Quote:
Originally Posted by djchameleon
hmmm what do you consider significant?
Supernatural/Santana
Speakerboxxx/The Love Below/OutKast , I would rather have had them win a grammy for Stankonia though than this one.
O Brother, Where Art Thou? Soundtrack
The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill/Lauryn Hill
Jagged Little Pill/Alanis Morissette
No Jacket Required/Phil Collins
Toto IV/Toto
52nd Street/Billy Joel
Come Dance with Me!/Frank Sinatra
Bridge over Troubled Water/Simon & Garfunkel
you don't think all of those albums deserved it? there are winners also that deserved it but I didn't feel like posting the whole list
|
Not particularly. I mean ones like "O Brother, Where Art Thou" soundtrack are interesting... but seriously, are these significant achievements? I'll give say "A Bridge over Troubled Water" a nod, as well as a few others. However, even among these be good albums or not, they aren't the kind that are recognized for years, and years to come.
Ever notice a hard rock, jazz, blues, or any genre like that winning the 'album of the year'? No Led Zeppelin, Miles Davis, Pink Floyd, etc. There is an obvious bias for vocal/studio based music over instrumental music(which sort of pigeonholes them in lesser categories). IE. Grammies is more for the producers than it is for the musicians themselves.
Besides there's a lot of crap ones that won. Especially later on there's ones that seem like they're picked simply for name value: "Unplugged - Eric Clapton", "Raising Sand - Robert Plant and Alison Krauss", etc.
Besides, why are all the Ray Charles, Robert Plant, Bob Dylan, U2, etc. winning post 1990s well past their primes? Feels like a lot of "Yeah, we didn't get around to you the first time so we're going to undercut everything new and interesting to give you a reward now" going on.