BlaqueKnight said:

I stand corrected. Thanks BlaqueKnight for that reference. Is was 86-87 when Graceland won over Control. I was young but I remember being pissed at that. So, I guess you can say my eyes were opened early when it comes to grammy travesties.

NoVideo said:

in other words, an extremely popular african american r&b artist (with one of the greatest voices of all time) in her prime winning over a bunch of washed up, overrated, white, pop/rock artists with questionable "talent" is a travesty? no surprises here, the grammy voters seem to suffer from the same biases as you.
[Edited 1/26/10 13:37pm]

missreelthang said:

Oh go fuck yourself. I am a white man married to a black man, so don't try to throw your accusations of prejudice in my direction.

NoVideo said:

And I am saying that there is a certain bias throughout the Grammy community. It doesn't matter what's actually "best". There is a demographics of Grammy voters than can pretty much predict how the voting will go. Its always been that way. Ask those idiots voting who Rachelle Ferrell is and they won't know. Is it because she's not a great vocalist with great records? No. Its because the voters don't listen to much jazz and R&B, so they wouldn't know her name if it came up. The same "demographic" will know regina Spektor and Fiest, though because that's what they listen to. They won't know Robert Randolph but they will know Jack White and John Mayer. I'm done. You're a joni fan; you're glad she won. You think the Grammy choices are correct. Fine. Cool. I disagree.
[Edited 1/26/10 13:42pm]

BlaqueKnight said:

Nothing 2 add.....

BlaqueKnight said:

I agree with your general premise - I just don't think this particular award was an example of that. Mariah Carey wasn't an obscure artist like Robert Randolph or Rachelle Ferrell. The voters were all too aware of her.

NoVideo said:

The demographics of the Grammy voters has been similar for a very long time - white men and women in their 30s-40s. When you know what they grew up listening to, you can predict how they are going to vote, barring the occasional exceptions. That's how it WAS about 15 years ago. Its not like that now. Its the corporate wars era. They vote how they are told to these days.

BlaqueKnight said:

I think, in general, the Grammys have always been out of touch with what the real "Best", cutting edge, truly artistic music has been in any given year. Looking back over their winners, it's clearly true - so many legendary albums that have stood the test of time were passed by for albums that have largely been forgotten.

The Grammy voters give weight to people who are been big in the industry, and have been for a while. That's how Prince gets a Grammy for Call My Name and Steely Dan gets one for Two Against Nature, etc.

Their second choice is for musicians who are popular, like other award shows do.

If they can get someone who is partly respectable and partly popular, like Nora Jones, or someone who seems really hip and has some talent, like Lauren Hill & Kanye, they fall all over themselves to give them awards.

Musicslave said:

"Higher Love," Steve Winwood

WHO?!

purplesweat said:

I love Man in the Mirror and agree it should have won, but Higher Love is a classic too. Great tune

Alright here is what annoys me and what is NOT being said here. The Grammies read like a chart, and for those who think they know who votes, did you know that Babyface and Jimmy Jam are chairmen on the grammy committee, and they voted at one point to have Richard Marx removed from being able to vote...yeah Richard Marx the guy who wrote a song of the year "dance with my father" and then was slapped in the face with Luther on his death bed, Richard was not allowed to sing because of the bias of these two and a few others on the board of chair people.

A big complaint of the Grammies is its kiss ass of the "public", it caved in about a decade ago when it was called the "Grannies" because of nominations to Dylan and McCartney for album of the year, even though it was deserved. NOW because of this bullshit, you have split categories like that BS rb category that puts the older artists seperate from the younger ones, BULLSHIT! Furthermore because of this you have had nominations to Joni Mitchell,Paul McCartney James Taylor etc...relegated to the "Pop album of the year" because that award is almost NEVER televised, along with ROCK album of the year. The grammies kissed ass to these writers of BS magazines and blogs and shit, and sold out to the crappy shit they put on now. Look at this years Album of the Year nominations....what the fuck is that???? If Dave Matthews doesnt win HE SHOULD pull a Kanye and jump the fuck on stage and say, are u fucking kidding?

lastdecember said:

I agree. The last few years seem to be catering to the MTV crowd.

BlaqueKnight said:

Yea, she was robbed

NDRU said:

Good assessment.

BlaqueKnight said:

What I dislike about the assessment? It's true.....and it has NOTHING 2 do with the actual music they should be basing their votes on.

NDRU said:

Correct me if I am wrong. R u saying Prince did not deserve the Grammy 4 Call My Name?

Call My Name is a beautiful song and diffidently deserved a Grammy

Graycap23 said:

and that's how its been for at least 25 years.

DesireeNevermind said:

I avoided this thread for almost a week because of that oversight.
Seems to me that the committee is now trying to make up for all their "questionable" decisions from the past by tossing awards out to almost any MTV VMA Award-winning artist these days.
[Edited 1/27/10 17:22pm]

delete
[Edited 1/27/10 17:21pm]

BlaqueKnight said:

Another sad ass truth.