Grex Music3 Conference

Item 171: Grammy Awards, 2004 presentation

Entered by krj on Mon Feb 9 19:13:34 2004:

I don't have much to add, as I didn't watch the thing.  However, as a folk 
music fan, let me extend my congratulations to the winner of the Best
Contemporary Folk Album category, the late Warren Zevon.

(*coff*)
 
Since, being recently dead, Zevon was going to win any category he was 
nominated in, perhaps NARAS should have nominated him in the Best Polka 
category as well.
86 responses total.

#1 of 86 by ryan on Mon Feb 9 19:28:24 2004:

This response has been erased.



#2 of 86 by bru on Mon Feb 9 19:37:39 2004:

Is that what is killing the music industry?  Yep, a two fold attack they can't
seem to get past.



#3 of 86 by bru on Mon Feb 9 19:41:36 2004:

Hip hop culture that glorifies illegal acts and encourages a no-holds-barred
freedom to do what you want, including the downloading of music rather than
the
purchase of overpriced CD's;  and a failure to publish music acceptable to
the public
looking for good music, not rap.


#4 of 86 by jp2 on Mon Feb 9 19:43:36 2004:

This response has been erased.



#5 of 86 by gelinas on Mon Feb 9 19:45:07 2004:

(IIRC, Ken does not favour the removal of items.  So this item is safe, jp2.)


#6 of 86 by jp2 on Mon Feb 9 19:46:32 2004:

This response has been erased.



#7 of 86 by jp2 on Mon Feb 9 19:48:17 2004:

This response has been erased.



#8 of 86 by other on Mon Feb 9 20:24:11 2004:

Hey bruce, NEWSFLASH:  More people consider Rap "good music" than 
anything you'd refer to by that label.  

(I'm not one of them, but at least I recognize that my tastes do not 
equate to universal truth.)


#9 of 86 by tod on Mon Feb 9 22:55:19 2004:

This response has been erased.



#10 of 86 by anderyn on Mon Feb 9 23:10:31 2004:

I have a feeling that you might be wrong, other. (Bruce has a very diversified
musical taste, incorporating classical, rock, pop, barbershop, folk, world,
and other things I'm not thinking of right now.) If you were speaking to me,
you would more likely be right, since I am not very catholic in my taste
(folk, world, 80s rock, some big band...).


#11 of 86 by tod on Mon Feb 9 23:15:23 2004:

This response has been erased.



#12 of 86 by boltwitz on Mon Feb 9 23:18:32 2004:

I listen to Rock And Roll!!!, Classical, ElectroTEchno, PsytechnoElectro,
Raps, PsyRap, Psyrock, Psychedellic Rock, Rock and Psychedellic,
World/Ethno, Pop. Rock, Pop. psy. rock, IDM, and PsIDM.


#13 of 86 by cow on Tue Feb 10 01:27:57 2004:

I listen to all types of music, though i try to avoid country.


#14 of 86 by ryan on Tue Feb 10 03:35:04 2004:

This response has been erased.



#15 of 86 by boltwitz on Tue Feb 10 03:52:28 2004:

Is it because you hate niggers ?


#16 of 86 by happyboy on Tue Feb 10 09:00:31 2004:

doh!


#17 of 86 by happyboy on Tue Feb 10 09:10:01 2004:

when i read 0, i hear the voice of peckar's geek friend
in american splendor.   actually most of the posts on grex
make me think of that guy's voice.

would you like a gourmet jellybean, ken?


#18 of 86 by md on Tue Feb 10 11:56:25 2004:

Do they make them in Organic Merlot?


#19 of 86 by happyboy on Tue Feb 10 21:37:20 2004:

i don't think so. the pina colada is good.


#20 of 86 by md on Tue Feb 10 23:17:06 2004:

Btw, the Funk Celebration made the whole show worth it, from EWF to the 
nouveau guys.  I even enjoyed S.L. Jackson's histrionics.  And seeing 
the venerable George Clinton honored so lavishly made my whole week.


#21 of 86 by happyboy on Tue Feb 10 23:20:34 2004:

george is my favorite hairdresser


#22 of 86 by tod on Tue Feb 10 23:23:40 2004:

This response has been erased.



#23 of 86 by thorn on Tue Feb 10 23:35:51 2004:

dont do zevon dont do folk


#24 of 86 by happyboy on Wed Feb 11 02:56:55 2004:

yawn.


#25 of 86 by gull on Wed Feb 11 18:47:02 2004:

I've never been a rap fan.  I like music that has a melody.  I also
don't particularly like the culture around rap, where you seem to need
"street cred" (i.e., a criminal record) to be considered legitimate.


#26 of 86 by mcnally on Wed Feb 11 19:42:16 2004:

  perhaps you should amend that to read "the culture around one popular
  type of rap.."


#27 of 86 by scott on Wed Feb 11 22:06:09 2004:

I've got a bunch of Public Enemy CDs.  Much different than the "gansta rap"
which is more popular.


#28 of 86 by jaklumen on Thu Feb 12 03:15:44 2004:

resp:25 Whoa, if you would extrapolate that all rap has no melody, that 
I would say that's false.

If you go back to the original members of the rap group that was 213 
and the G-funk genre of rap, I think you would find melodic elements 
that are still around somewhat.  213 was Nate Dogg, Warren G, and Snoop 
Dogg.  Nate Dogg sang while the other two have been noted for a very 
melodic rap style.  Granted, Warren G never had much of a career and 
was more of a producer, but there is no denying that Snoop Dogg has a 
very successful career.

If you define melody in your music as singing-- okay, rap does little 
to no singing at all.  But Warren G and Snoop Dogg are two solid 
examples of rap artists who have a very tonal style.


#29 of 86 by tsty on Thu Feb 12 07:47:10 2004:

the rap i ahvelistened to is pre-civilization ranting. another embolism
on civility.
  
but back to the whatevers awards....
 
ustin timberlake ought NOT to hve been allowed to participate.
 
he , imnsho, previousoly committed an assualt (pre-staged) on the woman
who was hte victim (pre-staged).
  
and that asault is about to become standard practice in several 
high scools acros this great land. 
 
VeryuchMoreisthePity.
  
respect for a singular human;s integrety is a bulwark of america.
  
the barbarians may disagree .....   but to any avail IFF qualty
americans are able to run away and cower.
 
 


#30 of 86 by happyboy on Thu Feb 12 07:52:03 2004:

hVE YOU BEEN DRINKING AGAIN?


#31 of 86 by md on Thu Feb 12 12:25:16 2004:

I can't remember an opinion blip I was as eager to distance myself from 
as I am from the anti-Janet opinion blip.  Doesn't Congress et al 
realize how ridiculous they look? 


#32 of 86 by bru on Thu Feb 12 14:44:06 2004:

It isn't just Janet JAckson adn Justin Timberlake, it is the culture they
brought to the forefront by their actions.  It is MAdonna, Britany Spears,
and others who want to "Shock and Awe the american public.  They create visual
and audio trainwrecks that call to our more base mentality.  We stop and look.
They rake in the cash from higher ratings.


#33 of 86 by jp2 on Thu Feb 12 14:46:10 2004:

This response has been erased.



#34 of 86 by scott on Thu Feb 12 15:31:39 2004:

For once I agree with Jamie... if you want free markets, you have to accept
that perhaps the best seller will be smut.


#35 of 86 by gull on Thu Feb 12 15:49:04 2004:

In fact, that's usually the horse to bet on.


#36 of 86 by bru on Thu Feb 12 15:54:02 2004:

it isn't the best seller that is a threat.  In fact, if people want to produce
porn and put it on a pay for view channel, I have no problem with that. 
(WEll, okay, I really do have a problem with that, but I can compromise.)

But, I do not want to see nudity on prime time tv.  I do not want it on cable
only TV.  If people want to see this, it should be on direct subscription
only.

And lets raise the bar here.  Lets stop the sex scenes on soap operas.  Lets
stop the sexual inuendo in our videos.

I read porn from time to time, and I don't have a problem with that.  I do
have a problem with it in what is supposed to be a family show.  If I want
porn, I can go buy Playboy.  If I really want something more graphic, I can
go buy Hustler.  If I want to watch the sex acts, I cn rent a video.

I do not need it on broadcast TV>


#37 of 86 by gsibbery on Thu Feb 12 16:03:47 2004:

This response has been erased.



#38 of 86 by keesan on Thu Feb 12 16:14:27 2004:

Are TV commercials still based on sex?


#39 of 86 by other on Thu Feb 12 16:20:19 2004:

You know, bru, the reason this stuff is so popular is because of the 
prevalence of attitudes like yours.  If people like you would learn to 
ignore this crap and stop passing on your fears of the human form and 
sexual functions to the next generation, this stuff would lose its 
power over you.


#40 of 86 by jp2 on Thu Feb 12 16:36:57 2004:

This response has been erased.



#41 of 86 by gsibbery on Thu Feb 12 16:41:02 2004:

This response has been erased.



#42 of 86 by jp2 on Thu Feb 12 16:48:27 2004:

This response has been erased.



#43 of 86 by gsibbery on Thu Feb 12 17:06:05 2004:

This response has been erased.



#44 of 86 by mary on Thu Feb 12 17:06:07 2004:

Vote for what you like and dislike by TURNING OFF THE PROGRAM.

Duh.


#45 of 86 by gull on Thu Feb 12 18:48:45 2004:

That's what bugs me a little about attitudes like bru's.  It's one thing
if people want to limit their own viewing choices -- that's healthy, and
fully within their rights.  But I dislike it when people start trying to
limit the choices the rest of us have just because they don't personally
like them.


#46 of 86 by tod on Thu Feb 12 18:49:28 2004:

This response has been erased.



#47 of 86 by klg on Thu Feb 12 19:03:25 2004:

re:  "#41 (gsibbery):  They'd go broke in a week."

Is that, sir, why G/PG movies typically make a lot more money than Rs?


#48 of 86 by other on Thu Feb 12 19:24:20 2004:

47:  I dare you to back that up with legitimate data.
The 'R' rating is widely recognized as by far the most revenue 
generating rating for the American film industry.


#49 of 86 by jp2 on Thu Feb 12 19:30:35 2004:

This response has been erased.



#50 of 86 by bru on Thu Feb 12 19:36:20 2004:

But, I am not only worried about me.  In fact, I am not worried about me at
all.  What I am worried about are the parents who use TV as a babysitter, adn
don't pay attention to what their children are watching.

When I was growing up, parents didn't have to worry about what I was watching
on TV.  It was all fairly wholesome.  Nowdays, you have to be aware that many
programs are either violent or perverse.


#51 of 86 by gull on Thu Feb 12 19:39:18 2004:

Maybe parents shouldn't be letting TV do their parenting for them.

What ever happened to individual responsibility?


#52 of 86 by jp2 on Thu Feb 12 19:40:27 2004:

This response has been erased.



#53 of 86 by other on Thu Feb 12 19:44:36 2004:

49:  Those numbers are not enough to make the case.  Try the top one 
hundred grossing films of the last forty years.


#54 of 86 by jp2 on Thu Feb 12 19:56:31 2004:

This response has been erased.



#55 of 86 by tod on Thu Feb 12 20:00:55 2004:

This response has been erased.



#56 of 86 by jp2 on Thu Feb 12 20:05:20 2004:

This response has been erased.



#57 of 86 by other on Thu Feb 12 20:07:52 2004:

Ok, the last 35 years.  Whatever.


#58 of 86 by marcvh on Thu Feb 12 20:08:03 2004:

You would also have to control for the proportions of each types of movies 
made, and whether the reason some movies make more money is because of
their content or because of the rating itself.


#59 of 86 by tod on Thu Feb 12 20:10:24 2004:

This response has been erased.



#60 of 86 by ryan on Thu Feb 12 20:15:46 2004:

This response has been erased.



#61 of 86 by krj on Thu Feb 12 20:17:23 2004:

regarding several previous responses:  Inflation-adjusted box-office 
lists are available at boxofficemojo.com and at washingtonpost.com.
sorry I haven't got the exact URL immediately at hand, but the 
list at http://boxofficemojo.com is very easy to find.

The inflation-adjusted lists agree much more with my idea of what 
popular American film culture is, or should be.

I know Eric's in The Business, but everything I see in the 
mainstream press says that 
the conventional wisdom is that PG-13 is the optimum rating for 
financial success, for any single film.  There was a lot of fuss 
in 2003 when the Matrix sequels became the first R-rated films 
to break the $200 million level.  My perception is that over the 
last few years the number of "mainstream" R-rated films has dwindled.

I remind folks this is the Grammy Awards item, and not the Super Bowl item
or the Janet Jackson item.  :/


#62 of 86 by jp2 on Thu Feb 12 20:17:45 2004:

This response has been erased.



#63 of 86 by klg on Thu Feb 12 20:23:48 2004:

O.K., Mr. other.  Do you give up yet?

Top 20 Grossing Movies by Rating  (Top 100 Since 1998)

Year    G       PG      PG-13   R
2002    1       6       13      0
2001    2       4       10      4
2000    0       3       12      5
1999    2       3       7       8
1998    3       3       9       5
        8       19      51      22


#64 of 86 by gull on Thu Feb 12 20:40:06 2004:

Re resp:59: I wonder that, too.  I find the "violence is okay, but sex
is not" attitude kind of odd when I stop to think about it.

Re resp:63: Those numbers square pretty well with what I've heard.  An R
rating is considered somewhat of a negative, but a G rating is
considered the kiss of death for anything but a children's film.  I've
heard in some cases studios will intentionally notch up the content of a
film so it will get a PG or PG-13 instead of a G, just like they'll
sometimes tone it down to get a PG-13 instead of an R.


#65 of 86 by anderyn on Thu Feb 12 20:46:17 2004:

Speaking as a parent, I did in fact raise my children without letting tv be
the babysitter. There was only one tv in the house and if they were watching,
so was a parent.  If there was any violence or nudity that went beyond my
comfort boundaries, off it went. (And I admit it, I am a big prude. Sex in
movies -- even the PG13 varieties -- is something that makes me uncomfortable.
Violence in most contexts (unless very clearly sf/fantasy, as in rayguns and
swords) also makes me really uncomfortable. I don't watch it. I carefully read
spoiler reviews of movies so I don't go to things that will make me
uncomfortable, and I tend to like Disney movies A LOT.) I may have made
mistakes as a parent, but I do feel happy that I was careful about this when
they were small.


