Last Night's Shammy's...

Printable View

  • 02-09-2004, 08:20 AM
    tugmcmartin
    Last Night's Shammy's...
    So... after the discourse last week talking about the irrelevancy of the Grammy's did anyone actually watch any of it?

    I spent most of yesterday doing taxes and some personal budget projections (wife and I are looking at buying a new house in the next few months so wanted to project where we'd be financially by then, taking into account three months of no paychecks from here after the baby's born). After finishing up with taxes (we owe damn it!) i turned on the tube and was surfing the channels when i noticed one of my new favorites on stage at the Grammy's. Robert Randolp and the Family Band were on stage. Then up comes my man George Clinton and the P-Funk Allstars. Was quite surprised to see Robert Randolph. I had no idea they were getting any sort of mainstream attention. Then started flipping channels again, stopping again on the Grammy's for the Foo Fighters and Chick Corea doing a collaboration. I kinda like the Foo's, though don't own any of their albums. Then stuck around long enough to see Coldplay's "Clocks" win something (record of the year???). By then i'd had enough.

    What's the difference between record of the year and album of the year? Isn't a record the same thing as an album?

    What's the difference between R&B and Contemporary R&B? I thought all R&B was the same. At what point are current artists no longer considered Contemporary? Why is Beyonce contemporary and not just plain old R&B?

    What's the difference between a "performance" and a "song"? Really, IMO, all pop is a performance.

    Finally, noticed a category "Best Instrumental Arrangement Accompanying Vocalist(s)". Isn't this the same damn thing as a song? It's no longer instrumental when you introduce vocals is it?

    I'm perplexed by the whole thing. Why not just give out Grammy's to anyone who had record (or should it be album) sales over 50,000? There's so many inane categories its almost the same thing anyway.

    T-
  • 02-09-2004, 08:26 AM
    -Jar-
    I would have loved to have been back stage after Celine Dion's performance. All kinds of technical problems. She ended up taking out her earbuds during the song. There was feedback. I bet she blew a gasket.

    -jar
  • 02-09-2004, 08:58 AM
    jasn
    I was thinking the same thing jar. I thought I saw steam coming out of her ears while she sang.

    I watched about an hour of the show and turned it off thinking that popular music may never recover from this tangent it's on. I just could not pick out a melody or a shred of virtuosity in any of what I saw.

    Ringo and Paul really took their contrived award seriously too (not).
  • 02-09-2004, 09:06 AM
    Swish
    I caught the end of the White Stripes' performance...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tugmcmartin
    So... after the discourse last week talking about the irrelevancy of the Grammy's did anyone actually watch any of it?

    I spent most of yesterday doing taxes and some personal budget projections (wife and I are looking at buying a new house in the next few months so wanted to project where we'd be financially by then, taking into account three months of no paychecks from here after the baby's born). After finishing up with taxes (we owe damn it!) i turned on the tube and was surfing the channels when i noticed one of my new favorites on stage at the Grammy's. Robert Randolp and the Family Band were on stage. Then up comes my man George Clinton and the P-Funk Allstars. Was quite surprised to see Robert Randolph. I had no idea they were getting any sort of mainstream attention. Then started flipping channels again, stopping again on the Grammy's for the Foo Fighters and Chick Corea doing a collaboration. I kinda like the Foo's, though don't own any of their albums. Then stuck around long enough to see Coldplay's "Clocks" win something (record of the year???). By then i'd had enough.

    What's the difference between record of the year and album of the year? Isn't a record the same thing as an album?

    What's the difference between R&B and Contemporary R&B? I thought all R&B was the same. At what point are current artists no longer considered Contemporary? Why is Beyonce contemporary and not just plain old R&B?

    What's the difference between a "performance" and a "song"? Really, IMO, all pop is a performance.

    Finally, noticed a category "Best Instrumental Arrangement Accompanying Vocalist(s)". Isn't this the same damn thing as a song? It's no longer instrumental when you introduce vocals is it?

    I'm perplexed by the whole thing. Why not just give out Grammy's to anyone who had record (or should it be album) sales over 50,000? There's so many inane categories its almost the same thing anyway.

    T-

    and that was pretty cool. Jack was playing bottle neck on an amped acoustic and getting some freaky sounds from it. I have no idea what the tune was, but it rocked pretty hard. I turned it off after that. These people just don' interest me in the least. A bunch of popuarity awards to make them feel important. I remember reading a quote by Whitney Houston a few years back. She didn't receive any awards and said "I'm tired of people doing work and not getting any credit for it". Sure Whitney, what a cryin' shame. That about sums up the collective intelligence and attitude of that crowd.

