Mainstream Society Finally Realizing Grammys Don't Really Mean Anything

[Greg McCoy]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/elaminabdelmahmoud/billie-eilish-megan-thee-stallion-grammys-beyonce-review

I'm baffled at how every single article from a "progressive"/liberal/holier than thou news source completely forgot to include Body Count winning on their "Historic Grammy Firsts For Black Representation". Body Count were the only black nominees with a song about racial issues not invited to the awards and given a performance slot. In spite of the fact that they have been doing it longer than the ones who did show up.

Don't care for the Grammys at all. But Body Count rules and should be getting more recognition for what they have been doing for a long time. The fact that most of the discussion in the media this year centers around black representation and I haven't seen Body Count mentioned in a single article from a major news source (or any kind of reputable news source at all) is a joke.

Fuck The Weakend. Gimme ICE-T.

"Don't nobody give a fuck about Heavy Metal, all we listen to on these streets is Drake Drake Drake."

[Iron1]

reputable news source...

You misspelled "unicorn". And, it's one word, not 3.

[Greg McCoy]

You misspelled "unicorn". And, it's one word, not 3.

NPR, Time, Mother Jones, and Propublica are all great. WIRED is also awesome, but mostly limited to tech related things. In todays world though that translates to them covering a lot of big news though.

After that I would say off the top of my head (in terms of written articles, from best to worst, mainly sticking to American publications); NYT---------->The Atlantic/The New Yorker--------------->CNN/Vox------------->Slate/Daily Beast(supposedly both of these are pretty good, but I never get the feeling reading them it's top tier shit, they have won awards though, you have to go on a per-article basis)-------------->Washington Post/Vice/Buzzfeed/former Gawker network----------->USA Today/Newsweek/Huffington Post----------->WSJ

Including Wall Street Journal on the list is generous. They were once a reputable finance focused paper, but 70% of the stuff they run online is raging shit or focused on Computer Games. They are often down there with Fox and Brietbart and New York Post for "not even resembling news".

*The Hill and Politico not included, tough to rank. They publish a lot of accurate news, but also some complete shit, especially if it's Op-eds.

[Iron1]

"Unbiased Journalism" (which is like saying "redundant doubling") is a myth, my friend. They've just managed to get people to fall in line with whichever agenda suits our own personal POV. Reporting "news" is big business with a giant pile of ad revenue resting on it. Anyone who thinks these places report "truth" out of the goodness of their hearts has themselves fooled. It's like thinking there's such a thing as an honest politician.

[Mike]

"Unbiased Journalism" (which is like saying "redundant doubling") is a myth, my friend. They've just managed to get people to fall in line with whichever agenda suits our own personal POV. Reporting "news" is big business with a giant pile of ad revenue resting on it. Anyone who thinks these places report "truth" out of the goodness of their hearts has themselves fooled. It's like thinking there's such a thing as an honest politician.

Saying they're all the same is not correct, though. There will be an implicit bias in *what* they cover, for example, but for sources like NPR and ProPublica the actual journalism is there, as it is with Wired (and BBC for those of us that read it). CNN? Not so much, although they're relatively - in contrast to something like Fox News or OANN - based in reality and don't make stuff up, they still play the "this is all opinion and we cover it like news" game. Al Jazeera actually wasn't bad and gave a different perspective on a lot of things when reporting news, but some of their "opinion" stuff was Newsmax-level buffoonery.

[thrashinbatman]

almost universally the opinion sections of news companies are biased garbage. not worth the paper or server space they're printed on.

[Greg McCoy]

Saying they're all the same is not correct, though. There will be an implicit bias in *what* they cover, for example, but for sources like NPR and ProPublica the actual journalism is there, as it is with Wired (and BBC for those of us that read it). CNN? Not so much, although they're relatively - in contrast to something like Fox News or OANN - based in reality and don't make stuff up, they still play the "this is all opinion and we cover it like news" game. Al Jazeera actually wasn't bad and gave a different perspective on a lot of things when reporting news, but some of their "opinion" stuff was Newsmax-level buffoonery.

