Jay07 Posted March 24 Posted March 24 3 hours ago, BionicWooHoo said: So out of all the replies I've made to you, you chose the one that doesn't have a question mark and then act like I've never asked a single question? Lmao I don't know if you know this but the question marks in all the other posts indicate questions Here I'll ask it again despite your being willfully obtuse with your revisionist history lesson: If ageism were such a huge factor, why was Beyonce nominated for record of the year in 2004 at 22 years old? Why did Christina's rendition of Beautiful get a song of the year nom instead of being completely snubbed? Why did Christina have three pop vocal Grammys to her name by 26 while Britney still has zero? Clearly It's very clear that it's only "Grammys ageist!!! PlEaSe LeArN my vErSiOn of hIsToRy.” bc the recording academy has awarded plenty of Grammys to young artists EXCEPT your fave. Sucks to be a label puppet I guess. You realize that pointing out an exception doesn't negate the rule. It literally only takes 30 seconds to scan over the nominees for the main categories in the 90s/00s and see that pop only makes up 2% of the nominees and 0% of the winners. The first time I saw any significant pop representation in AOTY was starting in 2011 when Taylor, Rihanna and Gaga were nominated. And pointing out that popstars only got pop nominations literally reinforces the point. Like, even a modicum of critical thinking. 1
kataraqueen Posted March 24 Posted March 24 yes quite obviously since her music impacted both the sonic and conceptual trends to such an effect that a lot of our current music landscape can be directly credited to Britney Britney represented a type of feminism that has only very recently been recognized properly. Movies like legally blonde were seen as chickflicks. Britney was and sometimes still is seen as a label puppet. People were incredibly dismissive of hot young blonde women and often still are, which is why some of her uglier contemporaries had no troubles getting Grannies 3 1
Jay07 Posted March 24 Posted March 24 1 hour ago, SuperCiC1 said: I always think about how Mariah only has 6 and remember the Shammys are worthless. Madonna and Janet have 5 and most are for music videos or dance/R&B. Meanwhile, Taylor Swift has 4 AOTYs. It's a joke. 3 1
SuperCiC1 Posted March 24 Posted March 24 11 hours ago, ReH2o said: No, she's the female Milli Vanilli Is the Vanilli in the Milli with us right now? Where do you see JLo in the thread title? 1
Ck.cR Posted March 24 Posted March 24 (edited) Spoiler Oh no. She is ok with having zero and the toxic grammy to the song's producers. I hope one day she gets a good music video and wins a grammy of her own in that category. She was never an Artist and as a Performer she was simply a glorified cheerleader. Give her a kids choice award or something. Edited March 24 by Ck.cR 1 1
Ck.cR Posted March 24 Posted March 24 6 hours ago, BionicWooHoo said: So out of all the replies I've made to you, you chose the one that doesn't have a question mark and then act like I've never asked a single question? Lmao I don't know if you know this but the question marks in all the other posts indicate questions Here I'll ask it again despite your being willfully obtuse with your revisionist history lesson: If ageism were such a huge factor, why was Beyonce nominated for record of the year in 2004 at 22 years old? Why did Christina's rendition of Beautiful get a song of the year nom instead of being completely snubbed? Why did Christina have three pop vocal Grammys to her name by 26 while Britney still has zero? Clearly It's very clear that it's only "Grammys ageist!!! PlEaSe LeArN my vErSiOn of hIsToRy.” bc the recording academy has awarded plenty of Grammys to young artists EXCEPT your fave. Sucks to be a label puppet I guess. Why is that person a mod? It is clear they are biased when it comes to the origin of all basics, the patient zero of industry puppets, the first ever industry plant. 1 1 2
Mr. Stratus Posted March 24 Posted March 24 Maybe should've won another one But the grammys need to keep credibility, and after her performance of DLMBTLTK they seemed to not want a lot to do with her. A Nicki tea 1
Rev8 Posted March 24 Posted March 24 32 minutes ago, Ck.cR said: Reveal hidden contents Oh no. She is ok with having zero and the toxic grammy to the song's producers. I hope one day she gets a good music video and wins a grammy of her own in that category. She was never an Artist and as a Performer she was simply a glorified cheerleader. Give her a kids choice award or something. Saying this, when u been cheering on for Dua Lipa (+ for Houdini of all things to get a Grammy) where are these brave "new" members coming frm? 1
Ck.cR Posted March 24 Posted March 24 1 minute ago, Rev8 said: Saying this, when u been cheering on for Dua Lipa (+ for Houdini of all things to get a Grammy) where are these brave "new" members coming frm? Dua Lipa has a discography that simply obliterates Britney's career and life. The nerve that you have, go try to rewrite history on that basement your crawled out of but in reality spears has never been an artist no one respects her as an artist and your history revisions will not change that fact. 4
Rev8 Posted March 24 Posted March 24 6 minutes ago, Ck.cR said: Dua Lipa has a discography that simply obliterates Britney's career and life. The nerve that you have, go try to rewrite history on that basement your crawled out of but in reality spears has never been an artist no one respects her as an artist and your history revisions will not change that fact. Just saw you stan Xtina and JT your comments about Britney make So much sense now ot: Yes! Obsessive haters will only deny it! 2
Avenger Posted March 24 Posted March 24 For sure, but Grammy has lost their integrity they are no Oscars in today's time so it's alright really!
toxicgenie Posted March 24 Posted March 24 Britney is more an entertainer & performer than an artist. It's not a necessarily a bad thing and it's the truth. Not sure why some people want to make her something she is not. 2
Jay07 Posted March 24 Posted March 24 Oh more dupes. Quite ironic that they put down Britney when their entire lives literally revolve around her. Maybe if she was really unimportant you wouldn't be on your tenth dupe trying to drag her. 1
Ck.cR Posted March 24 Posted March 24 1 hour ago, Rev8 said: Just saw you stan Xtina and JT your comments about Britney make So much sense now ot: Yes! Obsessive haters will only deny it! I do not stan JT and Xtina they are better than Britney though. 1
Xtripped Posted March 24 Posted March 24 She killed any chance with that awful FTBOMBH performance, to think she has MTV cameras ready at her house to record her BNA win.
ATRL Moderator supaspaz Posted March 24 ATRL Moderator Posted March 24 9 hours ago, BionicWooHoo said: So out of all the replies I've made to you, you chose the one that doesn't have a question mark and then act like I've never asked a single question? Lmao I don't know if you know this but the question marks in all the other posts indicate questions Here I'll ask it again despite your being willfully obtuse with your revisionist history lesson: If ageism were such a huge factor, why was Beyonce nominated for record of the year in 2004 at 22 years old? Why did Christina's rendition of Beautiful get a song of the year nom instead of being completely snubbed? Why did Christina have three pop vocal Grammys to her name by 26 while Britney still has zero? Clearly It's very clear that it's only "Grammys ageist!!! PlEaSe LeArN my vErSiOn of hIsToRy.” bc the recording academy has awarded plenty of Grammys to young artists EXCEPT your fave. Sucks to be a label puppet I guess. It's not just any reply. It's your first reply. The entirety of it. You came at me out of nowhere with nothing but snark. Even when I tried to engage in a genuine exchange with you, you came back at me with more snark and still no question. So, much like others in this thread, I am confused about what you are supposedly asking here. You keep calling it revisionist history, even though I provided multiple links that talk about the "Grannies" reputation that existed in the '90s and '00s. This was a very real thing that you are simply in denial about it. Of course there were exceptions. But Christina winning some Grammys (and not getting nominated for Song of the Year, no matter how many times you try to bring that up) doesn't change the fact that the Recording Academy as it exists now is more likely to reward artists like Britney Spears than it was at the peak of her career. Those are not mutually exclusive ideas. It's just you engaging in a one-sided stan fight. I didn't know who you were before yesterday but you've certainly announced yourself now as a blinkered, uncurious and just plain nasty member who is not worth engaging with. I'll be sure to steer clear of you in the future, as there is no productive or fun discussion to be had with you. You can be loud and wrong by yourself. 2 2
Mtjjproducer Posted March 24 Posted March 24 20 hours ago, pimmelfratze said: People here talking about needing vocals to win but yet the recent winners can't even hold a note live If that's the case now maybe she should release an album she'll fit right in 1
BionicWooHoo Posted March 24 Posted March 24 7 hours ago, Jay07 said: You realize that pointing out an exception doesn't negate the rule. It literally only takes 30 seconds to scan over the nominees for the main categories in the 90s/00s and see that pop only makes up 2% of the nominees and 0% of the winners. The first time I saw any significant pop representation in AOTY was starting in 2011 when Taylor, Rihanna and Gaga were nominated. And pointing out that popstars only got pop nominations literally reinforces the point. Like, even a modicum of critical thinking. Hi Obsessed Xtina Hater, so glad you could join in on our conversation. I'll be glad to fill you in since you were not here for the beginning of the conversation. The conversation was never just about the main fields to begin with. That goalpost was only introduced when that mod realized that the ageist accusations didn't fit their narrative seeing as how Britney doesn't have really any wins in any category. If you want to talk about how popstars were relegated to the pop categories, sure. For the sake of the argument, let's do that. How do you explain why Britney couldn't win anything even in best female pop vocal? Was this because of ageism too? Was there ageism and sexism and reverse racism in female pop vocal too? Lmao yall will come up with anything except come to terms with how the recording academy sees right through Britney's manufactured facade and lack of talent 1
Ck.cR Posted March 24 Posted March 24 2 hours ago, Xtripped said: She killed any chance with that awful FTBOMBH performance, to think she has MTV cameras ready at her house to record her BNA win. Hahaha they really thought. That's why they are so pressed with Christina for simply being the only talent and artist out of the two. That was not her fault.
Jay07 Posted March 24 Posted March 24 (edited) 4 hours ago, BionicWooHoo said: Hi Obsessed Xtina Hater, so glad you could join in on our conversation. I'll be glad to fill you in since you were not here for the beginning of the conversation. The conversation was never just about the main fields to begin with. That goalpost was only introduced when that mod realized that the ageist accusations didn't fit their narrative seeing as how Britney doesn't have really any wins in any category. If you want to talk about how popstars were relegated to the pop categories, sure. For the sake of the argument, let's do that. How do you explain why Britney couldn't win anything even in best female pop vocal? Was this because of ageism too? Was there ageism and sexism and reverse racism in female pop vocal too? Lmao yall will come up with anything except come to terms with how the recording academy sees right through Britney's manufactured facade and lack of talent Talk about moving the goalposts in desperation. Why doesn't Janet have any pop vocal Grammys? Why does Madonna (!!!) only have one? I realize you're desperate to cling to the Grammys as some sort of liferaft and a justification for the existence of someone whose every other facet has been largely rejected but the fact remains that Grammys were reluctant to reward huge popstars, especially popstars that were controversial and didn't kiss their ass. Again, even the most cursory look (I wish I didn't have to look for you) tell you that the winners were: Bonnie Raitt, Joni Mitchell, James Taylor, Sting, Steely Dan, Sade etc. Meanwhile, starting in 2010 the winners were Black Eyes Peas, Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars, Ariana Grande etc, exactly what you were arguing against. Not sure if you're pretending to not get it or are you're really just... not able to get it. As for me being an obsessed Xtina hater, you are the one making a fool of yourself in a Britney thread... again. Looking forward to the next deflection Edited March 24 by Jay07
Jay07 Posted March 24 Posted March 24 2 minutes ago, SamirahAyesha said: Mainstream corporate cookie-cutter pop music at its core and in its DNA is a manufactured genre. Award shows are literally just a promotional tool for record labels and the music industry to promote their products. Megan Trainor literally has a grammy while Bob Marley, Tupac Shakur, Bjork, Freddy, Mercury, Jimi Hendrix, Snoop Dogg, Nas, and a tons of other talented artists never won any. You don't need awards to make a cultural impact lol Complaining about manufactured artists and then stanning pop music just doesn't make sense to me. And Britney is a popstar and an entertainer first and foremost. She's here to entertain people and perform for them, to make them have a good time. You don't need to have the voice of Aretha Franklin to be a good pop star; all you need is a recognizable vocal tone and charisma. When you have nothing else, you cling to a Grammy from 2007. It's sad but predictable.
Recommended Posts