Posted: 1/29/18 at 9:29am
@johnadams, thank you for that lengthy explanation as to what the award is about. I sometimes confused about what the various grammy nominations are actually measuring.
Posted: 1/29/18 at 9:58am
Babe_Williams said: "@johnadams, thank you for that lengthy explanation as to what the award is about. I sometimes confused about what the various grammy nominations are actually measuring."
To be honest, I think it's confusing for voters of ALL the awards shows. It does seem as if it's a popularity contest, or a response to whatever social media meme happens to be popular (i.e., #MeToo, or #OscarsSoWhite...) 
Posted: 1/29/18 at 10:44am
Oh, so that's how it works. In that case, a perfect recording of cats screeching in an alley could be given an award over a recording of a Beethoven symphony.
Wrong again.
Posted: 1/29/18 at 11:25am
Posted: 1/29/18 at 2:35pm
John Adams wrote:
"It does seem as if it's a popularity contest, or a response to whatever social media meme happens to be popular."
So then it's not about the "quality of the album," (which means, apparently, according to the "criteria" in question, to totally dismiss the quality of the music and lyrics being sung, while concentrating solely on the singing and sound quality), it's not about the engineering, it's just about whatever happens to be the flavor du jour. That that flavor nowadays happens to taste something like a blend of vinegar and cod liver oil, is but one of the many preposterous aspects of this "award."
As I said earlier, it's completely absurd.
Posted: 1/29/18 at 2:54pm
John Adams wrote:
"I would hope that Sunday in the Park... would take the Grammy over all the others considered in this thread."
They say that every cloud has a silver lining. Personally, I would prefer no clouds at all, but as we all know, one doesn't always get what one prefers, right?
In this case, the cumulonimbus known as Dear Evan Hansen did bring a sterling silver lining: that crashing, pretentious, unmusical bore called Sunday in the Park With George did not win. That it wasn't even nominated was not merely a silver lining of its own, but one made of 24 carat gold.
Posted: 1/29/18 at 4:50pm
The Grammys seems to have been taken way more seriously than it used to be ever since EGOT became a thing and stans on social media needed more ammo to argue that their faves/divas were the "objective" best ever/queen, etc.
I think it was always nice to win one, especially for a smaller artist, and it was probably a nice ceremony to attend to hear other artists, and to hang out with people you haven't seen in a while or met before, but I don't think musicians really put much stock into it. Now all of a sudden people make such big deals about it that is new to me. I just remember when The Simpsons and many other shows/comedians would joke about the awards themselves just being considered on the same level as garbage.
If one were to look back at some of the winners in previous years and think about all the legendary musicians, albums, and songs that came out during those time periods that were not recognized, they'd put these awards in context. Also, I find that there are so many recordings out there that coming up with a Best Record, Song, Album, etc. is almost intangible.
Posted: 1/30/18 at 9:04am
After Eight said: "John Adams wrote:
"It does seem as if it's a popularity contest, or a response to whatever social media meme happens to be popular."
So then it's not about the "quality of thealbum," (which means, apparently, according to the "criteria" in question, tototallydismissthe quality of the music and lyrics being sung,while concentrating solely on the singing and sound quality),it's not about the engineering, it's just about whateverhappens to be the flavor du jour. That that flavor nowadays happens to taste something likeablendof vinegar and cod liveroil, is but one of the many preposterousaspects of this "award."
As I said earlier, it's completely absurd."
Honestly, Eight, I find it hard to disagree with most of your response, especially statements like, "it's just about whatever [sic] happens to be the flavor du jour", and the way you use 'air-quotes' around the word, award. I know that other, professional commentators might also agree with your observation. (I just listened to the Pop Culture Happy Hour podcast about the Grammys, for example, where they expressed similar disappointments.)
I still agree with Mr. Matt, GavestonPS, et. al. regarding the distinction between "Best Score" and "Best Album", however. I also feel that it could very well be possible that, "a perfect recording of cats screeching in an alley could be given an award over a recording of a Beethoven symphony."
Regarding my statement above, I believe it's possible because (and I'm not an Awards voter, so I can't be 100% certain of the 'official' criteria) I feel pretty certain that more than one, singular criterion is used to elect the recipient. For example, Best Album isn't selected by its score alone. I think it's a combination of criteria. If that album of cats comes up aces regarding more of the criteria than the Beethoven symphony, then yes, it could win.
...and you've got to admit, Eight, that you and I both (and probably other posters on this Board) could name several examples where the figurative "cats screeching in an alley" have done just that. 
Posted: 1/30/18 at 9:07am
After Eight said: "the cumulonimbus known as Dear Evan Hansen did bring a sterling silver lining: that crashing, pretentious, unmusical bore called Sunday in the Park With George did not win. That it wasn't even nominated was not merely a [sic] silver lining of its own, [sic] but one made of 24 carat gold."
Still my favorite. 
