The Grammys

[Simulacrum]

I'm very glad to hear Slayer won a grammy. Their album Christ/Illusion is really awesome. Slayer has definitely evolved well.

[acsguitar]

So My Humps won an award did I metion that.

[ironman]

I think the Grammys are nothing more than some gigantic promotional machine for the music industry. They cater to a low intellect and they feed the masses. They don't honor the arts or the artist for what they created. It's the music business celebrating itself. That's basically what it's all about.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

[pokeyjoe]

I think the Grammys are nothing more than some gigantic promotional machine for the music industry. They cater to a low intellect and they feed the masses. They don't honor the arts or the artist for what they created. It's the music business celebrating itself. That's basically what it's all about.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

But at the same time, they don't seem to neccesarily acknowledge (spelling?) the artists that sold big. Gnarls Barkley was huge this year and they weren't nominated for best new artist.

[Simulacrum]

I really enjoy that Gnarls Barkley CD. You have to be in the mood for it though, as it's kind of out there.

[ironman]

I think the Grammys are nothing more than some gigantic promotional machine for the music industry. They cater to a low intellect and they feed the masses. They don't honor the arts or the artist for what they created. It's the music business celebrating itself. That's basically what it's all about.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

But at the same time, they don't seem to neccesarily acknowledge (spelling?) the artists that sold big. Gnarls Barkley was huge this year and they weren't nominated for best new artist.

But they were nominated for Best Album of the Year.

[pokeyjoe]

I think the Grammys are nothing more than some gigantic promotional machine for the music industry. They cater to a low intellect and they feed the masses. They don't honor the arts or the artist for what they created. It's the music business celebrating itself. That's basically what it's all about.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

But at the same time, they don't seem to neccesarily acknowledge (spelling?) the artists that sold big. Gnarls Barkley was huge this year and they weren't nominated for best new artist.

But they were nominated for Best Album of the Year.

So shouldn't they definitely be nominated for Best New Artist? I'm not really a fan of theirs, so don't think I'm just fighting for them for that reason. It seems to me, though, that if a band's first album is nominated for album of the year, they should also be nominated for best new artist.

[ironman]

I think the Grammys are nothing more than some gigantic promotional machine for the music industry. They cater to a low intellect and they feed the masses. They don't honor the arts or the artist for what they created. It's the music business celebrating itself. That's basically what it's all about.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

But at the same time, they don't seem to neccesarily acknowledge (spelling?) the artists that sold big. Gnarls Barkley was huge this year and they weren't nominated for best new artist.

But they were nominated for Best Album of the Year.

So shouldn't they definitely be nominated for Best New Artist? I'm not really a fan of theirs, so don't think I'm just fighting for them for that reason. It seems to me, though, that if a band's first album is nominated for album of the year, they should also be nominated for best new artist.

I don't know, logic would say probably. But for Pete's sake Carrie freakin' Underwood won it, which further proves the original quote I posted.

[luckygehrig]

I agree that Gnarls should have been a nominee for Best New Artist. They were up for Best Song, Best Album and Best Record. Plus, they won Best Alternative Music Album.

On another Gnarls note, did anyone happen to catch their performance of Crazy? It was pretty awesome. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXSWHp1GdKg