mySoftware [Updates]

Once you create a user profile on Motifator and update with the appropriate information, the updates shown here will be specific to you.

rssFeeds [Syndicate]


forumforum
 

Old Motifator threads are available in the Archive.

Viewing topic "Grammy’s 09"

   
Page 1 of 2
Posted on: February 09, 2009 @ 03:13 AM
MoGut
Avatar
Total Posts:  1534
Joined  05-08-2004
status: Guru

I must be getting old, because in my youth I hated the grammy’s and could barely stay interested watching them every year. But I must admit I enjoy them more and more, and especially this year. I got to see Robert Plant step up to the podium get and award which is unimaginable. Or Maybe because im such a big fan of coldplay who won a couple of awards. All my buddies make fun of me for liking coldplay, and always go to the now famous quote “you know how i know your gay? you like coldplay”. Well Ive seen these guys twice in detroit and they ROCK. Now if you want to see alot of gays go to a tina turner concert, THAT was funny, I recently seen her perform in detroit as well, she rocked too.

But Kayne West is hard to watch, that guy is so self-loving its pathetic. I do NOT see alot of talent in him as opposed to the other rap artists in the past (and present). No one could ever be as good as biggie.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: February 09, 2009 @ 04:02 AM
DavePolich
Total Posts:  6820
Joined  07-27-2002
status: Guru

Re: Grammy’s 09

It wasn’t a good night for hip-hop and R&B. Nearly a shut-out, actually.

People tend to think of the Grammys as another version of the People’s Choice Awards, which the Grammys are not. The voting is
done by members of the Recording Academy (NARAS) - in other words, it’s “closed to the public”. So the Grammys are a barometer of
consensus within the recording industry itself, which if you haven’t noticed is in a bad slump right now, along with the rest of the economy.

In economic downturns, people tend to retreat to what is both familiar and connects to them emotionally, either with a hopeful or inspirational message, or as entertaining diversion. Certainly, the self-aggrandizing “look what I got” message that has been central to a lot of hip-hop (especially sub-genres like Crunk) isn’t resonating like it used to. Parading your huge mansion, gold chains, Hummers and Maseratis tends to be seen now more as insulting. I don’t think this is lost on the recording industry itself. There’s a lot of recording industry people out of work themselves.

Hip-hop needs to re-invent itself, it’s become increasingly irrelevant
as of late, although obviously it’s still selling.

When the old model of basing success on triple-platinum CD sales no longer works, and success of any kind is just as likely for an indie band promoting themselves on the internet as it is for a major-label act, the focus goes back to making the songs and music count.
In other words, people really do have to be putting out the music for the love of the music itself. That in turn is seen as more honest and
resonates with people, and can still translate to concert sales and
“some” CD sales. In other words, the “heartfelt” stuff is going to
work better. Hence the success of Robert Plant and Alison Krause’s record. It’s a well-crafted record that was not a “concocted” calculated pre-fab product designed by marketing people.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: February 09, 2009 @ 05:20 AM
MoGut
Avatar
Total Posts:  1534
Joined  05-08-2004
status: Guru

Re: Grammy’s 09

In economic downturns, people tend to retreat to what is both familiar and connects to them emotionally, either with a hopeful or inspirational message, or as entertaining diversion. Certainly, the self-aggrandizing “look what I got” message that has been central to a lot of hip-hop (especially sub-genres like Crunk) isn’t resonating like it used to.

Thats a really intuitive notion, good going. I wouldnt have connected that together. To continue that thought further, isn’t that whole pretentious attitude even more tasteless when you think about how usually these hiphop acts refer to lyrically, and heavily relate to poorer demographic areas of the country? Maybe its the hope that appeals to these types of audience, backed by a cool beat. Anyways, its all in good fun, for young people and young imaginations.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: February 09, 2009 @ 05:57 AM
mo-z
Avatar
Total Posts:  724
Joined  11-18-2005
status: Guru

Re: Grammy’s 09

The music biz is in transition.  The old business model isn’t as effective as it used to be.  The internet is redefining the business model and is leveling the field.  The big record companies had a chance to control it, but dropped the ball.
Remember when CD’s first came out? Record companies said that prices were high because cost of production was, but when those costs dropped, they continued to leave prices high to increase profit margins. Enter Napster and mp3 technology, which the record companies initially dismissed.  But now, they are playing catch up.  Time will tell whether they (the record companies) survive----I can see the smaller independents surviving, but until I see the big record labels stop treating the biz as a corporate commodity and treating it as art, they are doomed.  The music biz was never meant to be run by corporate suits with no musical background, IMHO....

