|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tony Montana
Star Player
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 2962
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Triumph wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | the thing with the oscars though is that although i rarely think the best picture winner is actually the best movie of the year...they usually give it to a good movie. they usually award very good performances. the grammys are just terrible. |
I totally agree. I don't see why the Recording Academy can't follow suit with the Film Academy. For example, this year Ryan Gosling is nominated for best actor for his role in Half Nelson, which nobody saw. But it doesn't matter to the Oscars because he had one of the best performances and that should be recognized. And this happens every year in almost every category. And the other movie award ceremonies (SAG, the Golden Globes, etc.) do this, too.
For the record, I have no problem with the Dixie Chicks winning album of the year. But the fact remains, to be nominated for a Grammy you have to have massive record sales/radio play or they award a band/artist that's been making music for so long as some sort of tribute. Example of the latter are when Steely Dan, Santana, and Ray Charles all received album of the year awards in the 2000's way past their prime. Don't get me wrong, they are all tremendous artists, but those were not the best albums of those respective years. It was like the Grammys were retroactively awarding them for their great work of the past. That shouldn't happen. The Oscars aren't doing that for Scorcese even though he deserves to have one by now.
And you ever notice how the Grammy winners never match up with any year-end best of lists by music journalists? It's because the academy is not even looking at all of the music released that year. The number of music releases each year dwarfs the number of film releases, so there should be so many records and albums to choose from. But when you watch the Grammys you'd think there were only 10 albums released in the year because the same 3 albums sweep all the awards.
After watching the performances last night, I've also noticed that the standing ovation is losing all of it's value. Those should be reserved for legendary artists. You can't give Chris Brown a standing O, he's not James Brown. Stop standing up after every single performance. |
Good points, except that the motion picture academy has a long history of giving "make up" awards. Pacino doesn't win for Godfather, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, or Scarface (obviously an Oscar-caliber performance in my book) but wins for his hammy, self-parody in Scent of a Woman? There are plenty like that, especially for aging nominees who may never get another chance. Just like the Grammy's and your good examples of Steely Dan, Santana, and others who won for works that were nowhere near the level of earlier works that weren't even nominated in their day.
The flavor of the moment is a problem with the Oscar's too. Do you think that if you were to hold the vote today, that Shakespeare in Love would beat Saving Private Ryan again? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 54048
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony Montana wrote: | | Triumph wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | the thing with the oscars though is that although i rarely think the best picture winner is actually the best movie of the year...they usually give it to a good movie. they usually award very good performances. the grammys are just terrible. |
I totally agree. I don't see why the Recording Academy can't follow suit with the Film Academy. For example, this year Ryan Gosling is nominated for best actor for his role in Half Nelson, which nobody saw. But it doesn't matter to the Oscars because he had one of the best performances and that should be recognized. And this happens every year in almost every category. And the other movie award ceremonies (SAG, the Golden Globes, etc.) do this, too.
For the record, I have no problem with the Dixie Chicks winning album of the year. But the fact remains, to be nominated for a Grammy you have to have massive record sales/radio play or they award a band/artist that's been making music for so long as some sort of tribute. Example of the latter are when Steely Dan, Santana, and Ray Charles all received album of the year awards in the 2000's way past their prime. Don't get me wrong, they are all tremendous artists, but those were not the best albums of those respective years. It was like the Grammys were retroactively awarding them for their great work of the past. That shouldn't happen. The Oscars aren't doing that for Scorcese even though he deserves to have one by now.
And you ever notice how the Grammy winners never match up with any year-end best of lists by music journalists? It's because the academy is not even looking at all of the music released that year. The number of music releases each year dwarfs the number of film releases, so there should be so many records and albums to choose from. But when you watch the Grammys you'd think there were only 10 albums released in the year because the same 3 albums sweep all the awards.
