independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Wed 11th Dec 2019 9:57pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Hmmm So Bruce Springsteen Got NO Grammy Nominations?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 11/20/19 10:46pm

CynicKill

Hmmm So Bruce Springsteen Got NO Grammy Nominations?

I'm just surprised that's all.

Pleasantly surprised Lana Del Rey finally got major nominations.

And my prediction of J Cole's Middle Child getting a nod, yet surprised it didn't get a Best Rap Song nomination.

It's The Grammies!

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 11/21/19 6:01am

Empress

The folks at the Grammy's know that most people watching don't really care about great music, they only care about a gimmick and a catchy song, hence the nominations.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 11/21/19 4:42pm

kitbradley

avatar

I only saw the R&B noms and didnt recognize most of what was nominated so I can only imagine what the other categories look like. lol
"It's not nice to fuck with K.B.! All you haters will see!" - Kitbradley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 11/21/19 6:52pm

thedoorkeeper

Have you listened to Springsteen's last album?
IMO it isn't that great.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 11/21/19 8:35pm

CynicKill

thedoorkeeper said:

Have you listened to Springsteen's last album? IMO it isn't that great.

>

These are the nominees:

2. Album Of The Year
Award to Artist(s) and to Featured Artist(s), Songwriter(s) of new material, Producer(s), Recording Engineer(s), Mixer(s) and Mastering Engineer(s) credited with at least 33% playing time of the album, if other than Artist.

  • I,I
    Bon Iver
    Brad Cook, Chris Messina & Justin Vernon, producers; Zach Hansen & Chris Messina, engineers/mixers; BJ Burton, Brad Cook & Justin Vernon, songwriters; Greg Calbi, mastering engineer
  • NORMAN F***ING ROCKWELL!
    Lana Del Rey
    Jack Antonoff & Lana Del Rey, producers; Jack Antonoff & Laura Sisk, engineers/mixers; Jack Antonoff & Lana Del Rey, songwriters; Chris Gehringer, mastering engineer
  • WHEN WE ALL FALL ASLEEP, WHERE DO WE GO?
    Billie Eilish
    Finneas O'Connell, producer; Rob Kinelski & Finneas O'Connell, engineers/mixers; Billie Eilish O'Connell & Finneas O'Connell, songwriters; John Greenham, mastering engineer
  • THANK U, NEXT
    Ariana Grande
    Tommy Brown, Ilya, Max Martin & Victoria Monet, producers; Serban Ghenea & Brendan Morawski, engineers/mixers; Tommy Brown, Ariana Grande, Savan Kotecha, Max Martin, Victoria Monet, Tayla Parx & Ilya Salmanzadeh, songwriters; Randy Merrill, mastering engineer
  • I USED TO KNOW HER
    H.E.R.
    David "Swagg R'Celious" Harris, H.E.R., Walter Jones & Jeff Robinson, producers; Miki Tsutsumi, engineer/mixer; Sam Ashworth, Jeff “Gitty” Gitelman, David "Swagg R'Celious" Harris & H.E.R., songwriters; Colin Leonard, mastering engineer
  • 7
    Lil Nas X
    Montero Lamar Hill, songwriter; Eric Lagg, mastering engineer
  • CUZ I LOVE YOU (DELUXE)

  • Lizzo
    Ricky Reed, producer; Manny Marroquin & Ethan Shumaker, engineers/mixers; Eric Frederic & Melissa Jefferson, songwriters; Chris Gehringer, mastering engineer
  • FATHER OF THE BRIDE
    Vampire Weekend
    Ezra Koenig & Ariel Rechtshaid, producers; John DeBold, Chris Kasych, Takemasa Kosaka, Ariel Rechtshaid & Hiroya Takayama, engineers/mixers; Ezra Koenig, songwriter; Emily Lazar, mastering engineer

So we have Lil Nas X which technically isn't an album, and Ariana Grande who is this years Justin Bieber nod. I'm just shocked that they didn't nominate a legend who has never won a major grammy who also put out a well recieved album, in essence the veterans slot. The grammies sure are changing. Bruce is so old now he'll never get nominated again.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 11/22/19 12:44am

SoulAlive

kitbradley said:

I saw the R&B noms and didnt recognize most of what was nominated

same here lol I was like 'who are these people'?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 11/22/19 8:35am

DaveT

avatar

I'm sure The Boss ain't bothered. They give Grammys out like breath mints, they're pretty meaningless.

www.filmsfilmsfilms.co.uk - The internet's best movie site!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 11/22/19 9:41am

Empress

DaveT said:

I'm sure The Boss ain't bothered. They give Grammys out like breath mints, they're pretty meaningless.

They are indeed meaningless these days. I can remember back in the day when the Grammys really meant something. I would be looking forward to the show for weeks before to see great bands and performances. Now it's just a bunch of mildly talented collaborations directed at folks that really don't give shit about great music because they don't understand what great music and real talent is.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 11/22/19 4:56pm

Cloudbuster

avatar

Empress said:

They are indeed meaningless these days. I can remember back in the day when the Grammys really meant something. I would be looking forward to the show for weeks before to see great bands and performances. Now it's just a bunch of mildly talented collaborations directed at folks that really don't give shit about great music because they don't understand what great music and real talent is.


This one.

https://www.youtube.com/w...kMpeF12xTk

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 11/22/19 7:14pm

lastdecember

avatar

THe grammys dont dig deep, not really shocked here, they are trying to be hip and trendy and "down"but they basically went with the charts or whatever those things are now these days. Springsteen got the shaft here but not shocked because the show is worried about catering to the young even though the ratings show that demographic can give two shits about this show and its lame pairings, I wonder we will get this year. But they truly need to start digging deep into female indie artists, i mean deep, i dont consider Lana and Billie indie females.


"We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 11/22/19 7:46pm

SoulAlive

not surprisingly,Beyonce got a nomination rolleyes bored I stopped watching the Grammys years ago.Many of these nominees,I never even heard of,lol
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 11/22/19 9:42pm

kitbradley

avatar

SoulAlive said:

not surprisingly,Beyonce got a nomination rolleyes bored I stopped watching the Grammys years ago.Many of these nominees,I never even heard of,lol

I still can't get over the fact she surpassed all of Aretha's Grammy wins in such a short period of time. And 70 nominations??? eek Jay-Z has 77 nominations? Why? eek He's going to over-throw Quincy Jones in a minute. lol Rappers couldn't even get arrested at the Grammy's a few decades ago. How times have changed.









[Edited 11/22/19 21:45pm]

"It's not nice to fuck with K.B.! All you haters will see!" - Kitbradley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 11/22/19 9:53pm

SoulAlive

kitbradley said:



SoulAlive said:


not surprisingly,Beyonce got a nomination rolleyes bored I stopped watching the Grammys years ago.Many of these nominees,I never even heard of,lol

I still can't get over the fact she surpassed all of Aretha's Grammy wins in such a short period of time. And 70 nominations??? eek Jay-Z has 77 nominations? Why? eek He's going to over-throw Quincy Jones in a minute. lol Rappers couldn't even get arrested at the Grammy's a few decades ago. How times have changed.



It’s ridiculous....nothing more than a popularity contest.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 11/23/19 5:16am

gandorb

While I prefer Bruce's album over some of the other nominated albums that I have heard, I actually thought it was over-rated and was not one of his best ones IMO.

On a side note, I was giving a seminar that included some conservative folks and I used a song from Normal F**king Rockwell to illustrate a point. I was so glad when someone inquired the name of the album that the song was on. I had to supress a smile when I said Norman Fucking Rockwell in the microphone. Perhaps it was partly because I hardly ever cuss and this was captured in a training video. Given my extremely cheap thrill, I am thinking that maybe I should spice it up more often wink .

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 11/23/19 8:15am

looby

Honestly, I haven't watched the Grammys in years, nor any of the others, because they have all turned into a complete joke, and will never be what they used to be!

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 11/23/19 8:19am

looby

SoulAlive said:

kitbradley said:

I still can't get over the fact she surpassed all of Aretha's Grammy wins in such a short period of time. And 70 nominations??? eek Jay-Z has 77 nominations? Why? eek He's going to over-throw Quincy Jones in a minute. lol Rappers couldn't even get arrested at the Grammy's a few decades ago. How times have changed.

It’s ridiculous....nothing more than a popularity contest.

I agree. I'm not into today's music at all, but what has Jay Z done recently that warrants 77 nominations? Seriously, is he or his wife running the Grammy's now, because I just don't get it?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 11/23/19 11:16am

nextedition

avatar

looby said:



SoulAlive said:


kitbradley said:


I still can't get over the fact she surpassed all of Aretha's Grammy wins in such a short period of time. And 70 nominations??? eek Jay-Z has 77 nominations? Why? eek He's going to over-throw Quincy Jones in a minute. lol Rappers couldn't even get arrested at the Grammy's a few decades ago. How times have changed.



It’s ridiculous....nothing more than a popularity contest.




I agree. I'm not into today's music at all, but what has Jay Z done recently that warrants 77 nominations? Seriously, is he or his wife running the Grammy's now, because I just don't get it?


Maybe thats the problem
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 11/23/19 1:39pm

MickyDolenz

avatar

kitbradley said:

Rappers couldn't even get arrested at the Grammy's a few decades ago. How times have changed.

DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince was the 1st hip hop act to win a Grammy in 1989, which is 30 years ago, and 10 years after Rappers Delight. Run DMC was nominated a few years before that in the R&B category but didn't win. This year Rappers Delight is 40 years old, there wouldn't have been any rap nominated before that because it was still underground in NYC. There were no official releases, it was only on cassette.

For 65 years straight, the #1 genre in music, selling wise, was rock n' roll worldwide. Last year (2017) in June, it got de-crowned by hip hop. Hip hop is the #1 genre. It's hip hop - rock - country - pop or pop - country. ~ Pras
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 11/23/19 1:59pm

MickyDolenz

avatar

SoulAlive said:

nothing more than a popularity contest.

It's always been a popularity contest. There was a reason Paul Simon thanked Stevie Wonder for not releasing a record 1 year in the 1970s. lol You think Michael Jackson broke a record for winning the most Grammys in a year for Thriller & the E.T. Storybook because he was little known? Milli Vanilli & Christopher Cross won Best New Artist because they were popular. The more mainstream popular acts were the ones usually shown on the broadcast. It's not like they would show whoever the polka & spoken word acts were.

For 65 years straight, the #1 genre in music, selling wise, was rock n' roll worldwide. Last year (2017) in June, it got de-crowned by hip hop. Hip hop is the #1 genre. It's hip hop - rock - country - pop or pop - country. ~ Pras
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 11/23/19 2:35pm

lastdecember

avatar

MickyDolenz said:

SoulAlive said:

nothing more than a popularity contest.

It's always been a popularity contest. There was a reason Paul Simon thanked Stevie Wonder for not releasing a record 1 year in the 1970s. lol You think Michael Jackson broke a record for winning the most Grammys in a year for Thriller & the E.T. Storybook because he was little known? Milli Vanilli & Christopher Cross won Best New Artist because they were popular. The more mainstream popular acts were the ones usually shown on the broadcast. It's not like they would show whoever the polka & spoken word acts were.

To a degree than the Grammy's bowed to some pressure when Artists like Bob Dylan were getting nominated but not played. The same thing is continuing now, what I will say is that there is no comparison of the comptetion of then and now. The problem with the show actually is the catering to a demographic that doesnt even watch the show, I mean at this point that demographic does not even know the CBS network that airs it, or what it is. So I never get the whole idea of lets get so and so, when now more than ever the demoraphic doesnt even watch it and the older crowd that tunes in for some of it, doesnt buy into the artists, record sales dont spike anymore, occaisionally you see streaming numbers spike but "streaming" is not like people are actually investing in the music nor will it have any value with them. This is why everyone puts what they got into connecting at shows, and things like Record Store Days etc...more music is consumed that way than itunes and all the other services.


"We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 11/23/19 4:05pm

MickyDolenz

avatar

lastdecember said:

So I never get the whole idea of lets get so and so, when now more than ever the demoraphic doesnt even watch it and the older crowd that tunes in for some of it, doesnt buy into the artists, record sales dont spike anymore, occaisionally you see streaming numbers spike but "streaming" is not like people are actually investing in the music nor will it have any value with them. This is why everyone puts what they got into connecting at shows, and things like Record Store Days etc...more music is consumed that way than itunes and all the other services.

Many older people are less likely to buy CDs online, and some don't know how to use a computer in the first place or do not have credit cards. They might shop at Walmart which mostly has whatever albums that is are the pop Top 10 (and the clean versions of those), Greatest Hits by older artists, and a few Spanish language singers/bands. Only bigger cities have standalone record stores and there's not that many of them in the city like there used to be. Best Buy doesn't sell CDs anymore, but some do carry vinyl. Many people today don't even own a stereo to play CDs, records, or tapes. CD players are not put in new cars as a default. Radio Shack is mostly gone and the last time I went in one it was mostly cell phones. Vinyl is kinda costly today. A record averages between $20 - $45 for 1 album, too expensive for a lot of people and a 45 single is $6 - $12. An entire album was $6 before CDs took over in the 1990s. I've never understood why CDs cost more than records and tapes before it, when CDs were cheaper to make. The labels killed themselves with that and eliminating physical singles to try to force people to buy CDs. The performers didn't help by filling up the 80 minute CD space, when albums before were generally 30 to 45 minutes long because records couldn't hold much time before losing sound quality. 80 minutes is just about the length of the average movie. There's also the case of people post-Napster just got used to free music, so probably it doesn't have the same value. I think social media might have hurt music sales too, since it was the social media generation who came up with cancel culture, the idea of cultural appropriation, reality stars, etc. If Teena Marie or Average White Band came out today, they would get accused of cultural appropriation and might not be as accepted. Stuff like All In The Family, Diff'rent Strokes, I Dream Of Jeannie, Three's Company, and Sanford & Son couldn't come out today. Like Disney+ won't broadcast Song Of The South. I've heard they might edit the crows out of the original Dumbo. Just imagine John Lennon today releasing Woman Is The N Of The World. Or Joe Tex's Ain't Gonna Bump No More. The public would have a big fit. Social media has also made celebrities less of an "us & them" than the ones of the past. The general audience didn't know as much about famous people because they weren't talked about on the news. There wasn't hundreds of TV channels trying to fill up 24 hours of time. TV stations used to go off at night, like on that Lenny Williams song. razz

For 65 years straight, the #1 genre in music, selling wise, was rock n' roll worldwide. Last year (2017) in June, it got de-crowned by hip hop. Hip hop is the #1 genre. It's hip hop - rock - country - pop or pop - country. ~ Pras
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 11/23/19 5:23pm

SoulAlive

MickyDolenz said:

SoulAlive said:

nothing more than a popularity contest.

It's always been a popularity contest. There was a reason Paul Simon thanked Stevie Wonder for not releasing a record 1 year in the 1970s. lol You think Michael Jackson broke a record for winning the most Grammys in a year for Thriller & the E.T. Storybook because he was little known? Milli Vanilli & Christopher Cross won Best New Artist because they were popular. The more mainstream popular acts were the ones usually shown on the broadcast. It's not like they would show whoever the polka & spoken word acts were.

yeah,but those artists that you mentioned (except for Milli Vanilli) are actually great artists who had excellent albums at the time biggrin No one had any problem with Stevie Wonder winning all those awards because he is a truly brilliant artist.Can you honestly say the same about Jay-Z?

.

[Edited 11/23/19 20:07pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 11/24/19 8:05pm

rdhull

avatar

shrug..its time they stop sucking the dick of the old guard and let the new generation get theirs

c'mon baby, where's ya guts?
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 11/25/19 2:54pm

lastdecember

avatar

MickyDolenz said:

lastdecember said:

So I never get the whole idea of lets get so and so, when now more than ever the demoraphic doesnt even watch it and the older crowd that tunes in for some of it, doesnt buy into the artists, record sales dont spike anymore, occaisionally you see streaming numbers spike but "streaming" is not like people are actually investing in the music nor will it have any value with them. This is why everyone puts what they got into connecting at shows, and things like Record Store Days etc...more music is consumed that way than itunes and all the other services.

Many older people are less likely to buy CDs online, and some don't know how to use a computer in the first place or do not have credit cards. They might shop at Walmart which mostly has whatever albums that is are the pop Top 10 (and the clean versions of those), Greatest Hits by older artists, and a few Spanish language singers/bands. Only bigger cities have standalone record stores and there's not that many of them in the city like there used to be. Best Buy doesn't sell CDs anymore, but some do carry vinyl. Many people today don't even own a stereo to play CDs, records, or tapes. CD players are not put in new cars as a default. Radio Shack is mostly gone and the last time I went in one it was mostly cell phones. Vinyl is kinda costly today. A record averages between $20 - $45 for 1 album, too expensive for a lot of people and a 45 single is $6 - $12. An entire album was $6 before CDs took over in the 1990s. I've never understood why CDs cost more than records and tapes before it, when CDs were cheaper to make. The labels killed themselves with that and eliminating physical singles to try to force people to buy CDs. The performers didn't help by filling up the 80 minute CD space, when albums before were generally 30 to 45 minutes long because records couldn't hold much time before losing sound quality. 80 minutes is just about the length of the average movie. There's also the case of people post-Napster just got used to free music, so probably it doesn't have the same value. I think social media might have hurt music sales too, since it was the social media generation who came up with cancel culture, the idea of cultural appropriation, reality stars, etc. If Teena Marie or Average White Band came out today, they would get accused of cultural appropriation and might not be as accepted. Stuff like All In The Family, Diff'rent Strokes, I Dream Of Jeannie, Three's Company, and Sanford & Son couldn't come out today. Like Disney+ won't broadcast Song Of The South. I've heard they might edit the crows out of the original Dumbo. Just imagine John Lennon today releasing Woman Is The N Of The World. Or Joe Tex's Ain't Gonna Bump No More. The public would have a big fit. Social media has also made celebrities less of an "us & them" than the ones of the past. The general audience didn't know as much about famous people because they weren't talked about on the news. There wasn't hundreds of TV channels trying to fill up 24 hours of time. TV stations used to go off at night, like on that Lenny Williams song. razz

Oh all that is understood, now its all about streaming and the older artists with followings sell the physical stuff. I mean one of the biggest guys out there now, that Ed sheeran guy, releases a new album and the idea and focus is NOT on selling it, or having you buy it, its about please listen to it, that is a huge shift, and as much as people want to debate YOUNG AND OLD its got nothing to do with that, because there are young acts that sell more records than other YOUNG acts who just get streaming numbers. AGE-ism though is a huge fact, and especially on this forum, about PRINCE no one realized the fact the reason this man got NO AIRPLAY at all, the last 20 years of his life was not because of SUB PAR material, it was because he was old and things shifted, lets not forget that Prince had one major hit from 1994 on, and then after that minor little things that got a little play, Musicology sold because he jammed it down the throat of the public, he was on every show twice, it was like Phil Collins in the 80's. All the points you make about Social Media 100% correct, I recently talked with an indie artist who was talking with a label person, now last time I checked Label people USED to listen to your material? right? NOPE the questions she got were, How many instagram followers do you have, whats your twitter feed look like, Facebook Likes? Not one damn queestion about wheres your demo? do you write? play? sing live? NONE of it. So people with the whole old and young get over it already, its not about that, its about mindless fools doing the gatekeeping.


"We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 11/25/19 7:43pm

MickyDolenz

avatar

lastdecember said:

because there are young acts that sell more records than other YOUNG acts who just get streaming numbers.

Adele sold a lot of physical copies because her CDs were carried in a lot of stores including places that don't normally carry music like Walgreens, CVS, gas stations, Starbucks, Whole Foods, grocery & department stores, etc. It was there where people can see it. If an album is only available online, only people actively looking for it will see it, not the general public. A lot of people might not know an album is out there, especially with veteran artists.

lastdecember said:

AGE-ism though is a huge fact, and especially on this forum, about PRINCE no one realized the fact the reason this man got NO AIRPLAY at all, the last 20 years of his life was not because of SUB PAR material, it was because he was old and things shifted, lets not forget that Prince had one major hit from 1994 on, and then after that minor little things that got a little play,

But Top 40 has always had an age limit. So has entertainment in general. It's not like Dean Martin was getting on MTV in the 1980s. Frank Sinatra & Ray Charles were releasing duets albums with then younger hot acts, Carlos Santana did it with Supernatural, and Tony Bennett is doing it today. Madonna is doing collabos with Quavo, Maluma, & Nicki Minaj. The general public want to see younger singers or actors, they're not checking for Murder She Wrote or Matlock. Clint Eastwood is probably the only actor of his generation that is still a big box office draw. Even with a lot of fans of older artists, they generally want to hear their old hits, not their newer stuff. The Beatles still sell a lot, Paul McCartney's new music not so much. The Rolling Stones still perform Satisfaction.

For 65 years straight, the #1 genre in music, selling wise, was rock n' roll worldwide. Last year (2017) in June, it got de-crowned by hip hop. Hip hop is the #1 genre. It's hip hop - rock - country - pop or pop - country. ~ Pras
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 11/25/19 8:22pm

lastdecember

avatar

MickyDolenz said:


lastdecember said:


because there are young acts that sell more records than other YOUNG acts who just get streaming numbers.



Adele sold a lot of physical copies because her CDs were carried in a lot of stores including places that don't normally carry music like Walgreens, CVS, gas stations, Starbucks, Whole Foods, grocery & department stores, etc. It was there where people can see it. If an album is only available online, only people actively looking for it will see it, not the general public. A lot of people might not know an album is out there, especially with veteran artists.




lastdecember said:


AGE-ism though is a huge fact, and especially on this forum, about PRINCE no one realized the fact the reason this man got NO AIRPLAY at all, the last 20 years of his life was not because of SUB PAR material, it was because he was old and things shifted, lets not forget that Prince had one major hit from 1994 on, and then after that minor little things that got a little play,



But Top 40 has always had an age limit. So has entertainment in general. It's not like Dean Martin was getting on MTV in the 1980s. Frank Sinatra & Ray Charles were releasing duets albums with then younger hot acts, Carlos Santana did it with Supernatural, and Tony Bennett is doing it today. Madonna is doing collabos with Quavo, Maluma, & Nicki Minaj. The general public want to see younger singers or actors, they're not checking for Murder She Wrote or Matlock. Clint Eastwood is probably the only actor of his generation that is still a big box office draw. Even with a lot of fans of older artists, they generally want to hear their old hits, not their newer stuff. The Beatles still sell a lot, Paul McCartney's new music not so much. The Rolling Stones still perform Satisfaction.



But reality is no Nicki Minaj fans all of a sudden dig Madonna, so the strategy doesn’t work, the album gets no play it sells for two weeks and then it’s gone, because radio used to be able to play about fifty different songs and chose some now it’s regulated to about a dozen and no choices to be made. In the 80’s though you had the stones well into their 40’s still getting play, Aretha crossing over Patti Labelle getting on pop radio even Springsteen in his big boss days was already what some would call today an old guy, Elton John was still on the radio Billy Joel etc all pushing 40 at the time, who is pushing forty now getting top 40 heavy rotation and air time? Your average star now is a media star first, music star last.

"We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 11/25/19 8:52pm

MickyDolenz

avatar

lastdecember said:

But reality is no Nicki Minaj fans all of a sudden dig Madonna, so the strategy doesn’t work, the album gets no play it sells for two weeks and then it’s gone, because radio used to be able to play about fifty different songs and chose some now it’s regulated to about a dozen and no choices to be made. In the 80’s though you had the stones well into their 40’s still getting play, Aretha crossing over Patti Labelle getting on pop radio even Springsteen in his big boss days was already what some would call today an old guy, Elton John was still on the radio Billy Joel etc all pushing 40 at the time, who is pushing forty now getting top 40 heavy rotation and air time? Your average star now is a media star first, music star last.

Sure it does, you think Tony Bennett would have sold the same amount without Lady Gaga. Supernatural sold more than any other Santana album. Sinatra's duets sold so well, that a second one was released. The success of Sinatra's duets is why other veterans started doing them, just like a lot started releasing standards albums after Rod Stewart sold a lot with the American Songbook CDs. It does not matter if the people buying these duets albums buy Santana's other albums. 40 isn't that old, I think the Maroon 5 guys are around that age and Jay-Z is over 40. Maroon 5 still get Top 40 airplay. John Legend is 40 too and he is big and even was recently voted sexist man in People Magazine. Top 40 was still not playing anyone Dean Martin's age in the 1980s.

For 65 years straight, the #1 genre in music, selling wise, was rock n' roll worldwide. Last year (2017) in June, it got de-crowned by hip hop. Hip hop is the #1 genre. It's hip hop - rock - country - pop or pop - country. ~ Pras
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 11/26/19 7:54am

cherishtheday

rdhull said:

shrug..its time they stop sucking the dick of the old guard and let the new generation get theirs

Agreed.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 11/27/19 4:15am

JoeTyler

The Grammys have always been about the mainstream Top10. Way worse than the Oscars.
tinkerbell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 11/27/19 10:56am

lastdecember

avatar

MickyDolenz said:

lastdecember said:

But reality is no Nicki Minaj fans all of a sudden dig Madonna, so the strategy doesn’t work, the album gets no play it sells for two weeks and then it’s gone, because radio used to be able to play about fifty different songs and chose some now it’s regulated to about a dozen and no choices to be made. In the 80’s though you had the stones well into their 40’s still getting play, Aretha crossing over Patti Labelle getting on pop radio even Springsteen in his big boss days was already what some would call today an old guy, Elton John was still on the radio Billy Joel etc all pushing 40 at the time, who is pushing forty now getting top 40 heavy rotation and air time? Your average star now is a media star first, music star last.

Sure it does, you think Tony Bennett would have sold the same amount without Lady Gaga. Supernatural sold more than any other Santana album. Sinatra's duets sold so well, that a second one was released. The success of Sinatra's duets is why other veterans started doing them, just like a lot started releasing standards albums after Rod Stewart sold a lot with the American Songbook CDs. It does not matter if the people buying these duets albums buy Santana's other albums. 40 isn't that old, I think the Maroon 5 guys are around that age and Jay-Z is over 40. Maroon 5 still get Top 40 airplay. John Legend is 40 too and he is big and even was recently voted sexist man in People Magazine. Top 40 was still not playing anyone Dean Martin's age in the 1980s.

But Duets was a lifetime ago, Sinatra's was what almost 20 plus years ago? Tony Bennetts sold but thats different than getting airplay, Bruce Springsteen and Bon Jovi debut at number one pretty much everything they put out, but when was the last time you heard a new Bruce or Jovi song on the radio? I mean the fact that albums debuting at number one and get zero play attention etc..show the total seperation and the change in the ways of music consumption, radio playlists, and yes AGE is a bigger factor now than ever. And yes Springsteen is 70 but that man has not been on the radio since the 90's and even then it was because of a Movie Song, Bon Jovi is in his early 50's but last single they had on the radio wide spread was over a decade ago and that was not for long. The albums mentioned were all at a time when people still had to buy a record and also Santana and Sinatra all of that was a trend just like Rod Stewarts song books, I mean Manilow had three number one albums in a row with that and he was close to 60 at the time.


"We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Hmmm So Bruce Springsteen Got NO Grammy Nominations?