SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - The 7 Most Unforgivable Grammy Award Snubs of All Time

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

http://www.cracked.com/article_15856_7-most-unforgivable-grammy-award-snubs-all-time.html

So what Cracked is try to say is the Grammy Awards don't mean shit. Well i knew that from the start but now they provide evidence. Were the winners listed here justified or is Cracked right that this shit is unforgivable. And if you can name grammy award moments that should have been added to the list feel free to share.

Also, the impression i get is the grammy's don't care who's the most popular or if they changed the face of music, whoever is the most squeaky clean gets the cake. Although with that logic, what the hell happened for #3 then Confused

.

My favorite has to be #5 because of the WTF value and awesome "hah hah" the loser gives the winner 2 decades later.

After reading this list, the Grammys kind of remind me of the Academy Awards:

It seems like the very obscure shit wins and people will only rent it because it won an Academy Awards. Much like how people today will listen to the winners most likely because they won a Grammy.

Posted: May 31 2008 03:48 pm

I can't belive they didn't add at the end of #1 that three years later, Ulrich referred to the award when accepting a Grammy for "Enter Sandman" stating "We gotta thank Jethro Tull for not putting out an album this year."

Posted: May 31 2008 06:54 pm

I liked Jethro Tull ever since I found a tape of Bungle In The Jungle in my father's car, but they really don't belong in one category together with Metallica. I still don't know what to think of their "The Flute Is A Heavy Metal Instrument" ad after they won.

Also as much as I love Public Enemy, I can't say anything bad about Will Smith. I couldn't after Wild Wild West, so I probably never will. The guy is just too likeable.

Title: Alexz Aficionado Joined: May 21 2008 Posts: 2889

I've been thinking the grammys were a crock for a long time now. I'm glad someone finally did some research to prove that's the case. They don't have a grasp on music at all.

Metallica? I mean seriously...

All the examples were right on, and I'm going to differ from Tyop about Will Smith. Public Enemy should have won.

Posted: Jun 03 2008 02:15 pm

I agree that the Metallica / Jethro Tull Fiasco is the biggest blunder ever, though the list is chocked full of them. I can't believe that Elvis Costello lost to, Touch of Honey or whatever the hell that was. I guess the curse of best new artist won out though.

Posted: Jun 03 2008 03:32 pm

Ghandi wrote:

I've been thinking the grammys were a crock for a long time now. I'm glad someone finally did some research to prove that's the case. They don't have a grasp on music at all.

Metallica? I mean seriously...

All the examples were right on, and I'm going to differ from Tyop about Will Smith. Public Enemy should have won.

Maybe Public Enemy should have got it. But I wouldn't put it on a list of biggest snubs ever. Summertime was pretty popular. As a matter of fact, of the three singles that were released on their album, Can't Truss It did the best overall on the charts making to #1 on the US Rap charts, #11 on the US R&B/Hip Hop charts and #50 on the US Hot 100. Summertime matched it hitting the #1 spot on the US Rap charts. But out did it making it to #1 on the US R&B/Hip Hop and peaked as high as #4 on the Hot 100.

And after reading the article, while I agree with most of the snubs, He is obviously writing it using personal bias.

"That is the only criteria that would conceivably qualify "Summertime," an overly sentimental song about longing for the days when it was still warm out (about six months earlier at the time), as deserving of anything other than an immediate visit to the fast forward button."

Which is fine. Personal bias is okay in an opinion column. That's what makes it an opinion column. I'll also agree with some of his sentiments. Public Enemy's lyrics are more hard-hitting and attention grabbing. But at the same time Summertime is supposed to make you feel good. When I listen to it, it does make me think of the summertime. But in his bias, I think he is ignoring the popularity of the song, which IMO makes it less of a snub.

On top of that, Fresh Prince really is a rap artist. So where I can see his complaints about Claptan getting the win with the unplugged version of Layla, or Jethro Tull winning best metal performance, this actually deserved the nomination.

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

About the Clapton one, don't get me wrong I do enjoy his work but the unplugged verson of Layla should not have gotten the nomination, if anything from Clapton's Unplugged album should have been nominated it should have been "Tears in Heaven". At least the song is original and memberable. All i can remember from Layla is the original take, the unplugged one just fades from memory.