#66 of 86 by happyboy on Fri Feb 13 03:43:35 2004:

i'm glad you're a prude.


#67 of 86 by rational on Fri Feb 13 03:52:11 2004:

I'm just glad in general.


#68 of 86 by other on Fri Feb 13 03:55:16 2004:

Get out your calendars:  I admit I'm wrong that R rated films 
outsell PG rated according to the numbers you provided.  I'd like to 
ask, however, if those numbers reflect first run, box office only, 
or total earnings. 


#69 of 86 by gsibbery on Fri Feb 13 13:44:59 2004:

This response has been erased.



#70 of 86 by tpryan on Sat Feb 14 16:15:37 2004:

        Considering that their is only 3 ways for an animated
Disney Villian to die (mostly all by their own actins):
1)  Fall of a cliff, ledge or whatnot, from high above to unsurvivable
        below.
2)  Consumed by fire.
3)  Fall of a cliff into a firey pit.


#71 of 86 by tpryan on Sat Feb 14 16:17:19 2004:

        I would be interested in profit per rating type.


#72 of 86 by aruba on Sun Feb 15 23:05:18 2004:

Right, I was going to say: The statistic you really want, to judge the power
of different types of movies, is the total profit/revenue from R-rated
movies last year vs. the total profit/revenue from PG-13 movies last year.
It might be (I really don't know) that the top few movies are all G/PG-13,
but that there are many more R-rated movies than the rest, and so they make
up the difference in volume.


#73 of 86 by klg on Mon Feb 16 02:51:02 2004:

"Profit" is a much more easily manipulated figure, particularly with 
respect to motion pictures.

Further, would not the number of releases by rating category not also 
be relevant??


#74 of 86 by gull on Mon Feb 16 15:55:49 2004:

"Always ask for a piece of the gross, not a piece of the net.  The net
is fantasy." -- Freakazoid.


#75 of 86 by jp2 on Tue Feb 17 01:21:18 2004:

This response has been erased.



#76 of 86 by aruba on Tue Feb 17 04:24:42 2004:

Fair enough, then - the number of movies in each category, and their total
gross.  That should tell you the relative power of the rating classes.


#77 of 86 by gull on Tue Feb 17 15:10:57 2004:

Movie industry accounting is as crooked as it comes.


#78 of 86 by rational on Tue Feb 17 16:02:52 2004:

EFVEN FAMOUS HOLLYWOOD MOVIE STARS WEAR FR#EDOM RIBBONS


#79 of 86 by janc on Wed Feb 18 16:02:54 2004:

I think in most cases you can assume that the number of movies made in any
given catagory closely tracks the amount of revenue earned in the previous
few years by movies in that category.


#80 of 86 by klg on Thu Feb 19 02:44:37 2004:

We don't believe that Hollyweird has figured that trick out yet.


#81 of 86 by twenex on Thu Feb 19 16:03:44 2004:

When blind idiocy can replace pure reason at will, like that, it's no wonder
the planet's still in such a state.


#82 of 86 by krj on Thu Feb 19 23:22:38 2004:

I've sort of managed to lose the thread here, but I would remind folks
that free-market theory claims that all profitable projects will be done.
Thus, even if one proves that a PG-13 movie is more profitable than an 
R-rated movie, as long as the R-rated movie can be made profitably, 
it will be.
 
Michael Medved, who used to be a fun bad-movie critic before he 
veered off into cultural conservatism, complained that Hollywood creative
types make movies which offend mainstream America in order to gain
status with their peers, and he mostly thought this was a bad thing.
Seems like normal human behavior to me, though.  Arts markets are 
not entirely about return on investment.


#83 of 86 by dbratman on Wed Feb 25 07:26:24 2004:

Being offensive for any other reason than that you've got something to 
say that just happens to be offensive, is -- offensive.


#84 of 86 by bmoran on Wed Feb 8 03:38:00 2006:

Hey, the 2006 Grammys are tomorrow night. Maybe this years will generate 
some interest, eh? I'm looking foreward to the Gorillaz/Madonna bit!


#85 of 86 by krj on Thu Feb 9 04:36:46 2006:

(( I started a new item for the 2006 Grammy Awards, so it can be 
   linked into the new Music conference which should open to the 
   public any hour now.   item:211   in the old music conference. ))


#86 of 86 by krj on Sun Jan 28 07:41:53 2007:

Note from the future...

I wish I'd backed up this conference before response deletion became
such a fad.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: