Grammy Awards Smackdown!: Norah vs. Bruce (actually, there's a serious point here)

[Geezil]

Here in NYC on Monday morning, at least one drive-time host (sorry I can't recall which one) made this very reasonable point: While not putting down Norah Jones' talent in any way, Bruce Springsteen -- considering all that he did as a performer for this country just after September 11 -- rightfully deserved to take home no less than five Grammys to Jones' three, rather than vice versa. No huge fuss would have been needed (nor desired by The Boss, for certain), just the recognition itself.

Call mine one vote in agreement, then.

[wolverine0815]

I totally agree. It's about some real musicians won instead of the fluff of the past couple years.

[Damien]

Someone refresh my memory. Who's Norah Jones? :confused:

[Captain Yurika]

Recognition is a good thing, but I'm alway one for being happy knowing what *I* did (if I were him) rather than looking for awards.
However I can see his point, since his newest album was REALLY good and he's been a talent around alot longer than some chick who no one will remember in a year or two.
She won the cursed "Best New Artist" award. Ever notice very few if any artists who win this award go on to a long career?

[Eidan]

Sorry, but I definately disagree. Not only because I thought "The Rising" was overrated, sentimental narrative garbage, and that Bruce Springsteen got WAY too much publicity/hype. I judge people on talent, and saying Norah Jones didn't deserve her awards because Bruce Springsteen sung about 9/11, or because he's old makes the awards into nothing more then a charity case.

Besides, from your posts I can tell most, if not, all of you have never listened, or heard of Norah Jones before. Your loss, of course.

[Geezil]

Originally posted by Eidan
[...] saying Norah Jones didn't deserve her awards because Bruce Springsteen sung about 9/11, or because he's old makes the awards into nothing more then a charity case.

Besides, from your posts I can tell most, if not, all of you have never listened, or heard of Norah Jones before. Your loss, of course.

First, Eidan, while I can't speak for everyone else on this thread, I have in fact heard of and listened to Norah Jones quite a few times before the Grammys, and would be right near the front of the line in praising her art, focus, and talent. Give us many more performers like her and far fewer Br*tneys, and pop music will rise to the level we all deserve once again.

Second, I get the feeling everybody's missed the original point here about Bruce Springsteen: It's not simply the number of freakin' Grammys, or even the number of songs he's written about September 11, so please put that away. Check the record of the weeks that immediately followed, and you'll find that he personally reached out to many of the WTC victims' surviving family members in and around his New Jersey home territory, to offer consolation and moral support where he could. Only then, and secondarily, did his songwriting instincts kick in to do all of those shared thoughts justice.

[stwasm]

Let me say that I think that a lot of people miss the point that Norah Jones' music is skewed more towards those in their 40s and 50s. So, a lot of younger people may not relate to her. Being a jazz fan and listening to smooth jazz exclusively, I hear a lot of her music and it's very impressive. I think also, from what I understand, many of the Grammy voters fall into the demographic Miss Jones is hitting.

[moreysurf8]

Originally posted by wolverine0815
I totally agree. It's about some real musicians won instead of the fluff of the past couple years.

Umm...Have you Listened to Norah Jones? Because I wouldn't consider her "fluff" she's actually quite a talented musician and has a very nice jazz quality to her voice. Do I think she should've won all those?? No (Not all, but some). Am I glad she got she got recognition...Yes. Personally I'm still mad, Wilco's brilliant album "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" wasn't even nominated.

[randomguy]

he personally reached out to many of the WTC victims' surviving family members in and around his New Jersey home territory, to offer consolation and moral support where he could

Listen, that's great and very admirable. But the Grammys are MUSIC AWARDS. We wouldn't give an actor an oscar because he went to Africa to fight AIDS. The committee gave Norah the awards because they liked her music more. Being an activist has nothing to do with it.

What they could have (and perhaps should have) done was give out some kind of award to the most community-minded musician. Bruce could've won that. Or received some sort of similiar special recognition.

[Shnay]

I've gotta agree with Eidan and randomguy. These aren't humanitarian awards, and trying to make them that would undermine whatever little credibility the Grammys still have.

I haven't heard the latest Springsteen album, so I can't judge whether it should have beaten Jones or not, but I can say that basing the arguement that he should have won based on "what he's done for the country" isn't right.

Also, I think it's way too early to say that no one will remember Jones in a few years. I think she's got a whole lot of potential. I could be wrong, but it's too early to write her off just yet.

[Geezil]

Originally posted by randomguy
[...]What they could have (and perhaps should have) done was give out some kind of award to the most community-minded musician. Bruce could've won that. Or received some sort of similiar special recognition.

Exactly!!!!!!! Thank you. :cool: