Timmy84 said:

Stymie said:

Hey I like my cave.

I'll check out all the songs to find out what folks are talking about but if any of them are like that Frank Ocean song, I'm not gonna be happy.

Well many of them aren't played on Adventure Time so of course you won't hear them.

You know it.

Empress said:

Timmy84 said:

You're just hard to please.

I guess I am. I don't mind some pop music from time to time, but I prefer music with more depth.

I'm a music snob and proud of it.

Stymie said:

Empress said:

I guess I am. I don't mind some pop music from time to time, but I prefer music with more depth.

I'm a music snob and proud of it.

I knew I wasn't alone

Empress said:

Timmy84 said:

You're just hard to please.

I guess I am. I don't mind some pop music from time to time, but I prefer music with more depth.

Personally, if a song or an album is going to win prestigious awards such as a Grammy (although it is not consider prestigious anymore ) then it should have some depth or artistic creativity about it.

Once upon time, These awards were really meant to acknowledge the best in overall QUALITY but it has turned into mostly awarding popularity instead of creativity.

[Edited 12/6/12 9:57am]

Empress said:

Timmy84 said:

You're just hard to please.

I guess I am. I don't mind some pop music from time to time, but I prefer music with more depth.

lol I understand. Me personally I don't mind. As long as it's a good song and catchy and not irritating, I dig it.

mjscarousal said:

Empress said:

I guess I am. I don't mind some pop music from time to time, but I prefer music with more depth.

Personally, if a song or an album is going to win prestigious awards such as a Grammy (although it is not consider prestigious anymore ) then it should have some depth or artistic creativity about it.

Once upon time, These awards were really meant to acknowledge the best in overall QUALITY but it has turned into mostly awarding popularity instead of creativity.

[Edited 12/6/12 9:57am]

Bingo!!!

Popular does not equal good.

Stymie said:

Empress said:

I guess I am. I don't mind some pop music from time to time, but I prefer music with more depth.

I'm a music snob and proud of it.

[in Marvin voice]Stubborn kinda ladies...[/in Marvin voice]

Stymie said:

mjscarousal said:

Personally, if a song or an album is going to win prestigious awards such as a Grammy (although it is not consider prestigious anymore ) then it should have some depth or artistic creativity about it.

Once upon time, These awards were really meant to acknowledge the best in overall QUALITY but it has turned into mostly awarding popularity instead of creativity.

[Edited 12/6/12 9:57am]

Bingo!!!

Popular does not always equal good.

Hopefully some people learn to GET THAT instead of writing people off as pop music snobs.

mjscarousal said:

daPrettyman said:

"Love On Top" was officially released as a single in December 2011 (which makes the song eligible for nomination in 2012). That's how it works.

Kem was nominated last year for his album, but he lost out.

R. Kelly did get a nomination for Best R&B Album for "Write Me Back."

Charlie Wilson didn't have any official released in 2012. All of the stuff you hear on the radio are recurrents.

So your saying a song HAS to be released in December that previous year in order to be acknowledge the following? What about the other R&B songs that were released as singles in December?

Is that fair to all the other songs that were exactly released in 2012?

You do have a point if thats true but I still feel they could have nominated other R&B songs that came out this year besides that one and the only reason why they did was because its Beyonce. I still stand by that. I would like to see Melanie Fiona win in that category or someone else but thats more than likely not going to happen.

Overall I am not tripping about the Grammys because its a machine and I understand how it operates I just think its sad BUT I am pleased with the slight change this year with the nominations overall.

[Edited 12/6/12 9:48am]

Yes. In previous years, October 1 was the cut off date for releases to be nominated for the eligibility period. I'm not sure what the eligibility was for this year, though. I'm sure it is around the same time. That is why you see such a push for singles and albums in September. That way, a song can be nominated one year and the album/song will be nominated again the next year.

Even if the artist releases a live album/dvd/compilation, you may see a 3 or 4 year old song (or older) being nominated. Beyonce is the perfect example. Her record label positions her releases so that she can fall into the eligibility period every year....even if her album promotion is done. A few years ago (in between B'Day and I Am) she released a live album. That live album/dvd release earned her another nomination for Irreplaceable even though the sound was 2 years old at the time.

For songs/albums to be nominated for this award, record labels and academy members have to promote and promote themselves to get nominations. So, for an indie artist, it would be harder to get attention.

daPrettyman said:

mjscarousal said:

So your saying a song HAS to be released in December that previous year in order to be acknowledge the following? What about the other R&B songs that were released as singles in December?

Is that fair to all the other songs that were exactly released in 2012?

You do have a point if thats true but I still feel they could have nominated other R&B songs that came out this year besides that one and the only reason why they did was because its Beyonce. I still stand by that. I would like to see Melanie Fiona win in that category or someone else but thats more than likely not going to happen.

Overall I am not tripping about the Grammys because its a machine and I understand how it operates I just think its sad BUT I am pleased with the slight change this year with the nominations overall.

[Edited 12/6/12 9:48am]

Yes. In previous years, October 1 was the cut off date for releases to be nominated for the eligibility period. I'm not sure what the eligibility was for this year, though. I'm sure it is around the same time. That is why you see such a push for singles and albums in September. That way, a song can be nominated one year and the album/song will be nominated again the next year.

Even if the artist releases a live album/dvd/compilation, you may see a 3 or 4 year old song (or older) being nominated. Beyonce is the perfect example. Her record label positions her releases so that she can fall into the eligibility period every year....even if her album promotion is done. A few years ago (in between B'Day and I Am) she released a live album. That live album/dvd release earned her another nomination for Irreplaceable even though the sound was 2 years old at the time.

For songs/albums to be nominated for this award, record labels and academy members have to promote and promote themselves to get nominations. So, for an indie artist, it would be harder to get attention.

They pushed it to September.

Stymie said:

daPrettyman said:

At least they crossed genres for these categories this time. I can't believe you haven't heard "Stronger" from Kelly Clarkson. It's been in commercials and on every singing competition show.

I don't watch those shows and I only watch Cartoon Network so if it played on a commerical there.....

SMH!!

mjscarousal said:

Empress said:

I guess I am. I don't mind some pop music from time to time, but I prefer music with more depth.

Personally, if a song or an album is going to win prestigious awards such as a Grammy (although it is not consider prestigious anymore ) then it should have some depth or artistic creativity about it.

Once upon time, These awards were really meant to acknowledge the best in overall QUALITY but it has turned into mostly awarding popularity instead of creativity.

[Edited 12/6/12 9:57am]

Personally, I don't think it's a complete popularity contest. If that was the case, people like Esperanza Spauling and Mavis Staples wouldn't have won Grammy Awards over the last few years.

^ Mmhmm...

Though it's funny Dylan didn't get the nod this time like I predicted.

daPrettyman said:

mjscarousal said:

Personally, if a song or an album is going to win prestigious awards such as a Grammy (although it is not consider prestigious anymore ) then it should have some depth or artistic creativity about it.

Once upon time, These awards were really meant to acknowledge the best in overall QUALITY but it has turned into mostly awarding popularity instead of creativity.

[Edited 12/6/12 9:57am]

Personally, I don't think it's a complete popularity contest. If that was the case, people like Esperanza Spauling and Mavis Staples wouldn't have won Grammy Awards over the last few years.

Disregard, edit, I just read your post before this that answers my question about Beyonce

But this point that you make I also talk about in the other post.

[Edited 12/6/12 10:42am]

daPrettyman said:

mjscarousal said:

So your saying a song HAS to be released in December that previous year in order to be acknowledge the following? What about the other R&B songs that were released as singles in December?

Is that fair to all the other songs that were exactly released in 2012?

You do have a point if thats true but I still feel they could have nominated other R&B songs that came out this year besides that one and the only reason why they did was because its Beyonce. I still stand by that. I would like to see Melanie Fiona win in that category or someone else but thats more than likely not going to happen.

Overall I am not tripping about the Grammys because its a machine and I understand how it operates I just think its sad BUT I am pleased with the slight change this year with the nominations overall.

[Edited 12/6/12 9:48am]

Yes. In previous years, October 1 was the cut off date for releases to be nominated for the eligibility period. I'm not sure what the eligibility was for this year, though. I'm sure it is around the same time. That is why you see such a push for singles and albums in September. That way, a song can be nominated one year and the album/song will be nominated again the next year.

Even if the artist releases a live album/dvd/compilation, you may see a 3 or 4 year old song (or older) being nominated. Beyonce is the perfect example. Her record label positions her releases so that she can fall into the eligibility period every year....even if her album promotion is done. A few years ago (in between B'Day and I Am) she released a live album. That live album/dvd release earned her another nomination for Irreplaceable even though the sound was 2 years old at the time.

For songs/albums to be nominated for this award, record labels and academy members have to promote and promote themselves to get nominations. So, for an indie artist, it would be harder to get attention.

Disregard last post, Thanks for the info I did not know that, I get it

Now based off of what you told me, I still would argue why was the Academy still nominating her in those categories when there were better artists, songs and albums in those categories especially past R&B categories she has won?

The only answer I have for that is popularity and that is not fair.

Whether she is eligible or not that does not necessarily mean her songs or ANYBODYs song for that matter should still be nominated based off the premise: popularity.

This why is I said THIS YEAR and LAST YEAR nominations showed a slight difference because artists who were not very popular were getting nominated based off the quality of their work, WHICH IT SHOULD BE anyway.

ex. Espernza win last year

Its not about who is popular or not, its about the quality of the music, period.

Espernza winning still doesnt change that for the most part, the grammys have operated on popularity for little over a decade now. Its refreshing that it appears their trying to be open minded to other artists that are not popular.

There have been great great albums and songs that have been snubbed because of acts like Beyonce, Chris Brown, Rihanna, OVER THE DECADE, I AM TIRED OF IT .. I dont care about the Grammys but just saying... thats why this year and last year was a good starting point for a change in how they do things

I still think Janelle Monae's Arch Android is one of the best albums by a female R&B singer that has came out over the last 10 years and that didnt win any awards or get grammy love

[Edited 12/6/12 10:47am]

[Edited 12/6/12 10:48am]

I haven't heard many of these albums or songs and most of the ones I have heard I was like ; but that's probably because nothing out has interested me enough to take time out to sit and really pay attention to it. I'm not particularly a music snob, just think most of this new music has already been done better by a past artist....okay maybe I'm a music snob. Adele was the last Grammy nominated artist that I was excited about because her first album was overlooked and she was great on it. The Grammys were just not paying attention to '19' so they just had to catch up and realize she was great from the jump off. I'll watch because maybe I'll hear something or see a performance that will take me out of my snobbish ways...maybe.

I see personal reasons for many of these responses to the nominations.

estelle81 said:

I haven't heard many of these albums or songs and most of the ones I have heard I was like ; but that's probably because nothing out has interested me enough to take time out to sit and really pay attention to it. I'm not particularly a music snob, just think most of this new music has already been done better by a past artist....okay maybe I'm a music snob. Adele was the last Grammy nominated artist that I was excited about because her first album was overlooked and she was great on it. The Grammys were just not paying attention to '19' so they just had to catch up and realize she was great from the jump off. I'll watch because maybe I'll hear something or see a performance that will take me out of my snobbish ways...maybe.

AGREE! Which is why I think that is the reason I dont care for Beyonces, Love on Top. I do admit that is one of her better songs but Ive just heard so many many many songs that are similiar and that are better than that, ya know?

Making a observation doesnt make you a music snob And I was a fan of Adele since Chasing Pavements.

When I think of a music snob I think of someone who is not open minded or who does not want to give a particular artist or genre a listen because they have a preconceived opinion already made in their mind that they dont like it.

It is a HUGE difference when you have listened to something enough to conclude that you dont like it

[Edited 12/6/12 11:03am]

The Grammys have always been a popularity contest. It's not like Paul Simon, Quincy Jones, and Stevie Wonder were little known underground acts. There's thousands of albums released each year and only a few are picked. The categories that are less popular are rarely broadcast on TV as the general public doesn't care about them, like "best Native American/zydeco/polka/spoken word/etc".

MickyDolenz said:

The Grammys have always been a popularity contest. It's not like Paul Simon, Quincy Jones, and Stevie Wonder were little known underground acts. There's thousands of albums released each year and only a few are picked. The categories that are less popular are rarely broadcast on TV as the general public doesn't care about them, like "best Native American/zydeco/polka/spoken word/etc".

I mean seriously what was so different when the Grammys started then? The music we all love was just as dismissed as garbage by older folks too. Maybe folks are just getting real old or old soul like so much that anything they hear past 30 don't make much sense to them lol sounding like Scooter Braun.

MickyDolenz said:

The Grammys have always been a popularity contest. It's not like Paul Simon, Quincy Jones, and Stevie Wonder were little known underground acts. There's thousands of albums released each year and only a few are picked. The categories that are less popular are rarely broadcast on TV as the general public doesn't care about them, like "best Native American/zydeco/polka/spoken word/etc".

But the Music was BETTER and better quality.

I would never compare the pop from the 70s to what we have today because its different.

The POP music today for the majority is not good quality like it once was.

Its NOT about popularity vs. obscure .. You can have quality in BOTH but TODAY in TODAYS MUSIC INDUSTRY most of the quality music is from artists that are not popular.

[Edited 12/6/12 11:27am]

mjscarousal said:

estelle81 said:

I haven't heard many of these albums or songs and most of the ones I have heard I was like ; but that's probably because nothing out has interested me enough to take time out to sit and really pay attention to it. I'm not particularly a music snob, just think most of this new music has already been done better by a past artist....okay maybe I'm a music snob. Adele was the last Grammy nominated artist that I was excited about because her first album was overlooked and she was great on it. The Grammys were just not paying attention to '19' so they just had to catch up and realize she was great from the jump off. I'll watch because maybe I'll hear something or see a performance that will take me out of my snobbish ways...maybe.

AGREE! Which is why I think that is the reason I dont care for Beyonces, Love on Top. I do admit that is one of her better songs but Ive just heard so many many many songs that are similiar and that are better than that, ya know?

Making a observation doesnt make you a music snob And I was a fan of Adele since Chasing Pavements.

When I think of a music snob I think of someone who is not open minded or who does not want to give a particular artist or genre a listen because they have a preconceived opinion already made in their mind that they dont like it.

It is a HUGE difference when you have listened to something enough to conclude that you dont like it

[Edited 12/6/12 11:03am]

Amen! Her first album was slept on I feel. '21' is lyrically, instrumentally, and vocally stellar I think and deserved all the accolades it received. She's real point blank to the period and understands that the music is all that really should matter even over image and being popular.

Fun. and Mumford & Sons have released some interesting tunes so I can understand the Grammy nods. I wish I could be one of those people who can sit and just listen to an album just for the sake of hearing it. Unfortunately, I can't do that if nothing about that artist piques my interest after listening to their released singles. I have one rule of thumb for my music listening, I have to like the majority of the released singles for me to even consider checking out that artist's album. If I'm not feeling the singles than it's a big probability I won't be into the majority of the album.

I actually like Kelly Clarkson's newest single more than 'Stronger' but it's too late to enter it into this year's list...I liked it when she debuted it on the AMAs.

The most current artist that has me mesmerized is Daley who really needs to get an album out here. His voice is amazing; his lyrics are well-done (and he writes them); and his instrumentation is very good as he connects well with his songs. That is what I look for when I listen to an artist. How pretty they are; what they are wearing; or how cool their video is are the last things that appeal to me. Like I always say, I can't see them when I'm listening to their albums. Imagery is nice but it's not as important as the artistry to me. I'm happy the committee didn't nominate image based artists this year because I like knowing that just because Gaga, Bieber, Minaj, and Rihanna may be able to debut at number one and sell millions of copies, that doesn't mean they are entitled to a Grammy just because they are popular.

Honestly, I've been more moved and entertained lately by music hopefuls singing covers on 'The Voice' than by the majority of signed artists on the radio in heavy rotation. I'd buy a Trevin Hunte, Nicholas David, Amanda Brown, or Terry McDermott album over any of these people any day of the week. If they can sound amazing doing covers than I can only imagine how outstanding they will sound doing their own material. All just my

Timmy84 said:

MickyDolenz said:

The Grammys have always been a popularity contest. It's not like Paul Simon, Quincy Jones, and Stevie Wonder were little known underground acts. There's thousands of albums released each year and only a few are picked. The categories that are less popular are rarely broadcast on TV as the general public doesn't care about them, like "best Native American/zydeco/polka/spoken word/etc".

I mean seriously what was so different when the Grammys started then? The music we all love was just as dismissed as garbage by older folks too. Maybe folks are just getting real old or old soul like so much that anything they hear past 30 don't make much sense to them lol sounding like Scooter Braun.

You know damn well a Stevie Wonder beats the shit out of anything up for Grammy this year. And as far as I recall, my grandmother, my mother and us kids were all fans of SW.

Grammys in the 70s: popular also equaled good.

mjscarousal said:

MickyDolenz said:

The Grammys have always been a popularity contest. It's not like Paul Simon, Quincy Jones, and Stevie Wonder were little known underground acts. There's thousands of albums released each year and only a few are picked. The categories that are less popular are rarely broadcast on TV as the general public doesn't care about them, like "best Native American/zydeco/polka/spoken word/etc".

But the Music was BETTER and better quality.

I would never compare the pop from the 70s to what we have today because its different.

The POP music today for the majority is not good quality like it once was.

Its NOT about popularity vs. obscure .. You can have quality in BOTH but TODAY in TODAYS MUSIC INDUSTRY most of the quality music is from artists that are not popular.

[Edited 12/6/12 11:27am]

That's an opinion of the listener. You cannot prove that one music is better than another. The award shows nominate popular acts. Out of thousands of albums, how can someone rate what is the "best", especially if the voters haven't listened to them all. It's no different than having a "Miss Universe" with only women from earth competing. Where's the females from other planets? Why isn't a spoken word, traditional/contempory blues, or gospel act nominated for a 'album/song of the year', instead of special categories that are not broadcast? They're niche music without a lot of mainstream attention.

Looking through grammy awards... i can say a few other thing's

R. Kelly no matter when or where.. will ALWAYS get an R&B album of the year nomination

Paul Mccartney no matter how boring of a solo album he releases will get a nod for album of the year...

Beyonce will somehow be nominated even if she doesn't have an album out

And in the metal category... They nominate live versions of classic songs that came out 14 years ago

mjscarousal said:

daPrettyman said:

Yes. In previous years, October 1 was the cut off date for releases to be nominated for the eligibility period. I'm not sure what the eligibility was for this year, though. I'm sure it is around the same time. That is why you see such a push for singles and albums in September. That way, a song can be nominated one year and the album/song will be nominated again the next year.

Even if the artist releases a live album/dvd/compilation, you may see a 3 or 4 year old song (or older) being nominated. Beyonce is the perfect example. Her record label positions her releases so that she can fall into the eligibility period every year....even if her album promotion is done. A few years ago (in between B'Day and I Am) she released a live album. That live album/dvd release earned her another nomination for Irreplaceable even though the sound was 2 years old at the time.

For songs/albums to be nominated for this award, record labels and academy members have to promote and promote themselves to get nominations. So, for an indie artist, it would be harder to get attention.

Disregard last post, Thanks for the info I did not know that, I get it

Now based off of what you told me, I still would argue why was the Academy still nominating her in those categories when there were better artists, songs and albums in those categories especially past R&B categories she has won?

The only answer I have for that is popularity and that is not fair.

Whether she is eligible or not that does not necessarily mean her songs or ANYBODYs song for that matter should still be nominated based off the premise: popularity.

This why is I said THIS YEAR and LAST YEAR nominations showed a slight difference because artists who were not very popular were getting nominated based off the quality of their work, WHICH IT SHOULD BE anyway.

ex. Espernza win last year

Its not about who is popular or not, its about the quality of the music, period.

Espernza winning still doesnt change that for the most part, the grammys have operated on popularity for little over a decade now. Its refreshing that it appears their trying to be open minded to other artists that are not popular.

There have been great great albums and songs that have been snubbed because of acts like Beyonce, Chris Brown, Rihanna, OVER THE DECADE, I AM TIRED OF IT .. I dont care about the Grammys but just saying... thats why this year and last year was a good starting point for a change in how they do things

I still think Janelle Monae's Arch Android is one of the best albums by a female R&B singer that has came out over the last 10 years and that didnt win any awards or get grammy love

[Edited 12/6/12 10:47am]

[Edited 12/6/12 10:48am]

I definitely agree with you. The fact that Whitney Houston wasn't nominated in the Gospel Category for her Preacher's Wife work still pisses me off.

The same thing happened to Waiting to Exhale at the Academy Awards. That soundtrack is one of the best of the last 20 years and it was overlooked.

Timmy84 said:

MickyDolenz said:

The Grammys have always been a popularity contest. It's not like Paul Simon, Quincy Jones, and Stevie Wonder were little known underground acts. There's thousands of albums released each year and only a few are picked. The categories that are less popular are rarely broadcast on TV as the general public doesn't care about them, like "best Native American/zydeco/polka/spoken word/etc".

I mean seriously what was so different when the Grammys started then? The music we all love was just as dismissed as garbage by older folks too. Maybe folks are just getting real old or old soul like so much that anything they hear past 30 don't make much sense to them lol sounding like Scooter Braun.

I agree but I think that a lot of the music that was chosen was good but "safe" when they got awards. In the 60's great popular artists like The Beatles, The Beach Boys, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, The Who, Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, and just countless artists that we all know and love and have many albums on "greatest albums of all-time " lists were not nominated for album of the year even with all of their classics, while established artists like Frank Sinatra were being nominated and winning each year. Just like in the past 10-15 years Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton, James Taylor and others have been getting their nominations, they are always late! So I think that the Grammies are a little late with new trends usually like rock and hip-hop, even R&B and Soul, before Stevie Wonder they didn't have all those wonderful Motown acts like Marvin Gaye, The Supremes, The Temptation, or other R&B/Soul artists get nominated or win awards.

One thing I like about the Grammies back then was the diversity they put into their nominees for general categories like album of the year. You had a little bit of rock (Beatles being nominated mostly), some Broadway and classic pop albums, some jazz and classical, you had a bit of everything.

[Edited 12/6/12 12:14pm]

MickyDolenz said:

mjscarousal said:

But the Music was BETTER and better quality.

I would never compare the pop from the 70s to what we have today because its different.

The POP music today for the majority is not good quality like it once was.

Its NOT about popularity vs. obscure .. You can have quality in BOTH but TODAY in TODAYS MUSIC INDUSTRY most of the quality music is from artists that are not popular.

[Edited 12/6/12 11:27am]

That's an opinion of the listener. You cannot prove that one music is better than another. The award shows nominate popular acts. Out of thousands of albums, how can someone rate what is the "best", especially if the voters haven't listened to them all. It's no different than having a "Miss Universe" with only women from earth competing. Where's the females from other planets? Why isn't a spoken word, traditional/contempory blues, or gospel act nominated for a 'album/song of the year', instead of special categories that are not broadcast? They're niche music without a lot of mainstream attention.

I am just making a observation. And from my observation the popular music of the past for the most part was of better quality than it is now.

On your Grammys arguement:

there are artists that always gets snub like Anothony Hamilton and Jill Scott that have chart hits that gets spin on R&B stations. Hamilton has a nod this year but his not a nominee that the Grammys usually nod and he has hits all the time. Some of these artists that deserve nominations are not the lowest of the low in popularity they exactly are quite well known.

I am not complaining about the nominations this year but just simply pointed out over the last decade the grammys have been rewarding popularity over quality and over the last two years they seemed to have tried to change up a bit which is good.

[Edited 12/6/12 12:11pm]

Timmy84 said:

I see personal reasons for many of these responses to the nominations.

It's no secret i adore Dylan.....

But people need to keep giving that bitch awards cause he obviously does not give a fuck.

He won all those grammy awards years ago & said little more then oh... thanks.

He got that noble peace prize from Obama & looked like he did not give 2 shits

Hell even the famous soy bomb incident.. he just stood there like.. whatever.

He doesn't seem to care what he wins, so it's good he isn't getting nominations

Gunsnhalen said:

Timmy84 said:

I see personal reasons for many of these responses to the nominations.

It's no secret i adore Dylan.....

But people need to keep giving that bitch awards cause he obviously does not give a fuck.

He won all those grammy awards years ago & said little more then oh... thanks.

He got that noble peace prize from Obama & looked like he did not give 2 shits

Hell even the famous soy bomb incident.. he just stood there like.. whatever.

He doesn't seem to care what he wins, so it's good he isn't getting nominations

Bob Dylan never gave a fuck about accolades. Even when he won the Presidential Medal of Freedom award, he was all like "eh". He just don't give a good goddamn!