To me, it seems like there is a ton of clout in not only receiving the Oscar, but getting nominated for one. I think it puts you in a completely different bracket when your name has been anywhere near one.
So on the way in this morning a guy called into the local station and was trying to say that he felt there were musical honors that compare to receiving an Oscar. Do you agree with that? If not, is there anything that can be done to music's current awards that would put them on the same level, and would allow them to have the same effect on the performer's career?
2007-10-18 07:20:54 · 6 answers · asked by Sookie 6 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music ➔ Rock and Pop
squishy - I agree that there have been Grammy performances that have been groundbreaking for some artists.
2007-10-18 07:40:25 · update #1
lovnrckets - agreed. I hate to be the pessimist, but I don't think the system can be changed, either.
2007-10-18 07:43:52 · update #2
James M - you have taken this question to a whole new level by bringing up musicians that actually win Oscars. I think to be mentioned is especially huge for an artist, unless it's Randy Newman who has 4,500 nominations.
2007-10-18 07:47:08 · update #3
jmike - when you participate in the question game, your keys will be taken away. :)
2007-10-18 07:48:51 · update #4
There is nothing music related that has all the pomp and circumstance of an Oscar. Maybe the best thing an artist can receive would be universal strong ratings across the board from various music critics. Perhaps it's the awards that the Village Voice gives out every year. I don't think there's much that can be done to change the award system. The Grammys were supposed to be the Oscars in theory.
jmikep69 - 30 minutes is nothing. Share my commute and I promise you will be well versed in Jack Off Jill, Bad Religion and all else in between.
2007-10-18 07:31:48 · answer #1 · answered by Rckets 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, the Grammy was supposed to be the musical equivalent of winning the Oscar, but we all see how that turned out.
The only thing that comes close to being similar to winning an Oscar is simply longevity. If an artist can survive 15 or 20 years or so and still maintain a fanbase, then all of a sudden they are the ones with the power and the clout as opposed to the labels.
NP: "Love and Affection" - Def Leppard
***BTW, scouring over the board, it's a good thing I'm not playing the bad question game. I do have a 30 minute commute at the end of the day.
2007-10-18 14:39:39 · answer #2 · answered by Mike AKA Mike 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I would have to agree that an Oscar is a significant award. Even a nomination has clout. But it is especially valuable if the rock star receives an award over an established soundtrack performer like Randy Newman. Springsteen's Oscar for Philadelphia was warranted....what a haunting song.
2007-10-18 14:37:26 · answer #3 · answered by James M 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Like everyone else has mentioned The grammy's should be the equivalent to the oscars. However when get artist like the dixie chicks cleaning up like in the 2007 version it looses some merritt for me.
2007-10-18 15:13:48 · answer #4 · answered by Bored @ Work 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
jurydoc is right.........the Grammy's are awarded by the Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences.......and are considered the music industry's highest honor........though she had been around forever, the Grammy's made Bonnie Raitt a household name.
2007-10-18 14:28:22 · answer #5 · answered by squishy 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Grammy
2007-10-18 14:22:54 · answer #6 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