[Edited 2/8/12 18:13pm]

Diana Ross has been added to the list of presenters, which also includes Common, actress Taraji P. Henson (CBS’ “Person of Interest”) and Reba McEntire.

Do we know what categories they're showing?

I hope Kelly C & Jason Aldean get some face-time when they win. Adele obviously will.

I dont know if I have the strength to watch, I may just mute it till Adele comes out and performs.

Has Album Of The Year been this predictable since Lauryn Hill in 1999? I don't think so.

musicjunky318 said:

silverchild said:

musicjunky318 said:

Has Album Of The Year been this predictable since Lauryn Hill in 1999? I don't think so.

Well I don't know. Grammys might pull a fast one (think back to 2008 when everybody was on this Amy Winehouse vs. Kanye thing for AOTY...in the end, Herbie won!) Not interested in Adele's music or anything, but she is the strongest contender and the sorest loser.

Could you imagine if they gave it to Rihanna?

Who watches the Grammys and who STILL cares about the bullshit because thats all it is??

Both Rihanna (with Coldplay) and Chris are slated to perform at the Grammy Awards, which airs on television on February 12. This will be the first time the music stars both attend the awards since Chris assaulted Rihanna three years ago after a 2009 pre-Grammy party.

getxxxx said:

Both Rihanna (with Coldplay) and Chris are slated to perform at the Grammy Awards, which airs on television on February 12. This will be the first time the music stars both attend the awards since Chris assaulted Rihanna three years ago after a 2009 pre-Grammy party.

Oh boy.

I thought he beat the shit out of her before the grammy's?

mjscarousal said:

Who watches the Grammys and who STILL cares about the bullshit because thats all it is??

Haven't the Shammys always been a joke and political? Just like the Oscars. Award shows in general bore the crap out of me, always have.

I might watch Adele's performance tho.

lazycrockett said:

I thought he beat the shit out of her before the grammy's?

Pre-Grammy party. Get it?

dancing/electronica music segment featuring Grammy nominees Deadmau5, the Foo Fighters, Chris Brown, David Guetta and Lil Wayne, all performing in a tent space amid 1,000 fans.

"We decided to go all out this year," Ehrlich said of the performance taking place outside the Staples Center in Los Angeles, where Sunday's ceremony will be held. "All we're going to try and do next week is to try and put the home audience in the middle of it. ... It is more than just sitting there and watching it."

Dance music did not receive its own category until 2003 with the best dance recording/dance field, and the music had not been featured with its own segment in the show.

Ehrlich calls the performance the "most ambitious number that we've ever done outside the Staples Center." It will feature at least four cameras from audience level as Deadmau5 (pronounced dead mouse) and the Foo Fighters perform his remixed version of the band's song "Rope," which netted him one of his Grammy nominations, and as Brown and Lil Wayne perform with Guetta.

Ehrlich said the performance reflects the popularity of dance music over the past few years.

"As much as a recorded medium that it is, and the fact that it's selling a lot of CDs and downloads, it's really a live experience," he said. "It is more than just sitting there and watching it."

Other performers on the show include Adele, Bruce Springsteen, Chris Brown, Paul McCartney and Taylor Swift for what Ehrlich boasted would be a "pretty amazing show."

"What I try and do when we're building this show is to think about the audience first. ... What can I do that's going to keep an audience for 3 1/2 hours watching the Grammy Awards?" he said. "I do try and look for how broad I can make it and still assume that people are going to tune in and stay with it."

Terrib3Towel said:

lazycrockett said:

I thought he beat the shit out of her before the grammy's?

Pre-Grammy party. Get it?

whoopsie misread.

musicjunky318 said:

Idk.... i would think Adele would be a shoe in to win!

but the grammies do pull fast ones a lot!

1985 Lionel Richie winning over Prince & Bruce Springsteen CHILD

The 2009 Grammy awards when Robert plant & Alison Krauss.. i adore Rober Plant & like Alison. But Radioheads album was WAYYYYYYYYYYY better in every regard imo.

And yes of course the Herbie year

So the grammys could shock us this year who know's

Gunsnhalen said:

Idk.... i would think Adele would be a shoe in to win!

but the grammies do pull fast ones a lot!

1985 Lionel Richie winning over Prince & Bruce Springsteen CHILD

The 2009 Grammy awards when Robert plant & Alison Krauss.. i adore Rober Plant & like Alison. But Radioheads album was WAYYYYYYYYYYY better in every regard imo.