Number #2 is by far the most retarded (other then #1)

I mean, how the hell did THIS win an award for best Rock & Roll Recording:

Did you fall asleep because Rock and Roll is not about falling asleep. I don't care what time or era it was, IMO this song set R&R back a whole freaking decade. I think the only reason it got the award is that the judges felt sorry for the poor saps and throw them a bone.

Posted: Jun 04 2008 07:02 am

The Grammies are crap. They always have been and they always will be. Other awards shows have redeeming qualities and tend to get things right at least 50% of the time, but the Grammys get things right about 1% of the time. The American Music Awards are a lot better.

You don't even need to look at snubs to see the Grammy Awards suck... look at the people they've actually given awards to. The Grammy Awards are pretentious as fuck and they love to give awards to has-beens. Steely Dan won Album of the Year at the 2001 Grammy Awards for their 2000 album Two Against Nature. Steely Dan sucked in the 70s, and I'm pretty sure no one except the Grammy commitee had any idea those boring assholes had put out an album in 2000. Or what about Sheryl Crow winning for her dreadful cover of "Sweet Child of Mine?"

And yeah, Layla unplugged sucks. Clapton sounds bored singing it and it certainly bores the fuck out of me every time I hear it.

Posted: Jun 04 2008 12:50 pm

The grammy's got it right one time that I can remember, giving Tool the "Best Hard Rock Performance" award. I don't know the other nominees but pickign Tool at least makes it not a total fuck up.

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

Syd Lexia wrote:

The Grammies are crap. They always have been and they always will be. Other awards shows have redeeming qualities and tend to get things right at least 50% of the time, but the Grammys get things right about 1% of the time. The American Music Awards are a lot better.

You don't even need to look at snubs to see the Grammy Awards suck... look at the people they've actually given awards to. The Grammy Awards are pretentious as fuck and they love to give awards to has-beens. Steely Dan won Album of the Year at the 2001 Grammy Awards for their 2000 album Two Against Nature. Steely Dan sucked in the 70s, and I'm pretty sure no one except the Grammy commitee had any idea those boring assholes had put out an album in 2000. Or what about Sheryl Crow winning for her dreadful cover of "Sweet Child of Mine?"

And yeah, Layla unplugged sucks. Clapton sounds bored singing it and it certainly bores the fuck out of me every time I hear it.

Hold on, an album released in 2000 was given the award for best album of 2001? Shocked

And . . . .

Good god, at first i though "okay this not . . . total terrible . . . .oh . . . WTF"

She falls at the points were the song is suppose to be sharp. Hold on, GnR better have won an award for there version . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Child_o%27_Mine

According to wiki, it has been giving a spot on many top lists but no award. WTF.

The whole Crow version is off, i haven't been this confused since i saw this:

Posted: Jun 04 2008 08:07 pm

ReeperTheSeeker wrote:

Hold on, an album released in 2000 was given the award for best album of 2001?

No. But the awards show held in 2001 is done was done for 2000 releases. It's that way every year. The award show is held early in the next year so that all releases from the previous year can be considered.

Joined: Aug 22 2005 Posts: 328

I actually kinda dig the 'Don't Fear the Reaper' by those hot chicks.

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

Tuckster wrote:

I actually kinda dig the 'Don't Fear the Reaper' by those hot chicks.

I've heard many versions of reaper, this was is not bad but it's low on my list. If i had to pick a cover of Reaper, i'd go with HIM's. I read somewhere that Evanescence did a Reaper cover, now that i would like to hear.

Posted: Jun 05 2008 01:28 pm

Award shows as a whole are lame and contrived. I don't understand the concept of giving out awards for material that is subjective to begin with. I can almost buy some of the awards that are won by popular vote, but that just means the group/actor/etc won a popularity contest. Most winners are picked by middle-aged elitist clowns who are out of touch with everything outside their stupid circle of "industry leaders" as is proof by the cracked article. Grammies are the worst offender, but they all pretty much suck.