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: February 09, 2009 @ 07:00 AM
Wastrel
Avatar
Total Posts:  630
Joined  10-22-2004
status: Guru

Re: Grammy’s 09

The internet is redefining the business model and is leveling the field

Music is my hobby these days so I don’t keep track of the industry like I used too when it was my vocation. Does anyone have a handle on the relative percentage of music sales captured by small producers and internet sales versus the conventional Hear it on Clear Channel radio, watch the video on MTV, race down to buy the shrink wrapped CD from a major label model?

TIA,

Bob

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: February 09, 2009 @ 07:01 AM
scotch
Total Posts:  2027
Joined  08-14-2005
status: Guru

Re: Grammy’s 09

[DavePolich] People tend to think of the Grammys as another version of the People’s Choice Awards, which the Grammys are not. The voting is done by members of the Recording Academy (NARAS) - in other words, it’s “closed to the public”. So the Grammys are a barometer of consensus within the recording industry itself…

My impression is that “people” tend to suppose it too incestuous. One eric weber, for example, in this very forum a while back expressed the opinion that ““awards [are] just another marketing distribution channel due to the gazillion tons of music that is made available today and the sheer amount of money that is at stake. Oh - and then there were the Oscars.”

Certainly, the self-aggrandizing “look what I got” message that has been central to a lot of hip-hop (especially sub-genres like Crunk) isn’t resonating like [sic] it used to....

Or maybe we’ve suddenly begun to notice it’s a guy talking.

Hip-hop needs to re-invent itself…

I’ll be very happy when it ceases to be a guy talking.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: February 09, 2009 @ 07:27 AM
scotch
Total Posts:  2027
Joined  08-14-2005
status: Guru

Re: Grammy’s 09

[Wastrel] Does anyone have a handle on the relative percentage of music sales captured by small producers and internet sales versus the conventional Hear it on Clear Channel radio, watch the video on MTV, race down to buy the shrink wrapped CD from a major label model?

I’ve read plenty of Internet sales statistics in Rolling Stone and elsewhere, although I don’t recall the numbers. These would probably be collected from major suppliers such as Apple, of course. It would be harder to track groups who sell home-made CD’s at their performances or at their individual websites.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: February 09, 2009 @ 08:35 AM
TheDukester
Total Posts:  3345
Joined  01-18-2003
status: Guru

Re: Grammy’s 09

The “Record” Industry is reeling. Go into an FYE, Barnes & Noble, Borders, whatever and you’ll see the CD section getting smaller while the DVD section getting bigger. “Buying” music is falling out of favor when you can get what you want free. The “Industry” is trying desperately to hold on to the old models,but even name artists are doing exclusives for Target. The idea of getting a contract is becoming foolish.

Terrestrial Radio also is losing audiences. People are loading up iPods and mp3 players with the music they want. If you want new music....the Internet. Tons of resources there. Artists can sell their music on their own Websites.

Truth of the matter is, all a “record” has ever been was a promotional tool for the artist. Unless he controls everything such as being the writer and Publisher, the record company made the lions share of the money off of records. This view of “records” gives one pause to think why Payola is illegel. You pay the radio station just like any other advertiser to get your “commercial” aired.

Artists can and must get with the 21st Century means of getting their products out. It’s almost a waste to make hard copy, and track lists/linear note pages to say nothing of CD cases, when you can set up a web page and sell your music in mp3 form,connected to a Pay Pal or other type of commerce exchange vehicle. Put the track lists and linear notes and cover in a pdf file that can be downloaded with the album and let the consumer burn hard copy if that’s what they want.

The Grammy’s? Hasn’t been a righteous Grammy’s since “Thriller” or “Songs In The Key of Life”. I glanced at it last night and it was lame.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: February 09, 2009 @ 11:05 AM
BajaCapt
Avatar
Total Posts:  326
Joined  03-25-2008
status: Enthusiast

Re: Grammy’s 09

Good thread and great replies!
Made me think a bit in the positive side of the current economic situation… This is a great time for music to do what it does best, and to keep us in touch with our very essence of being humans, and yes, the heart felt stuff hits the spot in times like this, and the beauty of it is that heart felt pieces can have many styles or beats, but leaning to bring the best out of musicians in way that will be appreciated by the people in more ways than one, and what more reward to a true musician than to have his/hers music truly appreciated?
On a quick note, when I said true musician I meant the musician who creates for the love of music /forums/images/icons/wink.gif alt=
Again, great thread and input!
PS: We loved last night Grammys, I saw them in the company of my wife and my mother who happened to be visiting, she is 72 and her husband, they were happy to see Neil Diamond jammin “Sweet Caroline” and also loved to see Sir Paul McCartney. My mom was asking me if Katy Perry was a lesbian lol! I said I dont know mom, but she looks very cute in that fruit outfit! She was later mortified at seeing rapper M.I.A. dancing pregnant lol!!
All in all was an awesome Grammys, I like the direction this is going!