And yes of course the Herbie year

So the grammys could shock us this year who know's

The grammies and the other music shows DONT realize that the audience they are catering too, isnt watching them at all. My problem is this show suffers the same fate as the MTV network, just mtv being a joke calling itself a video station and yet never showing a video, the grammies are an "AWARDS" show that gives out like 9 awards and has about 80 categories, that to me is a joke, now its playing for ratings and sales because it needs the artists to perform, but lets face it, sales suck right now and have for a decade plus, had Adele not had her album this year would have been the biggest drop in a decade, but they need to limit the performances way way down, i mean how many do they have? the last time i watched this show they had 23! thats not a show thats a telethon. They say that its boring to sit through handing out awards in categories like jazz and classical and country, well since country has its own show, as do the latin grammys, just give out all the pop/rb/rock/metal/dance awards, limit the performances to 10, give out about 25-30 awards, LIMIT the fucking speeches, stop the needless thank yous of your hair stylist and weave buyer. END the useless banter of the WACK hosts, and trust me this show would be more meaningful, im tired of having to go online to see who won Rock Album, that shit should be on the show as should RB album, performance, pop album etc....get real, lose 75% of the performances NO ONE CARES. just use the top acts you have to perform, i dont need to hear the whole Blake Shelton song thats not out yet.

lastdecember said:

Gunsnhalen said:

Idk.... i would think Adele would be a shoe in to win!

but the grammies do pull fast ones a lot!

1985 Lionel Richie winning over Prince & Bruce Springsteen CHILD

The 2009 Grammy awards when Robert plant & Alison Krauss.. i adore Rober Plant & like Alison. But Radioheads album was WAYYYYYYYYYYY better in every regard imo.

And yes of course the Herbie year

So the grammys could shock us this year who know's

The grammies and the other music shows DONT realize that the audience they are catering too, isnt watching them at all. My problem is this show suffers the same fate as the MTV network, just mtv being a joke calling itself a video station and yet never showing a video, the grammies are an "AWARDS" show that gives out like 9 awards and has about 80 categories, that to me is a joke, now its playing for ratings and sales because it needs the artists to perform, but lets face it, sales suck right now and have for a decade plus, had Adele not had her album this year would have been the biggest drop in a decade, but they need to limit the performances way way down, i mean how many do they have? the last time i watched this show they had 23! thats not a show thats a telethon. They say that its boring to sit through handing out awards in categories like jazz and classical and country, well since country has its own show, as do the latin grammys, just give out all the pop/rb/rock/metal/dance awards, limit the performances to 10, give out about 25-30 awards, LIMIT the fucking speeches, stop the needless thank yous of your hair stylist and weave buyer. END the useless banter of the WACK hosts, and trust me this show would be more meaningful, im tired of having to go online to see who won Rock Album, that shit should be on the show as should RB album, performance, pop album etc....get real, lose 75% of the performances NO ONE CARES. just use the top acts you have to perform, i dont need to hear the whole Blake Shelton song thats not out yet.

Tell us how you really feel

I love your posts.. so spot on!

Terrib3Towel said:

mjscarousal said:

Who watches the Grammys and who STILL cares about the bullshit because thats all it is??

Haven't the Shammys always been a joke and political? Just like the Oscars. Award shows in general bore the crap out of me, always have.

I might watch Adele's performance tho.

Yes they have. Always the SAME boring performers and presenters. Its just a popuarity contest. I am very happy for Adele. I dont think I have been as happy for someone being nominated in a longggg time she exactly deserves it

lastdecember said:

Gunsnhalen said:

Idk.... i would think Adele would be a shoe in to win!

but the grammies do pull fast ones a lot!

1985 Lionel Richie winning over Prince & Bruce Springsteen CHILD

The 2009 Grammy awards when Robert plant & Alison Krauss.. i adore Rober Plant & like Alison. But Radioheads album was WAYYYYYYYYYYY better in every regard imo.

And yes of course the Herbie year

So the grammys could shock us this year who know's

The grammies and the other music shows DONT realize that the audience they are catering too, isnt watching them at all. My problem is this show suffers the same fate as the MTV network, just mtv being a joke calling itself a video station and yet never showing a video, the grammies are an "AWARDS" show that gives out like 9 awards and has about 80 categories, that to me is a joke, now its playing for ratings and sales because it needs the artists to perform, but lets face it, sales suck right now and have for a decade plus, had Adele not had her album this year would have been the biggest drop in a decade, but they need to limit the performances way way down, i mean how many do they have? the last time i watched this show they had 23! thats not a show thats a telethon. They say that its boring to sit through handing out awards in categories like jazz and classical and country, well since country has its own show, as do the latin grammys, just give out all the pop/rb/rock/metal/dance awards, limit the performances to 10, give out about 25-30 awards, LIMIT the fucking speeches, stop the needless thank yous of your hair stylist and weave buyer. END the useless banter of the WACK hosts, and trust me this show would be more meaningful, im tired of having to go online to see who won Rock Album, that shit should be on the show as should RB album, performance, pop album etc....get real, lose 75% of the performances NO ONE CARES. just use the top acts you have to perform, i dont need to hear the whole Blake Shelton song thats not out yet.