    Swish
  • 02-09-2004, 09:59 AM
    Davey
    The Grammy's. How can anyone really get upset about some fluff awards show like this? It doesn't mean a thing to most of us and I haven't sat down and actually watched one for years, but I did catch bits and pieces of the one last night and thought it was a pretty good show, at least for what it tried to be. Some of the performances were pretty bad, though. I mean, can't Dave Matthews even be bothered to learn the lyrics to I Saw Her Standing There? Pitiful tribute to the Beatles although fun to see Pharrell Williams in Ringo's place. Thought the opening with Prince was pretty good, but also thought Beyonce could have restrained herself just a little since it wasn't supposed to be all about her. But that's the way most of the modern pop women are so can't blame her too much. She is a knockout. Christina. Too bad she picks such boring dreck to sing. She does have a pretty amazing voice. And what's with Alicia Keys? Wow, I didn't catch the whole song but what I saw would have gotten her tossed on American Idol. Thought the Sting/Sean Paul version of Roxanne was a mess. Kind of like they were doing different songs. Nice idea, but didn't quiite work out. I wonder if they rehearsed it? I missed a big chunk somewhere along the line but caught he opening mike malfunction for Celine. Somebody had the right idea. White Stripes kicked ass. Best performance of the night. Both by Outkast were good, although Andre's Hey Ya was a bit on the lame side. Very nice dancers, though. What was with the Indian garb and the future thing? Marching band was kind of cool but that song has kind of run its course I think (I hope?). Robert Randolph and the Family Band were great but that whole funk segment was pretty bad for the most part. Bunch of old timers that can't sing anymore. That's about it. Didn't really watch any of the acceptance speeches or other features, just the music. Oh yeah, Black Eye Peas was pretty cool with Justin, but looked like some of the vocals were on tape? Oh yeah again, the Foo Fighters and Chick Corea. That was weird. Not much of a Foo Fighters fan myself and didn't much like that song but it was OK. Sounds almost identical to 90% of their songs, doesn't it? Dave Grohl isn't a very inventive writer. OK, guess I saw more than I thought :)

    Still, even though most of it was kind of fluffy, the parts I saw were mostly pretty good even though flawed. I don't think any of it was really excellent, but like I said I missed a big chunk with some of the star performers.
  • 02-09-2004, 10:47 AM
    ForeverAutumn
    Like the rest of you, I don't generally bother watching the Grammy's, but I did happen to catch bits here and there while channel surfing. I agree with Davey's comments for the parts that I saw.

    Here's what struck me.....

    I watched Michael McDonald give out the award for best record of the year (Coldplay, Clocks). It was discussed that he had won Best Record 25 years ago for What A Fool Believes. 25 years later everybody still knows that song. Then they read out the five nominees for this year's award. And, I had to ask the question....25 years from now will anyone remember even ONE of those five songs? 10 years from now? 5? Next week?

    That about sums it all up.
  • 02-09-2004, 11:31 AM
    Jefferson
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn
    Like the rest of you, I don't generally bother watching the Grammy's, but I did happen to catch bits here and there while channel surfing. I agree with Davey's comments for the parts that I saw.

    Here's what struck me.....

    I watched Michael McDonald give out the award for best record of the year (Coldplay, Clocks). It was discussed that he had won Best Record 25 years ago for What A Fool Believes. 25 years later everybody still knows that song. Then they read out the five nominees for this year's award. And, I had to ask the question....25 years from now will anyone remember even ONE of those five songs? 10 years from now? 5? Next week?

    That about sums it all up.

    Well, I'll remember Coldplay's Clocks , I love that song.
  • 02-09-2004, 11:56 AM
    Swish
    What a Fool Believes? I remember it, but not for the usual reasons.
    ;)
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn
    Like the rest of you, I don't generally bother watching the Grammy's, but I did happen to catch bits here and there while channel surfing. I agree with Davey's comments for the parts that I saw.

    Here's what struck me.....

    I watched Michael McDonald give out the award for best record of the year (Coldplay, Clocks). It was discussed that he had won Best Record 25 years ago for What A Fool Believes. 25 years later everybody still knows that song. Then they read out the five nominees for this year's award. And, I had to ask the question....25 years from now will anyone remember even ONE of those five songs? 10 years from now? 5? Next week?

    That about sums it all up.

    The reason I remember it so well is because you can't understand a frickin' work he's singing throughout the entire song! Actually, about the only thing you can understand is whan he sings "What a fool believes", but that's the name of the damned song!

    Swish, still wondering what the hell he was singing.
  • 02-09-2004, 11:59 AM
    DariusNYC
    I agree with a lot of what Davey said, pro and con, on the performances. I thought the opening Prince/Beyonce bit was killer. I was happy with several of the winners and nominees this year, especially Outkast, but also including Beyonce and Timberlake and Missy Elliot and Coldplay and whatnot, so I don't have any ultra-strong complaints about this year (well, okay Eva(f*cking)escence as Best New Artist, but that category is often pretty bad). Best enjoyed while not taking it too seriously.

