i was just looking at a biography of david bowie, the musicial genius of the 70s(along with stevie wonder) and i was amazed that he has never won a grammy for his music, im sorry but this totally discredits these awards for me...unbelievable

That's ok. No one pays too much attention to the Grammys anymore. They're too busy giving Steely Dan, Justin Timberlake and Beyonce major awards.

it seems like every year, the grammy picks out one person to give a ton of awards to...maybe one year soon it'll be bowie's year - i don't think he's terribly bothered about it, though. he seems to always be operating just an inch or two away from the mainstream - it's his schtick.

Bowie was present at the 1975 Grammy's.
Bowie gives a three minute speech and presents Aretha Franklin with the award for "Best Rhythm & Blues Vocal Performance".

"Oh my God!" she says, "I'm so happy I could kiss David Bowie!"



Bowie in 1999:

"A couple of nights later [John Lennon and I] found ourselves backstage at the Grammys where I had to present "the thing" to Aretha Franklin. Before the show I'd been telling John that I didn't think America really got what I did, that I was misunderstood. Remember that I was in my 20s and out of my head.

So the big moment came and I ripped open the envelope and announced, "The winner is Aretha Franklin." Aretha steps forward, and with not so much as a glance in my direction, snatches the trophy out of my hands and says, "Thank you everybody. I'm so happy I could even kiss David Bowie." Which she didn't! And she promptly spun around swanned off stage right. So I slunk off stage left.

And John bounds over and gives me a theatrical kiss and a hug and says "See, Dave. America loves ya.’"

It's the same way with the Oscars - Robert Altman and Alfred Hitchcock never won a single statue. There are several prominent artists whom have never won a Grammy or won only minor awards. Besides, in the last decade or so, the Grammys have become a sort of lifetime achievement award for aging artists. Just look who's won top honors in that time - Eric Clapton, Tony Bennett, Bob Dylan and Steely Dan. Bowie in his heyday was quite ahead of his time, so not shocking at all. Like the rest of the innovators, he'll be recognized when he releases a safe sounding recording that the masses swoop up.

And the dutch footbal team has never won the world cup.
life can be so unfair.

blackboab said:

you are just now realizing these awards are crap?

Anxiety said:

Right. Or...they pick an established (read: old) artist who they feel has been underrecognized officially and slide them a grammy, e.g. Jethro Tull (remember the "heavy metal" grammy) and Steely Dan (taking album of the year when it was clearly Eminem's turn). So Bowie has a shot. If Bowling For Soup gets nominated, Bowie should have a shot.

Thunderbird said:

at the very least, i can see the reality DVD getting a grammy, even if it's not one of the big award nods.

blackboab said:

Kinda late. They're discredited by a lot of people for dismissing many artists that merit the recognition. But by and large the Grammy is just not something needed to validate anyone, although it looks nice on a resume. Like all awards shows patting themselves on the back, it's political.

`
[Edited 10/27/04 10:35am]

Anxiety said:

i believe the cut-off date for the 2005 awards is September 30, or thereabouts. and by the time it's eligible in 2006, it'll have been forgotten.

GrayKing said:

You're correct - 30 September is the cut off date each year.