AMY WINEHORSE IS DA BAST
Phill_Most
4,594 Posts
5 GRAMMYS includingBEST NEW ARTISTBEST POP ALBUM VOCALRECORD OF THE YEAR[/b]do you believe now, hatturs? 
herbie who? 
Phill_Most
4,594 Posts
5 GRAMMYS includingBEST NEW ARTISTBEST POP ALBUM VOCALRECORD OF THE YEAR[/b]do you believe now, hatturs? herbie who?
Comments
funny
serously though
sharon jones should have got something by now
Yeah, because everyone knows that Grammys are awarded on the basis of an artist's press clippings. Jesus...
Me too, though she did a couple of shout outs to her hubby, who is, as they say, in gaol...
I was in Target the other day, and this decent looking artsy asian chick had that Army Winehorse eyeliner slopped across her face > officially old and disconnected.
Well, as I understand it, that may actually be a lot truer than you might think. Look at how many technical awards are dished out at the Grammys, compared to the Brits. It seems to me that the folks responsible for deciding who wins what are given a fairly strict set of criteria by which to make their judgements. If the volume of tabloid gossip-column coverage (and not even in the US press) was the key deciding factor, then how come a jazz album gets to win Album of The Year? At least the Grammys don't give out awards to performers on the basis of them promising to show up on the night (any number of US winners at previous MOBO ceremonies), or because they threaten not to turn up unless they're given at least two awards (Robbie Williams at the Brits).
If you'd rather not consider these points, then plaese to continue bellyaching along with everyone else about how Sharon Jones has been ripped off because someone else made a record with her band which sold 3m copies and won a grip of awards, despite that person obviously having no talent or ability whatsoever.
That withered old hack is a shadow, of a shadow of his former self. He need to shut the f*ck up.
"Who gives a fuck about a goddamn Grammy?"
"he couldn't understand how the younger generation, knowing the dangers of drug use, could still be users."
Too busy braiding fly-fishing lures into his hair to be relevant...
I can't believe you're dissing an icon like Keith Richards in favor of Winehorse, the one-trick pony...
C'mon dude...
Well, alright. Carry on, then....
I don't know about one trick pony. I happen to like her album a lot.
Richards on the other hand has long passed into the role of establishment tool. All that's left of him is a deeply tarnished legacy and a positively Satanic smokers cough.
The Rolling Stones are a blight on the rock landscape, like a bleached skeleton stuffed with dirty money.
^^^ *Dick pants in full effect* ^^^
If the "trick" is co-opting Black music, then they're both guilty.
How exactly are the Stones a blight on the rock landscape? Is it because they've been able to outlive their contemporaries? Granted, I wouldn't go see the Stones as they are now, but no one can deny their overall contribution to the genre. I think your critique would just as easily apply to Joplin, Morrison or Hendrix if they were still around today. The fact that the Stones can still get on a stage and play music after all the damage they've put on themselves is pretty impressive. They also played music in an era that had no shortage of great acts. Not like the barren wasteland of disposable pop bullshit and watered-down soulless imitators that make up the "rock landscape" of today.
Chances are, Winehouse isn't gonna be around for much longer, so enjoy her music while you can. Personally, I don't think she's all that and I would solely attribute her grammy wins as nothing more than a lack of competition. She basically (IMO) won by default.
Yes, but the Stones did a way better job at it...
Nah, when comparing the soulfulness of these two, Amy trumps.
They're a blight because they suck, and have sucked for many, many years.
If they deserve credit for remaining alive, then it should come not from music fans but the medical community.
I agree with you that Morrison and Joplin would probably be playing State Fairs if they were still alive. Hendrix on the other hand...
Look - the Grammys reflect a consensus amidst a very particular set of voters that - often times - seem to fly in the face of populism, even critically-tinged populism. That voting base also tends to skew older which explains not just Hancock this year but surprising wins of late like Steely Dan back in 2001. I'm not suggesting Herbie didn't deserve to win (but I also didn't hear his album...in fact, very few people did: it only sold 40,000 copies). But when it comes to the Grammys - even more so than the Oscars in my opinion - this utter disconnect between "what voters like" vs. "what people like" + "what critics like" couldn't be more stark.
Rob & Fab were da bast too!
Mine is Exile, with a pass given for some songs off Tatoo You and the track 'Undercover of the Night'.
See, the difference here lies in the fact that Winehorse is directly co-opting black music, whereas the Stones incorporated their black music influences into their OWN sound. This really isn't open for debate, is it? Kinda sad that this junkie twat is being championed so vehemently on a forum that prides itself on recognizing the difference between real music and pale imitations.