Jose

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: February 09, 2009 @ 11:38 AM
TheDukester
Total Posts:  3345
Joined  01-18-2003
status: Guru

Re: Grammy’s 09

This was my commentary in the Soul-Patrol mailing list on the Grammy’s

HUMPH!!!...I watched Al Green and I guess it was Justin Timberlake doing
“Let’s Stay Together”.
First impression..."Damn,Rev! Stop going by Aretha’s house!”

Second Impression..."What is this? Some form of “passing the torch”?Al did
take the boy into the “nose bleed range” towards the end. Props to the Reverend
for still being able to get up there.

Third Impression (heading towards the “end” of the tune...."Oops! Train
wreck between the two! Oops! Train wreck with the band!”
Fourth Impression...."So why did they have Boyz to Men up there?”

Headed back to “Bravo” and the reruns of “Law and Order:Criminal
Intent"(sort of symbolic of the Grammy’s)
Oh.....I “did” see Whitney. Wish I hadn’t.

I flipped back a few times during commercials. Is it me or is “every” singer
“hollering” these days?
In a society that is striving for mediocrity, the Grammy’s is an exercise in
rewarding “average”.
.....Don’t get me started on “Diva”.

Even on “Morning Joe” the entertainment critic dogged out the show. Miss matching “contemporary” acts with legends. They should be embarassed putting “average” next to “greatness”. It just exposes the contemporary performers for what they really are....also rans.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: February 09, 2009 @ 11:39 AM
DavePolich
Total Posts:  6820
Joined  07-27-2002
status: Guru

Re: Grammy’s 09

I thought Katie Perry’s schtick was done better by Gwen Stefani, who can
sing a lot better than Katie can. There’s always room for fluff, though. Although whether it merits a Grammy is a bit dubious to me..

Dukester, I didn’t think the Grammys this year were as lame as some previous years, the all-time low being the “Milli Vanilli” one. A few years back when it was the “Beyonce Awards” that was fairly sad as well.
I found this year was at least more encouraging.

Not sure what was going on with Whitney Houston, she appeared to be mentally out of it, maybe drunk. Or both.

CNN had a comment about hip-hop/rap that was along the lines of my first post:

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/01/29/hiphop.bling.recession/index.html]http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/01/29/hiphop.bling.recession/index.html [/url]

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: February 09, 2009 @ 01:29 PM
BajaCapt
Avatar
Total Posts:  326
Joined  03-25-2008
status: Enthusiast

Re: Grammy’s 09

Yeah, there’s been better Grammy shows, but this was a bit more in the “a little of all” which is fine with me…
I suppose the fact that I finally finished a DIY 12 feet screen (painted with Screen Goo) to go with a 7.1 sound system ( to which I also added a DIY 15” subwoofer), proyecting the Grammys to this 12 foot screen via HDMI on Hi Def was pretty pretty sweet /forums/images/icons/smile.gif alt=
But back to subject, the assorted styles and music genres was great. It is encouraging that all genres get proper attention.
The old and the young together was cool to watch and hear…
I do my very best to keep always an open mind to all music, and also try to have the same aproach when voicing my opinion in the matter, it is not cool when a musician thinks too high of him/herself, but it is even worst when a critic or observer does so… but then again, that’s what makes this forum lobby’s fun aint it?

Jose.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: February 10, 2009 @ 01:32 PM
scotch
Total Posts:  2027
Joined  08-14-2005
status: Guru

Re: Grammy’s 09

[TheDukester] Truth of the matter is, all a “record” has ever been was a promotional tool for the artist.

It has been at times, but it hasn’t always been in all cases, I don’t think. What I’ve read suggests musicians in general tended not to take records very seriously in the early days of commercial recording, the teens or so, but pop musicians would seem to have taken them very seriously at least by the late sixties and at least into the eighties. I happen to have known personally and worked with professionally rock musicians entirely supported by their record company--paid a weekly salary. They got nothing directly from performances; their performances were given in support of--in order to promote sales of--their records. This is consistent with what I’ve read of rock musicians whom I didn’t know. As of 1970 each member of the Jefferson Airplane was paid a weekly salary by their record company, and while it was still really a group (in contradistinction to Walter Becker and Donald Fagen plus studio musicians) each member of Steely Dan was paid a weekly salary by its record company.

I suspect this state of affairs had something (not everything) to do with why rock concerts were so relatively inexpensive in the early seventies: Record companies were underwriting them and absorbing whatever losses may have occurred. 

It’s ironic, by the way, that you are using the term artist, an abbreviation of recording artist, to expound this philosophy.
  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: February 10, 2009 @ 04:06 PM
TheDukester
Total Posts:  3345
Joined  01-18-2003
status: Guru

Re: Grammy’s 09

“It has been at times, but it hasn’t always been in all cases, I don’t think. What I’ve read suggests musicians in general tended not to take records very seriously in the early days of commercial recording, the teens or so, but pop musicians would seem to have taken them very seriously at least by the late sixties and at least into the eighties.”