Unfortunately even a lot of the sources I like/support or trust for important news did buffoonish pieces on how the Grammys treat black people with glaring holes and terrible journalism. I still think NPR is top shelf, but they also went for a progressive opinion piece without looking at anything factual. Fell into the old "ultra woke self righteous white savior syndrome" thing. Where they are ostensibly writing about the treatment of black people, but it's clear they did zero research and the entire thing is an excuse for obnoxious soapboxing. Apparently they all have like, a memory span of a fucking goldfish. There are many racial injustice issues going on in the US "Black People not being recognized at the Grammys" isn't actually one of them. Taking the Grammys seriously enough to do a huge "progressive" think piece on them is bad enough but making mistakes like;

-Covering the important ways the 2021 Grammys treats black people and the current climate of discussions relating to police brutality, and then not mentioning Body Count in spite of the fact that they were also a "historic first". "White people pretending to champion black people and then completely ignoring their existence if it doesn't give them an opportunity to soapbox" is always groan worthy.

-Saying black people are only competitive in the rap and hip hop/r & b catergories. Forgetting that there are plenty of Jazz categories, as well as plenty of technical categories.

-Not actually looking up who has the most Grammys. Technically it's not Quincy Jones, but in the categories people actually care about, yeah it's definitely Quincy Jones.

-Not mentioning (or not knowing), that the awards don't only go to the singular person who accepts them on a stage, and not considering their might have been black people on the team.

-Referring to black people who aren't actually from the US as "African American".

-Using the phrase "black music" to refer exclusively to hip hop/r n b/rap. There are loads of black people playing music that is not that. Not to mention forgetting the entire genre of funk.

[Snoop Travvy Travv]

The Grammys really only matter if you're in the industry and adding "Grammy winner/Grammy nominated engineer, musicians, producer etc" because it will attract new clients and more work.

[jacksonplayer]

The Grammys really only matter if you're in the industry and adding "Grammy winner/Grammy nominated engineer, musicians, producer etc" because it will attract new clients and more work.

Yep. The televised Grammys like "record of the year", "album of the year" etc. are just fluff. The ones that actually matter in the business are the ones that go to technical folks.

[Snoop Travvy Travv]

Yep. The televised Grammys like "record of the year", "album of the year" etc. are just fluff. The ones that actually matter in the business are the ones that go to technical folks.

I think song of the year is still televised and those go to the songwriters not the artist. Also even if you were an assistant engineer on the album that wins album of the year you would still get some kind of plaque from the association recognizing your service on the win, and that is still a good thing for someones career.

[jacksonplayer]

I think song of the year is still televised and those go to the songwriters not the artist. Also even if you were an assistant engineer on the album that wins album of the year you would still get some kind of plaque from the association recognizing your service on the win, and that is still a good thing for someones career.

That's true, especially for songwriters and producers.

Do any of these modern pop records actually have production staffs anymore? They all sound like one guy with a laptop, with the label bringing in aspiring pop stars to sing/rap over them. People who write their own material like Billie Eilish and Lana Del Ray are exceptions, of course.

I'm a professional curmudgeon, though. I hated the Grammys even back when there were award winners whose names I actually recognized. The music industry is like working for the carnival, except that carnies actually get paid.

[Snoop Travvy Travv]

That's true, especially for songwriters and producers.

Do any of these modern pop records actually have production staffs anymore? They all sound like one guy with a laptop, with the label bringing in aspiring pop stars to sing/rap over them. People who write their own material like Billie Eilish and Lana Del Ray are exceptions, of course.

I'm a professional curmudgeon, though. I hated the Grammys even back when there were award winners whose names I actually recognized. The music industry is like working for the carnival, except that carnies actually get paid.

Yes if a label is contracting a producer then there are still teams that operate the old fashion way. Responsible for renting out a studio, songwriters, engineers, muscians, and responsible for keeping track of every expense down to the penny. If they're funding the production themselves then they'll become executive producer as well and probably even has a say which songs will go on the album and which ones are singles.

[jacksonplayer]

Yes, but it's all so artificial now. What's there to actually "record", other than the vocals?

[Snoop Travvy Travv]

Yes, but it's all so artificial now. What's there to actually "record", other than the vocals?

It really depends on the artist. With Pink some songs might be completely in the box except for the vocals, some songs are completely real instruments. Mostly from what I listen to and create is almost all softsynths and drum samples except for vocals and guitar, sometimes bass guitar. Or Ill use a midi pick up on my guitar which can be a lot of fun. Rachel Platten is pop but it's pretty obvious it's all real instruments. Drums are tricky too. Sometimes they just dont sound like real drums, but turns out they are. They're just heavily edited or someone is augmenting samples for a better sound.

