Foo fighters rockin it at the grammys

Tune in on CBS

EDIT: I hope I'm not the only on einterested in the Grammy's :( The Cave by Mumford and Sons is up for a grammy :)

Foo Fighters just won a grammy for best rock performance. Of course I'm a bit disappointed Springsteen wasn't nominated, but he didn't produce any music this year so I suppose I can forgive the 'academy'. :P

I have to say I don't remember the Grammy's having such good live performances, although these beach boys look awful young!

The Grammys are too much of a popularity contest and have seemingly little to do with actual musical skill. If they handed out awards based on actual merit, it would be bands and people who nobody has ever heard of. That and just the sheer fact that they actually hand out an award for rap takes away from the credibility entirely.

http://www.grammy.com/videos/dream-theater

The interviewer's reaction to the words "9 minute song" -> instant lol.

DoOmEr4LiFe said:

The Grammys are too much of a popularity contest and have seemingly little to do with actual musical skill. If they handed out awards based on actual merit, it would be bands and people who nobody has ever heard of. That and just the sheer fact that they actually hand out an award for rap takes away from the credibility entirely.

Fair enough, fair enough, but people are popular for a reason.

Well The Cave didn't win best song :( but it's cool that Holocene by Bon Iver was nominated (I only just discovered the song about less than a week ago). --was that malfunction intentional? during Katy Perry's performance of ET?--

edit: damn katy perry is sexy, holy smokes. that outfit ... suits her.

edit:

DoOmEr4LiFe said:

The Grammys are too much of a popularity contest and have seemingly little to do with actual musical skill. If they handed out awards based on actual merit, it would be bands and people who nobody has ever heard of. That and just the sheer fact that they actually hand out an award for rap takes away from the credibility entirely.

Fair enough, fair enough, but people are popular for a reason.

Well The Cave didn't win best song :( but it's cool that Holocene by Bon Iver was nominated (I only just discovered the song about less than a week ago). --was that malfunction intentional? during Katy Perry's performance of ET?--

edit: damn katy perry is sexy, holy smokes. that outfit ... suits her.

EDIT: think of the music industry like a fan . At the narrowest end of the fan you have all the popular artists, the ones that make the nominations. At the broad end of the fan you may have lots of talent, but none of them are popular--how do you pick and choose amongst those? They may all be quality enough to merit a nomination, but if you have 20,000 artists to choose from, how do you do that if none of them have a wide audience? Everyone watching at home would be "what's up with this music" ...

EDIT: Bon Iver won! His words: "uncomfortable up here" and "it's hard to accept this reward given all the talent up here... and all the talent that is not up here" or something to that effect.

Your fan analogy pretty much sums it up for me. The Grammys are, in essence "The best of the popular and new stuff everyone hears on the radio". Those people have millions of fans and make millions of dollars so its hard to say they have no talent, they have to have some talent to get into that position. That in mind, though, it would drive a person to frustration to look up all the bands and artists who are more talented and musically inclined than said Grammy winners, as there would be several dozens/hundreds/thousands/etc..

Hellbent said:

edit: damn katy perry is sexy, holy smokes. that outfit ... suits her

Note to self: never talk to Hellbent about taste in women.

Snakes said:

Note to self: never talk to Hellbent about taste in women.

you didn't think she looked hot as hell? I never thought too much about her--but her body looked amazing in that outfit. ...And I've seen worse cases of blue hair, but it certainly wasn't her hair that I was commenting on.

Hellbent said:

you didn't think she looked hot as hell? I never thought too much about her--but her body looked amazing in that outfit. ...And I've seen worse cases of blue hair, but it certainly wasn't her hair that I was commenting on.

To be 100% honest, I've never found myself to be attracted to Katy Perry in the slightest. At first, I thought it was because I couldn't get past the utter lack of talent, but then I realized that Rihanna appeared to be cute enough for me. I finally came to realize that it's actually just her entire persona that I can't stand, and in turn, the physical aspect of her became a moot subject.

Both look ugly in this pic.

Eesh... You aren't kidding there.

Is Hellbent our link into popular culture or something? Half the stuff he posts here is practically gossip. Although as I've just seen that second picture of Katy Perry I think I can live with this thread. That first one (and the one of Rihanna as well) really aren't good looks.

Whilst I'm bitching out women in this thread actually: That reviewer in the video BlackFish linked definitely fits the vapid "dumb American" stereotype. All 2 minutes that I watched annoyed me :P Dream Theatre appear to be one of the most understated and boring interviewees going as well.

