It seems these days that everything is so competitive. Can't people just do things for the pleasure of doing things? Apparently not. In a day and age where music genre's range in the 100's of thousands, how can people feel that they can look at all the Album's produced and say "This is the best one"? Obviously now a days, in an effort for the Grammy's to stay hip, most of the awards are going to Hip Hop artists, such as 50 Cent, Eminem, and OutKast. It's more like the Grammy's are a popularity contest, instead of which is the best. I don't believe 50 Cent even belongs in this, he has contributed nothing of significance to the music form, and his attempt's to start beef with Ja Rule has just made him a public fool, and will get him killed. Not to mention, after his first album, almost all originality was absent. In short, I don't think the Grammy's have any real significance, and before you know it, the best song of the year award is just going to go to the song that was played the most on the radio.

__________________

yeah nobody ever pays attention to the grammys anyways its all just mainstream bullshit

__________________

who gives a fuck bout da grammy's...
i could care less gettin a grammy, plus fuck 50 Cent he just sold alot of albums cuz he makes chicken heads in da club dance and cuz he got EM behind him. But Outkast did have a tight "Original" album- well like ususal.

__________________
Formerly Nexxt

Act nice, or get stabbed twice
while my niggas load the gats-n-nines

They had about 6 good songs out of the 40 that were on that album

__________________

go outkast man, andre did his thang and about a minute lata they got album of the year

__________________

u said 50 cent started beef with ja rule>Sorry but thats not true...

__________________
Soft focus

Whats the point of living?

The voices in my head Feat. Rule

Unlikely Alias

More Comming soon!

Ummmm...So what is best? what MAD MAN belives is best....right? WHAT are you supposed to base the award on then? What 5 backpackers believe is the best? What a rap board believes is the best? A vote...oh no wait, the vote would probably end up being a popularity contest just like record sales. So where would you set YOUR basis for giving out awards? As sad as it is, this is the reason why nelly was winning alot of awards, as is the case with 50 now.

THATS the only way you CAN base an award system. Whoever sells teh most, IN THE PUBLICS eye, is obviosully "the best"

think about it. No i dont agree that 50 should be getting all these awards, but the PUBLIC does. and thats how it works. NOt what the 2% backpacker community feels is the illest lyrisist.

.OnE.

__________________

Hate to tell you this, but majorities don't define anything, you dumb fuck. The "PUBLIC" as you put it, in this regard, consists almost entirely of prepubescents who also listen to Slipknot/Linkin Park/AFI/Britney, so I don't think they're representitive of the epitome of musical taste either, to speak from a biased, human perspective.

So shut the fuck up.

^again trying to sound "super educated" yet falling short.

If record sales and the majority DONT define anything. Then WHY IS IT that 90% of the time, the artists/groups selling the most records....ARE WINNING THE MOST AWARDS?

HMMM?....

i dont think this is something that MAD MAN would be arguing with me on, that wasnt his point. His point was that this FACT is stupid and he does not agree with it. I was pointing out that the grammy board that ultimately votes on the winners, has nothign to go on but record sales and the MAJORITY opinion.

wow, again, follow the MAIN POINT of the post.

youll catch on one day

__________________

Right. Keep telling yourself that.


Why the fuck did you put a period here? In any case, majorities don't define. It's a common fact. For example, significance. Humans feel they attribute priority to concepts/perceived extant external stimuli, and only do so within their minds. The operative in question remains unchanged. Definition, by it's very own classical definition is digital, and cannot therefore rely on perception (variable) as a base. Therefore majorities, do not by merit of preference, define anything.


Because that's the criteria for winning awards, Sherlock?


*sigh* Attempting patronization isn't you. Try following the main point of mine, without going off on a tangent.

^wait IM GOING OFF on a tangent?

LMFAO

ok.

dog, your talking abotu stimuli and all this other bullshit. ALL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS AN AWARD SHOW ANY WHY CERTAIN PEOPLE WIN.

so take the book smarts, shove them up your ass, and let me know how you feel in the morning.

1

__________________

And I'm your partner in this dismal fandango of pointlessness. See how far your stupidity can take you?


OMFG!!111!!!!!!1 LOLOLOLOLOP PWN3D111111!!11 UB4R 1337 HAX0R!!11111


Awww, can't your brain handle a related concept which you, either knowingly or not, led to? Playing the Devil's Advocate is all very well, but try to win next time. And on the contrary, you're talking about, and I quote "what is best".

Here's a familiar post:
Majorities do not define. Therefore "Whoever sells teh most, IN THE PUBLICS eye, is obviosully "the best"" is obviously erroneous, and therefore the award system is called into question. You are STATING why people are winning awards. You are DEBATING the manner upon which this is decided. Get a clue, you retard.


Can you feel the maturity? Dumb motherfucker...

Hit me up on aim : SoulFullBeats

1

__________________

Did I just miss a huge chunk of the conversation?