I agree they need to show more categories. They never air the winners I want to see go up and accept.

I'm afraid Kelly Clarkson, Marsha Ambrosius, and Cee-Lo will all win but it'll be in the pre-show that nobody sees.

lastdecember said:

Gunsnhalen said:

Idk.... i would think Adele would be a shoe in to win!

but the grammies do pull fast ones a lot!

1985 Lionel Richie winning over Prince & Bruce Springsteen CHILD

The 2009 Grammy awards when Robert plant & Alison Krauss.. i adore Rober Plant & like Alison. But Radioheads album was WAYYYYYYYYYYY better in every regard imo.

And yes of course the Herbie year

So the grammys could shock us this year who know's

The grammies and the other music shows DONT realize that the audience they are catering too, isnt watching them at all. My problem is this show suffers the same fate as the MTV network, just mtv being a joke calling itself a video station and yet never showing a video, the grammies are an "AWARDS" show that gives out like 9 awards and has about 80 categories, that to me is a joke, now its playing for ratings and sales because it needs the artists to perform, but lets face it, sales suck right now and have for a decade plus, had Adele not had her album this year would have been the biggest drop in a decade, but they need to limit the performances way way down, i mean how many do they have? the last time i watched this show they had 23! thats not a show thats a telethon. They say that its boring to sit through handing out awards in categories like jazz and classical and country, well since country has its own show, as do the latin grammys, just give out all the pop/rb/rock/metal/dance awards, limit the performances to 10, give out about 25-30 awards, LIMIT the fucking speeches, stop the needless thank yous of your hair stylist and weave buyer. END the useless banter of the WACK hosts, and trust me this show would be more meaningful, im tired of having to go online to see who won Rock Album, that shit should be on the show as should RB album, performance, pop album etc....get real, lose 75% of the performances NO ONE CARES. just use the top acts you have to perform, i dont need to hear the whole Blake Shelton song thats not out yet.

Well said. I agree.

I remember last year they announced the R&B category winners on the red carpet BEFORE the actual ceremony. That shit was just ridiculous.

neonlights said:

I remember last year they announced the R&B category winners on the red carpet BEFORE the actual ceremony. That shit was just ridiculous.

The always do that. The only recent one I remember them showing was Jennifer Hudson in 2009 for Best R&B Album.

mjscarousal said:

lastdecember said:

The grammies and the other music shows DONT realize that the audience they are catering too, isnt watching them at all. My problem is this show suffers the same fate as the MTV network, just mtv being a joke calling itself a video station and yet never showing a video, the grammies are an "AWARDS" show that gives out like 9 awards and has about 80 categories, that to me is a joke, now its playing for ratings and sales because it needs the artists to perform, but lets face it, sales suck right now and have for a decade plus, had Adele not had her album this year would have been the biggest drop in a decade, but they need to limit the performances way way down, i mean how many do they have? the last time i watched this show they had 23! thats not a show thats a telethon. They say that its boring to sit through handing out awards in categories like jazz and classical and country, well since country has its own show, as do the latin grammys, just give out all the pop/rb/rock/metal/dance awards, limit the performances to 10, give out about 25-30 awards, LIMIT the fucking speeches, stop the needless thank yous of your hair stylist and weave buyer. END the useless banter of the WACK hosts, and trust me this show would be more meaningful, im tired of having to go online to see who won Rock Album, that shit should be on the show as should RB album, performance, pop album etc....get real, lose 75% of the performances NO ONE CARES. just use the top acts you have to perform, i dont need to hear the whole Blake Shelton song thats not out yet.

Tell us how you really feel

I love your posts.. so spot on!

I understand the idea of being all inclusive and this and that, and keeping it fair, but you could actually increase some sales when people see that such and such won best metal album, seriously, i mean outside of some of us on this forum that might go on Grammy.com to check and see who the hell won for Rock album or Rb male performance etc... no one even knows or cares who won these, and if we are gonna say that, why have the show? just have 50 performances and call it a night and forget the awards. I mean years ago i can remember seeing all the Rock awards, or all the rb awards on the show, now you get one and its so lame because they tie the winner into a performance piece right after it so u kind know whos gonna win in a way. I forget there was one year where i think it was Alison Krauss or someone else, low key, actually won the most awards that night and NONE on the freaking show?? really? again why have them. I find myself just look for female artists i like to see what the wore and how hot they looked, and some years catching a good performance or two.

musicjunky318 said: