Janfriend said:

I agree with the last part of your statement. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to cap the age at 18, though? By the time I was 20, I had finished college, gotten my first job in production overseeing a working staff of 15, lived 3,000 miles away from my family in my own dwelling ...I can't imagine someone making the decision for me as to what I could or could not listen to in the privacy of my own home after working 13 hour day as a (young!) adult taxpayer. As another example I have a 19 year old relative that has seen small children blown into pieces by roadside IUD's in Iraq- somehow I don't see her being swayed into making bad life decisions by what she hears on a record...

But yes, I do think it's an inappropriate record for a minor. When I first reccommended it to someone here,I made it very clear that it was "grown folks' music" and should be played around kids. But, isn't that why there's a warning label on the cd, though? There is a clean version and an adult version of this record. I'm just wondering how does one monitor the buying/selling process to make sure retailers don't sell to those underage? I imagine many would probably turn a blind eye in the interest in meeting the bottom line, being that retail is suffering so badly these days.

That being said, then what of all records sold and artists rewarded for making violent, misogynist rap music?

...and let's not leave out the countless drug references that have littered rock & roll. We can even go as far back as Yale alum Cole Porter whose celebrated American compositions are RAMPANT with drug and casual sex references, including the glorifcation of prostitution. Where do we begin to say that certain recogitions are socially irresponsible, and why are we just saying it now? To one little British chick who released one record here and will probably never be heard from again American shores again. Where were the cries of social irresponsibilty when we rewarded records in private and public voting ceremonies showing women depicted as dogs or scantily clad with their barely covered vaginas in full public view? I would have to sit on subways and listen to 12 year olds blast this music or watch them at bus stops loudly reciting songs about busting caps in people's asses, fucking hoes, booty clapping on stripper poles and using pussies to get toy with men and make material gains... where was, no, where IS the outrage with regards to that?

I just think that if we want to impose ethics and moral obligation standards on how organizations vote for ONE artist, then the same standards should be held for ALL artists.

In all fairness, Naras should then be forced to go back and revoke every Grammy award given to ANYONE that contains drug references or illicit sexual refernces. It's only fair.

The way I see it, should the Winehouse never release another project in the United States, we'll still be busy enough trying to clean up our own musical backyards considering the smut we've been putting out for decades.

Ottensen said:

As for the age thing, 18 seems reasonable, but it's still a teenager. Many people don't become instantly mature enough to handle mature content when they turn 18. Even though a clean version of this album is available, the lyrics are printed the same. I have the explicit version and the lyrics are printed with asterisks in the profanity (not hard to figure out) and the suggestive lyrics in the title track bother me. The warning label means nothing, as I was able to purchase music with labels while under 18. With music downloading, there is no label. A parent wouldn't know what was being listened to unless they were like a cop in their home. I understand completely the feeling about a 19 year old seeing people blow up from IED's. I myself can't figure out how someone is old enough to die for their country yet not old enough to drink


To your second part, there is a difference between talking about a complete genre of music and individual artists. There's a lot of rap music out there that is not misogynistic, violent, or about consuming drugs. On the grammy site, out of all of the rap category winners, the majority were positive and non-violent songs and albums. I also think the delivery of this in a factor. Rap and rock have a stereotype about them and people expect to hear such things. Most of the time, blatant content is not rewarded by NARAS. Amy's presentation presentation of throw back 60's r&b made her very commercial and the music alone appealed to young and old audiences. When I first heard "Rehab" I thought it was a joke. I don't even think the radio edit is appropriate on public airwaves where children are listening. I'm sure NARAS would never step up and make a moral standard because the ones chastised will point fingers at others they believed got a pass

Everyone shitting on Natalie, but Natalie never boasted about her drug use in her songs. That certainly wouldn't have been excepted then and it shouldn't be accepted now. We're going in the wrong direction

Ottensen said:

Sweetie tends to be a "put down". Particularily, with opposing views.
If you didn't mean it as a derogatory term towards 2the9's, I'll take your word.
It's just that you were suggesting he do all the things it takes to be a member of the academy, so he could have a relevant vote. I took his post as being humorous. Glad that's all straightened out.

ummm.....most people don't buy music they don't like. That seems to be the trend.
I think with any organization, where sales go up as a result of nominations, there's politicizing.
I tune in to check out the entertainers. My vote for worst haircut goes to David Grohl.

Ottensen said:

I agree. Now that Natalie is qualified to be a judge, and has expressed her opinion, you have to wonder about the thought process of members. Objectivity may not prevail.
If it weren't for the internet, most wouldn't be exposed to Amy Winehouse's deterioration. The other artists from the past, with substance abuse issues, didn't have visual images available, of being passed out, disoriented, wasted, etc.
It's a different world.