Grammy nomination

[Peebs]

This is interesting. It's how the nominations & winners are determined PLUS the dates of eligibility for the 2011 awards which might explain AIC and TCV nomination
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammy_Award

Record companies and individuals may submit recordings to be nominated. The entries are entered online and then a physical copy of the product must be sent to the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences. Once a work is entered, reviewing sessions are held by over 150 experts from the recording industry. This is done only to determine whether or not a work is eligible or entered into the proper category for official nomination.
The resulting list is circulated to all NARAS members, each of whom may vote to nominate in the general field (Record of the Year, Album of the Year, Song of the Year, and Best New Artist) and in no more than nine out of 30 other fields on their ballots. The five recordings that earn the most votes in each category become the nominees. There may be more than five nominees if there is a tie in the nomination process.
Members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are generally invited to screenings, or sent DVDs, of movies nominated for Oscars. In contrast, NARAS members receive no nominated recordings.
After nominees have been determined, final voting ballots are sent to Recording Academy members. They may then vote in the general fields and in no more than eight of the 30 fields. NARAS members are encouraged, but not required, to vote only in their fields of expertise. Ballots are tabulated secretly by the major independent accounting firm Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Following the tabulation of votes the winners are announced at the Grammy Awards. The recording with the most votes in a category wins and it is possible to have a tie. Winners are presented with the Grammy Award and those who do not win are given a medal for their nomination.
In both voting rounds, Academy members are to vote based upon quality alone. They are not supposed to be influenced by sales, chart performance, personal friendships, regional preferences or company loyalty. The acceptance of gifts is prohibited. Members are urged to vote in a manner that preserves the integrity of the academy.
The eligibility period for the 2011 Grammy Awards is September 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010.

[BrandoKommando]

Hell Yeah!  Once again... Sales, DO NOT define an album's worth. STP's latest record is another example of how the music industry is screwed-up.  Even though the record didn't sell as well as others, I think it's amazing that these guys can thrust ahead of so many bands like this.  Having your album nominated for a Grammy is such an honor.  My favorite band, up for another Grammy Award.  So awesome...!

-Brandon

[Peebs]

this is the part that gets me:

Members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are generally invited to screenings, or sent DVDs, of movies nominated for Oscars. In contrast, NARAS members receive no nominated recordings

sooooooooooooooo
If members od NARAS never heard the songs, how are they supposed to vote??
Which leads me back to the popularity vote....
 
so because they've heard of Lady Gaga, they'll vote for her even though her music is shit. OR votes can be influenced.

[Stop That Pigeon]

this is the part that gets me:

Members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are generally invited to screenings, or sent DVDs, of movies nominated for Oscars. In contrast, NARAS members receive no nominated recordings

sooooooooooooooo
If members od NARAS never heard the songs, how are they supposed to vote??
Which leads me back to the popularity vote....
 
so because they've heard of Lady Gaga, they'll vote for her even though her music is shit. OR votes can be influenced.

I do not agree that Lady Gaga's music is shit. On the collaboration test, she ranks very highly in terms of what she & Scott could put together. All else is personal opinion of course.

As far as the Grammys go, it's the usual double standards - we want to question everything unless it's our own favourites that are nominated.

My own opinion is that STP stands way above and beyond any award of this kind. I do not accept the lowering of the talent bar for any shiny baubles etc. etc.

BUT I do think AIC should win - "A Looking In View" has a class about it that far outweighs the other nominations imho.

[Peebs]

this is the part that gets me:

Members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are generally invited to screenings, or sent DVDs, of movies nominated for Oscars. In contrast, NARAS members receive no nominated recordings

sooooooooooooooo
If members od NARAS never heard the songs, how are they supposed to vote??
Which leads me back to the popularity vote....
 
so because they've heard of Lady Gaga, they'll vote for her even though her music is shit. OR votes can be influenced.

I do not agree that Lady Gaga's music is shit. On the collaboration test, she ranks very highly in terms of what she & Scott could put together. All else is personal opinion of course.

As far as the Grammys go, it's the usual double standards - we want to question everything unless it's our own favourites that are nominated.

My own opinion is that STP stands way above and beyond any award of this kind. I do not accept the lowering of the talent bar for any shiny baubles etc. etc.

BUT I do think AIC should win - "A Looking In View" has a class about it that far outweighs the other nominations imho.

It's not about what's my "favorite" because to be honest there are many many mnay years not one band I like even gets nominated, it's about what's actually good.
In 2007 Gnarls Barkley won in the ALTERNATIVE over The Flaming Lips, Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Thom Yorke.
He also won in the Urban catagory the same year.
Fair?

And when Lady Gagme actually comes up with something anything original perhaps I will not think she's a hack.

[Stop That Pigeon]

It's not about what's my "favorite" because to be honest there are many many mnay years not one band I like even gets nominated, it's about what's actually good.
In 2007 Gnarls Barkley won in the ALTERNATIVE over The Flaming Lips, Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Thom Yorke.
He also won in the Urban catagory the same year.
Fair?

And when Lady Gagme actually comes up with something anything original perhaps I will not think she's a hack.

