pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

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.

So much residual rockism itt.

^^^seriously

I'm lovin' it.

you all sound like gregg turkington revering oscer

i made a simple, common sense suggestion - award all the grammys to steely dan every year - to try and build a bipartisan solution, and you come in once again with the politics of division

(imago did you listen to thinking fellers union again?)

i have given them a go and enjoyed it, need to return! i don't think grammy will be rewarding them any time soon though

I dunno if my comment was rockist but it wasn't meant to be. I like some pop music, but not the sort of pop music that gets Grammy's, usually. treeship got the gist of what I was writing: non-commercial music is precluded from even being considered, and thus, it is objectively true (IMHO) that commercial success is valued over artistic merit in such environments.

Ums OTM and the way he slyly upped the ante in his follow-up post shows real political acumen.

Brad's Anita Baker review is fantastic. The final image — Baker as "a magician pulling silk scarves from her mouth" — is one of the best things I've read all year. Great work, Brad!

That is a beautiful piece for a beautiful album

Beautiful

That's a magnificent piece.

Great stuff

No idea she was only 27, looked it up, same age as Prince, definitely didn't perceive them as being the same age as the time

thanks y'all it means a lot <3

I loved it.

No wonder you were quiet on the Rapture revive.

Good stuff, Brad, as always.