What is SPEDREX?

Upcoming Events

Featured Blogs

The Grammys, how I hate thee

Monday, February 11, 2008

You know, I said that I'd deliver news. Well this is news. Entertainment news yes, but I feel that it is germane to society, so I must speak on the matter.

You see, I used to really like the awards shows. The glitz, the glamour, the gullible "artists" who blissfully proclaim the merits of scientology and other cults on national tv; it truly seemed grand to me.

Then I got older, and all I saw was a big, grotesque spectacle involving extremely annoying people giving each other awards. Basically, this is rich people glorifying themselves.

Now, I'm all for awards, but do we really need to know who is the best sound editor on the block?

More importantly, these people, these pop-stars, oops, I mean artists, are constantly glorifying themselves. Just listen to any rap song; they sing about how awesome their life is and how they make absurd amounts of money. On top of that, I've started to get the feeling, and I think other people have as well, that the Grammys, in particular, have just gotten too homogenous. I can't help but notice the similarities between Norah Jones, an interesting young woman with a neat voice, neat sound, and neat look that all remind our parents how awesome the fifties were, and the woman with the same m.o. who dominated the Grammys last night, Amy Winehouse.

Now, Amy Winehouse has a slightly different style/look/attitude from Miss Jones, but it's the same chick. Don't we all see that? Neither of these women, in my opinion, is a great talent. I simply don't get what it is about this type of artist that captures peoples attention and garners such praise and acclaim. And that brings me to the crux of my article, here; is Amy Winehouse the talent the Grammys really should glorify?

I'm all for doing your own thing; live and let live I say. But Amy Winehouse is the Brits' Britney, albeit with "talent." I'm pretty sure Amy Winehouse is better than Britney Spears, but there are plenty of bands I can think of off the top of my head who are much better, more talented, and enjoyable than Amy Winehouse. Sorry, Ames, you're just too much of a dirty skank-whore for me. The beehive do is awesome, though. Love what you're doing there. You didn't need to be handed five grammys, though, and certainly not Record of the Year. At least she didn't win Album of the Year. What the hell is the difference? Do they really still make records all that much? If so, it's probably so they can win Record of the Year.

Finally, it seems that the Grammys wanted to thumb their nose at the US, who politely told miss Winehouse that while she had a nice voice, we already had Paris, Britney, Lindsay, and a bunch of other chicks hotter than her who could do her job already, so she could stay in Britain for the time being. Maybe I'm reading to much into the situation.

Either way, Amy Winehouse certainly is not the Jesus of music that she is being promoted as. Here are a few qoutes made about the singer:

The New Statesman magazine called Winehouse "a filthy-mouthed, down-to-earth diva."

People magazine said she was "a perfect storm of sex kitten, raw talent and poor impulse control."

In November of last year, the first night of a 17-date tour was derailed by booing and walkouts at the National Indoor Arena in Birmingham. A music critic for the Birmingham Mail newspaper claimed it was "one of the saddest nights of my life... I saw a supremely talented artist reduced to tears, stumbling around the stage and, unforgivably, swearing at the audience."

What? Tell me when Whitney Houston challenges this girl to a fight to see which one of them truly is the "Queen of Blowing all your Talent on Drugs and my Hubby."

As always, check back here for more news, insights, and opinions from SpedRex

7:56 AM

Comments:
Post a Comment