After watching the performances last night, I've also noticed that the standing ovation is losing all of it's value. Those should be reserved for legendary artists. You can't give Chris Brown a standing O, he's not James Brown. Stop standing up after every single performance. |
Good points, except that the motion picture academy has a long history of giving "make up" awards. Pacino doesn't win for Godfather, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, or Scarface (obviously an Oscar-caliber performance in my book) but wins for his hammy, self-parody in Scent of a Woman? There are plenty like that, especially for aging nominees who may never get another chance. Just like the Grammy's and your good examples of Steely Dan, Santana, and others who won for works that were nowhere near the level of earlier works that weren't even nominated in their day.
The flavor of the moment is a problem with the Oscar's too. Do you think that if you were to hold the vote today, that Shakespeare in Love would beat Saving Private Ryan again? |
the oscars are about who spends the most money on campaigns. it didn't always used to be that way. the oscars have a good track record of rewarding lifetime achievement awards no doubt (pacino is a great example) but look at scorsese. he was the favorite to win for gangs of NY due to his history but they didn't give it to him bc it was a subpar film. this year he deserves it and so he'll finally get it. the thing i like about the academy is that they usually honor the great films in other ways. for instance, children of men is a masterpiece but it's too dark and made too little to be a serious best picture contender. so they give it a screenplay nod. they find a way to honor the best, gosling is another perfect example.
the grammys just continuously award garbage. the people who vote are too old, too corrupt and too out of touch with music to be voting.
_________________
14-5-3-12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NoMoreGame7s
Star Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 3818
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wonder if he 'shocks the monkeys' when they play the wrong notes.
_________________
I got a fever....and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Thanks for the avatar, Hybrid27. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Socks
Franchise Player
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 10761
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dubaholic1
Star Player
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 3016
Location: Quality over Quantity
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ocho wrote: | | Tony Montana wrote: | | Triumph wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | the thing with the oscars though is that although i rarely think the best picture winner is actually the best movie of the year...they usually give it to a good movie. they usually award very good performances. the grammys are just terrible. |
I totally agree. I don't see why the Recording Academy can't follow suit with the Film Academy. For example, this year Ryan Gosling is nominated for best actor for his role in Half Nelson, which nobody saw. But it doesn't matter to the Oscars because he had one of the best performances and that should be recognized. And this happens every year in almost every category. And the other movie award ceremonies (SAG, the Golden Globes, etc.) do this, too.
For the record, I have no problem with the Dixie Chicks winning album of the year. But the fact remains, to be nominated for a Grammy you have to have massive record sales/radio play or they award a band/artist that's been making music for so long as some sort of tribute. Example of the latter are when Steely Dan, Santana, and Ray Charles all received album of the year awards in the 2000's way past their prime. Don't get me wrong, they are all tremendous artists, but those were not the best albums of those respective years. It was like the Grammys were retroactively awarding them for their great work of the past. That shouldn't happen. The Oscars aren't doing that for Scorcese even though he deserves to have one by now.
And you ever notice how the Grammy winners never match up with any year-end best of lists by music journalists? It's because the academy is not even looking at all of the music released that year. The number of music releases each year dwarfs the number of film releases, so there should be so many records and albums to choose from. But when you watch the Grammys you'd think there were only 10 albums released in the year because the same 3 albums sweep all the awards.
After watching the performances last night, I've also noticed that the standing ovation is losing all of it's value. Those should be reserved for legendary artists. You can't give Chris Brown a standing O, he's not James Brown. Stop standing up after every single performance. |
Good points, except that the motion picture academy has a long history of giving "make up" awards. Pacino doesn't win for Godfather, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, or Scarface (obviously an Oscar-caliber performance in my book) but wins for his hammy, self-parody in Scent of a Woman? There are plenty like that, especially for aging nominees who may never get another chance. Just like the Grammy's and your good examples of Steely Dan, Santana, and others who won for works that were nowhere near the level of earlier works that weren't even nominated in their day.
The flavor of the moment is a problem with the Oscar's too. Do you think that if you were to hold the vote today, that Shakespeare in Love would beat Saving Private Ryan again? |
the oscars are about who spends the most money on campaigns. it didn't always used to be that way. the oscars have a good track record of rewarding lifetime achievement awards no doubt (pacino is a great example) but look at scorsese. he was the favorite to win for gangs of NY due to his history but they didn't give it to him bc it was a subpar film. this year he deserves it and so he'll finally get it. the thing i like about the academy is that they usually honor the great films in other ways. for instance, children of men is a masterpiece but it's too dark and made too little to be a serious best picture contender. so they give it a screenplay nod. they find a way to honor the best, gosling is another perfect example.
the grammys just continuously award garbage. the people who vote are too old, too corrupt and too out of touch with music to be voting. |
Ocho I should have known better than to give you a forum in which to prosthelitize your seething hatred for the establishment, which sebsequently lead to the hijacking of the thread...  love ya, babe!
Anyway, here are the guidlines for the Grammy voting:
"The only people who are allowed to vote for the Grammy Awards are those who are members of the National Academy of the Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS). Members must have worked on six albums (in terms of production, engineering, mixing, or being the recording artist). NARAS members are peers of all who submit their work to the recording Academy. NARAS members are to vote based upon the quality of the work that has been submitted. It is highly stressed to voting NARAS members not to look at sales or charts when voting. Artists, producers, engineers/mixers or record companies are allowed to make submissions to the Recording Academy. The deadline for all submissions for the 49th Annual Grammy Awards is September 1, 2006. Nominating ballots are sent to NARAS members by October 1, 2006 which is after the 2006 recording year ends. On the ballot they are allowed to nominate any of the work submitted. They can only vote in eight fields other than the general field, and can vote to nominate up to five works for an award.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Montana
Star Player
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 2962
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AirKobe8
Star Player
Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 8586
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flight
Star Player
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 4740
Location: The OC
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dixie Chicks are horrible. Album of the year?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dorray
Star Player
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 3494
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Flight wrote: | | Dixie Chicks are horrible. Album of the year? |
That is how you know the Grammys are crap. There were LOTS and LOTS of far better albums. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
999
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Oct 2006
Posts: 20267
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shakira sounds like a goat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
B_Rabbit1212
Star Player
Joined: 26 Jun 2005
Posts: 2085
Location: Santa Barbara / Davis
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Triumph wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | the thing with the oscars though is that although i rarely think the best picture winner is actually the best movie of the year...they usually give it to a good movie. they usually award very good performances. the grammys are just terrible. |
I totally agree. I don't see why the Recording Academy can't follow suit with the Film Academy. For example, this year Ryan Gosling is nominated for best actor for his role in Half Nelson, which nobody saw. But it doesn't matter to the Oscars because he had one of the best performances and that should be recognized. And this happens every year in almost every category. And the other movie award ceremonies (SAG, the Golden Globes, etc.) do this, too.
For the record, I have no problem with the Dixie Chicks winning album of the year. But the fact remains, to be nominated for a Grammy you have to have massive record sales/radio play or they award a band/artist that's been making music for so long as some sort of tribute. Example of the latter are when Steely Dan, Santana, and Ray Charles all received album of the year awards in the 2000's way past their prime. Don't get me wrong, they are all tremendous artists, but those were not the best albums of those respective years. It was like the Grammys were retroactively awarding them for their great work of the past. That shouldn't happen. The Oscars aren't doing that for Scorcese even though he deserves to have one by now.
And you ever notice how the Grammy winners never match up with any year-end best of lists by music journalists? It's because the academy is not even looking at all of the music released that year. The number of music releases each year dwarfs the number of film releases, so there should be so many records and albums to choose from. But when you watch the Grammys you'd think there were only 10 albums released in the year because the same 3 albums sweep all the awards.
After watching the performances last night, I've also noticed that the standing ovation is losing all of it's value. Those should be reserved for legendary artists. You can't give Chris Brown a standing O, he's not James Brown. Stop standing up after every single performance. |
Truth.
_________________
bonerkillcollective.tumblr.com - peep our art. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
