How did Howard Shore and Annie Lennox win for work they did on Return of the King when that album came out in 2003? Or is it just a matter of mixing up dates? Didn't they win in those categories last year for Return of the King?
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not opposing the decision! I'm just wondering why it wasn't up for the grammies LAST year when it came out. It just seems late.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Britney Spears won a grammy. Bill and and Hillary Clinton have three Grammy's between them. The Gammy's have become a joke.
Posts: 421 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a second. Britney Spears won a Grammy?!?!?! But she's terrible! Her music is so boring. She doesn't even, to my knowledge write her own songs! And yet Tori Amos who is 2000 times better has never won a grammy! ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRG Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: She doesn't even, to my knowledge write her own songs!
What does that have to do with winning a Grammy for performing? She won one for Toxic, which was a fairly popular dance song.
Don't worry, no one over the age of 15 will mistake her for a serious musician.
I thought it was kinda sad that Ray Charles kept winning, for records that barely sold (at least compared to the other nominees) and barley got any air time at all. I think he was amazing, but it wasn't fair to some of the other people who were nominated, IMO.
Still, I checked out the album, and it seems pretty darn god, so I might be off base. Still, it is too bad that he had to die to win again.
His manager was a true class act on stage, don;t you think?
I am not usually impressed with the Grammys, but I thought this year they were great. Queen Latifa blew me away with her jazz set, and John Mayer was really good too. I also loved the Ray Charles tribute by Bonnie Riatt, she is always amazing.
posted
Also, it does have something to do with the release date, and since ROTK was released in December, that meant it was included in the 2004 Grammy nominations.
posted
I was impressed with his honesty..he didn't go all sappy, although you could tell that he was fighting back tears for his friend; instead he was very gracious.
posted
I'm pretty sure grammies are chosen based on marketing, and not on actual, you know, skill. U2 shouldn't have won anything... I'm sorry, but Vertigo is friggin awful compared to just about any other single you compare it to in their catalogue, and dozens of pop and rock songs were released last year that absolutely BURY it. But... vertigo has been marketed HARD, so you have to make sure that the music industry says its a "good" song.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not at all, Paul...if that was the case then Loretta Lynn wouldn't have won; most radio stations, even in that genre, wouldn't play her album at all.
And Ray Charles album sold FAR less than the other nominees did, and wasn't really marketed well at all. I had not even heard a single song on it until the Grammys a few nights ago.
It is based on the 11,000 members voting. Not sales, not marketing....which is why sentimental favorites often win despite their albums not being commercial successes.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