    Dave, I thought it was pretty funny when that guy on Rocky Road listed Outkast on an "underrated band" thread a few months ago and you replied, basically, they have the number 1 album in the U.S., they are wildly critically acclaimed and they have been for a few years, and even several of the white fogeys on Rocky Road have been talking about them over the past few months, so how exactly are they overrated?
  • 02-09-2004, 12:13 PM
    DariusNYC
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn
    Here's what struck me.....

    I watched Michael McDonald give out the award for best record of the year (Coldplay, Clocks). It was discussed that he had won Best Record 25 years ago for What A Fool Believes. 25 years later everybody still knows that song. Then they read out the five nominees for this year's award. And, I had to ask the question....25 years from now will anyone remember even ONE of those five songs? 10 years from now? 5? Next week?

    That about sums it all up.

    As far as this year's Record of the Year nominations, 25 years from now, Michael McDonald will be a mere footnote in music history and Outkast will be remembered as one of the major pop artists of the decade, as will Eminem. And I think the Coldplay and Beyonce songs were both really good too (not familiar with the Black Eyed Peas number). I think you picked an unfortunate comparison. If David Bowie or someone like that was giving the nomination, I'd still disagree with your point, but at least you'd have a leg to stand on, but Michael McDonald will be much more remembered for having a great voice than for creating especially great or groundbreaking music.
  • 02-09-2004, 12:19 PM
    DariusNYC
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Swish
    That about sums up the collective intelligence and attitude of that crowd.

    Which crowd, exactly? Outkast? Missy Elliot? Pharrell of the Neptunes? There were some pretty intelligent nominees this year that made some cool and often groundbreaking music, and I don't think they should just be randomly thrown in with Whitney Houston just because they're all popular performers.
  • 02-09-2004, 12:47 PM
    Dusty Chalk
    I actually thought the funk segment was the highlight (other than the occasional almost boob-slippage -- Christina was hoping for an accident, to show off her...ahem...assets...even made a joke about it...to the contrary of course...PS There is no way those things are staying up like that on their own, I'm thinking silicon...I also enjoyed Marg Helgenberger's very flattering outfit...). I did enjoy Randolph/Family Band/whatever, I will be pursuing them.

    I thought Justin held his own during his performance. I don't care how juvenile he looks, he just oozes confidence. I have a feeling he'll be doing the Sting thing or perhaps Robbie Williams, career-wise. But he's gotta do something about those eyebrows, they just freak me out. What are they, painted on? Perhaps he should play Son Of Teenage Werewolf or something.

    I don't know what it is about White Stripes, I just don't like them. They're just a garage band, making it big. Big deal.
  • 02-09-2004, 12:48 PM
    Mr MidFi
    While I'm not a fan of Mr. McDonald, I did always like the lyrics to this song...

    <i>He came from somewhere back in her long ago
    The sentimental fool don’t see
    Tryin’ hard to recreate
    What had yet to be created once in her life

    She musters a smile
    For his nostalgic tale
    Never coming near what he wanted to say
    Only to realize
    It never really was

    She had a place in his life
    He never made her think twice
    As he rises to her apology
    Anybody else would surely know
    He’s watching her go

    But what a fool believes he sees
    No wise man has the power to reason away
    What seems to be
    Is always better than nothing
    And nothing at all keeps sending him...

    Somewhere back in her long ago
    Where he can still believe there’s a place in her life
    Someday, somewhere, she will return

    She had a place in his life
    He never made her think twice
    As he rises to her apology
    Anybody else would surely know
    He’s watching her go

    But what a fool believes he sees
    No wise man has the power to reason away
    What seems to be
    Is always better than nothing
    There’s nothing at all
    But what a fool believes he sees...</i>
  • 02-09-2004, 01:06 PM
    Swish
    Ok, maybe "intelligence" was a bad choice of words.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DariusNYC
    Which crowd, exactly? Outkast? Missy Elliot? Pharrell of the Neptunes? There were some pretty intelligent nominees this year that made some cool and often groundbreaking music, and I don't think they should just be randomly thrown in with Whitney Houston just because they're all popular performers.

    What I guess bothers me is the basic premise of handing out awards in the first place. I mean Justin Timberlake saying it was the "biggerst moment of his life"? I can't imagine a Grammy being anyone's ideal. Awards come and go, but what are they really? A popuarity contest; nothing more, nothing less. Yes, some of the songs and artists are pretty good, but there are many others I would rank as good or better than what was offered, but nobody cares what I think, and why should they care what I think? I don't care what they think, so that about evens it out. I think it's all about self-promotion of their industry; a way to pat each other on the back for how much money they made, like that's not reward enough. I like the guys who skip the show and just go on playing and not worrying about awards. "Gee, an award for making a nice song? Well, thank you very much, but I have somewhere I need to be".

    Sorry Darius, I just can't stand awards shows, whether it's the Grammy, Emmy, Golden Globe or the Academy Awards. I just don't give a rat's arse. I guess we can agree to disagree.

