The Grammy's: Do they give awards based on talent, Political Bias or what?

[Hawkeye]

In another forum we were talking about freedom of speech and how the dixie chicks brought home 5 grammy's.

I hold some major reservations with them winning 5 grammy's because I don't think they won it based on sheer talent.

Boortz.com says:
OK .. I feel better now. The conventional wisdom is that the Chicks won their Grammy awards not because of their music, but because of their anti-Bush sentiments. The awards were to sooth their hurt feelings after the beating they took from country radio after they chose to attack their president from a platform on foreign soil. Some of the people who actually voted on the Grammy awards have admitted the motivations behind their votes. So .. to all of you who think that the country stations should start playing the Chicks again because of their Grammys ... the awards were for political correctness, not artistic merit.
So is it really freedom of speech? For me the answer is yes they won it but is really that big of an honor?

Back to me:
I'm trying to find articles etc where the judges actually *did* admit to that being a reason why they voted for them. I know there was an article about it in the AJC.

But that just makes me wonder- when the grammy's begin to start leaning on political bias instead of talent? Was it because they realized that many of todays artists have no talent? Or are they trying to make a political statment or what?

I gotta admit-I like the dixie chicks. I think they are one of the few talented groups out there. If it were based solely on talent I would be the first one voting for them, however because of this political crap that is surrounding the grammy's it really is making me wonder what's the point of having an award show?

 

[lemurian]

I don't remember the Grammy's ever being about talent But I do think that it's pretty obvious why the Dixie Chicks won 5 awards, and it bugs me. I think it's in poor taste and an insult to those who didn't win. It's even an insult to others who won! I don't have anything against the DC, I just don't like seeing the lines between pop culture and politics blurred. Awards shows have always been self-serving, but this is just silly.

Unfortunately I don't have any links to actual voters explaining their votes, but I'm sure they're out there. Those people are always looking for a soapbox to stand on..

 

[Beauty Mark]

I think people are always going to complain about that stuff, no matter what. I haven't heard the Dixie Chicks latest, but it's always been decent. Looking briefly at the list this year in general, nothing really wowed. It was a very weak year in music, IMO. I don't think it would be difficult for any artist with a bit of talent to win.

I don't know the criteria for the judging, but there is something be said about utilizing the medium (music) to create something with a little more substance. Agreeing with the message probably went along with it, but- I think there is something be said about bringing a political message out there through music, instead of just always singing about love, hate, money, and so on.

The way I'd look at it is see if the Grammys have awarded something to someone with substance and style who's more conservative.

 

[Dizzy]

I'm not a Dixie Chicks fan, but I do think that they won their Grammys due to sheer PC-ness. On one forum I'm on people were so outraged by this- but it's not the fans who vote for the grammys, it's a panel of judges. This isn't the first time the Grammys have done this, either- anyone remember Hillary Clinton getting a Grammy for her narration of some documentary (I can't remember the name)?

Since when has music greatness been determined by the artists' political ideology?

They're about 4 steps behind Jane Fonda in my book.

 

[lemurian]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beauty Mark I think people are always going to complain about that stuff, no matter what. I haven't heard the Dixie Chicks latest, but it's always been decent. Looking briefly at the list this year in general, nothing really wowed. It was a very weak year in music, IMO. I don't think it would be difficult for any artist with a bit of talent to win.

The Dixie Chicks won awards in the "Country Music" categories at the Grammy's, but you won't see them winning at the CMA Awards. They won't even be nominated. That really says it all right there, IMO. Their win has nothing to do with a weak year in pop music, because pop music is always weak. That's why it's popular. If the masses were interested in good music we'd all be listening to classical and progressive

 

[*Stargazer*]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemurian The Dixie Chicks won awards in the "Country Music" categories at the Grammy's, but you won't see them winning at the CMA Awards. They won't even be nominated.

That's probably the most legitimate point anyone has made concerning this situation, but its also the most overlooked.

 

[Beauty Mark]

Quote:

The Dixie Chicks won awards in the "Country Music" categories at the Grammy's, but you won't see them winning at the CMA Awards. They won't even be nominated. That really says it all right there, IMO. Their win has nothing to do with a weak year in pop music, because pop music is always weak. That's why it's popular. If the masses were interested in good music we'd all be listening to classical and progressive

Well, couldn't you make the argument that country music, as for the outrage of the country music fans, that they wouldn't rock the boat and put up a liberal album? It works both ways.

IMO, awards shows are bs, as Fiona Apple once said.

I strongly disagree that pop music is always weak. The Beatles, at one point, were pop, after all. I don't know. I like all music, except country, but I listen to the radio and think, "WTF had happened to music?" lately.

 

[Corvs Queen]

It bugs me to no end that Gnarls Barkley won for best Alternative. By no way shape or form are they ALTERNATIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!