Re: (TV) Grammys

["Philip P. Obbard" <pobbard@yahoo.com>]

That's funny, because I had the opposite reaction. Santana's album is fine, and
the single is *great*, but it hardly seems like Grammy material. It's basically
the same sound he had trademarked in 1971, but with a current popular favorite
providing vocals. As many people have pointed out before me: it might as well
be a Matchbox 20 song with Santana on guitar. 

My girlfriend always reminds me why the Grammies exist: they were created to
honor 'real' music when rock 'n' roll was first getting big (1956), which is
why you didn't see Elvis Presely or the Beatles or ABBA or REM winning many (or
any) Grammies during their heydays (but, correct me if I'm wrong). The Grammies
rarely honor the innovative; they tend to honor the established. Santana's
comeback is well-deserved, but it's as if someone remade a great seventies film
(e.g., "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", "The Godfather", "The Sting",
etc.) and stocked it with popular young actors and actress, sex scenes, and FM
hits in order to bolster popular appeal, and it cleaned-up at Oscar time.

And Phil Collins Tarzan tune beat Aimee Mann? Huh?

I'm glad to see Santana getting recognized, but I can't accept that his new LP
is in any way the equivalent of THRILLER (with which it tied), much less any of
the more interesting albums released this year.

--Philip

--- maxbiz <maxbiz@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Anyone watch the Grammys?
> This is the first time I can remember "Album of the year"
> being an album I actually enjoyed !
> Congrats to Santana-well deserved

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
--------------
To post: Mail tv@obbard.com
To unsubscribe: Mail majordomo@obbard.com with message "unsubscribe tv"