ways over the years, but have failed to change their process nonetheless).

The Grammy's of course were going to give awards to Paul McCartney so he'd have reason to come and perform with Ringo. I don't know about Paul, but Ringo was barely playing anything during that song... the drummer in the dark next to him carried the load... but it was nostalgic and of course a promotion of CBS's upcoming Beatles special. But I digress.

We started combining nominees from different genres in our awards back in 2000... over the years we had many NARAS officials attend our awards and it is clear they liked how we did things and of course they had the money to bring together world renowned artists to do it. I think it's fun to see and though I wish I could have had the resources to bring our awards to the masses like the Grammys can, at least I know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Brian

I only watched it because the Del McCoury Band was nominated for Best Bluegrass Album. Needless to say, they won, and so I officially have the Grammy Award winning album in my collection (Streets Of Baltimore) and want to see the Del McCoury Band if they come over to the UK because they are one of my favourites. Also saw Rodney getting the award for Best Americana Album (Old Yellow Moon), though am sad that Emmylou wasn't there, and Guy Clark won one too, as did Daft Punk. Other categories that I saw winning 1) I've never heard of 2) are likely to be shyt 3) both and the performer that I watched on the pre-telecast (r&b act from Australia) was shyt, but then again, next year, I'm doing the same.

• For music to be eligible for GRAMMY voting, or even for nomination: someone who is a voting member has to send in the music for nomination. In that sense it's a closed system. But it doesn't cost the artist anything if they're friends with a voting member.

• All the music is listened to in order to put it in the right category. But like things in the JPF awards, some things get mis-catagorized anyway.

• The nomination round is an insane amount of artists / songs I've never heard of. But I do my best to listen to a lot of it as thoroughly as possible. Problem is, just like in the JPF awards - a lot of it isn't very good - so it's a cursory listen early on.

• Bands like Bon Iver have won recently based on the music and people listening. Not many people knew who he was prior to that GRAMMY win last year.

• NARAS provides a detailed method to listen to all the music so that voters can listen and make informed votes. While I can't speak for all the voters, I know I do that listening.



I admire the fact that Michael thinks I need to learn this difference. Especially when he took part of my paragraph out of context and based his response on the first sentence, changed the meaning of one word and ignored the rest of the paragraph it was attached to. Do I dare ask him to learn reading comprehension differences?

Brian, having been part of both voting systems (GRAMMY & JPF) - I can attest that there are problems with both, based on my experience. I'm willing to bet that there were JPF voters who didn't listen to everything during voting - I say this because you weren't there over their shoulders to make sure everyone did. I take my involvement seriously and thus I put the time in. However, valuable lesson learned in deciding to respond here about any awards - DON'T.

People that aren't part of the process will cut you down regardless, all because their pet project didn't get considered or didn't get a nomination or a win, what have you. It's human nature. I implore all those who are complaining to go out and start a system where their utopian voting works to their vision. So far, the only one that has done this to a grand level is Brian. You gotta applaud him for that.

This is becoming a quagmire if you start looking at voting requirements etc

If you are concerned, then the ONLY award show that matters to you is the People's Choice Awards because voting is open to all the fans...full stop...oh wait, a half stop because voting patterns can be influenced there too.

And you can &*)*() about the Oscars, Grammys, CMA etc until the cows come home because you don't like some aspect of it, but the bottom line is there will always be disappointment and you can always blame it on some clique of voters with a hidden agenda being paid off by the industry.


Now instead of ^&(*^&, why not sit back and try to enjoy these award shows for what they are? A chance to come away with some sense of satisfaction that you experienced at least one thing special? To me, to see Paul and Ringo and Yoko together was awesome, and to have Paul and Ringo together a masterstroke.

But then I like my glasses half full.

No reason to not participate in the conversation, I believe that you understand the process, and I believe that you do you part to vote correctly.

My questioning comes from other factors. For one simply, it;s hard for me to comprehend that this years winning song "Royals"
and last years winner, "We are young" were the best song in the country/world that year. Id go as far as saying that they werent even the best "song" in California, or even the best song in Los Angeles.

Just like Taylor swift is not the best singer, or any of them.

So what are we judging on? Isn't it kind of like the Presidential vote, we get a couple of choices and thats it. Some may write somebody in, but it wont count.

And my main beef is, How is it that the voters all agree upon "we are young" Just doesnt make sense to me.

Im not challenging you, just the system

Which of these opinions (that YOU conveniently narrowed down) is an incorrect statement?

I was asked to give my opinion on the show and I did. But for some reason because you are a "voter", your perspective is correct. Hell, even in the end, you admitted the system has many flaws...and you exaggerated the voting process to bolster your claim that only your opinion counts.

Did I comprehend that correctly?

I saw the show.
I was very disappointed.
The "system" is flawed.
As are we!


shhhhh....let's move on!

That's because New Zealanders are the best songwriter/musicians in the world.

If it's "rigged" how does someone, however well connected, from NZ, have the resources to compete with the US music machine ?