This wasn’t intended to be a hit on the seriousness of the artists. I was merely breaking down the economics of a “record”. What an artist “makes” off of a “record” generally was a small portion. Artists,back in the day, were lucky of they got 4cents or 4% of a record. I remember Chicago signed a deal after their success where they got 12cents or 12% of their records. As I stated, the record companies got the lions share of a record. Keep in mind also that albums didn’t really become a popular purchase until the late 60’s and early 70’s. 45s were still quite relevent.

“ I happen to have known personally and worked with professionally rock musicians entirely supported by their record company--paid a weekly salary.”

Motown operated that way also. I know a few groups that didn’t sign and others who left because of this policy.

“I suspect this state of affairs had something (not everything) to do with why rock concerts were so relatively inexpensive in the early seventies: Record companies were underwriting them and absorbing whatever losses may have occurred.”

Possibly. But you also shoud consider that a lot of those groups weren’t really “superstars” yet. It was nothing to go to the Filmore East and see The Dead AND Creedance AND Janice AND whomever. Or the Apollo and see The Temps AND The Spinners AND Marvin Gaye AND Wilson Pickett (and for a Buck!)

“It’s ironic, by the way, that you are using the term artist, an abbreviation of recording artist, to expound this philosophy.”

Not really. In contracts these are the differentiations, you know, as in “from here refered to as Artist”. That they would be refered to as the recording artist would be redundant.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: February 11, 2009 @ 03:37 AM
MoGut
Avatar
Total Posts:  1534
Joined  05-08-2004
status: Guru

Re: Grammy’s 09

Artists,back in the day, were lucky of they got 4cents or 4% of a record. I remember Chicago signed a deal after their success where they got 12cents or 12% of their records

This might be true, but the artist’s voracity is exposed on their tours and ticket prices. I spend alot of money getting premium seats for acts I enjoy. I NEVER buy tickets unless they are from ticketmaster or directly from the venue, but even so, these prices are completely inflated compared to anything normal. For example, even nose bleed seats for elton/joel in detroit are $60. These are seats you basically watch the big screens for the entirety of the concert. Then you’ll find these artists whose tickets prices are totally exploded like Paul Mccartney. I dont know whats validates them from believing they are superior, but people pay these prices, so maybe thats the answer.

Anyways, performers or artists, or whatever they call themselves have this opinion that their performances are precious moments in time and that they are deserving of MEGA bucks. You even see this attitude in small time bars and clubs, with these bum musicians fighting with owners over $500 like they are worth it, meanwhile performing in a pub with 2 tables of customers.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: February 11, 2009 @ 04:41 AM
scotch
Total Posts:  2027
Joined  08-14-2005
status: Guru

Re: Grammy’s 09

[TheDukester] This wasn’t intended to be a hit on the seriousness of the artists.

Oh, come. I said the seriousness with which they regarded records, meaning whether they considered themselves primarily performers or primarily recording “artists”.

I was merely breaking down the economics of a “record”. What an artist “makes” off of a “record” generally was a small portion. Artists,back in the day, were lucky of they got 4cents or 4% of a record.

The percentages are essentially irrelevant when your record company is completely supporting you.

Motown operated that way also. I know a few groups that didn’t sign and others who left because of this policy.

You can complain that the salary is too low, if you like, but it makes no sense to me to complain about getting a salary, especially when you’re just starting out and have no idea how well your records will sell (or when you’ve kicked around and realize they’re not going to sell that well). You still get the royalties (with what you’ve been already paid deducted, of course).

Possibly. But you also shoud consider that a lot of those groups weren’t really “superstars” yet.

Well, the first rock concert I saw was Jethro Tull for $2.50 a ticket. Jethro Tull’s Aqualung had sold very well the year before and this year they were promoting Thick as a Brick which reached #1 on the American charts, as did Passion Play, released the following year. (This is just one example. I attended lots of rock concerts in these years and saw lots of top groups for approximately the same price.)

When the Beatles and Glen Gould ceased performing before audiences altogether in the mid sixties, they certainly couldn’t be said to have been using records only for promotion.

Not really. In contracts these are the differentiations, you know, as in “from here refered to as Artist”. That they would be refered to as the recording artist would be redundant.

I think my contracts say “the Author” or “the Composer”, but I’ll have to check (maybe they only say “the party of the second part"). Anyway, I’m pretty sure that artist in this sense is an abbreviation of recording artist. The idea, I think, is that this kind of “artist”, like a painter or a sculptor--and unlike a performer, produces physical objects.

  [ Ignore ]  


Page 1 of 2


     


Previous Topic:

‹‹ I need to copy what I see
Next Topic:

    Forum etiquette: Please Read This ››