Maynard James Keenan said:
I think the Grammys are nothing more than some gigantic promotional machine for the music industry. They cater to a low intellect and they feed the masses. They don't honor the arts or the artist for what he created. It's the music business celebrating itself. That's basically what it's all about

Sums up my feelings about this sort of thing.

I honestly do not care for most of today's female pop sensations. Kesha is a dumb slut, and Perry, well, she's just not memorable. She's basically Madonna Jr.

I had real respect for GaGa when she first came out, but with the bloody-semen perfume and shit...

Not that any of the current male pop sensations are any better.

BlackFish said:

http://www.grammy.com/videos/dream-theater

The interviewer's reaction to the words "9 minute song" -> instant lol.

9 minutes is pretty short for Dream Theater :P

Katy looks yummy in the second pic.

In other news, Foo Fighters are talentless morons and Dream Theater are boring.

Nothing worth seeing/hearing here.

DeathevokatioN said:

Dream Theater are boring.

I'd agree with you that now they are, but their early stuff is really great, and at the time was important work in the field of progressive metal. Of course, DT is the youngest of the big 3, with Fates Warning and Queensryche being older prog metallers, but nonetheless they have their place in prog metal history.

But yeah, their current stuff is kinda poor IMO. :)

I think they've just overreached themselves. They need to take 3 or 4 years and just fuck off for a bit.

Vordakk said:

I'd agree with you that now they are, but their early stuff is really great, and at the time was important work in the field of progressive metal. Of course, DT is the youngest of the big 3, with Fates Warning and Queensryche being older prog metallers, but nonetheless they have their place in prog metal history.

But yeah, their current stuff is kinda poor IMO. :)

"Important Work" aside, I never got into Dream Theater at all. First off, I'm not a big fan of switching time signatures every three seconds. It basically says "I can't write interesting riffs so let me jerk your focus around". Second, 10+ minute long songs? Fuck off. And half of the actual song is widdely-woodely-guitar/keyboard soloing bullshit. It's obnoxiously self-indugent and pretentious.

(obligatory "DT are actually pretty good" post)

Yeah, I love 'em. They've been a pretty significant influence for much of my recent work, as well. Best example is this, I guess.

people said
katy perry stuff

I always thought Katy Perry was that "classic" kind of pretty, like she just walked out of a 70s pin-up. Then everyone called her boring so she dyed her hair a million fucking colors and started trying to look different and crayzee, which I really don't think worked for her.

Mr. Freeze said:

"Important Work" aside, I never got into Dream Theater at all. First off, I'm not a big fan of switching time signatures every three seconds. It basically says "I can't write interesting riffs so let me jerk your focus around". Second, 10+ minute long songs? Fuck off. And half of the actual song is widdely-woodely-guitar/keyboard soloing bullshit. It's obnoxiously self-indugent and pretentious.

I find DT to be among the most accessible, "casual-friendly" prog groups out there. Switching time signatures every 3 seconds is going into math rock territory where nothing feels cohesive, which I find to be far from the case with DT.

Foo Fighters are still around? I haven't heard anything from them in years. I never liked anything after their second album anyway.

Anyway, this is why I can never take the Grammys seriously:
http://www.cracked.com/article_15856_the-7-most-unforgivable-grammy-award-snubs-all-time.html

Danarchy said:

Foo Fighters are still around? I haven't heard anything from them in years.

Consider yourself lucky then.

I really wish David Grohl would just stick to drumming. He did such a good job for Tenacious D and Queens of the Stone Age. It made me forget how uninteresting his music had become.

Mr. Freeze said:

"Important Work" aside, I never got into Dream Theater at all. First off, I'm not a big fan of switching time signatures every three seconds. It basically says "I can't write interesting riffs so let me jerk your focus around". Second, 10+ minute long songs? Fuck off. And half of the actual song is widdely-woodely-guitar/keyboard soloing bullshit. It's obnoxiously self-indugent and pretentious.

Have you ever considered that maybe prog just isn't for you? :)

Snakes said:

I really wish David Grohl would just stick to drumming.

Heh

Dave Grohl said:

Nobody wants to hear the drummer sing. Not even Doomworld.

Mr. Freeze said:

... I'm not a big fan of switching time signatures every three seconds...

But Kansas did the same thing in the '70s and everyone loves them!

(like me :P )

Vordakk said:

Have you ever considered that maybe prog just isn't for you? :)

It's not the genre, its the execution. I love bands like Rush, 80's era Yes, Alan Parsons Project, Queensryche, Tool...bands that compose songs that go somewhere and do something. Hell, I've been writing music that could be described as "Prog-Punk" for several years...just keep me interested, and I'll like something. Don't bore me to death with meandering riffs and pointlesly overblown orchestration.