[wombcannon]

The only think I have to add to this is to say that Im sorry, Body Count sucks. They have always sucked. This has nothing to do with their skin color or the subject matter of their songs, but the sheer fact that their music blows.

[Snoop Travvy Travv]

The only think I have to add to this is to say that Im sorry, Body Count sucks. They have always sucked. This has nothing to do with their skin color or the subject matter of their songs, but the sheer fact that their music blows.

I completely forgot about Ice T's metal band. Kind of surprised he started it in 1990.

[jacksonplayer]

It really depends on the artist. With Pink some songs might be completely in the box except for the vocals, some songs are completely real instruments. Mostly from what I listen to and create is almost all softsynths and drum samples except for vocals and guitar, sometimes bass guitar. Or Ill use a midi pick up on my guitar which can be a lot of fun. Rachel Platten is pop but it's pretty obvious it's all real instruments. Drums are tricky too. Sometimes they just dont sound like real drums, but turns out they are. They're just heavily edited or someone is augmenting samples for a better sound.

Fair enough. All I know is the snippets I hear from folks like Beyonce or the other hip-hop stuff that dominates the pop charts these days. It all sounds like it's done on a laptop, to me. I know there's plenty of "real world" music being made if you're willing to look in artsier quarters or at country (though even a lot of hip-hop influence there, too, lately).

That's not casting aspersions, either. Hell, I haven't recorded anything with a real microphone since I briefly used an isolation cabinet 15 years ago or so. Ultimately, the tools matter less than the result. I hate music that's overly quantized, but that's the sound of EDM and hip-hop for better or worse.

[Snoop Travvy Travv]

Fair enough. All I know is the snippets I hear from folks like Beyonce or the other hip-hop stuff that dominates the pop charts these days. It all sounds like it's done on a laptop, to me. I know there's plenty of "real world" music being made if you're willing to look in artsier quarters or at country (though even a lot of hip-hop influence there, too, lately).

That's not casting aspersions, either. Hell, I haven't recorded anything with a real microphone since I briefly used an isolation cabinet 15 years ago or so. Ultimately, the tools matter less than the result. I hate music that's overly quantized, but that's the sound of EDM and hip-hop for better or worse.

Ya there's a lot of that. I'm guilty of working like that too but I have to because I don't have free access to a studio to record drums in all of the time. Some EDM producers like Calvin Harris will use sampled drums but he doesn't lock it to the grid. He just plays and it's slightly out of time. Trying to remix his work is a nightmare sometimes because of it. There's also the question of which synths are soft synths and which ones are real and someone is actually playing them and not drawing notes in midi.

I do wonder how those sessions work with labels. 2 guys with laptops in a big studio producing with a singer. Do they get similar budgets that are comparable to the classic production set up because technically they are also the musicians. I can imagine if they're actually doing the paperwork too that it's just their fees, studio time, singer's fees, engineers fee, and food.

[jacksonplayer]

I do wonder how those sessions work with labels. 2 guys with laptops in a big studio producing with a singer. Do they get similar budgets that are comparable to the classic production set up because technically they are also the musicians. I can imagine if they're actually doing the paperwork too that it's just their fees, studio time, singer's fees, engineers fee, and food.

Probably more like a producer's deal. A fee and points. The artist's deal might be different than the old days, since it might include provisions on video revenue streams and merchandise percentages. The advance might not be as important if the backing tracks are already sitting there waiting for a singer to show up.

I assume that at times a hip-hop producer will have the song and track all finished and just waits to find (or be sent) the right TikTok-friendly face to record the vocals. There's long been an "assembly line" variety of pop records (think Motown), so this isn't anything new.

[Snoop Travvy Travv]

Probably more like a producer's deal. A fee and points. The artist's deal might be different than the old days, since it might include provisions on video revenue streams and merchandise percentages. The advance might not be as important if the backing tracks are already sitting there waiting for a singer to show up.

I assume that at times a hip-hop producer will have the song and track all finished and just waits to find (or be sent) the right TikTok-friendly face to record the vocals. There's long been an "assembly line" variety of pop records (think Motown), so this isn't anything new.

Luckily the if the producer gets an advance the artist has to pay it back. Or at least make sure that's what it says in the contract.