What a joke, Adelle swept. with what 1 single? Album of the year? GTFO! Katy Perry has pumped out hit singles for 2 fucking years. Nothing. This "awards show" is retarded as usual. I will not be watching next year.. or the year after. What a farce!
I love how Adele can win a ton of awards when she basically steals all of her music. The Grammys stopped mattering when Sheena Easton beat Luther Vandross for best new artist.
Yeah. This was the first one I've watched in 6 years. Last time I watched it was the same crap. Popularity contest. Fuck this. What a bunch of BS.
Adele's new album is pretty good though. Not defending the awards at all, I never watch 'em. Katy Perry is OK, but it's just pop music. I wouldn't really classify their music in the same category. EDIT: Bon Iver won best new artist? Gotta agree with that one too, love his stuff.
LOL Adele got "album of The Year" Justify that and tell me it wasn't pity and popularity at the given time. Adele does not have this stage presence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYpUavuANJc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Sd5c4o9UM&feature=artist The only reason Adele won was because Katy Perry took 2011 to tour and make money (it's what they do as performers after they release a hit album). So in the meantime some new upstart plops a few hits and gets the fucking Grammy? Really? Let's see how long Ms. Adele holds out. She blew her voice. She's done. Why not give it to an artist that has and still is working her ass off? Lame. Yes, I'm a Katy Perry fan. That's not why I'm pissed off. The numbers don't lie. I posted the weeks at #1 for 2011. If you care to look, check out the sales for Perry vs. Adelle for 2011. Look how many seats were sold for either in 2011. It was bullshit. That's why I'm pissed off. The Grammy used to mean something.
Katy Perry's pretty good, I just prefer Adele. And album sales aren't exactly a benchmark for quality music. Look how many albums the Backsteet Boys sold for example.
I agree but, that's what the Grammy's are... a reward for success. Katy Perry is sitting on Millions from shows. Adele, not so much. Perry has major sales for her music, Adelle, not so much. How the hell do you award the lesser? I don't like a lot of bands that won the Grammy's in the 80's. Did they DESERVE it? Yeah. Fuck my taste. They worked their asses off trying to get it. Now the Grammy doesn't mean shit and music is already going downhill.... Where's the incentive to make good music (and share it) anymore? Might as well stay local or sell out and be a puppet for the industry in which case the listeners of music get shafted with shit music... even more than last year.
The rewards are for promotion it would seam? (IMHO) it's just another popularity contest, IE: "like us on FB and we'll win the game of life"
MSP you remember when music was good and it was cut-throat. Don't tell me the crap you hear today is up to par "as it was 20 years ago". No fuckin way. Even my son knows my generation (X) was better than the shit we have now. Kids these days ( HS freshmen - I know) listen to classic rock and the 90's [grunge, metal, industrial and rap] for the most part. Because, today's music is commercial and it sucks. [Torx] Real Talk[/Torx]. I have no idea what this new generation will claim besides all of our mistakes. It's fucking sad. They are going to be starving, jobless and have shitty music. -=Lurker=-
Oh lord Lurker, you're turning into an old man! Music was better back then, gasoline was cheaper, etc. :lol: But yeah, I'm sitting here listening to Def Leppard and Elton John so I guess I agree. But the industry has just changed, radically. Used to be that the distribution channels were tightly controlled and there were a lot fewer choices. Now anybody making good music with an internet connection can make it big. Bon Iver for example. Anyway, there's just so much choice that I think the days of the mega-star are basically over. I'll take choice and quality over popularity any day. I just want to listen to good music, I could care less how much bank they're making.
Don't have any personal opinions to add on the matter, but I'm not sure what point you were trying to make based on weeks at #1. Adele had more (12) to Katy Perrys (9).
Yeah and 8 of those 12 were from her first hit single (Rolling in the Deep". Perry has more songs to make the #1 spot and has had songs fall off and come back up to the #1 spot again. That says something about her caliber of music.
I was just looking at weeks at number 1 for this year (which is what you put up). Again, wasn't trying to add my opinion into the matter (I think they're both good), but just correcting your math. And on what planet are there more than 52 weeks in the year? (36+32 = 66 weeks? You the devil or something?)
Song of the year goes to the writer of said song. Record of the year is for the best single/track off an album. Album of the year is for the entire album.
Jeest, you're listening to the bubble-gum-pop-14-year-old-girl-grammy-award music and comparing that to the music of 2-4 decades ago? You need to listen to the college/indie/alternative stuff, e.g., Raconteurs, Manchester Orchestra, Silversun Pickups, Warpaint, The Joy Formidable, Mew, Muse, Cage the Elephant, Gorillaz, Interpol, The Shins, Yeasayer, Wilco, The Decemberists, to name but a few. http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2009/11/the-best-albums-of-the-decade.html?p=5 You're not gonna find any Katy Perry or Adele in there, I guarantee you.
LOL I dunno man. That's what the chart said. I listen to 5 of those bands. Don't get me wrong. I listen to a wide variety of music.
Record = song, album=collection of songs. Adele has done things (chartwise) that no one else has. gah MTV but here are some of the stats... http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1679599/adele-21-album-facts.jhtml