    Later dude,
    Swish
  • 02-09-2004, 01:09 PM
    ForeverAutumn
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DariusNYC
    As far as this year's Record of the Year nominations, 25 years from now, Michael McDonald will be a mere footnote in music history and Outkast will be remembered as one of the major pop artists of the decade, as will Eminem. And I think the Coldplay and Beyonce songs were both really good too (not familiar with the Black Eyed Peas number). I think you picked an unfortunate comparison. If David Bowie or someone like that was giving the nomination, I'd still disagree with your point, but at least you'd have a leg to stand on, but Michael McDonald will be much more remembered for having a great voice than for creating especially great or groundbreaking music.

    I don't think that I picked an unfortunate comparison at all. I'm willing to bet that if you polled people on the street a lot more people would be able to hum What A Fool Believes than would be able to hum Hey Ya.

    The Doobie Brothers will be a footnote in music history? I think that they will continue to be more than that. But even if they are only a footnote, what's wrong with that? A footnote will still be remembered. Will Outkast be remembered? Don't get me wrong, I like what I've heard of Outkast but I wouldn't put them in the same class as The Doobies. And, yes I agree, Clocks is a great song. I was happy to see Coldplay win.

    My point was not to put down or belittle the success of any of these bands. We all have difference musical taste. This Board is a smorgasborg of musical diversity and I wouldn't have it any other way. My point was more that I wonder if any of the commercially popular bands around today will have the same influence and staying power as the bands that were around 25 years ago.

    It just seems to me that bands come and go so quickly now. The Doobie Brothers have been together in one form or another for 33 years and their albums still sell. You mentioned David Bowie. There's another good example. I just bought his latest CD. I'm seeing him in concert on April 1. Bowie's first album came out 35 years ago and he's still going strong in the popularity count. Yes is currently celebrating their 35th anniversary with a major tour. Rush will soon be celebrating their 30th anniversary with a major tour. 30 years and still going strong (100,000 Brazilians can't be wrong!). The Rolling Stones, whose first album came out 40 years ago(!), broke Canadian records when 400,000 fans showed up to see them headline at a festival in Toronto last summer. Whether you like these bands or not isn't relevant.

    Where will Beyonce be in 30 years? Where will Coldplay be in 30 years? Where will Outkast be in 30 years? What happened to staying power? That was my question.
  • 02-09-2004, 01:31 PM
    DariusNYC
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn
    I don't think that I picked an unfortunate comparison at all. I'm willing to bet that if you polled people on the street a lot more people would be able to hum What A Fool Believes than would be able to hum Hey Ya.

    The Doobie Brothers will be a footnote in music history? I think that they will continue to be more than that. But even if they are only a footnote, what's wrong with that? A footnote will still be remembered. Will Outkast be remembered? Don't get me wrong, I like what I've heard of Outkast but I wouldn't put them in the same class as The Doobies. And, yes I agree, Clocks is a great song. I was happy to see Coldplay win.

    My point was not to put down or belittle the success of any of these bands. We all have difference musical taste. This Board is a smorgasborg of musical diversity and I wouldn't have it any other way. My point was more that I wonder if any of the commercially popular bands around today will have the same influence and staying power as the bands that were around 25 years ago.

    It just seems to me that bands come and go so quickly now. The Doobie Brothers have been together in one form or another for 33 years and their albums still sell. You mentioned David Bowie. There's another good example. I just bought his latest CD. I'm seeing him in concert on April 1. Bowie's first album came out 35 years ago and he's still going strong in the popularity count. Yes is currently celebrating their 35th anniversary with a major tour. Rush will soon be celebrating their 30th anniversary with a major tour. 30 years and still going strong (100,000 Brazilians can't be wrong!). The Rolling Stones, whose first album came out 40 years ago(!), broke Canadian records when 400,000 fans showed up to see them headline at a festival in Toronto last summer. Whether you like these bands or not isn't relevant.

    Where will Beyonce be in 30 years? Where will Coldplay be in 30 years? Where will Outkast be in 30 years? What happened to staying power? That was my question.

    I still don't know what evidence you have that Outkast are going to be less remembered, somehow, than the Doobie Brothers. Outkast have already sold more records and gotten significantly more critical acclaim in their brief career than the Doobie Brothers ever got. So from both a critical and a popular perspective, they're doing pretty darn good. We don't have any way of knowing whether history will look kindly on the fact that they were so popular and so acclaimed or not, but do we have any reason to think that they won't? It's good for Bowie and Rush and the others you mention that they're still going strong, but again, what makes us think that Outkast would be any different? They're topping critics polls, they have number one albums, people of different ages, genders, races, and other demographics are all grooving to "Hey Ya!" and "The Way You Move", what negative sign exactly do you see?
  • 02-09-2004, 02:07 PM
    Davey
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DariusNYC
    I still don't know what evidence you have that Outkast are going to be less remembered, somehow, than the Doobie Brothers. Outkast have already sold more records and gotten significantly more critical acclaim in their brief career than the Doobie Brothers ever got.

