The following is a four-part exchange between brothers Paul and Matt Shirley, about the 52nd Annual Grammy Awards.
Hey brother,
First off, thanks so much for causing such an uproar with your opinions last week. I can’t wait to be mistaken for you and have a group of brawny fellows beat me to death with a tire iron and then take turns tea-bagging my dead body.
I trust that, because you have such an understanding and tolerant disposition toward super-long broadcasts filled to bursting with mainstream musical acts, you watched CBS’s 3.5 hour marathon known as the Grammys in its entirety. I did. In case you missed it, I’d say that it went “poorly to quite poorly.” If asked, I’d venture to guess there was seven minutes of worthwhile television. 7 divided by 210 = 3.3% watchable. That’s just good TV.
Some comments and questions:
That Michael Jackson 3-D tribute was quite the gamble wasn’t it? Apparently, 3-D glasses are like light bulbs now—something you always have around the house? I suppose it was worth it for those 15 people who stole them from their viewing of Avatar. But for the rest of us it was just a bunch of blurry butterflies and little kids and Celine Dions. I trust also, that if you made it to when they brought out MJ’s kids for his acceptance speech, you googled “Prince Jackson” immediately following their exit from the stage. I’m no geneticist, but I don’t think the following equation quite works out: 1 black dad + 1 white mom = 2 white kids.
Are the Black Eyed Peas the biggest sellouts in the history of music? They’ve got to be in the running. Some time ago I seem to remember them being Jurassic 5-ish but now they are just awful-ish. Other possible nominees include Gwen Stefani and Sugar Ray. But at least that guy never seemed to deny the fact that he was selling out. He embraced it and then made a lot of money and will probably be on some future version of Celebrity Apprentice.
I lost my boner when the Kings of Leon thanked God.
Who wants to hear Bon Jovi sing a sub-par version of a song he’s heard 9,000,000,000,000,000 times?
It seems that country music doesn’t exist anymore. Sure, ‘Country’ music was widely represented at the show. But as far as I can tell, none of that music was country music except the chicos from the Zac Brown Band and that old guy who looked like he was from ZZ Top. I think this point can be further supported by the fact that ‘Country’ artist Taylor Swift sang a duet with one of her idols: Stevie Nicks, whose band was certainly more pop than anything else, and never any sort of country.
And now for awards for categories I’ve made up, just for this occasion:
Most Attractive Girl: Miley Cyrus. And still 17.
Biggest Lie Told: When Wyclef Jean said the Haitian earthquake was the worst earthquake known to man. Its magnitude was 7.0. Worst ever in terms of magnitude was a 9.5 in Chile and the deadliest killed 830,00 people in China and other parts of Asia.
Best Performance: Lil Wayne, Drake, and Eminem. Surprised? Well there is no substitute for passion. Also, shouldn’t Lil Wayne have a hand in presenting every award since he appeared on every song in 2009?
Most Talented People on Stage: Zac Brown Band. These fellows, who I had never even heard of, destroyed everyone else when it came to exhibitions of pure musical talent.
Most Objectionable Performance: Jamie Foxx and T-Pain. They take the microphones away from their mouths, the singing continues. They actually sing a few words, and you can hear the mumbling in front of the pre-recorded singing. I’ve decided that these two are no-talent ass-clowns.
That’s all for now,
- Matt
First of all, let it be clear that this is an open letter between brothers. As such, if I write, “Suck it, assbag,” it’s only because I love my brother. Also, my parents are no longer reading, and are likely shaking their fists as I am, supposedly, the responsible, older brother and therefore, should not be using curse words.
The truth is, Matt, that I made it approximately one hour and fifteen minutes into the Grammys before throwing my remote at the television screen, walking past its sparking remains, and swearing never to watch such drivel ever, ever again.*
If the EGOTs (Emmy, Grammy, Oscar Tony—thanks, 30 Rock**) are humanity, with the Tonys being a distinguished English gentleman, the Oscars a vintage Mercedes-loving college professor, and the Emmys a bored housewife with a martini problem, the Grammys are a 400-pound street urchin who’s pregnant with her 5th child.
