My Take on The Grammy Performances

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

So, another Grammys show has come and gone, something that's supposed to showcase the best music has to offer. What I say may piss you off, but I do not apologize; the truth can hurt.

I'll start with the positives:

Mumford & Sons and The Avett Brothers: I really enjoyed both of these groups songs. What made it stand out is that it was clearly about the music. No dancing, flashy light show, or other idiotic accompaniment. Just two bands playing music, and doing a good job. The songs had emotion and energy. I really enjoyed them.

Norah Jones, Keith Urban, and John Mayer: Nothing spectacular, but this little homage to Dolly Parton sounded good and was well performed, plus it went on as long as it should have.

Rihanna (first performance): Rihanna is one of those artists I enjoy (at least, a few of her songs) that I shouldn't. I just like her voice, and some of her songs can be interesting, as was her intro to the horridness that was to come after Eminem took the stage. But I really enjoyed her, before it went downhill.

Now, the negative:

Tribute to Aretha Franklin: Out of the bunch, Jennifer Hudson was the only one who seemed able to sing competently. Any chance of this little ensamble going into the 'positive' section was ruined when Florence Welch of Florence and the Machine began. She cannot sing.

Lady GaGa: My feelings towards Lady GaGa can be summed up in four words: I don't get it. She seems to have everyone fooled. Without her little "shock" act, she would be nothing. Her music is bland, uninspired, and the lyrics are some of the worst pop-drivel I've heard, rivaled only by Bieber and Katy Perry.

Miranda Lambert: Never heard of her. Seemed to me she was a poor and boring singer.

Muse: Muse used to be a cool band. Kind of a heavy-rock band with interesting (and good) writing with a bit of progressiveness thrown in. Now, they are repetitive crap. It's a shame to see a band sell-out, but who can blame them, really, when true artistic merit is barely ever recognized? It's so much easier to write junk and become popular. I still enjoy their old stuff.

B.o.B, Bruno Mars, Janelle Monáe: This started good, with a beautiful string quartet playing. Then Bruno Mars started singing and ruined it. B.o.B had me laughing with his repeated "nut-nut-nothin' on you baby" during the song. So out of place. Monáe failed to impress, also.

Justin Bieber: At least he can play a guitar.

Jaden Smith: I guess we can look forward to years of this rich, untalented little brat being paraded around be his equally musically inept father.

Usher: Yawn.

Bob Dylan: I have a great respect for Dylan. I've never been a fan of his music, but he's written some of the most insightful lyrics to date. He was never a good singer to begin with, and any ability he once had is now completely gone. He sounded horrible. Near-death, really. His voice would fit more in a death metal band. Add to that he decided to play one of his least interesting songs, and you have one very disappointing performance.

Lady Antebellum: I'll give it to 'em; they can sing. Very good at harmonizing, and their songs are quite pretty. There's just one problem. They blatantly rip off other artists such as The Alan Parsons Project. Evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS1z2inwJ2o

Cee-Lo Green, Gwyneth Paltrow, The Muppets: Take away Cee-Lo and Paltrow, and it would have been entertaining. I'm so sick of his repetitive "**** You" (oh, I'm sorry, "Forget You") song. It sucks.

Katy Perry: Beyond her beauty, I can't see any appeal. Her songs are horrible; the lyrics the worst, most contrived shlock I've heard (next to Bieber's "Baby Baby Baby," which is just funny). She can't sing, either. Seriously, just bounce around for us Katy, and shut up.

Eminem et al: Eminem sucks. He is just a lucky piece of white trash. Here's one thing I don't get about Eminem. He gets up on stage and pretty much just yells at the audience, and everyone goes wild. "He's tearin' it up!" they say. So, why is a band with good musicians headed by a guy who yells is labeled as "just noise"? Always confused me. The rest with Eminem (aside from Rihanna's opening) sucked.

Mick Jagger: I've always hated The Rolling Stones. Most overrated band to ever grace the earth. Jagger can't sing, as was clearly shown in his performance. Plus, the guy really should eat more.

Barbra Streisand: I'm sorry, I just can't stand her.

Arcade Fire: And so we end the show with a perfect example of the newest musical plague: Indie. Music that is psuedo-intellectual, psuedo-artistic, accompanied by psuedo-poetic lyrics. What a perfect display. On stage we have a big group of untalented musicians playing the same three-or-four notes over, and over, and over, all the while dancing and jumping around, just so caught up in their transcendent art! It's, like, so deep, man.

Thank God there is good music out there that continuously goes unrecognized. If The Grammys have become anything for me, it's a perfect list of what not to listen to. It's not about the music anymore. It's about the show. It's about how cool they can make the lights and effects. Is it any surprise that the three best performances were just artists making music?

I hope popular music can recover some day. It was never great, but it was never this bad, either.

[YesNo]

Thank God there is good music out there that continuously goes unrecognized. If The Grammys have become anything for me, it's a perfect list of what not to listen to. It's not about the music anymore. It's about the show. It's about how cool they can make the lights and effects. Is it any surprise that the three best performances were just artists making music?

So who do you recommend?

In general I agree, except Barbara Streisand does sing well, but there must be younger talent around. I did like Norah Jones first album.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Too late for me to make a list of my musical preferences, YesNo. I'll attempt to tomorrow.

[OrphanPip]

Mumford & Sons and The Avett Brothers: I really enjoyed both of these groups songs. What made it stand out is that it was clearly about the music. No dancing, flashy light show, or other idiotic accompaniment. Just two bands playing music, and doing a good job. The songs had emotion and energy. I really enjoyed them.

Meh they were kinda boring, rather humdrum and nothing special.



Norah Jones, Keith Urban, and John Mayer: Nothing spectacular, but this little homage to Dolly Parton sounded good and was well performed, plus it went on as long as it should have.

Pretty much agree.



Rihanna (first performance): Rihanna is one of those artists I enjoy (at least, a few of her songs) that I shouldn't. I just like her voice, and some of her songs can be interesting, as was her intro to the horridness that was to come after Eminem took the stage. But I really enjoyed her, before it went downhill.

Not crazy over Rihanna, Eminem has produced some so-so music. I could take-em or leave-em.

Now, the negative:



Tribute to Aretha Franklin: Out of the bunch, Jennifer Hudson was the only one who seemed able to sing competently. Any chance of this little ensamble going into the 'positive' section was ruined when Florence Welch of Florence and the Machine began. She cannot sing.

Oh I disagree, I love Florence Welch's voice, unique tone in comparison to the cookie-cutter drabness of Hudson or the atrocious overused runs of Xtina.



Lady GaGa: My feelings towards Lady GaGa can be summed up in four words: I don't get it. She seems to have everyone fooled. Without her little "shock" act, she would be nothing. Her music is bland, uninspired, and the lyrics are some of the worst pop-drivel I've heard, rivaled only by Bieber and Katy Perry.

I can agree with this, Gaga does nothing for me.



Miranda Lambert: Never heard of her. Seemed to me she was a poor and boring singer.

She was too country for me, in all the worse ways.



Muse: Muse used to be a cool band. Kind of a heavy-rock band with interesting (and good) writing with a bit of progressiveness thrown in. Now, they are repetitive crap. It's a shame to see a band sell-out, but who can blame them, really, when true artistic merit is barely ever recognized? It's so much easier to write junk and become popular. I still enjoy their old stuff.

That song seems to me to be like 3 years old too, like why are they still performing it.



B.o.B, Bruno Mars, Janelle Monáe: This started good, with a beautiful string quartet playing. Then Bruno Mars started singing and ruined it. B.o.B had me laughing with his repeated "nut-nut-nothin' on you baby" during the song. So out of place. Monáe failed to impress, also.

Bruno Mars has a weak voice, but his songs are inoffensive, and he's cute enough to make me forgive him.



Justin Bieber: At least he can play a guitar.

And interesting hair.



Jaden Smith: I guess we can look forward to years of this rich, untalented little brat being paraded around be his equally musically inept father.

At least it wasn't Willow Smith. I'm not into ****ting all over a 12 year old though, he was actually quite charming in the Karate Kid remake.



Usher: Yawn.

That's typical Usher, I don't really get his career.



Bob Dylan: I have a great respect for Dylan. I've never been a fan of his music, but he's written some of the most insightful lyrics to date. He was never a good singer to begin with, and any ability he once had is now completely gone. He sounded horrible. Near-death, really. His voice would fit more in a death metal band. Add to that he decided to play one of his least interesting songs, and you have one very disappointing performance.

Well Dylan hasn't been good for years.



Lady Antebellum: I'll give it to 'em; they can sing. Very good at harmonizing, and their songs are quite pretty. There's just one problem. They blatantly rip off other artists such as The Alan Parsons Project. Evidence

Now there is the embodiment of banal pop tunes, recycling country balads everyone has heard before. The only thing worst is Taylor Swift singing about her horrible love life at 17.



