The awards themselves are a bit biased (duh!), but this year's performances i found above average!

Tracy Chapman

Miley's scrawney butt was good!

Jon Batiste kinda "prince"-ed it up

Fantasia Barrino WOW

Jay Z accccccurately stated, "...obviously subjective...most grammys won (wife), never album of the year...some of you may get robbed...some don't belong in the category..." DAMN!!!

Joni actually made me weep by way of truth

Why does travis scott matter?

Billy didn't wanna sing anymore, but his new song is ok, however, him closing the night with "You May Be Right" was perfection

I should've started one.

Luke/Tracy - Fast Car: What an amazing performance. She looked shy to be there. I know she's super private, but I'm not sure why she's not making music anymore. I hate to compare folks, but she really was a Springsteen-esque person with her rich and varied story telling. Melissa Etheridge also comes to mind.

Right now, "Fast Car," her version is #1 on iTunes.

I don't know what the fuck Billie Eilish was singing or doing. That whole core whisper thing she does it just old after the first few times. She needs an album where she just SINGS. Show us what you have, and write a really good song.

I'm not a Miley Cyrus fan. I don't care for the voice, actually. But she worked that performance out and it was fun and great to watch. I actually like "Flowers."

Fantasia: People accused her of lip syncing, but no. Not even close. That's a lot to live up to when paying tribute to Tina Turner, and she did a great job. It was also a good tie-in with Oprah introducing her, and being in The Color Purple, etc etc.

I am not that familiar with Joni Mitchell's music overall, but I know a few things here and there. I own Blue on vinyl I believe. And she was at some Brandi Carlisle shows in 2023, and people are still raving about that show; how magical, spiritual, transcending it was. This performance brought that home. Simply beautiful.

Annie Lennox, with Wendy & Lisa, felt so perfect and purposeful. Susannah said she did Wendy's makeup and touched up Annie's. I'd love to see them work together on an EP of like 6 or 7 songs.

Jon Batiste was good.

I enjoy SZA, but they keyboards were so reverby and overproduced, it was hard to hear anything she was singing in the first half of her performance.

Prince got a lot of moments and shout outs. I guess in the pre-ceremony there was a "Let's Go Crazy" performance, but I haven't looked for it yet.

I didn't notice Travis Scott performing. I saw some rapper without a face and kept fast-forwarding.

Jay Z - he told it like it was.

Billy Joel: that was a great song! I'm glad he wrote something new.

Yeah I mean I basically watched a replay not really crazy about most of the performances mainly because I'm not crazy about the songs/music. Tracy was great, Joni, Annie, Stevie. The Billy Joel song I loved since the first time I heard it, some have said they expected him to return with a rocker, not sure why but he's 73 not 33. Taylor winning album of the year, I mean I do like the record, but its a bit too loaded with songs in my opinion, I preferred Rodrigo's "Guts" short album very well crafted songs, but its subjective whatever. As for Jayz I mean I get his gripe BUT it comes off a little odd when you have won more grammies than anyone now you are saying you have won the wrong ones? I hope he does realize as he should know, the Grammy's are not some board members they are producers, writers, musicians and all who are in the industry from all genres so basically you are complaing to who exactly?

For me I haven't really liked her albums like that, songs here and there but it's similar to the Mariah Carey syndrome, I lose track of where songs even come from because the albums don't really hold my interest, but again its me and If I was a voter, this year I'd vote Rodrigo pretty much up and down because it held my interest most, others did not, but again some others will have another way. For Jay I would say this, David Bowie's first grammy came after he was Dead, and the Beatles first came after they broke up and the ones they have won mostly are for the "anthology" back in the 90's and this year for a music video they arent in, so his gripes kinda not feeling it.

CynicKill said:

They sure were determined to give Taylor Swift that record weren’t they. But I guess I’m biased. Stevie Wonder I get. And Paul Simon can write like nobody’s business. I just don’t hear it with TS. Kudos to her for shining light on Lana Del Rey though. At first I was thinking “why”? But I now see she was sharing her clout for the academy’s benefit.

