The grammy awards are voted on by your peers not fans like american music awards.That being said its hard to put Prince in the same league with Quincy Jones 28,Beyonce 24, Jay Z and Kanye West with 21! especially when u consider they did it putting out alot less music than Prince.Do u think this is a fair assesment by his peers of his talent overall?

these days if you get 1 grammy they give you 7 just for good measure. or if you're actually very very good at what you do, they give you none.

prince should have received about 20 grammy wins before 1996 alone. it's absurd he didn't.

LILpoundCAKE said:

these days if you get 1 grammy they give you 7 just for good measure. or if you're actually very very good at what you do, they give you none.

prince should have received about 20 grammy wins before 1996 alone. it's absurd he didn't.

so you saying the people who make music profesionally cant judge the quality of it basically?Dont forget that Jimmy Jam who was basically taught music by Prince and was an original member of Prince's group THE TIME HAS BEEN PRESIDENT of the grammys last few years...

Dumbest question. And completely worth answering.

funkman88 said:

The grammy awards are voted on by your peers not fans like american music awards.That being said its hard to put Prince in the same league with Quincy Jones 28,Beyonce 24, Jay Z and Kanye West with 21! especially when u consider they did it putting out alot less music than Prince.Do u think this is a fair assesment by his peers of his talent overall?

The Beatles have 7 Grammies. I guess they're not in the same league as Kanye Kardashian. What a joke.

jfenster said:

funkman88 said:

The grammy awards are voted on by your peers not fans like american music awards.That being said its hard to put Prince in the same league with Quincy Jones 28,Beyonce 24, Jay Z and Kanye West with 21! especially when u consider they did it putting out alot less music than Prince.Do u think this is a fair assesment by his peers of his talent overall?

sSince when is gettin a grammy a merit of being genious? what a strange question

funkman88 said:

A "2nd level genius" next to Beyonce, Jay Z and Kanye West? Are you for real?

funkman88 said:

Do u think this is a fair assesment by his peers of his talent overall?

No, and it simply illustrates how irrelevant award culture is. Another example: Aphex Twin changed the whole musical landscape in the late 90s/early 2000s and his influence is everywhere in modern music, and yet the Grammys didn't recognise him until 2014's Syro, after a 12 year hiatus from Richard. The whole thing was deeply embarrassing: "The "winners" are not here...I thought I saw them coming." You might even say that an artists' creative worth can be measured by the extent to which they're not recognised by award ceremonies.

They have been too inaccurate in the last 10 years or so.

They seem almost totally irrelevant at this point.

fen said:

A "2nd level genius" next to Beyonce, Jay Z and Kanye West? Are you for real?

they meant something to Prince beecause he was depressed after getting his azz kicked by michael jackson with thriller over 1999 so he came back harder with purple rain

Is this the same Grammy's that gave Jethro Tull the first heavy metal grammy? Is this the same Grammys that gave an award to Jazzy jeff and the Fresh Prince over Public Enemy? Is this the same Grammy's that gave Milli Vanilli a best new artist Grammy? I think Prince's genius status is still ok!

funkman88 said:

The grammy awards are voted on by your peers not fans like american music awards.That being said its hard to put Prince in the same league with Quincy Jones 28,Beyonce 24, Jay Z and Kanye West with 21! especially when u consider they did it putting out alot less music than Prince.Do u think this is a fair assesment by his peers of his talent overall?

Is there a league?

What about playoffs and relegation?

And if you win the league do you qualify for the champions league the following season?

...

What's your opinion?

And more importantly, what's your point?

If it's just for shits and giggles to wind people up then that's your choice, but you seem to be talking about Grammys as the ultimate measurement for artistic success.

wilmer said:

The Grammies, the Oscars. They don't mean shit.

A lot of people believe that, but it's not true.

Every year, in the vast majority of cases, the best performances are found among the Oscar winners and nominations. Of course there are exceptions, but most of the time the Academy makes understandable decisions.

funkman88 said:

fen said:

A "2nd level genius" next to Beyonce, Jay Z and Kanye West? Are you for real?

they meant something to Prince beecause he was depressed after getting his azz kicked by michael jackson with thriller over 1999 so he came back harder with purple rain

Even if that is true, 1999 was arguably more innovative and interesting than Purple Rain (as much as I love it), and it's certainly more innovative than Thriller, so the point stands: awards are not an accurate measure of the value of an artist and their work. The whole predicate is flawed.

ForbiddenFruit said:

wilmer said:

The Grammies, the Oscars. They don't mean shit.

A lot of people believe that, but it's not true.

Every year, in the vast majority of cases, the best performances are found among the Oscar winners and nominations. Of course there are exceptions, but most of the time the Academy makes understandable decisions.

I'm not sure that's true, major award ceremonies tend to limp behind the real innovations happening in culture and they tend to favour those working within mainstream forms and methods. Take someone like David Lynch, whose always managed to work within the system - I don't think he's ever won an Oscar has he? (apart from a perfunctory Honorary award late in the day) And yet he's undoubtedly the one of the most interesting and important American directors in the history of the medium, and his ongoing influence will outshine 99% of the Academy winners over the last 40 years. They can't even reward genius when it's right under their noses, let alone keep in step with what's happening in culture more broadly.

Awarding Lionel Richie "best album" over Purple Rain in 1985 is a striking case in point. 1999 wasn't even nominated alongside Thriller in 1984, so it's not strictly true that MJ kicked Prince's "azz" - Prince wasn't even in the race, and that's a reflection of how out-of-touch the grammys were, not a reflection of the quality and relevance of the work.

fen said:

ForbiddenFruit said:

A lot of people believe that, but it's not true.

Every year, in the vast majority of cases, the best performances are found among the Oscar winners and nominations. Of course there are exceptions, but most of the time the Academy makes understandable decisions.

I'm not sure that's true, major award ceremonies tend to limp behind the real innovations happening in culture and they tend to favour those working within mainstream forms and methods. Take someone like David Lynch, whose always managed to work within the system - I don't think he's ever won an Oscar has he? (apart from a perfunctory Honorary award late in the day) And yet he's undoubtedly the one of the most interesting and important American directors in the history of the medium, and his ongoing influence will outshine 99% of the Academy winners over the last 40 years. They can't even reward genius when it's right under their noses, let alone keep in step with what's happening in culture more broadly.

David Lynch is a very good example, I consider Mulholland Drive to be the greatest work of art ever.

Did he get an Oscar? No. But he was nominated for best director for this film and also for Elephant Man

and Blue Velvet - and that too is recognition (apart from the honorary Oscar two years ago).

The Oscars nominations are very high quality.

Just because of the nominations I watched Marriage Story last week, and I have to say,

those nominations or awards for these acting performances were well deserved.

[Edited 2/25/21 10:17am]

fen said:

Awarding Lionel Richie "best album" over Purple Rain in 1985 is a striking case in point. 1999 wasn't even nominated alongside Thriller in 1984, so it's not strictly true that MJ kicked Prince's "azz" - Prince wasn't even in the race, and that's a reflection of how out-of-touch the grammys were, not a reflection of the quality and relevance of the work.

yes you are correct it was best R&B vocal male Billie Jean over International Lover and R & B song and all the other R&B categories that night at the shrine auditorium michael kicked his azz up and down hollywood blvd in all the black music categories 1984 ,he was depressed and lookin sader than when he slapped appolonia and she climbed out the window into Morris bed!

[Edited 2/23/21 11:47am]

funkman88 said:

funkman88 said:

The grammy awards are voted on by your peers not fans like american music awards.That being said its hard to put Prince in the same league with Quincy Jones 28,Beyonce 24, Jay Z and Kanye West with 21! especially when u consider they did it putting out alot less music than Prince.Do u think this is a fair assesment by his peers of his talent overall?

Which one of his peers made this assessment of his talent?

grantevans said: