pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

I first heard of him when the Pavement guy shouted his name on "Cut Your Hair."

My mistake, it was best metal. I forget who said "don't know what that means"

IIRC they invited a bunch of new members, with an focus on diversity

this is from variety:

the 2020 class of invitees is 48% female, 21% African-American or African descent, 8% Hispanic, 3% Asian-American and Pacific Islander and 5% “other.” The Recording Academy’s current membership is 26% female and 25% from traditionally underrepresented communities, according to the announcement.

so they're trying to correct a problem of female underrepresentation by sending fewer than half of new invitations to women. which seems not very helpful.

Then I agree, it does sound like they need to diversify their membership base even more.

The best way to correct the Grammys is to end it and never do it again

no we need to end the grammies and reform it as the rock n' roll hall of grammies, which will of course be open to all styles of music

Are there people who would actually miss the grammys is they just disappeared? Besides Quincey Jones or Bono

rock n' roll hall of grammies

they should apply the rock hall of fame 25-year rule to the grammys: use the 2021 grammys to honor the music of 1996. with that kind of perspective, they'd have at least a chance of getting it right!

I really am starting to think the media's perception of popular culture is more and more at odds with reality

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/mar/15/the-grammys-diverse-winner-list-isnt-box-ticking-these-are-terrific-artists

https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/grammy-awards-ratings-2021-1234930898/

Just countless articles about the granular particulars of the Grammys diversity scorecard when, in reality, there's numbers that back up no one cares about the fuckin Grammys anymore

I first heard of him when the Pavement guy shouted his name on "Cut Your Hair."

― So who you gonna call? The martini police (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, March 16, 2021 2:37 PM (twenty-three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

i laughed

xp This year’s super low ratings have gotten coverage though

Any good ally knows that the Grammys have had diversity problems for 60+ years and letting Meghan and Cardi scissor each other in COVID masks isn't going to change the geriatric clusterfuck and bottom-line acquiescence of an award show dictated by an industry that routinely protects its abusers and paedos + has been completely ripping off black artists for a solid century. These articles are for, like, children and the absolute dumbest neo-liberals and they just keep coming and coming and coming like some racist turd is going to surf his way over to the Guardian during a break at the meat-processing plant and change his mind about cancel culture because Alex Petridis says Brittany Howard is good actually.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=filcUwJR-sU

i do feel like people are talking a lot more about the grammys nowadays than they ever did when the music industry was at its actual commercial peak in the 90s (and extending into the '00s). why are people addicted to writing/talking about it these days? is it just the content industrial complex, or stan culture, or because artists themselves seem to care more?

all three + social media

also it doesn't feel to me like more people are talking about The Grammys?

I think Kanye had a lot to do with it tbh -- placing the idea in the heads of normies that it really matters who wins a meaningless trophy.

xp yeah, i never hear people talking about grammys

also, just want to issue a mea culpa about my use of "grammies" over the years. i'm sorry, usually i notice mistakes like that!

so, i would like to formally submit a revised nomination for the reformed Rock n' Roll Hall of Grammys

Music for the Meat Processing Plant.

by "people" i meant "the discourse," which is comprised of "very online people"

xp reznor's done it again!

i would like to suggest we start calling them "The Grammas"

yeah maybe no one IRL talks about this shit, but I definitely noticed a few years ago that even the dinkiest award show could generate a slew of GIFticles about the most WTF moments or whatever

The Gammys

to be clear, in my experience people are talking about the Grammys less now than they used to

like, literally all of my friends followed the Grammys and had some level of opinion on them across all sorts of genres and we all followed all of the Grammy coverage and watched the show and gave post-mortems and it was A Thing and now it feels like the critical discourse is the same and everyone I regularly interact with is like ".... nah I'm good"

Hm, in that case maybe it's just that only younger people (ever) care, but now they're all online

Fwiw, a lot of kids were talking about it in my classes today (UK, 13-16yr olds).

Not putting any stock into awards is something that comes with maturity. Once you realize that every accolade in popular culture is essentially meaningless (and that extends to things like the Pulitzer, Booker, Nobel for Literature, Oscars, etc.) you can appreciate the meaning behind the art more and divorce the aesthetics from the politics and climate of the awarding bodies.

phbbbbbt

Once you realize that every accolade in popular culture is essentially meaningless (and that extends to things like the Pulitzer, Booker, Nobel for Literature, Oscars, etc.) you can appreciate the meaning behind the art more and divorce the aesthetics from the politics and climate of the awarding bodies.

oh cool I never figured this out -- this is why I visit ILE.

grammys is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

I'm not sure I am getting the correct gist of beamish13's post, is anyone here fluent in Transliterated Fart Sounds

watson and crick, more like weakson and dick

xp I think brimstead is?

tbf he did say "for Literature"

1 - The purpose of awards are:
a) to support the awardee
b) to signal to viewers that the awardee's work and life is to be treated with respect
c) to signal that the awarder is the arbiter
d) to signal that supporters fo the awardee are justified and to be enriched, either with Klout Points (tm) or residuals

¿ʇᴉ ʇ,usᴉ uoᴉʇsǝnb ǝɥʇ sᴉ sᴉɥʇ 'ǝǝs noʎ 'ɥ∀ - ɹǝʍsu∀

Best Contemporary Flex (Messageboard/Non-Classical)

A+

dictated by an industry that routinely protects its abusers and paedos

might have to narrow this one down

Once you realize that every accolade in popular culture is essentially meaningless (and that extends to things like the Pulitzer, Booker, Nobel for Literature, Oscars, etc.) you can appreciate the meaning behind the art more and divorce the aesthetics from the politics and climate of the awarding bodies.

There is a contradiction here. How can they be "essentially meaningless" when they reflect "the politics and climate of the awarding bodies"? Maybe you don't care about that, but there's meaning in it. In fact, a big part of what continues to interest me about awards is how they fit into broader cultural narratives.

I don't think such awards are meaningless, but in *many* cases, considerations of the market are paramount, and considerations of whether something is *actually good* are secondary.

they should try to capture the early 00s magic by every year picking a different steely dan song as record of the year

I don't think such awards are meaningless, but in *many* cases, considerations of the market are paramount, and considerations of whether something is *actually good* are secondary.

― it's like edging for your mind (the table is the table), Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:04 PM (fourteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Most of the time, I don't think that awards voters are deliberately choosing to reward commercial success over artistic merit. But the market obviously does have a profound effect on how the awards take shape, most clearly evidenced by the fact that promotional campaigns are waged by those who can afford them.

What's interesting to me is how these considerations clash with each other. The Oscars, for instance, routinely shuts out a lot of indie and foreign films because they don't play the game, but AMPAS (and many of the voters themselves) still want the awards to be seen as prestigious and markers of quality. They want to recognize commercially successful films to show that they are relevant (and to juice TV ratings), but they don't want to tarnish the legacy and become the People's Choice Awards.

the grammys have always focused on music that sells, and artists who release blockbuster albums expect to be nominated. hence the weeknd's tantrum.

Most of the time, I don't think that awards voters are deliberately choosing to reward commercial success over artistic merit.

non-commercial music is excluded in advance from consideration.

Radiohead want a word with you.

(NB: if you consider them "non-commercial").

of course they're not "non-commercial"

even if their music isn't commercial-sounding, it sells.

exactly. i love radiohead but they are huge and so it makes sense the grammys have recognized them

eilish, too, has an unusual sound. but she proved herself in the market first. i don't even really get her music but her following seems authentic to me.