The album for Taylor was rather medicore compared to other pop-centric albums she's made. I'm not a Swifty, but I did listen to that album. Verrrrry toned down, not poppy or bold in any fashion.

So were they determined to give it to her? I don't know, but I have to think that someone knew enough to write it into Trevor Noah's opening remarks about Album of the Year. Why build up the hype only to make her look like a failure? So someone knew ahead that she'd win, but was someone determined to make her win before all that? I don't know.

TrivialPursuit said:

CynicKill said:

They sure were determined to give Taylor Swift that record weren’t they. But I guess I’m biased. Stevie Wonder I get. And Paul Simon can write like nobody’s business. I just don’t hear it with TS. Kudos to her for shining light on Lana Del Rey though. At first I was thinking “why”? But I now see she was sharing her clout for the academy’s benefit.

The album for Taylor was rather medicore compared to other pop-centric albums she's made. I'm not a Swifty, but I did listen to that album. Verrrrry toned down, not poppy or bold in any fashion.

So were they determined to give it to her? I don't know, but I have to think that someone knew enough to write it into Trevor Noah's opening remarks about Album of the Year. Why build up the hype only to make her look like a failure? So someone knew ahead that she'd win, but was someone determined to make her win before all that? I don't know.

I think the academy was determined. She's been nominated 6 times with four wins. It seems excessive, especially for what seems to me to be very demo-centric material.

Academy board members recently have anonymously revealed their picks in recent years. When Beyonce was up for "Lemonade" (an award she argueably should've won) a voter flat out said he wasn't voting for Beyonce because "every time she comes out everyone thinks she should win". This year a voter said he will not vote for Lana Del Rey and never will because of her bad SNL performance 12 YEARS AGO!

It's obvious they love Swift for reasons I can't fathom other than commercial.

Someone laid out the extensive campaigning process full of shmoozing and industry meetings and giving talks at events and after hearing that I can see why Prince never faired too well at the grammies. I can't see him doing all that. But Swift? Yeah.

TrivialPursuit said:

CynicKill said:

They sure were determined to give Taylor Swift that record weren’t they. But I guess I’m biased. Stevie Wonder I get. And Paul Simon can write like nobody’s business. I just don’t hear it with TS. Kudos to her for shining light on Lana Del Rey though. At first I was thinking “why”? But I now see she was sharing her clout for the academy’s benefit.

The album for Taylor was rather medicore compared to other pop-centric albums she's made. I'm not a Swifty, but I did listen to that album. Verrrrry toned down, not poppy or bold in any fashion.

So were they determined to give it to her? I don't know, but I have to think that someone knew enough to write it into Trevor Noah's opening remarks about Album of the Year. Why build up the hype only to make her look like a failure? So someone knew ahead that she'd win, but was someone determined to make her win before all that? I don't know.

I did like the Taylor album it was just a little too much I think one version had 20 songs on it, and thats fine but too many tracks make it really hard to go back multiple times to a record regardless who you are. I was shocked Rodrigo got shut out mainly because she is becoming the female Dave Grohl meaning everyone in the industry of the older generation like her, shes been with Sheryl Crow, Carole King, Billy Joel calls her his buddy, she seems to be that "safe" one to invite or like, similar to Dave Grohl. It's funny because now the Grammys are getting criticized for not showcasing new talent, lol, its hilarious, for years people bitched and called them the Grannies, so they totally went all young and occasionally tossed in a token oldie like a Metallica or something, because they noticed a huge drop in the ratings when they broke down when people watched and when they didnt, i mean don't they realize kids have no attention span so why would that demographic tune in to a three hour show?

CynicKill said:

TrivialPursuit said:

The album for Taylor was rather medicore compared to other pop-centric albums she's made. I'm not a Swifty, but I did listen to that album. Verrrrry toned down, not poppy or bold in any fashion.

So were they determined to give it to her? I don't know, but I have to think that someone knew enough to write it into Trevor Noah's opening remarks about Album of the Year. Why build up the hype only to make her look like a failure? So someone knew ahead that she'd win, but was someone determined to make her win before all that? I don't know.

I think the academy was determined. She's been nominated 6 times with four wins. It seems excessive, especially for what seems to me to be very demo-centric material.

Academy board members recently have anonymously revealed their picks in recent years. When Beyonce was up for "Lemonade" (an award she argueably should've won) a voter flat out said he wasn't voting for Beyonce because "every time she comes out everyone thinks she should win". This year a voter said he will not vote for Lana Del Rey and never will because of her bad SNL performance 12 YEARS AGO!

It's obvious they love Swift for reasons I can't fathom other than commercial.

Someone laid out the extensive campaigning process full of shmoozing and industry meetings and giving talks at events and after hearing that I can see why Prince never faired too well at the grammies. I can't see him doing all that. But Swift? Yeah.

In general though your label is the one that gets you these things, thats the bottom line. The academy has got so limited they eliminated all the rock male female and group categories all because they couldn't actually look further into the recordings and find things, I mean I easily could load those categories with nominee suggestions for this year. The argument is that ROCK is not a "selling" genre? Really? So physical sales, not counting any streaming at all, they seriously don't think rock is outselling other genres overall, and I mean physical not physical equivalent and that nonsense. Bands like The Pretty Reckless, Dorothy, Larkin Poe, Plush, Halestorm, and there are tons of indies out there making way better albums, I mean I looked at the Rock category and said what the F is this? I mean the Foo Fighters album is great, though it lost, but did you dig deep, it seemed you chose the same bands all over again, you even tossed Olivia Rodrigo in the rock category as a female.

SolaceAHA said:

TrivialPursuit said:

The album for Taylor was rather medicore compared to other pop-centric albums she's made. I'm not a Swifty, but I did listen to that album. Verrrrry toned down, not poppy or bold in any fashion.

So were they determined to give it to her? I don't know, but I have to think that someone knew enough to write it into Trevor Noah's opening remarks about Album of the Year. Why build up the hype only to make her look like a failure? So someone knew ahead that she'd win, but was someone determined to make her win before all that? I don't know.

I did like the Taylor album it was just a little too much I think one version had 20 songs on it, and thats fine but too many tracks make it really hard to go back multiple times to a record regardless who you are. I was shocked Rodrigo got shut out mainly because she is becoming the female Dave Grohl meaning everyone in the industry of the older generation like her, shes been with Sheryl Crow, Carole King, Billy Joel calls her his buddy, she seems to be that "safe" one to invite or like, similar to Dave Grohl. It's funny because now the Grammys are getting criticized for not showcasing new talent, lol, its hilarious, for years people bitched and called them the Grannies, so they totally went all young and occasionally tossed in a token oldie like a Metallica or something, because they noticed a huge drop in the ratings when they broke down when people watched and when they didnt, i mean don't they realize kids have no attention span so why would that demographic tune in to a three hour show?

Guilty! I like her too (Rodrigo). She gives me that 90's vibe that sadly I will not outgrow. So it's a relief to know that older artists have warmed to her too.

SolaceAHA said:

CynicKill said:

I think the academy was determined. She's been nominated 6 times with four wins. It seems excessive, especially for what seems to me to be very demo-centric material.

Academy board members recently have anonymously revealed their picks in recent years. When Beyonce was up for "Lemonade" (an award she argueably should've won) a voter flat out said he wasn't voting for Beyonce because "every time she comes out everyone thinks she should win". This year a voter said he will not vote for Lana Del Rey and never will because of her bad SNL performance 12 YEARS AGO!

It's obvious they love Swift for reasons I can't fathom other than commercial.

Someone laid out the extensive campaigning process full of shmoozing and industry meetings and giving talks at events and after hearing that I can see why Prince never faired too well at the grammies. I can't see him doing all that. But Swift? Yeah.

In general though your label is the one that gets you these things, thats the bottom line. The academy has got so limited they eliminated all the rock male female and group categories all because they couldn't actually look further into the recordings and find things, I mean I easily could load those categories with nominee suggestions for this year. The argument is that ROCK is not a "selling" genre? Really? So physical sales, not counting any streaming at all, they seriously don't think rock is outselling other genres overall, and I mean physical not physical equivalent and that nonsense. Bands like The Pretty Reckless, Dorothy, Larkin Poe, Plush, Halestorm, and there are tons of indies out there making way better albums, I mean I looked at the Rock category and said what the F is this? I mean the Foo Fighters album is great, though it lost, but did you dig deep, it seemed you chose the same bands all over again, you even tossed Olivia Rodrigo in the rock category as a female.

Are we shocked they don't look deep for nominees? I've given examples of their bias against albums that are actually nominated. How hard is it to listen to 8 albums?

Another anecdote: A voter said he wouldn't vote for last years winner Harry Styles because of his boy band origins. Now no one has to like anything, but I'd be way too embarrassed to publicly admit something like that.

CynicKill said:

SolaceAHA said:

I did like the Taylor album it was just a little too much I think one version had 20 songs on it, and thats fine but too many tracks make it really hard to go back multiple times to a record regardless who you are. I was shocked Rodrigo got shut out mainly because she is becoming the female Dave Grohl meaning everyone in the industry of the older generation like her, shes been with Sheryl Crow, Carole King, Billy Joel calls her his buddy, she seems to be that "safe" one to invite or like, similar to Dave Grohl. It's funny because now the Grammys are getting criticized for not showcasing new talent, lol, its hilarious, for years people bitched and called them the Grannies, so they totally went all young and occasionally tossed in a token oldie like a Metallica or something, because they noticed a huge drop in the ratings when they broke down when people watched and when they didnt, i mean don't they realize kids have no attention span so why would that demographic tune in to a three hour show?

Guilty! I like her too (Rodrigo). She gives me that 90's vibe that sadly I will not outgrow. So it's a relief to know that older artists have warmed to her too.

Yeah they have warmed to her and I am glad, she does have that 90's angst to her, she has a ability to craft songs but also not let the outside nonsense of social media affect her. I mean she is growing as a performer someone commented on some Grammy forum "oh her voice cracked" I'm like dude shes a 20 year old up for six awards having all this spotlight on her, relax. I mean Dua Lipa opened this show and I knew her long before she broke in America and the one complaint everyone had, was her moving on stage, and honestly now she seems like pro. So people got to lighten up, everyone taking the stage is not James Brown

CynicKill said:

SolaceAHA said:

In general though your label is the one that gets you these things, thats the bottom line. The academy has got so limited they eliminated all the rock male female and group categories all because they couldn't actually look further into the recordings and find things, I mean I easily could load those categories with nominee suggestions for this year. The argument is that ROCK is not a "selling" genre? Really? So physical sales, not counting any streaming at all, they seriously don't think rock is outselling other genres overall, and I mean physical not physical equivalent and that nonsense. Bands like The Pretty Reckless, Dorothy, Larkin Poe, Plush, Halestorm, and there are tons of indies out there making way better albums, I mean I looked at the Rock category and said what the F is this? I mean the Foo Fighters album is great, though it lost, but did you dig deep, it seemed you chose the same bands all over again, you even tossed Olivia Rodrigo in the rock category as a female.

Are we shocked they don't look deep for nominees? I've given examples of their bias against albums that are actually nominated. How hard is it to listen to 8 albums?

Another anecdote: A voter said he wouldn't vote for last years winner Harry Styles because of his boy band origins. Now no one has to like anything, but I'd be way too embarrassed to publicly admit something like that.

I also noticed not only the decision that Rock can be lumped into a "performance" and we forget about male female and group, how about we do that for all genres? There would be a riot. They also re-wrote the Best New Artist award, it used to be you could not have recorded ANYTHING this is why Richard Marx was disqualified while have four top 10 hits he had a song on a soundtrack the year prior that no one heard of, Whitney was disqualified because she had a duet with Teddy Pendergass the year before, and yet Cyndi Lauper was lead vocalist for Blue ANgel and won? The award now says there is a level of "notoriety" you have to NOT have to be nominated? Which means we will nominate who we want and make the rule confusing so no one cares. I mean Gwen Stefani and Lauryn Hill as New Artists? While they had tons of success in their respective groups. I mean did Paul McCartney get best new artist after the Beatles I mean according to this he should of.

SolaceAHA said:

CynicKill said:

Guilty! I like her too (Rodrigo). She gives me that 90's vibe that sadly I will not outgrow. So it's a relief to know that older artists have warmed to her too.

Yeah they have warmed to her and I am glad, she does have that 90's angst to her, she has a ability to craft songs but also not let the outside nonsense of social media affect her. I mean she is growing as a performer someone commented on some Grammy forum "oh her voice cracked" I'm like dude shes a 20 year old up for six awards having all this spotlight on her, relax. I mean Dua Lipa opened this show and I knew her long before she broke in America and the one complaint everyone had, was her moving on stage, and honestly now she seems like pro. So people got to lighten up, everyone taking the stage is not James Brown

The Grammys have become better the last couple of years. As far as Rodrigo, she has talent, decent song writing skills, and charisma. I appreciated that she has added a bit of punk pop sound that differentiates her from other recent stars that get massive exposure. As far as Taylor's Midnights, i agree that it is good but not her best nor album of the year material. A side note, Taylor's least acclaimed album and one of her relatively less popular albums, Reputation, is one I have been enjoying lately. I completely passed on it when it first came out, but I actually think it is better than Midnights in some ways.

TrivialPursuit said:

Annie Lennox, with Wendy & Lisa, felt so perfect and purposeful. Susannah said she did Wendy's makeup and touched up Annie's. I'd love to see them work together on an EP of like 6 or 7 songs.

T.H.I.S.

-

Who knows what's in the works. )))))

Let's dream

I don't know that AOTY eats at her, but he is calling out the mishandled metrics of whatever system they use. That's why I used to like the Billboard Awards more because they were actually based on sales in some fashion. Same with People's Choice.

But anymore - it's whatever.

Andre Cymone wrote this :

-

"Taylor Swift has more Album Of The Year Grammys than ;

Stevie Wonder

Michael Jackson

Prince (who has zero)

Whitney Houston (who has zero)

Mariah Carey (who has zero)

Aretha franklin (who has zero)

Janet Jackson (who has zero)

Etta James (who has zero)

James Brown (who has zero)

BB King (who has zero)

Nat King Cole (who has zero)

... than everyone. Ever."

-

And I can't agree more.

Vannormal said:

Andre Cymone wrote this :

-

"Taylor Swift has more Album Of The Year Grammys than ;

Stevie Wonder

Michael Jackson

Prince (who has zero)

Whitney Houston (who has zero)

Mariah Carey (who has zero)

Aretha franklin (who has zero)

Janet Jackson (who has zero)

Etta James (who has zero)

James Brown (who has zero)

BB King (who has zero)

Nat King Cole (who has zero)

... than everyone. Ever."

-

And I can't agree more.

And I replied to him, David Bowie got his first grammy for being dead, which was harsh but true 1000% The Rolling Stones didn't win a grammy till they were way best their best stuff, they got a grammy nod for "harlem Shuffle" video, and "One Hit to the body" two horrible songs. The Beatles got 99% of their grammy wins/nominations for "The Anthology" and have more music vicdeo awards from the Grammys than for their music. I get his point but dude please I can run down the list of nonsense, Taste Of Honey beat out Elton John for Best New Artist, just for that the voters should be ashamed. I mean does Beyonce deserve to have more grammys than anyone? It's all subjective and the era you are in, I mean when the Beatles won their only album of the year for what is not their best work I feel, they beat out Santana and Frank Sinatra just to name a few, the artistry was a lot better. To be honest this years Grammy Album of the year noms, I could listen and get through two of them. As for Cymones list, Mariah Carey? are you serious for what album? she is ueen of filler dude.

TrivialPursuit said:

I don't know that AOTY eats at her, but he is calling out the mishandled metrics of whatever system they use. That's why I used to like the Billboard Awards more because they were actually based on sales in some fashion. Same with People's Choice.

But anymore - it's whatever.

The Metrics are her peers voting, if it went by sales, she'd still lose to Swift or whomever, maybe she would have one, swift by that token would have had ten albums of the year. The voters are writers, label execs, recording artists, producers. This is not a fan generated thing its YOUR peers voting, and its also YOUR LABEL submitting you for a nomination and then your peers choosing who gets a nomination.

SolaceAHA said:

Vannormal said:

CynicKill said:

SolaceAHA said:

And I replied to him, David Bowie got his first grammy for being dead, which was harsh but true 1000% The Rolling Stones didn't win a grammy till they were way best their best stuff, they got a grammy nod for "harlem Shuffle" video, and "One Hit to the body" two horrible songs. The Beatles got 99% of their grammy wins/nominations for "The Anthology" and have more music vicdeo awards from the Grammys than for their music. I get his point but dude please I can run down the list of nonsense, Taste Of Honey beat out Elton John for Best New Artist, just for that the voters should be ashamed. I mean does Beyonce deserve to have more grammys than anyone? It's all subjective and the era you are in, I mean when the Beatles won their only album of the year for what is not their best work I feel, they beat out Santana and Frank Sinatra just to name a few, the artistry was a lot better. To be honest this years Grammy Album of the year noms, I could listen and get through two of them. As for Cymones list, Mariah Carey? are you serious for what album? she is ueen of filler dude.

A few corrections: The Beatles beat out Sinatra but not Santana for AOTY. And I do consider Sgt Pepper their “dated” period. A Taste of Honey did not beat out Elton John but rather Elvis Costello, and even more so Toto. Elton John lost to The Carpenters in 1970.

Yes very true, what I do have to say on the Elton John is he never won an award for album of the year despite three nominations, Stevie did win 3 times album of the year in a 4 year span. Elton didn't even get a nod for what I feel is a masterpiece "Goodbye yellow brick road" mainly because it was one of two albums he released during the year, the other album was nominated. His loss to the Carpenters, I like the Carpenters so that could go either way, but yes Taste of Honey over Toto the guys who mainly are the band on Thriller. The Beatles win was the first "rock" album to win AOTY. Considering you had all those 50's rockers and even some pre-Beatles and during the Beatles time, to never have a rock album.

RJOrion said:

Toto is not "mainly the band" on Thriller...3 of toto's members, steve lukather and the porcaro brothers (steve and jeff) appeared on only 3 songs on thriller...beat it, the girl is mine and human nature...the main band members for thriller, were rod temperton (heatwave), paul jackson jr, greg phillinganes, louis johnson (the brothers johnson) and Leon Ndugu Chancler...dont do that...dont try to rewrite history..

I'd agree. Toto was there, but to say they're "mainly the band" on Thriller is short-sighted and obtuse.

RJOrion said:

Toto is not "mainly the band" on Thriller...3 of toto's members, steve lukather and the porcaro brothers (steve and jeff) appeared on only 3 songs on thriller...beat it, the girl is mine and human nature...the main band members for thriller, were rod temperton (heatwave), paul jackson jr, greg phillinganes, louis johnson (the brothers johnson) and Leon Ndugu Chancler...dont do that...dont try to rewrite history..

it's not an attempt to re-write history, also David Paich another member of Toto is on the album and its four tracks between them all, which is close 45% of the album. My point is that Toto being the band is because they were session musicians not just recording artists and the original post was about the ridiculousness of the Grammys and how Toto lost to Taste of Honey for best new artist.

Stevie Fucking Wonder, nuff said.

2freaky said:

Stevie Fucking Wonder, nuff said.

i don't think he goes by that name anymore

nayroo2002 said:

2freaky said:

Stevie Fucking Wonder, nuff said.

i don't think he goes by that name anymore

He dropped Little Fucking Wonder when he turned 17.