So attractive people catch more breaks.aTmAg said:Which further supports my point that the Grammys (really music industry as a whole) is a joke. Get somebody smoking hot who can perhaps sing okay, have them "record" an album with the help of auto-tune and a crap load of sound engineers to make it sound decent, teach them to dance and dress provocatively and take it to the road. Have them perform to pre-recorded versions of their songs and shallow fans will eat that up. If they hit it big enough, they likely win a Grammy.62strat said:They won best new artist, because those two guys were the 'artists'. The songwriter behind the scenes is not the artist. I mean, looking up a best new artist - Meghan Trainor. Every song on her album was written by her and the producer, kevin kadish. Did he get a share in that grammy? No, because he's not the artist. Leann Rhimes won best new artist, and her first album didn't have one song written by her.. but only she won the grammy.aTmAg said:I understand what you are saying. However, Milli Vinilli won best new artist though. So what I'm saying that if that award was about the music rather than some vague "general performance" criteria, then they would have granted it to the actual musicians. To me, a problem with pop today is that it's 90% hype and 10% talent. Sure you have the occasional Adelle who get there on talent alone, but that seems too rare nowadays.62strat said:I know, but you're saying if it were about he music they'd give it to the songwriters. I'm telling you, for song of the year, they do.aTmAg said:They don't only give awards to the song writer. Song of the Year goes to song writer, Record of the Year goes to performing artist, producer, etc. There is also best male pop performance, best new artist (which is what Milli Vinilli won), etc.62strat said:they give best songwriter Grammys all the time to writers who the public have no idea is.aTmAg said:
To me, this is an example of how the Grammys are a joke. If it were just about the music, then they would have given Milli Vinilli's award to the ex-convicts who actually recorded the music. I would have respected that. But since Grammy's are really nothing more than a popularity contest designed to get people to watch an award show, they have to give it to people who bring viewers. The last thing they can do is give it to unknowns (even if they have real talent). So to pretend it's a real award, they have to claim it's about the "overall presentation/experience" and whatnot.
My heart will go on, change the world, royals, from a distance... all given to the writer(s) of the song, not the famous person who sang it.
THen you have all the best country and pop songs, often the winner is an unknown writer.
I don't watch the Grammys, but I can only guess the 'singer' doesn't go up to accept, unless they were actually on the writing team right?
You're not making any sense.
There is only ONE grammy that goes solely to the song writers, it's song of the year. Record of the year goes to artist and production team, album of year goes to artist and production team, and best new artist is solely for the artist, aka the singer/band.
If milli vanilli won song of the year, you'd have an argument here, but they didn't. If that song won song of the year, then those dudes would have received a grammy. But it didn't win song of the year.
Take most Grammy winners (not all) and change 1 thing: Make them butt ugly... and they would not be Grammy winners, because barely anybody would know their name.
Your argument seems to be more with they way of the world than the music industry specifically.