They’re that bad.
Because I didn’t make it as far into the Grammys as you, I can’t comment on Jamie Foxx and T-Pain’s performance. At least not with any direct authority. I can say that I believe you and that, on your recommendation, both of them should be jettisoned to Io (moon of Jupiter) as soon as we can figure out that pesky solar sail.
As for the Zac Brown band, I saw them onstage once and was mostly disappointed. Again, I’ll take your word for the fact that they have actual talent.
Cut the Brothers Followill (+cousin!) some slack. They may have mentioned God, but that they also mentioned that they were drunk leaves them even for the night. Say what you will about the Kings Of Leon; at least they drink a lot.
And yes, the Black-Eyed Peas are actually making the world a worse place to live in. Which brings me to a larger point. The Grammys are, of course, awarded by critics. It would seem, then, that the music selected would be supported by critics. Aside from the odd slate.com writer who champions Lady Gaga (and not erroneously, I might add) critics don’t generally align themselves with the general public when it comes to (choose from:) movies, television, and most germane to this discussion, music.
Historically, the evidence would back up my theory: The Grammys used to be something of a joke, as whatever garbled album Bob Dylan released that year would inevitably take home an award. (That’s right, loyal readers, I think Bob Dylan sucks too. You would have gotten that out of an ESPN column someday, but I couldn’t hold onto that job.)
The Grammys’ lack of relevance remains vaguely true, if only in the specifics: This year’s nominees for Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance were Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Prince, John Fogerty, and Neil Young. I should note that the only album upon which I can comment with any confidence is the latest effort from the Boss. It is terrible. And I really, really like Bruce Springsteen. I can only assume that the others are equally horrid, but that is speculation.
But beyond the abortive category that is Best Solo Rock Performance, the nominees were decidedly populist. I saw lots of the BEPs, of Pink, of Beyonce, and of Lady Gaga. I happen to think that Ms. Gaga is intriguing, and Pink’s song “Sober” is one of the best songs I’ve heard in the last 18 months. But none of these musicians is worth an award bestowed in front of people wearing tuxedos.
So what gives? It’s not as if there isn’t a middle ground – music that satisfies most critics and most fans. Fans who hear that music anyway. For example, I can’t imagine how Phoenix’s “1901” wasn’t featured heavily in the proceedings. If “Sober” was one of the best songs I’ve heard in the last 18 months, “1901” might be the best. And Phoenix even wrote it themselves.
Dear brother of mine, how did this come to pass? Is the Grammy committee so uncaring of credibility, and so interested in television ratings (and thus, ad dollars) that it has given up? Or are we (you and I) simply that out of touch? Or are our ears broken?
*Actually, my girlfriend called. If the Grammys had been interesting, I might have let it ring.
** EGOT = Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, Tony. Or, the letters on a necklace Tracy Jordan wore after finding it at the jewelry store, where it had been pawned by one-half of Miami Vice.
Dear Dicknose (I’m jumping on your brotherly love bandwagon),
My short answer to your overarching question of why only the most popular artists and songs win awards is: I don’t know.
But I have a theory.
It is my contention that the Recording Academy has given up. Instead of giving awards to those artists with critical acclaim, they’ve decided to bend and break to the will of the masses and give the awards that used to go to Animal Collective and OutKast to Taylor Swift and Beyonce. It’s just easier that way. The extreme minority will complain, but that won’t matter because they’re the extreme minority.
Two other examples help to further bolster my theory that the Academy has given up. First, Best Rock Album. Up for Grammys in this category were the likes of Green Day (winner), AC/DC, Eric Clapton, Dave Matthews Band, and U2. Exactly 0% of these bands were musically relevant in 2009. Furthermore, with the exception of Green Day’s 2004 album American Idiot, it could be argued that the same percentage of relevancy could be attributed to these bands in the 21st century. That’s 10 years of nobody caring. The only way the list I just provided you makes sense is if Bill and Ted took their time machine phone booth, went back to the three previous decades, picked up what we’ll assume to be the very bewildered most popular rock bands of those decades and brought them to the 52nd annual Grammy Awards. In the Rock category, it seems the Recording Academy took a Baseball All-star Ballot approach to the nominees, and just nominated people they’ve vaguely heard of.
The category of Best New Artist is even more laughable. Grammy nominees in this category include Keri Hilson, Silversun Pickups, Zac Brown Band (winner), the Ting Tings, and MGMT. The last three on that list didn’t even release an album in 2009 and MGMT’s album was released in 2007! How could these bands even be considered for Best New Artist when they didn’t even release an album in the time period for which the award is being given out?* They did literally nothing in 2009 and got recognized for it. Silversun Pickups are a different case, in that they aren’t new at all. They’ve been around since 2006 and their popularity has stayed steady throughout. And so the only true ‘New Artist’ is Keri Hilson. I guess she wins.
Switching gears before I wrap this up: after doing some research, I found out that the song that Jamie Foxx and T-Pain performed was (of course) not written by either one of them. This means that not only are they unable to perform music, but they are equally inept at creating it. So my original hypothesis was correct; they are, indeed, no-talent ass-clowns.
I hope they have a lot of batteries for their Auto-Tune pitch correction machines because it’s a long flight to Io.
This brings me to a question for you, Paul Murphy Shirley, that encompasses more than just music but deals with creativity as a whole: I understand why the performers are given more recognition than the creators of the performances themselves—they are the people the audience will recognize—but should our society work in this way? Shouldn’t we tout Christopher Henderson, Nate Walker, James T. Brown, Brandon Melanchon, and Christopher ‘Deep’ Henderson for writing the song that Jamie Foxx performed (poorly) on stage? Will the writers and the directors and the artists of our world always be content with getting paid for their art but not getting the proper recognition for creating it? Or will our world eventually run out of the creativity that truly runs entertainment?
Signed,
Assbag
*Paul’s note: I did some (limited) research before the Grammys and found out that the eligibility period for this year’s awards show was October 1, 2008 through August 31, 2009. Which takes nothing away from Matt’s argument, because MGMT still did nothing in that period.
#Matt’s note about Paul’s note: That’s stupid.
Matt-
I’m disappointed that we’re coming to the end of this discussion, as dictated by an approaching Friday deadline. I have a feeling we could debate this for weeks. But if we did that, people would tell us we aren’t relevant anymore. Actually, they’ll say that anyway, because we didn’t post this four minutes after the Grammys finished. To them, I say, “Editing, people, editing.”
First, Matt, to your point about creators. The situation reminds me of questions you and I once raised on our short-running radio show about political speech writers. If you dropped a person in front of a television that was playing a Barack Obama speech and then asked him who he thought probably wrote the speech, he’d likely look at you like you were an imbecile and say, “That guy saying the words, obviously.” Because that is the implication, at least as far as I can tell.
It’s not the truth, as we all know. Which is disappointing. For my money, fifteen minutes prior to a speech, presidential candidates (and presidents, for that matter) should be put in a room with only a pen and paper. Whatever they come up with in those 15 minutes is what they say.
Pop music is now similar to presidential speechwriting. When I watch Pink sing a song, my brain assumes that she wrote the song. That’s not the case. The lady from 4 Non Blondes (probably) wrote it. Some people are okay with that set-up. I am not one of them. Those who claim that they’re tolerant of a scenario that has the ugly people writing the songs and the pretty people singing them make the case that actors don’t write the lines they perform. That argument is an idiotic one, because no one was under the impression that George Clooney wrote Up In The Air. The fact that a large percentage of recording artists DO write their own songs makes the ones who do not look even more pathetic.
Another argument for performers being separate from creators is historical precedent. People will name a favorite performer, like Frank Sinatra, and say, “Does that make Frank Sinatra less talented—since he didn’t write his own songs?” Their argument backfires, though, when it is learned that the answer is a resounding, “Yes!”.
But I got sidetracked from the point. The point is that, because we so often see our pop musicians, it is important that they look good. The girl from 4 Non Blondes does not look as good naked (bodysuited) and upside down, so she writes, rests, and cashes checks, while Pink writhes and sings.
To answer your question, I probably would not be cool with the arrangement, but obviously people are.
The looks question plays into a possible answer to the questions (question) I posed, as well. The Oscars, Tonys, and Emmys are all awards for visual fields. In those media, the people generally accepted as the best in their job are accepted as such in part because they look good onscreen or onstage. Thus, it is not difficult to put them into an awards show, add a host, and get ratings.
Music, on the other hand, is not necessarily a visual medium. (With the exception of the pop stars who sell stuff.) Sometimes it is, but awards are never given for rockingest live show. (Although they should be.) Instead, awards are given for recordings. One doesn’t need to be good-looking or charismatic to sing into one of those panel microphones in a studio in Van Nuys.
The only solution I can find is one that will never be employed, unless we can get ahold of Bill & Ted’s time machine. The solution I’ve come up with is to make the Grammys a radio-only affair. Then, people wouldn’t be distracted by Beyonce’s cleavage and would realize how soul-stopping and brain-dissolving her cover of a perfectly good Alanis Morrisette song was.
Because that is not going to happen, the only real option is to never watch the Grammys again. I think I can handle it.
- Paul
the black eyed peas have nothing on you as far as making this country a worse place paul. are you writing this from the teabagger convention in nashville? i think you’re getting an award there for contributions to “covert” racism.
Clooney didn’t write Up in the Air? Then who did? Jason Bateman?
Paul, I remember being devastated when you shook your furry head at me–in April of 2009–after I said, “I love this new band called Kings of Leon.” You said they were much better in 2001 when they looked like ZZ Top. So, fully aware that I’m part of the superficial mainstream that skims the surface of good music (when I happen to switch over from AM), I’ve got what could be a stupid question:
Are there any examples ever of bands getting better the more popular they become?
Sincerely,
Lover of all 400 lb. street urchins
p.s. There’s a great new band out called the Plain White T’s…
Is there a way to covertly block pragmatism from commenting and attempting to hijack every article?
For the record, BEP’s first album was one of the greatest hip hop albums of all time but since they added Fergie and decided that commercial success was more important than art they have released nothing but garbage.
I stole my glasses from Avatar, but I didn’t watch the Grammys….Such a waste. I ran into Will.i.am on a ski mountain (?). My aunt asked him if he was in a band. He was totally perturbed. It was rather awesome.
oh, i see kg. only bep should have to reap what they sow. not paul. got it.
oh i see, only bep should have to reap what they sow.
Ugh…I could add about 20k worth of words to this argument. However, I just don’t have it in me anymore to care about the Grammy’s. Once I read that Judas Priest got the Grammy for Best Metal Album I just about hurled. I’m a metal head and I didn’t even know they released an album! Mastodon had the best metal album of the year yet they weren’t even nominated yet the catagory was full of relics. I hate that crap. I need to punch something.
It’s kind of why I like Taylor Swift a little more then Beyonce and I was not angry when she won some big awards. From what I understand (actually, my wife told me when I was complaining about the Nashville scene and the writing process for musicians (performers) vs. musicians (writers)) Taylor writes or has immediate input into all the songs she sings as they are crafted and before they go onto an album. At least gives a little more credibility then just a pretty face.
Pretty sure pragmatism got a huge boner when he noticed a shirley article was posted.
Hey, Paul Shirley (from http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/01/17/haiti.earthquake.girl.funeral/index.html):
“Liancourt, Haiti — She gingerly walked from the car and shuffled up the small hill, her eyes welled in tears.
The first sight of her daughter’s grave was too much for Beatrice Elan to bear. She began to scream and flail.
“Anna, Anna, Anna,” Elan cried, while two family members struggled to restrain her.
On Thursday, Elan’s 11-year-old daughter, Anaika St. Louis, became another victim of a tragedy unforgiving to both the old and the young.
***
For 48 hours she had lain trapped under the rubble since a 7.0-magnitude earthquake struck Haiti on Tuesday.
Her right leg was crushed and pinned by a steel beam.
“My lord God, save me!” she cried. Her screams were chilling.
No rescue teams could be found. Caring neighbors and family desperately tried to cut through steel using a hacksaw.
****
“She spent 3 days in the hole. All that time saying, ‘My God, I don’t want to die. I want to live,” said her aunt Etiana Jean-Baptiste.
On Thursday night, neighbors found a power saw and a portable generator. Soon after, Anaika was free.
But a happy ending eluded this story.
Anaika was rushed to a doctor, who could only offer some mild pain killers.
The doctor told the family that they had to get Anaika to a hospital about three hours away.
Her uncle said Anaika was bleeding internally. She was so incredibly strong, he said, and was willing to have her leg amputated, to live.
“She say, ‘Thank you, God. Because He save my life,” said Rodreffe Jean-Baptiste, in broken English.
“If I lose my feet. I always had my life,” he recalled his niece saying.
But before the night was over, Anaika was gone.
****
“She said … ‘Bring me a Bible. There is a psalm I like a lot, which is Psalm 23,’” recalled her aunt, Etiana Jean-Baptiste.
“She spent all her time reading the psalm. She said, ‘My God, come help me.’”
Hey, Paul, didn’t you say donating money to Haiti is like wasting money on a homeless person? Because the homeless guy is just going to by a beer, just like the Red Cross is just going to blow it on lifesaving basic medical care for 11 year-old children. Perfect analogy.
Then again, you said you wouldn’t donate because the victims are responsible for the earthquake, right? It’s her fault that she chose to be crushed by a steel beam, and she’s just another lazy, poor, stupid Haitian for choosing to sit buried in debris for three days.
I guess her dad should have used a condom, right? All’s well that ends well.
Tell us more about the Grammys!
So shocking….you are changing minds one at a time there buddy. Your face is next to the word ‘doucher’ in Websters. I just looked it up, seriously, check it out.
Wow, Pragmatism is that dude who drinks a highlife in a brown paper bag while pulling his toiletries out of the grocery cart he calls home. Please, anything that you actually think you can sing is probably garbage. If a four year old can sing along and actually do what they do… garbage. BEP is 2 for 2. Anybody with a bass beat can do that. The “Solution” is probably guest starring on the next BEP album!
Paul saying Bob Dylan sucks should garner far more outrage than any silly column about Haiti.
I’m forwarding excerpts of this article to every major media outlet. I hope the backlash you’ll receive is worth whatever pleasure you had in making such a heinous statement Paul.
Are all songwriters also good at singing? I have zero musical ability, but it seems to me these are two very distinct skills. If someone is a fantastic songwriter but has a terrible voice, should they not team up with someone possessing the opposite skills? And should we disregard the final product because it took two people to create it?
re: “awards are never given for rockingest live show. (Although they should be.)” seriously, why hasn’t this happened yet?
i can never wrap my head around why these critics can’t stay relevant. i work a normal 9-5 and somehow manage to keep up on it. they need to start listening to KEXP. jerks.
I believe, to truly have a successful piece of musical art, the singer has to be significantly involved and passionate about all parts of the song. The beat, the bass line, the lyrics, the riffs, everything. Thus, a song by Everclear, that you can tell has a lot of feeling behind every line and every chord, is far superior to “Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It)” not only because of the song’s topic, but because the dudes from Everclear have a far more intimate relationship with their song than Beyonce does with her. And I can tell.
And to respond to Jared’s question: I think there are enough people in the world who can do both, and produce a passionate product, that we don’t need people who sing other peoples songs about things that never happened in their life over other people’s music while doing other peoples dance moves.
@ Jared,
Look into the traditonal Nashville way of creating country music…this may answer many of your questions.
More on Bob Dylan:
You two were both just very critical of those who place more value on performance than on creation. Isn’t Bob Dylan the ultimate example of how the creation is bigger than the performance. Dylan songs have been performed by literally thousands of really good performers. Performers that I know you guys are fans of.
To understand just how great these songs are, perhaps it’d help to take them out of Dylan’s hands (i’m sure his voice annoys you) and allow some other artists to demonstrate their timeless genius.
Please See:
Stephen Malkmus and The Million Dollar Bashers – “Ballad of a Thin Man”
Monsters of Folk – “Girl From the North Country”
Beck – “Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat”
The White Stripes – “One More Cup of Coffee”
Richie Havens – “Just Like a Woman”
Antony & The Johnsons – “Knockin’ On Heaven’s Door”
Guns and Roses – “Knockin’ On Heaven’s Door”
Patti LaBelle – “Forever Young”
Pearl Jam – “Masters of War”
The Black Keys – “Wicked Messenger”
Give it a shot…I beg you. I’m speaking to Paul now, b/c I know that Matt believes that the chick from Evanescence is somehow less commercial and more talented than any of the artists he just spent 2000 words complaining about.
The Pretenders – “Forever Young”
Casey – That’s Rich you’re thinking about. Evanescence sucks.
Can’t get with you on the Dylan hate. Give me music that tells a story. Musical mainstream is a shallow, superficial well. The music is completely ambiguous, in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Coming from a guy that works in the industry, the root of the problem with the Grammys is the same reason none of the labels can make any money. They’re run by old men who are completely out of touch with what’s really going on. Their whole goal is take the handful of artists that still turn a profit and squeeze every last cent out of them. Hence, why the names you hear at the Grammys are BEP, Green Day, Gaga, Eminem and Taylor Swift. Black Eyed Peas went from a credible hip-hop group to what Matt correctly labeled as the ‘biggest sellout of all time’. (Also in the running with Stefani and Sugar Ray would be Smashmouth.) I’m surprised the two other dudes in the group are cool being back-up dancers now. I guess the checks make it worth the embarrassment. And don’t even get me started on Green Day. Coming from a kid that grew up listening to punk rock bands, including Green Day, what’s become of them is saddening. There’s a shot of one of the girls singing while standing next to Mike Dirnt, the bassist for Green Day, that sums it all up. I won’t try and explain the look on his face, go watch it and see for yourself. Skip to 3:10.
I could write 93,784 words about this, but I’ll wrap it up by saying this. Everyone wants to blame the woes of the music industry on piracy. While that doesn’t help, there’s no better example of why the industry is failing than the 3.5 hour abortion we were subjected to on Sunday night.
Matt – Zac Brown Band was solid, but Travis Barker was the best musician to step foot on that stage.
Paul – Bob Dylan does suck. Bravo.
I did as well with that HTML as Taylor Swift did hitting her notes with Stevie Nicks.
Party People – I’m going to respond scattershot style. First, thanks to those who appreciated reading this. My contention, regarding creation/performance, is that I have the most respect for artists who can do both. Because of this, Dylan is on one end of the spectrum (great writer/horrible singer) and someone like Pink is on the other (good singer/can’t write). I like those who maximize their abilities, somewhere in the middle.
And yes, Mastodon should have won best metal.
Oh, and Mick, the one example I can come up with (bands that have gotten better as more popular) is the Killers. But many would disagree with me.
O.K., so clearly you fellows are trying to move on from your site’s op ed flailing flameout of a fail. Fair enough. And a big up to you-you never let them take you down a notch, and you stood your ahistorical, semidecipherable, demiracist, antihumanitarian ground like a champ. Hear, hear. And for all of us eagerly awaiting the next installment of your writing career, what do we get? A review of an awards ceremony that doesn’t matter-for a bunch of music that mostly doesn’t matter? Is that the most interesting music related subject you could think of writing about? Something on your television? And what is with this hamhanded editorial work? Why are you subjecting your readers to such poorly combed over drafts of irrelevant music-cum-popular culture “criticism”?
Why is it that you can’t even deliver a decent review of drivel for those of us who are patiently trying to stay away from their keyboards long enough to see if you actually have anything more to offer as a writer (since you insist on keeping this writers’ haven parked on the internet)? Why are you tormenting those of us who mindlessly procrastinate and shirk our own deadlines to see whether or not your charred, semiliterary, poorly proofed corpse might yield some sort of glimmering inspirational tract? What makes you think that the way to step up your game is to write convoluted paragraphs that not-so-effectively state things like: The Grammys are a recording industry awards event that uses popular music critics and other allegedly impartial voters in the recording industry as shills to promote select artists as part of an overblown, fragmentary, televised musical. For around fifty years, television viewers have been treated to an orchestrated event that very likely involves less adjudicating rigor than a dog show, and that is less memorable visually or choreographically.
More to the point: why didn’t you give this one over to David Roth, and when can we expect another post from him? Look at what a great writer he is:
“the raw barfy sadness of their co-inebriation”
“campaign that is currently meandering unconvincingly across television screens nationwide”
“Sunglasses-Rocking Destroyer Deity of Nostalgia Rock”
By all means, if you can’t write as well as this fellow, at least have the presence of mind to upload some more of his copy. It would really improve the quality of your site.
I’m pretty sure that Pink at least co-wrote “Sober”.
second third and fourth douchey label guy’s post.
when are people going to learn? popular music (see anything on the radio, anything on TV, the grammy’s et al) is a BUSINESS. it ain’t about the art.
it’s about seeing how many mongrel artists will wade through a river of shit for some major label to sign them, screw them over, and most often leave them penniless.
it’s called the music BUSINESS for a reason.
best new music is shit no one should hear on the radio. and thank god those bands aren’t being nominated for grammy’s.
paul or matt – you guys dig the low anthem? check them out.
Adelsig – Low Anthem has been sitting on the periphery of my music consciousness for awhile. Upon your reco, will give them more attention.
Dylan is great. The diea that he can’t sign is nonsense. His voice is probably the most interesting instrument of the rock era. He has done everything in rock, in every way possible. If you can’t appreciate any of his music you fail as a music critic. I think that Girl from the North Country is my favourite song of all time.
Moreover, the idea that you have to write your own music to be any good is also complete nonsense. By your definition Pavarotti and Domingo are “no-talent ass-clowns”.
Chet – In order to be in the no-talent ass-clown category you have to be able to neither write nor sing. So Pav and Dom can’t be categorized like that following my logic. In general however, I do tend to hold the talent of writing the music above the talent of singing it. Having singing talent is a lot like having the talent for being tall.
Hey look at the cool guy (beatitsir) writing hate-comments at 10:30 on a Friday night. Solid.
speculating on what other commenters “probably are” or “probably do” = FAIL. but its an easy way to duck the content of a post. whowouldathunk it? douchebag sycophants protecting a racist douchebag.
In regards to Bob Dylan’s voice, it appears that he could sing well when he . I’ve read that he sang like this on his entire Nashville Skyline album, but I’ve never actually listened to it. Anyhow, just food for thought.
As for the shittiness of the Grammys, and mainstream music in general nowadays, I agree wholeheartedly. I care less about the fact that most “musicians” don’t write their own music than the fact that the actual “music” just plain sucks. 99% of mainstream music is so unoriginal, shallow and generic sounding, it’s literally depressing to me. I have nothing but pity for people who actually enjoy the type of music performed at the Grammys this year.
Height is a talent Matt, don’t forget that. It has gotten me far in life.
And despite the fact that that Pav and Dom may have some innate talent, I’m pretty damn sure that the did a little hard work along the way as well. Probably about 1,000,000% more than the guys in the Zac Brown Band.
A while back I was having a discussion about these awards shows, and I realized that I could tell you most of the Best Picture winners from my cognizant years. I could probably only come up with one or two of the best albums of the year from that time period. To me the Grammys have become completely irrelevant… very little of it is music I listen to, or even care to listen to.
All of that being said, there is something very poignant in the lyrics “Rah-rah-ah-ah-ah!
Roma-Roma-ma-ah!
Ga-ga-ooh-la-la!”