Fair points all. But, if that's the case, a nomination for STP is meaningless. If you're questioning the categories, you're (to an extent) accepting how daft the whole thing is.

For the record, I do not consider The Flaming Lips, Yeah Yeah Yeahs or Thom Yorke "alternative" - all of these have been part of the mainstream journalists's "ticklist" for years now.

Which is part of the reason that journalism has died.

 LG makes great pop records imho. Can't argue with that.

[Peebs]

see my thread that started this. 
I said they didn't belong in the "hard rock" catagory at all. And I love STP to death but seriously they are far from hard rock.
For example in 07 RHCP cleaned the grammy's for Stadium Arcadium. Clearly a meh effort by them. Blood Sex Sugar Magik which is clearly a classic and should of cleaned up the 93 grammys yet only won Best Rock performance with Vocal for "Give it away".

[loungefly611]

see my thread that started this. 
I said they didn't belong in the "hard rock" catagory at all. And I love STP to death but seriously they are far from hard rock.
For example in 07 RHCP cleaned the grammy's for Stadium Arcadium. Clearly a meh effort by them. Blood Sex Sugar Magik which is clearly a classic and should of cleaned up the 93 grammys yet only won Best Rock performance with Vocal for "Give it away".

Stadium Arcadium meh? HIGHLY disagree. Some of Frusciante's best guitar work IMO. Plus, it's one of the few double albums that have very little filler. BSSM is classic, but I personally prefer their later work since Californication.

[Peebs]

see my thread that started this. 
I said they didn't belong in the "hard rock" catagory at all. And I love STP to death but seriously they are far from hard rock.
For example in 07 RHCP cleaned the grammy's for Stadium Arcadium. Clearly a meh effort by them. Blood Sex Sugar Magik which is clearly a classic and should of cleaned up the 93 grammys yet only won Best Rock performance with Vocal for "Give it away".

Stadium Arcadium meh? HIGHLY disagree. Some of Frusciante's best guitar work IMO. Plus, it's one of the few double albums that have very little filler. BSSM is classic, but I personally prefer their later work since Californication.

IMO...it's MEH.
I personally like everything of theirs from OHM and up...then they got lazy, complacent, a little repetitive & boring. IMO.
Which proves my point. IF the grammy's were really a celebration of artistic music and not just what you hear consistently on the radio then BSSM would have wiped the floor with the Grammy's. And not Stadium Arcadium. The bigger the arena, the more grammy's won by mediocre music.
Patti smith would have won a grammy, Lou Reed would have won a grammy for music (instead of Best Long form Video, WTF is THAT??), David Bowie would have also won for his MUSIC (he won for a short form video & Lifetime achievement award, the award they give you when they realize they fucked up and you should have won awards for years)

[Comatose Commodity]

I think stp has a shot, unfortunately (since it's appaling) my gut tells it's Ozzy. This is good publicity - that's why I care, but the best song imo is "A Looking In View". Strange though, wasn't that the first single of "Black..."? Atleast a 'promo' it was with music video and all, but this was 2009 not 2010...

[loungefly611]

IF the grammy's were really a celebration of artistic music and not just what you hear consistently on the radio then BSSM would have wiped the floor with the Grammy's. And not Stadium Arcadium.

If the grammy's were a celebration of music, then these bands would have never been neglected. The Beatles. The Who. Jimi Hendrix. Led Zeppelin. None of them were EVER nominated for Grammy's. They all received lifetime achievement awards for their contributions to music from the grammy committee so they wouldn't come across as total morons.

As for the RHCP, they should have wiped the floor with the grammy's with BSSM since that's when they were at their commercial peak.

[Peebs]

IF the grammy's were really a celebration of artistic music and not just what you hear consistently on the radio then BSSM would have wiped the floor with the Grammy's. And not Stadium Arcadium.

If the grammy's were a celebration of music, then these bands would have never been neglected. The Beatles. The Who. Jimi Hendrix. Led Zeppelin. None of them were EVER nominated for Grammy's. They all received lifetime achievement awards for their contributions to music from the grammy committee so they wouldn't come across as total morons.

As for the RHCP, they should have wiped the floor with the grammy's with BSSM since that's when they were at their commercial peak.

They never established the hard rock catagory until 31 years from the inception of the award.
That alone should prove how ass backwards the record industry is.
Hard Rock catagory should of been established in the early 70's late 60's when music was once again exploding and changing. But they stuck to their old antiquated thinking....

It's weird because this morning on RXP Matt Pinfield was playing old spots John Lennon did on the old Scott Muni radio show (the legendary DJ with WNEW in NY) and Lennon did a live commercial in 79 for a local store, Korvettes record dept. And as Lennon rattled off the name of record companies 98% of them no longer exist.

[DankoJones]

Most folk know the Grammys are a joke and have been for years .. heres the SImpsons take
 
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMoJ0ZjEI3s

[AustinCarstens]

Black Rain is a god damn sick song...I'm rooting for that or tcv

[Silver guns and Candybars]

i think BTL is the clear favorite here... no other song here has been number one for 7 straight weeks