|
| Headline | Grammy Voter |
|
Page:
[1] |
| Author | Comment |
Dave C
Feb-09-2007, 14:39 GMT
IP:
United Kingdom
 | I see Paul is a member of the voting panel for the Grammy awards.
Do they make the vote public after the awards have been presented? I seem to remember reading in an interview that Paul doesn´t particularly take much of an interest in the popular music scene nowdays, or am I getting muddled? |
| | |
Bodo
Feb-09-2007, 16:03 GMT
IP:
Austria
 | I think he might know enough about it - at least he has enough taste to decide between 5 albums... :-)
But it´s somehow sad, you make such a good album, and then you should vote for others (which might not been as good by far) |
| | |
Klausi
Feb-10-2007, 07:54 GMT
IP:
Germany
 | Well the voters cannot judge about their own work.
Simon got enough Grammies and nominations. Maybe one of them was not justified too.
There was a strong anti-UK-voting and also Dylan only won the album of the year award once.
Did Joni Mitchell ever win this award? I guess no. |
| | |
emmyloukay
Feb-10-2007, 20:42 GMT
IP:
USA - United Staates America
 | Do the cameras ever show or interview the judges?
I am trying to decide if it would be worth my time to watch the grammys.... |
| | |
Richard
Feb-11-2007, 13:52 GMT
IP:
Unknown
 | There have been a few entries on this site where someone offers the opinion that PS has "got enough Grammies" so he does not need to win any additional ones.
This makes no sense.
The Grammys are supposed allegedly to be about merit. So if someone wins a number of awards that should (note "should") reflect that they had the best entry in that category. (Obviously, the awards, like any awards, are not perfect.)
To say that PS (or anyone for that matter) does not deserve to win simply because they have won in the past ignores the purpose of the awards. |
| | |
Bodo
Feb-11-2007, 14:28 GMT
IP:
Austria
| From what I know there are several _thousand_ judges... ? (Or are there only several thousands for the Oscars? But every category might have it´s own number of judges)
Anyway, there are more than 100 categories, and in every category you have 5 nominees - so the house will be full of people who have a chance to win (and even not all of those people will come...)
So, Paul will not be there I guess :-) |
| | |
Bodo
Feb-11-2007, 14:32 GMT
IP:
Austria
| You are right Richard - I (and I believe the others who wrote that here too) do think like you. BUT, I think that a lot of the Grammy judges think like that... if they hear the name ´Paul Simon´ then they may think: "oh, not again"
And I for example also believe that the music industry uses the Grammy awards to boost sales - and I guess they experienced with Paul Simon and his last nominations (YTO, ROTS) that it has no effect on his sales... he has a small but good fanbase. |
| | |
Klausi
Feb-12-2007, 07:18 GMT
IP:
Germany
| If you look at the history of the grammies, you won`t see an album of the year (which is the most important award), which had not gone gold before.
Though Simon toured the US quite intensive, the US-people don`t like this album.
Quality SHOULD be the only key, but it isn`t.
Stevie Wonder won the award three times, which might be ok, and Frank Sinatra did so too. Is that ok? Simon also did so.
UK-stars were widely ignored.
I think a nomination has no great effect on sales, but the award himself has. You could see this with Graceland and Still crazy.
In my personal eyes Surprise deserves a nomination more than YTO.
Surprise is one real possibility where pop music could go, as it`s magic looses from year to year. More and more "remakes", always the same sound and song-structures, less interest. |
| | |
Ans
Feb-12-2007, 10:21 GMT
IP:
Netherlands
 | They honoured Michael Brecker with 2 grammy´s, "Some Skunk Funk" soloist as Best Jazz Instrumental Solo and the album "Some Skunk Funk" as Best Large Jazz Ensemble Album. |
| | |
|
Page:
[1]
|