Their album didn't do very well on any of the charts. Other more deserving artists lost for the sake of politics. Shouldn't it be about the music rather than some political statement. And don't give me the line about music has always been political. Say whatever you want in your music, but don't rig a whole year of the grammys to push your agenda.
I also find it funny that many of these artists carry on about how the DC's were only using their free speech. Well, guess what? Their fans have free speech too and they chose to use it too. You can't have it both ways. Or is it just the rich and famous that have free speech now. All of the lowly folks best keep their mouths shut. What a joke the grammy's have become.
2007-02-12 02:39:12 · 21 answers · asked by songndance1999 4 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
I got this from Wikipedia the online encyclopedia.. however accurate..not sure.. but have heard the same information elsewhere.
"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."
So, you are accurate in your assumption the Grammys are corruppt and also, the Dixie Chicks have won a shallow victory, being given the win by a select small part of the population that are likeminded to their political view. There was no vote on their musical talent this year! Ridiculous. The Grammys have become a liberal plateform to vent their views in arrogant ways, ignoring the masses of fans who snubbed the female singers for their opinions being spewed abroad on foriegn soil!
2007-02-13 10:38:26 · answer #1 · answered by salfost 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It was great that the Dixie Chicks won not only one Grammy but five! Basically, them winning is a big "suck it" to "dubya" from the people who vote for Grammys. After pretty much no airplay what-so-ever, the Dixie Chicks winning shows that just because a bunch of Bush loving rednecks that dominate the genre of music you play hates your guts, you can still take your great album and win a Grammy. Congratulations Dixie Chicks on using free speech and not being afraid to express what you believe.
And by the way, obviously fans have free speech too, look at all the boycotts they do towards the Dixie Chicks. Country music doesn't exactly love them.
2007-02-12 12:09:48 · answer #2 · answered by thebandgeek3 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you. Some people say, "Keep religion out of schools." I say "Keep political agendas out of award shows!" I will not watch them next year, and I'll most likely not watch the Oscars either as they are even more political. (Al Gore's most likely going to win.) I am all for free speech but as they say, "with freedom comes responsibility". She decided to use that freedom to say what she wanted to say, and should accept the consequences that came with it. Low sales and not getting airplay is not a violation of their freedom of speech. Just a result of not using it wisely. The public might have overlooked the whole incident but the Dixie Chicks are the ones who won't let it go. They used it to play the victim to get attention and awards.
added note: Do the Grammy folks really think the President cares who wins at the Grammy's? Why alienate millions of music fans for the sole purpose of trying to "stick it" to the administration? We are the ones who buy the music, are we not?
2007-02-12 14:37:36 · answer #3 · answered by caffeinatedmom2 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a previous poster said
"It (the album) didn't do well, because of exactly what you are talking about....politics. Did you listen to the album? It is outstanding. Very well deserving of a Grammy."
The Dixie Chicks were EXTREMELY popular and very well liked and respected in the music industry before they utilized their right to free speech. They are a group of talented musicians and their music continues to be great, despite the politics surrounding it.
I don't think it was agenda pushing at all. The DC simply aren't making apologies for their opinion.
No one was up in arms when Kanye West said President Bush hates black people after Katrina. That moment came and went so fast, why are we still holding onto this one?
Let it go people!
2007-02-12 03:16:04 · answer #4 · answered by Nichole D 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I m insider in the Rock Industry. When you take a good look at who is winning the Grammy Awards recently heres some of the inside track. First legendary rock groups like The Doors, The Kinks, Journey have never won a grammy award. You think about the huge number of hit songs that Journey had like "Lovin Touchin Squeezin""Anyway You Want It" "Wheel In Sky" "Whose Crying Now" "Don t Stop Believin" "Faithfully" "Separate Ways" Lights" Journey has been more than just a Bay City SF California Rock group. The boys in Jounrey have sold 100 millions records. They are one of the most popular influenctial rocks groups of all time.
Now look at whom is winning the awards today. Sam Smith. The Grammy committee awarded him best male artist for pop single for a song that he plagarized from Tom Petty.
Two Adelles music is at best depressing.
Three Nicky Minaj is not talented. She is crazy.
When you find out that the Doors, like Jim Morrison has never been nominated for a Grammy, yes the Grammy awards are corrupted, political, and they have angeda.
There sorta of like a bad girlfriend. They will not be good no matter how good you are. Ever.
2016-02-16 07:29:51 · answer #5 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, now I actually respect the Grammys more. DC truly deserved it.
However, one indication that Grammys may be corrupted is The Black Eyed Peas winning a Grammy last night. Now that is retarded.
2007-02-12 10:31:41 · answer #6 · answered by taurus_5206 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Corrupt? Only if you think a large body of voting members of NARAS, as I am, accepting outside influence.
The disconnect between the voting membership of music professionals and the preferences of the general public is based on professionals in music have a different view of what should be held at high esteem. It is not a popularity contest, it is peers voting based on their interests and focus. For me, being an engineer/producer, productions values are something I rate very critically regardless of the sales and marketing efforts by the label.
2007-02-12 02:48:57 · answer #7 · answered by SPbStan 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It (the album) didn't do well, because of exactly what you are talking about....politics. Did you listen to the album? It is outstanding. Very well deserving of a Grammy. I don't even listen to country anymore, but their album is one that I can sit and listen through the entire thing.
2007-02-12 02:56:24 · answer #8 · answered by Chris 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't really think the Grammy awards are relevant anymore. They are not representative of what the public likes or who is really up and coming, it's more like a beauty pageant than a measure of someone's talent.
2007-02-12 10:43:14 · answer #9 · answered by Catlady 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Winning a Grammy won't save you from getting axed when you have low ticket sales and low album sales. In the end the consumer decides who stays and who goes.
2007-02-12 02:48:46 · answer #10 · answered by sprydle 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