    OK, now you're starting to bend the truth just a bit I think, Darius. I really couldn't tell you how much the last couple Outkast albums sold, but a few years ago the Doobies Greatest Hits was one of the first albums to get the new Diamond category for sales, which is 10 million. And they have over 10 albums that have gone multi-platinum so I seriously doubt Outkast has bested them in sales already. Maybe if you just consider the albums with McDonald, but he is on the Greatest Hits of course, and one of their other biggest sellers too.

    Anyway, I think it's a silly argument either way. Different times and different music landscapes. The Doobies were hugely popular and had a lot of great songs that are still great. And the music was pretty inventive as well. Hey Ya is a fun song but hardly something that will endure the decades, even though I agree that Outkast will likely have a far-reaching impact on music, either as a team or as separate artists and/or producers. But I can't believe they would have the lasting appeal of the Doobie Brothers. No music really lasts very long anymore, does it? That's one of the main problems with music marketing today, an artist is only as good as their latest release. One falter and they're gone, so major releases all tend to play it relatively safe. Which is also why Outkast stands out so much from the crowd - they aren't afraid to break with some of the conventions. How they can sell so big alongside fluff like Clay Aiken and all the now interchangeable rappers and pop divas is beyond me :)

    And I'm not really that big a fan of either the Doobies or Outkast, so I think I can be at least kinda impartial :)
  • 02-09-2004, 02:52 PM
    ForeverAutumn
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DariusNYC
    I still don't know what evidence you have that Outkast are going to be less remembered, somehow, than the Doobie Brothers. Outkast have already sold more records and gotten significantly more critical acclaim in their brief career than the Doobie Brothers ever got. So from both a critical and a popular perspective, they're doing pretty darn good. We don't have any way of knowing whether history will look kindly on the fact that they were so popular and so acclaimed or not, but do we have any reason to think that they won't? It's good for Bowie and Rush and the others you mention that they're still going strong, but again, what makes us think that Outkast would be any different? They're topping critics polls, they have number one albums, people of different ages, genders, races, and other demographics are all grooving to "Hey Ya!" and "The Way You Move", what negative sign exactly do you see?

    Darius, this is not a personal affront against Outkast or any other band for that matter. I have no evidence that Outkast won't be remembered 25 years from now. In fact, I think that it would be great if they were remembered. Let's regroup here in 2030 and hopefully, I'll have been proved wrong. :D

    This isn't about Outkast or The Doobie Brothers. My question was, as Davey says, intended to be a commentary on how fickle today's music industry is. We are inundated with so many albums, videos and DVDs that there is little room for a song or album to hang around for very long. Gone are the days of an album staying on the Billboard chart for hundreds of weeks. That's all that I meant.
  • 02-09-2004, 03:04 PM
    DariusNYC
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davey
    OK, now you're starting to bend the truth just a bit I think, Darius. I really couldn't tell you how much the last couple Outkast albums sold, but a few years ago the Doobies Greatest Hits was one of the first albums to get the new Diamond category for sales, which is 10 million. And they have over 10 albums that have gone multi-platinum so I seriously doubt Outkast has bested them in sales already. Maybe if you just consider the albums with McDonald, but he is on the Greatest Hits of course, and one of their other biggest sellers too.

    Anyway, I think it's a silly argument either way. Different times and different music landscapes. The Doobies were hugely popular and had a lot of great songs that are still great. And the music was pretty inventive as well. Hey Ya is a fun song but hardly something that will endure the decades, even though I agree that Outkast will likely have a far-reaching impact on music, either as a team or as separate artists and/or producers. But I can't believe they would have the lasting appeal of the Doobie Brothers. No music really lasts very long anymore, does it? That's one of the main problems with music marketing today, an artist is only as good as their latest release. One falter and they're gone, so major releases all tend to play it relatively safe. Which is also why Outkast stands out so much from the crowd - they aren't afraid to break with some of the conventions. How they can sell so big alongside fluff like Clay Aiken and all the now interchangeable rappers and pop divas is beyond me :)

    And I'm not really that big a fan of either the Doobies or Outkast, so I think I can be at least kinda impartial :)

    Maybe I am off base on this guess on the sales figures. Obviously the Doobie Brothers were (and are) a very popular band. I had forgotten about a Greatest Hits collection; fair enough; something like that may have sold more than Outkast. I guess I was speculating more on their original albums, which I still doubt sold as much as Outkast have. I'm also ready to admit that the Doobie Brothers are a generally well-regarded band, but I really don't believe they were as acclaimed in their time as much as Outkast is in ours. I mean Outkast has been all over critics' 10-best list for all three of their last albums, and this album has been number 1 on many. So, it's possible I overstated, but it is irrational for FA to pick one of the most popular and critically acclaimed acts of our time and say they won't be remembered like the Doobie Brothers were -- maybe I should have focussed on the age-arbitrariness of that instead of trying to compare two totally different bands from different eras. In other words, people of FA's age may remember the Doobie Brothers and not remember Outkast 25 years from now. But the young people who make Outkast so popular will probably remember Outkast. I won't necessarily be able to hum more than a couple Doobie Brothers songs 20 years from now, but you bet I'll still remember the bands that meant so much to me when I was in High School and Colllege.
  • 02-09-2004, 05:34 PM
    MindGoneHaywire
    FA:

    I'm willing to bet that if you polled people on the street a lot more people would be able to hum What A Fool Believes than would be able to hum Hey Ya.