Cee-Lo Green, Gwyneth Paltrow, The Muppets: Take away Cee-Lo and Paltrow, and it would have been entertaining. I'm so sick of his repetitive "**** You" (oh, I'm sorry, "Forget You") song. It sucks.

It's a tolerable pop song, it's just meant to be catchy not ground breaking.



Katy Perry: Beyond her beauty, I can't see any appeal. Her songs are horrible; the lyrics the worst, most contrived shlock I've heard (next to Bieber's "Baby Baby Baby," which is just funny). She can't sing, either. Seriously, just bounce around for us Katy, and shut up.

Katy Perry relies on production, she is perhaps one of the worse live performers in ages. Her music is meh.



Mick Jagger: I've always hated The Rolling Stones. Most overrated band to ever grace the earth. Jagger can't sing, as was clearly shown in his performance. Plus, the guy really should eat more.

Jagger has great stage presence and the ability to excite a crowd that is remarkable for a man of his age.



Barbra Streisand: I'm sorry, I just can't stand her.

Not even "The Way We Were?" For shame, a heart of stone.



Arcade Fire: And so we end the show with a perfect example of the newest musical plague: Indie. Music that is psuedo-intellectual, psuedo-artistic, accompanied by psuedo-poetic lyrics. What a perfect display. On stage we have a big group of untalented musicians playing the same three-or-four notes over, and over, and over, all the while dancing and jumping around, just so caught up in their transcendent art! It's, like, so deep, man.

Well, Aracade Fire is a Montreal band and I have a desire to defend them. Except these are the sort of people I know quite well from my college days, the artsy types that infest the studio apartments of The Mile End neighbourhood like cockroaches in skinny jeans. Nonetheless, Aracade Fire has been around for a while and they are pretty much the originators of that large indie band sound. And your assessment of the music is a bit reductionist, they're drawing on traditions of minimalism. There were other Montreal bands that emerged from the same scene at the same time, like Metric (now reduced to doing Twilight film soundtracks), the Dears (broken up), and Stars (still around) that I far prefer.

Also they don't really jump around, the band kinda just stands around, they aren't that interesting on stage. They've been around for 10 years too, so they aren't exactly new.

[iamnobody]

I have to disagree with "pop music has never been this bad".
Pop music has always been this bad. It's what happens when you want the most amount of people to buy your music. It HAS to be bland, so as not to offend. It HAS to be light and fun, so you can dance to it.(even if the lyrics are nonsense) It HAS to have shock value, so everyone is talking about it. That's why it's called Popular Music.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

And your assessment of the music is a bit reductionist, they're drawing on traditions of minimalism.

Maybe so, but every song I hear from them sounds the same, as it follows the same formula. It starts out mellow, and then slowly builds and then finally peaks in the end, all the while replaying the same theme. If that's minimalist, fine, but I just can't buy into it.

[That Book Nerd]

Ha. I actually like Arcade Fire. Although, Suburbs was kind of a disappointing album. I loved Funeral, though.

And, I actually think Bob Dylan's performance was less about Bob Dylan, and more about giving Mumford & Sons and The Avett Brothers (two up and coming bands in the folk-rock scene, which Bob Dylan popularized) some exposure. They were the highlight of that performance, really. You could barely hear Dylan, and you might say that it's because of his age/health, but I know there are microphones and sound technology out there that could have amplified/clarified his voice.

[Emil Miller]

It all depends whether you spell bollocks with an X or as stated.

[qimissung]

W-h-a-a-t? You all don't like Katie Perry? Actually, I'll admit to liking "Waking Up in Vegas," which is a pretty bubbly little pop tune, but I was a little shocked that her next album did so well, as the songs from it that' I've heard on the radio seem so schlocky. But what do I know? I just admitted to liking her music.:lol:

[YesNo]

W-h-a-a-t?
That's what my 8 year old niece said when I told her my opinion of Justin Bieber. :)

I didn't actually see the show, but I hear that Need You Now won Song of the Year which I thought was a good choice, but what do I know.

[Delta40]

I only know that Katie Perry uses Proactiv....

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

She's a ****.

[OrphanPip]

The only interesting thing about Katy Perry is that her humongous jugs were accused of corrupting children, so they pulled this video from the Sesame Street broadcast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHROHJlU_Ng

[Basil]

Humongous Jugs would make a good band name.

[OrphanPip]

Humongous Jugs would make a good band name.

It's probably taken, along with Gigantic Jigglies and the Massive Mammaries (featuring the Nips).

[Basil]

I guess even better would be "Her Humongous Jugs" as a backing band, as in: "Katy Perry and Her Humongous Jugs will be performing tonight at the Twin City Civic Center...."