Maybe Lorde just won fair and square...... ?

cheers, niteshift

No, rigged would be, all the votes come in with the same name, with some technological help.

Not rigged, just not all inclusive. Did they consider your music?

http://hiphopwired.com/2014/01/27/macklemore-calls-hot-97-explains-grammy-voting-process-listen/

Macklemore (2 White dudes who won 4 Grammy's for their Rap Album) felt they "robbed" Kendrick Lamar of the award. Here, they explain the voting process and why it IS just a popularity contest. And if you have made your mark in the industry, you get to vote, because we all know NOBODY knows what is "Best" than those "in the industry", right? GMaFB!!!!
Seems they were clueless as to other genre's and categories they had earned the right to vote on. They simply received a ballot because of their status within the system and "filled in the bubbles" the best they could. They even felt their win was racially motivated and questioned why Rap acts were largely absent this year on the Grammy stage.
If I had received a ballot or had been part of the "selection committee", I, too would probably defend the system. THAT is just human nature. But it wouldn't make me right because the subjectivity of music assures us that award shows such as this can make a gallant effort to be "fair" but common sense would eventually lead one to conclude that's just not possible.

hey Jeff,to answer your question,i watched just to see Paul and Ringo and i did notice right off that Ringo was playing the drums that didn't quite look right as he played,then they wide screened and i saw the real drummer.Anyway,i enjoyed Ringo's "Photograph"!Mike

I didn't win a Grammy, nor was I nominated, but I did enjoy going to some Pre-Grammy parties...I wrote about my adventures during Grammy Week here:

http://www.everydaydopemusic.com/the-road-leads-to-gold-56th-annual-grammy-awards/

Gregory,

Looks like a very pro blog. Looks like you are doing pretty well! Keep doing what your doing.

*********************************************

I didn't watch the grammys so I can't comment on that. I will say that I have been listening to the local indie radio station for the past year -- so I declare myself to be pretty cool. However, over at FAWM there was a thread on favorite albums for 2013 -- and I had not heard of 90+% of the acts!! So much for being cool.

... and get off my lawn.

Thanks for sharing, Greg. Must be pretty damn cool to hang out at those parties. Congrats on your success and look forward to hearing your first Grammy recording.

Kevin- Too funny, brother!

I missed all the fun, but I do think there is a lot of good new music being recognized this time around, much moreso than in a lot of other years. I think "Royals" is an excellent recording, and it appeals to a very wide audience. I'm happy to see Lorde do well. I'm also pleased to see Vampire Weekend take a win--they are exceptionally fun and original with a sound they can claim as their own. There are so many songs I hear on the radio that defy my ability to assign to a particular artist because they sound so bloody similar, but when I hear something from Vampire Weekend, I always know exactly who I'm hearing.

I would also remind people that Grammys aren't supposed to represent the best music of the year...they simply represent what the majority of NARAS voters picked for the award. WHY they voted that way is something only each voter could answer. Some vote for what they feel was the best, some vote for their favorite even if it wasn't the best, some vote for friends, some vote without listening...who knows? I don't even buy that it's a popularity contest, I just think it's simply the result of a lot of different people's decisions as to which one to pick. It's kind of fun, and it always annoys as many people as it delights.

Well I think this is what is being debated. I realize there is no such thing as the "best", but just because a song is popular shouldnt change that either.

It would seem to me that the people voting are very in tune with top 40 radio, and "the hits" and this is why the vote comes down to the best of the top hits of the year.

If the voters were jpfers they might have voted for Mark Kaufmann!

I never find myself surprised by any nominees or any winner, and they jump out of their chair like they just won the most allusive prize in all of music, well damn, wasnt your song on 20 times a day on every top station for the last year, and your SURPRISED you won?

gotta love hollywood.

I'm sure it's a thrill no matter what you've accomplished over the years--winning feels good, just like at the racetrack.

BINGO!! OMG YAYYY!!!

Unless you're David Bowie, who I think truly wasn't interested in attending, even though he was up for Best Rock Album. Still, I'll bet he wouldn't have minded a win.

Sure it feels good, but shouldnt come as a grave surprise. What would really be surprising is if I won.

Funny you mention ractrack. Lorde should in no way be shocked, with these kind of odds, it's elementary my dear watson. If only picking a winner of a 12 horse race was as easy:

New Zealand singer-songwriter Lorde and her hit Royals are sitting atop the Grammy Awards odds in the Song of the Year category in early wagering for the January 26 telecast at the online sportsbooks.

Royals is the +125 favorite at Bovada to win Song of the Year on the Grammy odds, with Macklemore & Ryan Lewis' Same Love at +200, Pink's Just Give Me A Reason and Bruno Mars' Locked Out Of Heaven at +500, and Katy Perry's Roar at +1200.

Daft Punk's Get Lucky is then the +125 favorite ahead of Royals (+175) on the odds to win Record of the Year at Bovada, with Locked Out Of Heaven at +500, Imagine Dragon's Radioactive at +600, and Robin Thicke's Blurred Lines at +1200.