    I'd take that bet. Where I live I'd bet you'd get at least 100 people who would know 'Hey Ya' & not know 'What A Fool Believes' for every one person for whom the opposite would be true.

    This isn't about Outkast or The Doobie Brothers. My question was, as Davey says, intended to be a commentary on how fickle today's music industry is. We are inundated with so many albums, videos and DVDs that there is little room for a song or album to hang around for very long. Gone are the days of an album staying on the Billboard chart for hundreds of weeks. That's all that I meant.

    I agree with you there, except for the part about there being more albums, which is not true; and there may well be an album or two that has charted on Billboard for years on end over the past decade or two.

    But I think there are factors when it comes to staying power that haven't been mentioned. One is having songs picked for movie soundtracks. I don't know of any films that have picked either of these, but I'd be willing to bet that 50 years from now there will have been more movies made with 'Hey Ya' played in them than 'What A Fool Believes.' There are bands that owe much of their success to this form of promotion, most notably Smashmouth (who I know yr bro likes a lot). Another has to do with radio formats; staying power has something to do with people being forcefed whatever's on the playlists. Today, in the short term, 'Hey Ya' wins; in the long term, 'What A Fool Believes' will be heard in more doctor's offices, supermarkets, & elevators, I'd say. Whether or not this will hold true for too much longer is not something I could make an educated guess on. But then there's another little item that jogs people's memories: hearing bits & pieces of songs sold on K-Tel style compilations that you see commercials for. You know, those commercials where you hear some cheeseball hawking 'all yr old favorites!' By the early 90s, there were commercials for 80s comps. By the mid-90s, there were commercials for 90s comps. Shouldn't be more than a year or two before we see a commercial for a '00s comp. If 'Hey Ya' doesn't get placed on that sort of thing I'll eat this monitor. This song is a sensation in a way that 'What A Fool Believes' never was. Hey, it may fold like a tent (outside of ending up on hits comps) & we may never hear from Outkast again; I've heard rumors that they're splitting up anyway. Now that Beyonce is such a big star, do you hear anybody talking about Destiny's Child anymore?

    Yr point is well taken about staying power. However, the comparison is ludicrous due to how popular culture, & the recording industry have (d)evolved over the years. And it's a straw man argument that's too often used by those who only like old stuff & hate new stuff. And while I know that you're at least someone who's willing to give new stuff a fair listen, the tone of yr post comes off just like the fogeys Darius refers to who complain about how today's music won't be remembered 30, 40, 50 years from now, whatever, like classic rock is. That sort of talk is coming from a place so far up their colons it's not even funny. And that tone is what I believe Darius was reacting to.
  • 02-10-2004, 06:42 AM
    ForeverAutumn
    Darius and MGH,
    I'm not going to argue the virtues of What a Fool Believes vs. Hey Ya, as that was not my point. The songs were used only as an example. And, in fact, I'm not the one who even used Outkast in my example, it was Darius who brought that song specifically into the conversation. Hey, I admitted to liking Outkast. I only asked the question, how many of the songs nominated would be remembered for the long haul? Was it a dumb question? Maybe it was. I thought that it was an interesting question.

    Now, having said that, your point about cultural differences is well taken. Perhaps my view is somewhat narrow minded. If so, I thank you for making that point and forcing me to consider that there are other factors, outside of my personal experience, that need to be given some thought.

    Perhaps I am speaking as an old fogey (it's not nice to discuss a lady's age :p ). I have had this discussion with many other old fogey's who tend to agree that staying power appears to be, for the most part, a thing of the past. Perhap's we're all wrong. Time will tell. In the meantime, nothing in your arguements, or in the general state of music today, has convinced me of that.

    BTW...who do you think turned my bro on to Smashmouth in the first place. :rolleyes:
  • 02-10-2004, 09:09 AM
    MindGoneHaywire
    your point about cultural differences is well taken.

    There are business differences as well. In the past labels were run by people who were familiar with the business of music who were conscious of concepts such as artist development. Today record labels are beholden to their parent companies, which are enormous corporations that have to cater to the needs of their stockholders instead of worrying about grooming an act to break through 3 or 4 albums down the road. The entire landscape is different, and a lot of people who put forth this argument seem to suggest has something to do with the music, instead of the music having something to do with the business model.

    I only asked the question, how many of the songs nominated would be remembered for the long haul?
    nothing in your arguements, or in the general state of music today, has convinced me of that.


