@2chfreak As I agree with the whole marketing and commercialization of the business but it is an avenue for new talent to get recognized. Google Dominique Fils-Amie, listen to he song “Birds” and tell me she has no talent. She was a finalist on “The Voice”. While I don’t necessarily watch these shows they do have a place in the media, IMO.
- 17 posts total
@lonemountain - you can bet that the people at home watching the awards and every record company exec will certainly think the judgement is about the music.
Record companies don't promote their albums as 'Grammy winners' because they are selling people on 'achievement in the recording industry'.
As for the RIAA, they are shills; I was in the record business for 10 years, and I'm sorry, but I had to laugh when I read that the academy's 'mission is to elevate quality standards and recognize achievement (in the recording industry, not the music industry)'. During the 70's, its mission seemed to be to get as much cocaine up people's noses as possible, going by what some of the biggest stars were then! 🤣
Must be a coincidence that most of the biggest winners also happen to be the biggest sellers!
I certainly do agree though about that 'if I don't like it, it's worthless junk' attitude that is so prevalent on so many forums (or bar discussions, for that matter!). I could never understand that.
I debated watching the Grammys because I no longer like what is generally considered popular music. But instead of turning away, I thought I should watch so that I don’t become too "removed" from the best sellers on the contemporary scene. I concluded that it was mostly but not all bad.
I’m glad I watched as I now know better what passes for music today but sad to see how "unmusical" it is. Nevertheless, I’m glad to see that a few bright lights--even if not my style--still exist. This is not to say that the Grammys ever represented the best in music at any time.
gpgr4blu: I think your answer is the answer i expected from most here. I work in professional and hi fi circles so I know many of the people behind these records, even a few at the Academy. I used to ask how could Katy Perry win a grammy for Firework? Its mixed awful, sounds awful- at least on a high rez system etc. I was told the "pop" committee felt the recording affected more people than any other, so that's why it won. Make sense, I think that's right. You could turn on the radio without hearing it for years.
The record I was curious about was Doja Cat. There is a major MAJOR money invested in that one, they hired some top people to mix some of those songs. It sounds good, has a tons of bottom end in it. Compressed and a bit sweet, the recording is the heart of the pop "sound" right now. Some good songs, not sure I love the arrangements in all cases but its a very impressive body of work.
Chris Stapleton got record of the year in Country, that record sounds very good. George Massenburg won in multichannel/surround mixes for Alicia Keys. He's a master, did Famous Blue Raincoat so long ago and Joshua Judges Ruth- both great "audiophile" records.
Wow you are right about 10 years ago! 20 years ago it was different yet again. The tour used to be the marketing for the record sales; now its completely flipped: the money is in the tour, not the record. So many artists self fund records now to sell tickets for a tour. I wonder if most people know the big artists often rent the arena and operate "the show" themselves? From posts in this forum, I can see many people are under the illusion that its like it 30 years ago when Record Companies where in control of everything, including the tour, the record, the songs on the record, the mix engineer, the mastering etc. That was a long long time ago. While most people in the business are happy those times are gone, the development money for new artists is gone too. So now only the top sellers have cash. Rick Rubin is still out there funding new artists. He has found some good ones and made some some sounding records I think.
- 17 posts total