airplane Posted February 5 Posted February 5 (edited) the Grammys are racist but yeah, keep gaslighting artists who make critically acclaimed and commercially successful albums into thinking they are the problem and attack them for wanting recognition. Edited February 5 by airplane 1 1
BOOMBAYAH Posted February 5 Author Posted February 5 1 minute ago, Mitsouko said: No, the artists are right and they should say it. They realize it's just a promotional horse-race. They know there's barely a music industry anymore, and much like the Oscars and Emmys the awards themselves hold so little cultural weight in this third decade of the century. I kind of disagree. I think it’s because these heritage awards hold so much pedigree and prestige that they still mean something to artists. To the point where, even when they’re calling them out, they would still gladly attend the ceremony and accept the award. Even as awards like the Oscars, Grammys, Emmys, etc., lose "relevancy," artists within each respective field, and their fans, still see them as the ultimate achievement. I don’t see any award coming in the near future that will overtake any of the big heritage institutions in cultural relevancy.
The7thStranger Posted February 5 Posted February 5 Grammys remind me of the prizes you can win at arcades for an insane amount of tickets. Worthless. 5
Shelter Posted February 5 Posted February 5 To be fair it’s hard to take the Grammys seriously when you have voters admitting they don’t listen to the music and saying they don’t like certain genres, won’t vote for certain artists etc I’d like to see how it would go if it was down to complete music lovers/critics 2
Monday Night Messiah Posted February 5 Posted February 5 Flexes like this wouldn't exist if it didn't mean anything. I'm calling sour grapes. 1
Lemon Posted February 5 Posted February 5 14 minutes ago, Shelter said: To be fair it’s hard to take the Grammys seriously when you have voters admitting they don’t listen to the music and saying they don’t like certain genres, won’t vote for certain artists etc I’d like to see how it would go if it was down to complete music lovers/critics Voters are subjective, yes, which music in itself is. And not all of them are much bothered, yes too. But we all know everyone saying this would do and vote with their own biases too.
Sannie Posted February 5 Posted February 5 A little bit of yes and a little bit of no. Over the years, the Grammys have lost some of its shine and prestige as it is becoming clear that it is mostly a popularity contest, but at the same time these people are obviously still bitter lol.
Dante Silva Posted February 5 Posted February 5 No. To this day it stands up as a shocking decision not to award “NFR” album of the year in 2020. It was the most natural choice and best fit for the award. I had been loosely following the Grammy’s for many years but in the moment the 2020 AOTY was announced I knew instinctively something had gone very wrong.
Digitalism Posted February 5 Posted February 5 59 minutes ago, BOOMBAYAH said: I feel like some artists seem to be less concerned about the subjective/biased nature of the Grammys, and instead, their frustration stems more from themselves not winning. This includes fans too: they will proudly boast about their faves Grammy achievements, but the moment they are “robbed” of one, they will declare that the entire institution means nothing and Grammys hold no value. What do you think? No but you are serving: I support a very racist and meaningless award because they keep giving it to my fav. 3
sourprint Posted February 5 Posted February 5 this post is sus, just after taylor won her 4th aoty too? it's giving youre mad that poc fans of other poc artists are bashing the grammys for having handed taylor her undeserved 4th album of the year award that award shouldve been lanas or szas 1
sourprint Posted February 5 Posted February 5 3 minutes ago, Digitalism said: No but you are serving: I support a very racist and meaningless award because they keep giving it to my fav. oh my god. i sensed the same thing too, its giving maga beliefs 1
XXI. Posted February 5 Posted February 5 I think it matters to the artists (and their industry), but it doesn't to the general public. I love music and didn't even watch the Grammy's. Jay-Z was right it's crazy that Beyonce has never won AOTY, and many of the nominations themselves don't even make sense at times. It's all decided by politics.
BOOMBAYAH Posted February 5 Author Posted February 5 1 minute ago, Digitalism said: No but you are serving: I support a very racist and meaningless award because they keep giving it to my fav. They’re not giving the award to BLACKPINK. On a serious note, I've acknowledged that the award is racist and biased. However, that's not where my discussion lies. I am talking about the hypocrisy of fans and artists alike who also claim to believe the same thing but suddenly forget when they or their favorites are winning. It shows that for many people, it's less about dismantling these systems and more about being rewarded by them. Judging by your response, I don’t think this will get through your head. 1
Solaria Posted February 5 Posted February 5 I think Fiona Apple is someone who is spot on about why the Grammys are irrelevant. She doesn’t care that she doesn’t win or doesn’t get nominated, but rather doesn’t care because the Grammys have a history of being hypocritical and giving the wrong people a platform
Rotunda Posted February 5 Posted February 5 (edited) Grammys are partially a measure of quality, but they’re also a measure of how well you align to the body’s biases/preferences. I think Grammys are valuable when they’re an accurate reflection of how your industry peers view you, but a lot of voters aren’t really peers. I used to particupate in and still coach competitive debate. I participated in a style that some judges aren’t receptive to. The feedback I got from non-receptive judges was whatever to me, but the feedback I got from the judges who were influential in the style of debate that I did was really valuable. Edited February 5 by Rotunda
sourprint Posted February 5 Posted February 5 the grammys desperately need a revamp on the voting committee, including more poc, queer and YOUNGER people, if they wanna be taken seriously these ppl are not the main consumers of pop culture (its broadly tweens up to early 20s but it can skew older), then why should they be dictating whos worthy of these awards? there has to be a balance between charts and quality leading to true merit (idk if what i said made sense but if youre middle aged or older you shouldnt even be in that position)
Big Bad Wolf Posted February 5 Posted February 5 2 minutes ago, BOOMBAYAH said: They’re not giving the award to BLACKPINK. On a serious note, I've acknowledged that the award is racist and biased. However, that's not where my discussion lies. I am talking about the hypocrisy of fans and artists alike who also claim to believe the same thing but suddenly forget when they or their favorites are winning. It shows that for many people, it's less about dismantling these systems and more about being rewarded by them. Judging by your response, I don’t think this will get through your head. There's nothing wrong with artists wanting recognition, the Grammys are still the most prestigious music award and I don't think anyone will refute that. But because of the way they vote, and they clearly hold certain "traditional" values or whatever, we see less of the wins being diversified. Grammys have been called out plenty of times and received harsh criticism for the way they've voted over the years, it's clear they don't care and will vote how they want. There's little artists can do to change the deeply flawed system on their own, so it leaves them with no choice but to keep trying to pander to it or stop caring all together, which isn't fair. It's also a shame that they will play in artists faces, career nominees, the same person winning the same award multiple times, not diversifying AOTY/Pop Vocal wins, etc. It's trash and anyone who disagrees is lying.
BOOMBAYAH Posted February 5 Author Posted February 5 1 minute ago, Big Bad Wolf said: There's nothing wrong with artists wanting recognition, the Grammys are still the most prestigious music award and I don't think anyone will refute that. But because of the way they vote, and they clearly hold certain "traditional" values or whatever, we see less of the wins being diversified. Grammys have been called out plenty of times and received harsh criticism for the way they've voted over the years, it's clear they don't care and will vote how they want. There's little artists can do to change the deeply flawed system on their own, so it leaves them with no choice but to keep trying to pander to it or stop caring all together, which isn't fair. It's also a shame that they will play in artists faces, career nominees, the same person winning the same award multiple times, not diversifying AOTY/Pop Vocal wins, etc. It's trash and anyone who disagrees is lying. Don’t you think half-baked activism and proclamations are what maintain the status quo? I agree with you that the pedigree of the Grammys puts it on a level that other awards can’t touch, but doesn’t accepting that reality and giving them power to be the arbiters perpetuate that status quo? For instance, Jay-Z saying all that on stage but then being okay with the institution next year if they gave the AOTY to Beyoncé but changed nothing else is part of the issue. If you think about it, the number of artists who’ve been essentially tokenized and not given the bigger awards they deserve is because, at one point, people would’ve had this same attitude: “You still got a Grammy, so it’s okay.” On the surface, I’m sure 10 years ago this looked like progress, but when we discuss it today, we see that it was a further attempt to maintain the status quo. This is why artists who are lukewarm when it comes to their stance on the Grammys are ultimately dangerous in their hypocrisy because they show that even when it’s rigged and biased, even when the artist calls them out publicly, they will still gladly point to them as validity for their artistry. The pedigree and prestige the Grammys have are powerful, but even so, if you’re an artist who speaks against them when you lose but applauds them when you win, you’re just another puppet on their strings.
Big Bad Wolf Posted February 5 Posted February 5 7 minutes ago, BOOMBAYAH said: Don’t you think half-baked activism and proclamations are what maintain the status quo? I agree with you that the pedigree of the Grammys puts it on a level that other awards can’t touch, but doesn’t accepting that reality and giving them power to be the arbiters perpetuate that status quo? For instance, Jay-Z saying all that on stage but then being okay with the institution next year if they gave the AOTY to Beyoncé but changed nothing else is part of the issue. If you think about it, the number of artists who’ve been essentially tokenized and not given the bigger awards they deserve is because, at one point, people would’ve had this same attitude: “You still got a Grammy, so it’s okay.” In the surface, I’m sure 10 years ago this looked like progress, but when we discuss it today, we see that it was a further attempt to maintain the status quo. This is why artists who are lukewarm when it comes to their stance on the Grammys are ultimately dangerous in their hypocrisy because they show that even when it’s rigged and biased, even when the artist calls them out publicly, they will still gladly point to them as validity for their artistry. The pedigree and prestige the Grammys have are powerful, but even so, if you’re an artist who speaks against them when you lose but applauds them when you win, you’re just another puppet on their strings. I mean I completely agree with you. It's all very ******. It's sad to see Beyonce and Jay Z crying begging and basically pleading with the Grammys - Bey is big enough to win AOTY so what gives. The voters are problematic. Nothing will change as long as artists keep sucking up to them, even Miley calling an award worthless while still accepting it, because she's still benefitting has the privilege to do so in the first place. They give the awards the merit it has. 1
Trent W Posted February 5 Posted February 5 They still matter a lot But are biased and awarding the same artists every year The institution is more worried about ratings than awarding quality
thisbirdhasflown Posted February 5 Posted February 5 (edited) Most of the time? No. There are a bunch of artists who’ve won Grammys and still think they’re bullshit. They are rightfully pissed. Eminem has 15 and has sworn he will never attend again. They’ve played with him for AOTY three times. Like him as a person or not, can anyone say they don’t think he’s talented and that he hasn’t made a huge impact? The Weeknd won’t submit his work anymore after getting completely snubbed for After Hours, which was one of the top 5 most successful albums of 2020, both commercially and critically. He already had four Grammys, so it’s not like he was someone who’d never won anything before. We all know Beyoncé’s been overlooked three times with huge albums that changed the culture and performed well by every metric, so Jay-Z wasn’t lying. There are just way too many examples of complete bullshit, where artists who are mediocre have won over clearly superior peers. Macklemore winning over Kendrick? We’ve been knew the Grammys are political, but it’s getting WAY too obvious now. They’re a bunch of out of touch boomers who probably don’t even listen to most submissions and only vote for the people who kiss their asses the most or who they’ve heard on the radio. Like I would be willing to bet that Thrift Shop was the only rap song those people heard the year they gave best rap album to Macklemore, and it was probably against their will because that song was all over the damn radio. Edited February 5 by thisbirdhasflown 2
shinyshimmery Posted February 5 Posted February 5 2 hours ago, dawnettakins said: Yes and no. Thr Grammys are stupid for awarding the same artists all the time, makes it seem like a popularity contest more than anything. Seems most of the time Grammys is about commercial performance more than anything. Not artistic merit. That's what the music industry is about tho... seeing who pulls the biggest numbers/money. It's funny how I knew "flowers" would win both of the awards it was nominated for. The song was number one for a looooooong time
Recommended Posts