Did the Grammys ever mean something?
 

When it comes to award shows I find the Grammys to be the bottom of the barrel. I'd put them below the Oscars, Golden Globes, Tonys, and even the Emmys. Were the Grammys ever something people took notice of? Was there ever a time when critics and people agreed with the choices and looked forward to watching it?

I could personally not give a rat's ass for the more popular mainstream nominations, I do for some reason pay attention to the lesser catagories: Dance, Compilation Soundtrack Album, Score Soundtrack Album, spoken word, Musical Show Album, New Age, Boxed/Special Limited Edition, Surround Sound Recording...

and...

Polka

:banana:

Did the Grammies ever mean something?
 

You mean, back when music didn't suck, and wasn't just concocted on the fly to sell albums to mindless youth, and awards were given for artistic talent instead of based on a giant popularity contest?

Yes, I believe there was that time.

Short answer - no. Longer answer, you mean like maybe back in the 60s when The Beatles, Dylan, the Stones, The Who, etc. were releasing albums that changed music:

Grammy Awards of 1969:
* Al De Lory (producer) & Glen Campbell for By the Time I Get to Phoenix

Grammy Awards of 1968:
* George Martin (producer) & The Beatles for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

Grammy Awards of 1967:
* Sonny Burke (producer) & Frank Sinatra for Sinatra: A Man and His Music

Grammy Awards of 1966:
* Sonny Burke (producer) & Frank Sinatra for September of My Years

Grammy Awards of 1965:
* Stan Getz & João Gilberto for Getz/Gilberto

I'm gonna have to say... (largely) no.

I'd say largely no. Just check out the history and judge for yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammy#Awards_by_year). There were some years where they seemed to get things right in retrospect (like best Album wins by "Sgt. Pepper" and "Songs in the Key of Life"), but that's probably more like how even a broken clock is right twice a day. Grammy's are funny in that they do try to improve, but typically end up being at least 10-15 years too late (like with artists like Clapton, the Stones, Santana, etc). They'll also tend to stick with an artist for years in categories the voters aren't really in tune with (according to Grammy, the only female rock singers in the 80s were Tina Turner and Pat Benatar, regardless of whether they had anything good that year). And Grammy's had some hilarious bungles in the past, like Milli Vanilli winning Best New Artist (the problem shouldn't have been that they weren't the singers on the record -- the problem was that they sucked in the first place). My favorite is the first year they had a metal/hard rock category in 1989. The winner? Jethro Tull (beating Metallica, no less)! Even Ian Anderson was a bit confused, hypothesizing "Maybe the voters were confused by me metal flute?"

No. Never did.

I remember back in the early '80s, Sting saying that he would never appear at the Grammy's because it was nothing more than a popularity contest. Fast forward a few years and Sting is pimpin' himself out as a freakin' backup vocalist on the show. That sums up what I think of both the Grammy's and Sting.

nope!

Generally, the Grammy's are for people who care about performers/artists, not for people who care about music.

The Grammy's can occasionally help an artist - Bonnie Raitt's 'Nick of Time' album won three Grammy, and then went on to top the charts and sell over 5 million copies.

But as a general rule I'd say no; the Grammy's are more self-congratulatory than meaningful.

I just like seeing the kiss of death award, otherwise known as best new artist.

Only to tools like Kanye West, who thinks he needs countless awards to show people how "great" he is.

If that's proof of the Grammys not getting it, you're completely and totally off-base.

George Bush doesn't care about the Grannys.

The Bus: I took his list to mean that the last time the Grammy's meant anything was back in the 60's.

Glen Campbell?

:hscratch:

No, that was not my meaning.

Back in the 70's it was really the only way to see the big acts as presenters or to see them perform if they got nominated.
The same goes for the 80's.
And it's kinda dumb the way the albums qualify.
An example is John Lennon's DOUBLE FANTASY album came out in Oct.80 , but didn't get the Grammy album of the year till 1982.

Well, remember that the annual release date to be eligible for that year's Grammy awards is (I believe) in mid September. Thus the February 1981 Grammy awards covers relases from October 1979 to September 1980. Given that, an October 1980 release wouldn't be eligible until the Grammys of February 1982.

And far as the 1970s Grammys: is this same organization in 1976 that gave the "Best New Artist" award to the Starland Vocal Band? :confused:

No wonder they've neven been taken seriously by ANYBODY...

Or the fact that they nominated fountains of wayne for best new artist when Stacy's Mom was a popular song (and they've been around since the 90's)

I've always enjoyed the Grammys for the show, not the awards.
Even though i don't care for the man, Eminem should have won album of the year for Marshal Mathers LP, not Steely Dans Two Against Nature (a mediocre album by once great artist)

I'm pissed that Nirvana never got a grammy for Nevermind but was pleased that they got one for Unplugged. It sucks that they tend to look at only pop acts. I mean the best metal album of 1993 was definetely Melvin's Houdini by a long shot.