• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Apparently the Grammys hate Christianity and "others"

The far right is forcing me to defend the Grammies, which makes me uncomfortable because I thought it was a pretty stupid stunt,and I hated the music.....
 
bigred said:
True, since it was already "ruined."

I have this crazy idea that the Grammys were supposed to be about music awards, not a platform for self-righteous Hollywood to "make a statement." :rolleyes: It reeks of (among other things) hypocrisy, as I'm sure they'd have a hissy if someone used a major awards ceremony to roll out some right-wing agenda.

This reminds me of the time I was at a Linda Ronstadt concert; it was a presidential election year and she paused at one point to go on and on about why we should vote for the Democratic nominee. Finally someone near us went "shut up and sing!" to the sound of cheers and applause. To her credit she didn't appear to get too huffy about it, but it was still out of line.

I don't want any entertainer preaching/pimping their political views to me - whether I agree with them or not - for the same reason I don't want to hear Obama or GW tell me what music I should listen to. That's not what we're paying you for and we don't give a flip what your opinion is about it. Stick to your knitting. A totally obnoxious, no-class move on their part.
Click to expand...

God forbid music should actually be about anything. Couldn't Macklemore stick to doing a cover of "I Want to Hold Your Hand" instead?
 
Dr. Keith said:
If Ted Nugent was tearing up the charts and selling out stadiums like Macklemore with songs about the 2nd amendment, I would expect a NRA rally or something similar during his presentation at the Grammys.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine why. If you really think that would fly, I think you're kidding yourself. And if somehow it did, again I wouldn't hate it any less.

Songs have been coming out since before the Grammys existed that had "a message" but they weren't thrown in people's faces at the awards. Heaven forbid they should simply announce the winners, the winners graciously accept, and that's it.


Matthew Best said:
God forbid music should actually be about anything. Couldn't Macklemore stick to doing a cover of "I Want to Hold Your Hand" instead?
Click to expand...
? I wasn't talking about lyrics having meaning. I was talking about a pointless display at the Grammys. Sad that you can't see the diff. Or were you intentionally twisting my words because you couldn't simply agree to disagree?

Oh and I also have this crazy idea that the Grammys shouldn't be about one person. Was he the only one who won anything?
 
bigred said:
I can't imagine why.
Click to expand...

It is hard to imagine Ted Nugent being relevant, on that we agree. Maybe he was a poor choice.

If you really think that would fly, I think you're kidding yourself.
Click to expand...

If you really think he can be in front of more than three people without going into a 2nd amendment preaching session I think you are kidding yourself.

And if somehow it did, again I wouldn't hate it any less.
Click to expand...

I would relish it. I love a performance where the performer really lays their soul out on the stage and is behind every utterance with their entire being. Even if I disagree with their message.

And I think that is quite different from the Linda Ronstadt political speech mid concert that you compared all of this to.

So we see performances differently.

Heaven forbid they should simply announce the winners, the winners graciously accept, and that's it.
Click to expand...

I don't think that has ever been the format of the Grammys. You can correct me if I'm wrong.
 
bigred said:
Oh and I also have this crazy idea that the Grammys shouldn't be about one person. Was he the only one who won anything?
Click to expand...

It wasn't just about him. It was little more than a footnote until the whining started.
 
bigred said:
Oh and I also have this crazy idea that the Grammys shouldn't be about one person. Was he the only one who won anything?
Click to expand...

No but most of the others don't appear to have upset people

Sure its a bit questionable if Random access memories should be album of the year but you can view it as a de-facto lifetime achievement award.

The music industry has been playing the "lets upset the old people" card since Elvis. It isn't about to stop doing so now.
 
bigred said:
Was he the only one who won anything?
Click to expand...

No he wasn't. But he also wasn't the only one who performed. At least it appeared that he was actually performing his song/rap.

I wasn't particularly fond of Pink's performance. If I want to see Cirque de Soleil, I'll watch that. I think musical performances should be about the music and the singing. I'm fine with a good show, but they should be able to sing their song while putting the show on. No way could she have been singing as effortless as she sounded while twirling around hanging by ropes in the air. Catching people lipsincing used to be a big deal because when somebody performed live, that's what you were paying for. Now it seems you paying to hear their music pumped over loudspeakers and watch them dance.
 
Spock Jenkins said:
No he wasn't. But he also wasn't the only one who performed. At least it appeared that he was actually performing his song/rap.

I wasn't particularly fond of Pink's performance. If I want to see Cirque de Soleil, I'll watch that. I think musical performances should be about the music and the singing. I'm fine with a good show, but they should be able to sing their song while putting the show on. No way could she have been singing as effortless as she sounded while twirling around hanging by ropes in the air. Catching people lipsincing used to be a big deal because when somebody performed live, that's what you were paying for. Now it seems you paying to hear their music pumped over loudspeakers and watch them dance.
Click to expand...

Don't complain. I bet it won't be long before you see the first entirely-CGI "live" show. Heck, various companies are pretty much creating the current crop of tween-targetted stars from whole cloth now.
 
If the Grammy Awards had been a procession of 70-odd "here are the nominations, open the envelope, the winner is X", people would still complain (and I doubt the ratings would be very high).

Some music has always been fluff with no message more than 'buy this, be happy and make us rich'. Some of it has always had a message, and some has always been focussed on reflecting the issues of the day. Music can be more than nursery-rhyme singalongs - it is also protest, political commentary, religious and anti-religious proselytising, and even education. The artists' performances are bound to be influenced by the meaning behind their songs.

Part of Macklemore & Lewis' performance of Same Love was a stunt involving 33 weddings, some of which were gay weddings - how is this different to any other act performed as part of a show or on a music video?

Just like the Brit Awards, where so much controversy has been courted (some deliberately, some perhaps not so deliberately) that the Wiki entry has a section for notable moments, the Grammy Awards are more than just 'here's your prize, we'll play your song and you can mime to it'. If that's all a viewer wants, s/he would be better off just buying the winning songs and albums and playing them on her/his car CD player.

The Grammy Awards showcase both the music and the artists, and as long as there is more to music than lalala..stand in front of the audience and smile..lalala, there will be political (in the widest sense) references at award ceremonies.
 
Last edited:
geni said:
The music industry has been playing the "lets upset the old people" card since Elvis. It isn't about to stop doing so now.
Click to expand...


I don't know if you noticed, but some of the best acts that night were from the over 60 crowd. Chicago, Willie Nelson, etc.
 
bigred said:
I can't imagine why. If you really think that would fly, I think you're kidding yourself. And if somehow it did, again I wouldn't hate it any less.

Songs have been coming out since before the Grammys existed that had "a message" but they weren't thrown in people's faces at the awards. Heaven forbid they should simply announce the winners, the winners graciously accept, and that's it.



? I wasn't talking about lyrics having meaning. I was talking about a pointless display at the Grammys. Sad that you can't see the diff. Or were you intentionally twisting my words because you couldn't simply agree to disagree?

Oh and I also have this crazy idea that the Grammys shouldn't be about one person. Was he the only one who won anything?
Click to expand...


Actually, what was going to disappoint me about all this Grammys stuff was how tame everything is these days.

Didn't it all used to be about sex, drugs and rock'n'roll?

Nowadays it is all about marriage and speaking politely and respecting the elderly.

Good to know then that these youngsters still have the ability to shock and cause some people to have a case of the vapours.
 
angrysoba said:
Actually, what was going to disappoint me about all this Grammys stuff was how tame everything is these days.

Didn't it all used to be about sex, drugs and rock'n'roll?

Nowadays it is all about marriage and speaking politely and respecting the elderly.

Good to know then that these youngsters still have the ability to shock and cause some people to have a case of the vapours.
Click to expand...

I have to wonder: What would Frank Zappa say about all this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom