Is it that much of an honor to be nom'ed for a Grammy?

I think at least all the people I listed were very "original & visionary". I mean have you've seen all of their videos & what not? It's not just about their performance, look at John Legend's video...not something you always see & same with Green Day's & U2's videos. Their known for their originality.

And Kelly Clarkson just keeps having hit after hit & her songs are far from mediocre, so of course she would win, just like Green Day, etc.

Last time I checked, this wasn't the MTV Video Awards or the Viewer's Choice Awards.  And, although Green Day is talented, they are definately not original.  All they did was commercialize punk.  They became highly influential (unfortunately...their copy cats are all awful), but they aren't original.  Original is the Sex Pistols, The Ramones, and The Clash.  Innovative is Black Flag and the Dead Kennedys.  Green Day is...rich.

I understand that many of the people who won were really good singers or good performers, but that doesn't mean their music/songs were good.And I think that is what appeared the most, if the artist is a good singer or a good performer than all that is necessary is to team them up with any mediocre songs and you've got a hit...The grammy shows that image and popularity overcome musical quality, I dont think I saw any winners who were original and visionary. Its very clear how everything is based on marketing-airlplay-sales, I'm not saying that they are always wrong, but overall its just another award to promote the industry and sell more.

Thank you. :thumbsup:

Hang around and help me out here.  I'm getting hit from all sides.
 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[Ghisy]

Clarkson has a good singing voice
[...]
I'm very open minded and if someone can explain to me why Clarkson deserves more accolade than simply having a decent voice, my ears will be receptive.
[...]
Clarkson sounds exactly like everything else on pop radio.
[...]
if Clarkson was more than just a pretty voice she should have been able to stylize her music so that it doesn't sound so ordinary.:

Wow, all I can say is  8O  8O  8O  8O
If Kelly only has a "decent voice", well, 80% of today's female artists sing like sh**!!

Clarkson has a good singing voice
[...]
I'm very open minded and if someone can explain to me why Clarkson deserves more accolade than simply having a decent voice, my ears will be receptive.
[...]
Clarkson sounds exactly like everything else on pop radio.
[...]
if Clarkson was more than just a pretty voice she should have been able to stylize her music so that it doesn't sound so ordinary.:

Wow, all I can say is  8O  8O  8O  8O
If Kelly only has a "decent voice", well, 80% of today's female artists sing like sh**!!

Hey, I said her voice was "pretty" and "good" too! :lol:

My point is that there is more to being a good singer than having a very technically gifted voice.  Technically speaking, Bob Dylan had a shitty voice.  He wouldn't have made it past the first cut on American Idol.  The dancer, the I'm so hip guy, and the pseudo-intellectual guy would have made fun of him, but he's still one of the greatest singers of all time because of his style.

Take her marketing machine away and all Clarkson has is--how's this--a very good :wink: voice.  That alone doesn't make her a good artist.  If someone can make a rational arguement to the contrary, I'd be interested to hear it.

It's kind of like if some guy could throw a baseball 120 mph but he had absolutely no control.  No one could argue that guy didn't have a great arm, but he would never make it to the Major Leagues because he couldn't throw strikes.  And, unlike in the music industry, marketing couldn't help him.  Clarkson got lucky.  She had the 120 mph fastball, and in her profession, if one is marketed effectively, that's all you need.

As soon as Clarkson starts writing beautiful, poetic, deep, and/or politically, socially, or culturally meaningful songs, or she comes up with her own sound instead of standing on the shoulders of others, then I'll be right there to give her some due props.

Until then, she's only as talented as the millions of other people in this world who have great voices.  Eventually, she'll be gone and another girl with a "very good voice" will take her place.   Bubble-gum pop is all part of the circle game.  
:spin:

[clamicas]

My point is that there is more to being a good singer than having a very technically gifted voice.  Technically speaking, Bob Dylan had a shitty voice.  He wouldn't have made it past the first cut on American Idol.  The dancer, the I'm so hip guy, and the pseudo-intellectual guy would have made fun of him, but he's still one of the greatest singers of all time because of his style.
....
:spin:

I agree.In terms of music you have to count the whole pack, the social context, the message, the feeling it brings, the concept, the sound, the style, the voice. It's how the artist combines those for his/her own musical goal. It's so much more than voice, radio accpetance and looks.

I love kelly ,mostly because of her personality which is really captivating and humble. I think she could find herself as an artist and make something great with her voice, become gradually more and more of a songwritter not just a co-writter or performer. But if she just goes along with the pop machine she won't  bring anything meaninful to music as an art and her legacy wont have much meaning.

I love kelly ,mostly because of her personality which is really captivating and humble. I think she could find herself as an artist and make something great with her voice, become gradually more and more of a songwritter not just a co-writter or performer. But if she just goes along with the pop machine she won't  bring anything meaninful to music as an art and her legacy wont have much meaning.

Here's a perfect example for you other Clarkson fans.  Here is a person who likes Kelly, but at the same time is rational enough to understand that she doesn't possess much talent outside of her technically beautiful voice (at least so far she doesn't).

These two thoughts do not contradict each other.  There is a difference between personal opinion and unbiased critique.  I really liked the movie Freddy vs. Jason and it did HUGE numbers at the box office (it was popular), but I would NEVER suggest that it should get nominated for an Oscar.