Author | Message |
Grammys 2004 VS. Brits 2006 What do you think?
Both were similar overblown-award-show-medley-type performances aimed at the general public to help promote his latest album/tour. Both featuring a talented young diva (Beyonce/Tamar), both featuring time-worn classics ("Purple Rain"/"Let's Go Crazy"). One for the American audience, the other for the European audience... The question is... which one was a better performance? Which one made a bigger impact? Personally, I think the Brits was a better "performance" so to speak, but I think the Grammys had a certain magic to it that was missing at the Brits. The Grammy performance was like a seismic-shift that announced to the music world that Prince is back! (commercially speaking). People were talking about it all year it seemed. The Brits were amazing, and say what you want about Beyonce, but in 10 years time, the Grammys is the performance people will still remember... Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Hard to say. There's no topping Wendy, Lisa & Sheila in my mind. But the Grammys spawned The Prince Show. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
GangstaFam said: Hard to say. There's no topping Wendy, Lisa & Sheila in my mind. But the Grammys spawned The Prince Show.
Grammys. It was nice seeing Wendy and Lisa again, but the Grammys was a better performance. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
To my mind, the Brits was the better performance. Not just a run-through of past glories, but 2 new songs and 2 old songs. Without the horn section the Brits had a grittier, guitar-driven feel to it which I much preferred. The light show at the Brits was superior too with different back-screens and colours for the different songs - at the Grammies it was all purple.
The Grammies did have far more impact though, that left people talking about the come-back of Prince. The Brits performance blew practically everybody away that saw it, but without a tour the impact had no-where to go. In conclusion - Grammies = a Las Vegas-style revue, Brits = raw performance of a guitar god. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
oh def the Brits. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The Brits was better. The Grammys had a greater impact. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleCharm said: The Brits was better. The Grammys had a greater impact.
Yes, I have to agree with PurpleCharm. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The Brits was better, but of course there was something more eventful about the Grammys performance. Depending on whether or not you liked the fact that Banshée was there as well on the stage with him, you could either say that in the eyes of some more contemporary-oriented viewers she stole the show from Prince, or that she just aided him. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
metalorange said: To my mind, the Brits was the better performance. Not just a run-through of past glories, but 2 new songs and 2 old songs. Without the horn section the Brits had a grittier, guitar-driven feel to it which I much preferred. The light show at the Brits was superior too with different back-screens and colours for the different songs - at the Grammies it was all purple.
The Grammies did have far more impact though, that left people talking about the come-back of Prince. The Brits performance blew practically everybody away that saw it, but without a tour the impact had no-where to go. In conclusion - Grammies = a Las Vegas-style revue, Brits = raw performance of a guitar god. I can get with that. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |