Just look back over the list of what they've given "Song of The Year", and you'll find, amazingly, "We Are The World" (1986), "Hello Dolly" (1965), "I Write The Songs" (1977) - yes, Barry Manilow, and a raft of really mediocre-at-best songs. Sure, once in a while they picked something really good like Shawn Colvin's "Sunny Came Home" (1998) or truly legenday for its composition like "Moon River" (1962). But mostly, they are real schlock.
Agree?
2007-02-15 02:46:57 · 15 answers · asked by visibleholstein 4 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
I absolutely agree! I don't think that the Dixie Chicks should have won 5 awards. I like their music, but I don't think their latest album was good enough to win 5 awards. It's bascially like the people in charge of the Grammy judging were just rewarding the Chicks for bad behavior. I mean im not a big fan of Bush but I do think that the way they went about expressing their feelings was wrong. Im all about Freedom of Speech. But for you to go over to another country and start bad mouthing our president then that's gone a bit far. Ya kno. The grammys are getting to be all about politics and not about really great music.
2007-02-15 03:02:28 · answer #1 · answered by myimmortal2256 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not what people are really listening too, but it can influence what people will listen to. The Dixie Chips have about 1,000% more sales of their latest album than compared to just last week, and if you look at the top twenty albums on Amazon following the Grammys, many were from the show. Same thing goes for Oprah. Perform on Oprah and you will get your record played and sold.
2007-02-15 02:52:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes - I agree. After seeing how the Dixie Chicks - who can't sell out a concert - won 5 awards - they showed how political the Grammys are and how they are no longer about music.
2007-02-15 02:51:18 · answer #3 · answered by lifesajoy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nah. The Grammys get voted on for talent and impact (and other areas as well). If they did on taste, then the whole system would be completely biased. Its not a perfect system they have but they usually get it right.
And just to let you know, We are the World was a powerful song when it came out. Our planet was in more turmoil then and that song helped heal a lot of people's faith in humanity. Its a little cheasy now, but it was deserving to win when it did.
2007-02-15 02:51:21 · answer #4 · answered by Drew P 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Agreed
2007-02-15 02:49:42 · answer #5 · answered by smm1974 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Certanley the grammys have no credability. That is why American Idol a schlock fest in itself beat them in ratings. Nobody but a dolt takes the grammys seriousley.
2007-02-15 02:51:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
100% without one shred of doubt I agree with that statement.
The shame is that alot of the major awards are based on music sales and popularity - which is not a reflection of ALL the fantastic music that is out there.
Great question - I have asked myself this for YEARS!
2007-02-15 02:56:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
thank god sumone agrees wit me! i thought i'm the only one who thinks grammy winners dun deserve the prestige award..! thus, i'm beginning to lose the credibility of the grammys... sighs... i think people shud vote for their favourite songs.. and i mean have an international open vote without any nominees... that way, it's fair..
2007-02-15 02:54:17 · answer #8 · answered by fizadora 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definately. Most of the time they choose okay but they leave alot of great artists out of the awards who should be nominated by their musical peers.
2007-02-15 02:49:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES!
The Grammy's are all political now and no longer about good music.
2007-02-15 02:49:15 · answer #10 · answered by Dale D 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