Macklemore & Ryan Lewis' The Heist is the -200 favorite on the Bovada Grammy odds to win Album of the Year, with Good Kid, MAAD City by Kendrick Lamar at +450, Random Access Memories by Daft Punk at +500, Red by Taylor Swift at +900, and The Blessed Unrest by Sara Bareilles at +1200.

As well, the odds to win the Grammys at Bovada have Macklemore & Ryan Lewis pegged as the -300 favorite to win Best New Artist, ahead of Kendrick Lamar (+700), Kacey Musgraves (+700), Ed Sheeran (+900), and James Blake (+1000).

56th Grammy Awards - Song of the Year

Royals - Lorde +125
Same Love - Macklemore & Ryan Lewis +200
Just Give Me A Reason - Pink +500
Locked Out Of Heaven - Bruno Mars +500
Roar - Katy Perry +1200

56th Grammy Awards - Record of the Year

Get Lucky - Daft Punk feat. Pharrell Williams +125
Royals - Lorde +175
Locked Out Of Heaven - Bruno Mars +500
Radioactive - Imagine Dragons +600
Blurred Lines - Robin Thicke feat. TI & Pharrell Williams +1200

56th Grammy Awards - Album of the Year

The Heist - Macklemore & Ryan Lewis -200
Good Kid, MAAD City - Kendrick Lamar +450
Random Access Memories - Daft Punk +500
Red - Taylor Swift +900
The Blessed Unrest - Sara Bareilles +1200

56th Grammy Awards - Best New Artist

Macklemore & Ryan Lewis -300
Kendrick Lamar +700
Kacey Musgraves +700
Ed Sheeran +900
James Blake +1000

Michael,

First of all...thank you for answering the question!

Second...Ringo was indeed drumming. He was double-drumming along with Paul's regular drummer Abe L. But because the setup was "the two surviving ex-Beatles", Ringo was featured and Abe was not. Ringo has actually done this often in his career. He used to double-drum a lot with Jim Keltner (see The Concert for Bangla Desh) for example. On the All-Star Tours, he would sometimes double-drum with his own son, Zak Starkey (who is a VERY different kind of drummer from his dad)....I guess when you do that both drummers have to agree on the fills ahead of time, coz you can't have a Ringo fill and a Keith Moon fill at the same time!!!

I have to put in my two cents about the judging, because I was a judge for two rounds of the last JPF Awards. It was a memorable experience, but also something akin to a forced-march time-share presentation. First of all, I listened to a minimum of :20 of every track...that was the least I could do. But if a track was at least benign I often gave it :30 (2 a minute). To get all the listens in efficiently, I never listened to more than :30, never.

Well, not quite never....if a song moved me so much I absolutely couldn't stop at :30, I might go :60

Of course, those are the tracks that get the boxes ticked!

But I do have a little sympathy for Grammy judges who can't manage that. I suspect many people listen to :10 of what they HAVE to listen to each day (not their own amusement). It's a biz.

There were different criteria for judging different rounds and less required early and more required later. I won't tell you the amounts, but depending on how long you did or didn't listen, the votes would or wouldn't have counted. The Grammys have a ballot. With words on it. Not music. You pick. Game over.

In our final round (i.e. once we were down to nominations) if you didn't listen to 100% of the music, your vote didn't count. That is why we only gave out 3 categories at a time (which would take roughly 3 hours to hear depending on the genre). It was a huge time commitment and not for the faint of heart. Every year we've done the awards we have tweaked the process to improve the fairness and balance the requirements of judging with the abilities of real people with real lives to contribute to the process. In the entire time that I am aware of, the Grammy's have barely changed even the final rounds of their voting process in terms of requirements of listening to assure fairness. The Grammy's could do many things with their resources to make it a more even playing field. You'll never keep people from voting for Paul McCartney, even after he's long dead and making no new music, they will dredge up lost tidbits to nominate for something and play videos of him cgi style performing them live, or more likely (and about this I am serious) they will learn to recreate his voice and style so accurately and using his entire catalog (including all the stuff we haven't heard over the years) and using AI to write new hit songs and perform them exactly as he would have. You heard it here first. I have seen pieces of this stuff and it is both exciting and a bit depressing.

Brian,

Black Sabbath and Led Zep both won Grammys. The world can end now!

And I'm completely OVERJOYED that fellow JPFer Kacey Musgraves won TWO, knocking off some of the giants of the industry. I got to perform with her at The Blue Bird in 2006, and Lyrix Café in Nashville in 2008. She was a shy teenager at the time. She's grown into a beautiful and talented young lady. I fell off my chair literally when she won. We even discussed JPF at the Blue Bird. Like Brian said she has joined Chris Young in flying from the JPF nest to stardom!

a SONG, has a beginning, middle and an end.

it has a setup, a climax and a release.

How can you vote for against any song in 20 seconds?

Ok, if the recording is bad, and the singer stinks, I can see that.

But I cant see how you can judge a SONG in 20 seconds.

A&R people will do this, but they are looking for specific things, sellable things, they arent looking for the best songs, all the time.

So if somebody is listening and turning off in 2o seconds, how can they judge?