Something I noticed this morning, I was wondering who had won all the Grammy awards for Best Hard Rock Performance and as I read the Wikipedia page on the award, I noticed it said something near the end of the description that caught my eye. It says about the Grammy awards that awards "in several categories are presented at the ceremony annually by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences of the United States to honor artistic achievement, technical proficiency and overall excellence in the recording industry, without regard to album sales or chart position." I put this last part in bold to highlight this fact because it's total bullshit.
As I glanced down the list of winners, I noticed that they all seemed worthy of their wins, as most of those songs are pretty good. Cult of Personality, Black Hole Sun, Give It Away, Bullet With Butterfly Wings, Guerrilla Radio, All My Life, B.Y.O.B, songs like that that were very good hard rock songs. Judging music, as you know, is a matter of taste, so giving an award to musicians who someone says it the best can be hard to do, I would think. Some people like certain shit, some people don't. But most of these songs were major radio hits. Now, I also don't think ragging on the Grammy's is all that necessary. Everyone who knows anything knows the Grammy's are total bullshit, and only exist to boost album sales. But to go out and say you are going to honor artistic achievement and technical proficiency and overall excellence without regard to album sales or chart position and then nominate Kid Rock (in his rap/rock days) and Limp Bizkit for the award? You cannot tell me that Limp Bizkit's Nookie was in the top SIX best songs of the year 2000, as far as technical proficiency goes. There is no goddamn way. The song was popular as hell, that's for sure. But it's not good. It's not well done in the grand scheme of creating excellent music. It's bullshit!
Anyway, that's all I'm saying. They got better, and started actually awarding shit to artists that probably deserve it in later years, like awarding Best Hard Rock Performance in 2009 The Mars Volta for their song Wax Simulacra, because that song is the shit, and it's very technically proficient! Well done, Grammy's.
Anyway, I just thought I would share that thing I noticed. The other nominees in the year 2000 were Korn - Freak on a Leash, Kid Rock - Bawitdaba, Alice In Chains - Get Born Again, Buckcherry - Lit Up, and the winner was Metallica with their cover of Whiskey in the Jarro.
Also, they're reshuffling all the categories in 2012, so there will be no more award for this and a separate one for best metal performance. Lump em together. They should get super-specific with their categories, like, Best Alt-Country-with-Rootsy-Bluegrass-sort-of-stuff Performance or Best Post Hardcore Performance with Male and Female Singers Who Alternate Lead Vocal Duties. That would make it interesting, for sure.
Best Band No One Has Ever Heard Of Award goes to.......The Dogcatchers?
As I glanced down the list of winners, I noticed that they all seemed worthy of their wins, as most of those songs are pretty good. Cult of Personality, Black Hole Sun, Give It Away, Bullet With Butterfly Wings, Guerrilla Radio, All My Life, B.Y.O.B, songs like that that were very good hard rock songs. Judging music, as you know, is a matter of taste, so giving an award to musicians who someone says it the best can be hard to do, I would think. Some people like certain shit, some people don't. But most of these songs were major radio hits. Now, I also don't think ragging on the Grammy's is all that necessary. Everyone who knows anything knows the Grammy's are total bullshit, and only exist to boost album sales. But to go out and say you are going to honor artistic achievement and technical proficiency and overall excellence without regard to album sales or chart position and then nominate Kid Rock (in his rap/rock days) and Limp Bizkit for the award? You cannot tell me that Limp Bizkit's Nookie was in the top SIX best songs of the year 2000, as far as technical proficiency goes. There is no goddamn way. The song was popular as hell, that's for sure. But it's not good. It's not well done in the grand scheme of creating excellent music. It's bullshit!
Anyway, that's all I'm saying. They got better, and started actually awarding shit to artists that probably deserve it in later years, like awarding Best Hard Rock Performance in 2009 The Mars Volta for their song Wax Simulacra, because that song is the shit, and it's very technically proficient! Well done, Grammy's.
Anyway, I just thought I would share that thing I noticed. The other nominees in the year 2000 were Korn - Freak on a Leash, Kid Rock - Bawitdaba, Alice In Chains - Get Born Again, Buckcherry - Lit Up, and the winner was Metallica with their cover of Whiskey in the Jarro.
Also, they're reshuffling all the categories in 2012, so there will be no more award for this and a separate one for best metal performance. Lump em together. They should get super-specific with their categories, like, Best Alt-Country-with-Rootsy-Bluegrass-sort-of-stuff Performance or Best Post Hardcore Performance with Male and Female Singers Who Alternate Lead Vocal Duties. That would make it interesting, for sure.
Best Band No One Has Ever Heard Of Award goes to.......The Dogcatchers?
No comments:
Post a Comment