    I went to the Grammy site & looked at some of the winners of the past. I did omit a few pop winners that are universally known, but not a lot. I stopped at 1966, by which time the pop category had expanded to include rock and roll, and more familiar titles begin to appear. But here's a short list of winners & the categories they won for:

    1958: Pop vocal, Louis Prima & Keely Smith—That Old Black Magic
    1959: Pop vocal, Nat King Cole—Midnight Flyer
    1961: Pop vocal, Jack Jones—Lollipops & Roses
    1961: Rock and roll, Chubby Checker—Let’s Twist Again
    1962: Rock and roll, Bent Fabric—The Alley Cat
    1963: Rock and roll, April Stevens & Nino Tempo—Deep Purple
    1964: Rock and roll, Petula Clark—Downtown
    1965: Best contemporary r&r performance, Statler Bros—Flowers On The Wall
    1966: Best contemporary r&r recording, New Vaudeville Band—Winchester Cathedral

    Some of these are more obscure than others, but have you heard many of these lately? 40 years later, I'll bet not a lot of people remember a lot of these songs all that well. Why? Mostly because I don't believe that these songs get much radio play, which is one of my arguments that you said didn't convince you.

    BTW...who do you think turned my bro on to Smashmouth in the first place.

    It wasn't me!
  • 02-10-2004, 09:28 AM
    tugmcmartin
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    1958: Pop vocal, Louis Prima & Keely Smith—That Old Black Magic
    1959: Pop vocal, Nat King Cole—Midnight Flyer
    1961: Pop vocal, Jack Jones—Lollipops & Roses
    1961: Rock and roll, Chubby Checker—Let’s Twist Again
    1962: Rock and roll, Bent Fabric—The Alley Cat
    1963: Rock and roll, April Stevens & Nino Tempo—Deep Purple
    1964: Rock and roll, Petula Clark—Downtown
    1965: Best contemporary r&r performance, Statler Bros—Flowers On The Wall
    1966: Best contemporary r&r recording, New Vaudeville Band—Winchester Cathedral

    Some of these are more obscure than others, but have you heard many of these lately? 40 years later, I'll bet not a lot of people remember a lot of these songs all that well. Why? Mostly because I don't believe that these songs get much radio play, which is one of my arguments that you said didn't convince you.

    Tune into any oldies station and you're likely to hear most of those. I see 7 songs on there i recognize and have heard on a radio in the last year (my wife likes to listen to oldies) and I was born 7 years after the New Vaudeville Band won. My point here is really, that there is no point. 25 years from now Timberlake, Beyonce and Outkast will be thought of as either classic pop or oldies. Those that know them now will remember their impact. Those that don't listen to them won't remember their impact on music. Basically, all artists will be remembered by those who want to remember them and forgotten by those who want to forget them. Hell, even such drivel as Tiffany, Milli Vanilli, Vanilla Ice, New Kids, etc. have a place in pop culture thanks to shows like VH1's "We are the 80s". Who's to say the stuff some of us consider crap now won't hold a place in pop cultre as well at some point down the line... even if it is in a mocking style.

    BTW, can't believe something that basically everyone agrees is a stupid and meaningless awards show can generate so much discussion. Actually, i can. Just demonstrates that a lot of us (myself definitely included) have too much time on our hands.

    T-
  • 02-10-2004, 10:24 AM
    MindGoneHaywire
    Tune into any oldies station and you're likely to hear most of those.

    There's one here in New York City. If there's one song on that list that I think they might play, it'd be 'Let's Twist Again,' and they certainly wouldn't play that as often as 'The Twist.' I could be wrong, as I don't hear this station as often as I used to, but I heard it for years. Not one of these songs were ever played with any regularity, with the possible exception of 'Downtown.'

    My point here is really, that there is no point

    No, there is a point. I get mighty tired of hearing the same things said about today's music, as though the music of the past is intrinsically better. I'm not saying that this was what FA was saying, but plenty of people do. Whatever music they like had the same things said about it, only by people who were of an older generation. The truth is, we have no idea what's going to have staying power & what isn't. I say it has at least as much to do with which songs are chosen to remain on playlists & pop up in movies as whether or not the music in question is 'good.' Obviously someone thinks it's good if it's showing up on playlists & in movies--and those decisions are almost always based on extensive market research (except for college & listener-supported radio, and the soundtracks put together by guys like Tarantino who have the power to choose the music used in their movies). The musical aspect of the state of radio can only be blamed so much on corporate entities like Clear Channel when all they're doing is going by what people tell them they like to hear in focus groups.

    Basically, all artists will be remembered by those who want to remember them and forgotten by those who want to forget them.

    Exactly--except most people aren't like us & don't care enough about music to go out of their way to remember something. Most people are happy to hear the same couple of hundred songs on the radio every day of their life. People who are passionate about music tend to forget that they're in a very small minority; people who are passionate about music generally aren't the ones driving the pop charts. Remember, all the kids who bought all those Elvis & Beatles records in the 50s & 60s were not considered to be 'passionate about music' by their elders.

    Hell, even such drivel as Tiffany, Milli Vanilli, Vanilla Ice, New Kids, etc. have a place in pop culture thanks to shows like VH1's "We are the 80s". Who's to say the stuff some of us consider crap now won't hold a place in pop cultre as well at some point down the line... even if it is in a mocking style.

    Good of you to point this out. It is a point too often lost in these discussions.
  • 02-11-2004, 02:25 AM
    jack70
    Re
    Everyone who watched the grammys should be horse-whipped. I've never watched... never even been tempted. I'd rather listen to my stack of unheard CDs... heck, I'd rather clean the toilet. It's just free advertising for corporately sold music. (doesn't it seem like there's an award show of some kind every damn week these days?)

    I do set the vcr for the occasional musical guest on the late night shows... it's the best (only?) way to see a decent cross section of (live?) musical styles & artists these days, from pop, jazz, classical, country, & rock. (BTW, with the recent 40-yr Beatles/Ed Sullivan stories... where the hell did primetime variety shows go? They gotta be as inexpensive to produce as all those dopey reality shows). Anyway, last year there were only a few performances worth noting of those late-night shows -- White Stripes (even though it's a little retro, it was honest and exciting), and Solomon Burke, who was amazing on Conan O'Brien. Speaking of the Stripes...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dusty Chalk
    I don't know what it is about White Stripes, I just don't like them. They're just a garage band, making it big. Big deal.

    That was my first impression too, and it's true they're more retro than innovative (but so what, so is 99.9% of music today). But they actually played live, and had some honest energy and talent. (I saw em on Conan, not the grammy performance). They actually won me over by the end, not that I think they're better than hundreds of old 60's, or 70's, or 80's albums of similarly-styled music. But they ARE better than most of their contemporaries, who tend to be lame in comparison.

    Over half of the so-called alternate type bands today are so awful, either in lyrics or just basic musical talent it's pathetic. Many can't even sing in key. Two bands of this ilk I remember seeing last year (on TV) were the Hives, and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, both of whom got big promotional push's, and sold pretty big. The Hives were embarrassingly bad in their attempt to be retro (Iggy/punk-like), and the chick-singer in the YYY's was a 5'th rate imitation of the singers in Garbage or No Doubt... truly bad. PT Barnum would be proud.

    The grammy voters are such a mixed group, how on earth do they vote on styles they have little interest in. That's how J Tull got their heavy metal award. Didn't the Fountains of Wayne get nominated for "NEW" artist? ...How many damn albums can you release and still be considered "new"? Many of the voters are also really "up-there" in age too, making any attempt at fair voting a joke. On some awards they over-ride the votes completely, going instead with the opinion of their "review board"... another joke. And how about Bill Clinton winning for spoken word... it's bad enough the Oscars have become so political in recent years.... music too? Give me a break.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davey
    Oh yeah, Black Eye Peas was pretty cool with Justin, but looked like some of the vocals were on tape?

    There was a long article on lip-synching in the NYTimes a few weeks ago. I didn't know that the practice came about (in part) because there was confusion about Union rules for the payment of Royalties of live vs recorded works when TV was new. It (lip-synching) became the standard practice, which pissed many off, including Keith Moon who purposely flubbed his part on the Smothers Brothers show. It became standard practice in many concerts because many acts started using such huge showy slick extravaganzas that were more visual than musical, and all the dancin, pyrotechnics, being lowered upside down by ropes & such made it hard to sing live. It stated that the performers in the grammy show were free to lip-sync, but all were going to play live except for some of the hip-hop stuff. The article mentioned how many big-named artists, even those like Springsteen who always strongly prefer singing live, use all sorts of pre-recorded backing samples and other music. So the vocal may be live, but often (parts of) the music may not be.

    There was a couple of pieces that NPR did last week about the grammys. One had a reporter in Amoeba records in CA, the largest indie music store in the country. After 3 hours she finally found ONE person who'd even watched it. It was called "a top-40 event", and most of the music lovers in the store looked down on it as corporate crap. Me too. One person there didn't even know what the grammys were, LOL. Said one shopper there: "Most record freaks... and music freaks... basically... could care less". I was hoping more of the people on this board were of the same cloth. (those who just slipped a peek or 2 are forgiven...LOL).

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tugmcmartin
    BTW, can't believe something that basically everyone agrees is a stupid and meaningless awards show can generate so much discussion. Actually, i can. Just demonstrates that a lot of us (myself definitely included) have too much time on our hands.

    That's a fair point... but I think the reason for the discussion is simply the fact the people here really love our music, and the grammy's are seen as the worst aspect of "selling" music by corporate influences. It's a lot like our political discussions... whatever our likes/dislikes/sides we all get mad at the way the process and landscape has devolved over time to what seems like a worse place. That perceived "cheapening" of something we all love is gonna provide plenty of emotional reactions. Still... like the guy above said: I could care less about the stinkin' show.