Terminalcoffee discussion

I never was a huge fan of the Grammys until that MIA 15 months pregnant performance last year. (HYSTERICALLY FUNNY - if you can find a bootleg video of it somewhere on the web, you have to watch it!)

In any event, last night's Grammys (all that I watched of it - I turned off the TV at 10pm) was great. And I know that there are several in the group that detest Pink, but she was very good last night - I loved her performance. I don't like most of her music, but the song she performed last night was great and it was perfectly suited to her. And who else would dare to bare in that outfit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGeWN3...

If you watch this clip, you have to go far enough into it until she takes off the robe.

That was quite unique and impressive. Not a big fan of hers, but that song was listenable.

I found a link for the 2009 Grammy performance with MIA. Still makes me laugh.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8b7...

no one has swagger like MIA ;)

That is SO TRUE!

I love the Grammys, but I don't have a tv right now.

I've never liked the Grammys or M.I.A.

Never watch any awards shows, have no idea who or what MIA is, and have just barely heard of Pink. I am completely out of touch and I like it that way.

I do like to laugh at what the celebutards wear on the red carpet so I am an avid fan of Go Fug Yourself.

I don't normally watch awards shows, except maybe the Tony Awards now & then, but I did see Pink's performance and I loved it. I guess she was a gymnast for 8 years before she started singing.

I like her music and what she has to say, because it's about not falling for all the materialistic claptrap that people like Paris Hilton live for. I let my daughter listen to her music sometimes because I think it can teach young girls to go after what they dream but not to sell themselves out along the way.

King Dinösaur wrote: "I hate the Grammys. Always have, always will. >:("

Me, too. They're about as relevant as the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

It's all smoke, mirrors, bells and whistles. Strike a Faustian deal with Satan, clutter up the stage with a bunch of dancers to enhance your artistic statement (or distract from the fact that you've absolutely no talent), lip synch over a backing track loaded with techno beats or an endlessly-looped sample, and bring home the gold.

Is there anything less relevant than the Grammys?

In fact, this past Sunday night, two of the most relevant events occurred: the Grammys and the NFL Pro Bowl. I ask you this: which of the two is the most irrelevant.

The pro bowl fascinated me. It was like they weren't even trying.

There was no it was like RA, they weren't trying. Who would want a career ending injury in a totally meaningless game.

That's why it's an irrelevant game. Besides, the game is played at the end of the season, and most of those playing in the Pro Bowl had their seasons end a month ago. Who among those players wants to get revved up to play a meaningless game once their offseason has started?

Of course the Grammys are "irrelevant." It's the music business, not public policy or tax code revision. But it's entertaining.

KD, we should start our own cantankerous grump group. I think several of us here are solid candidates for joining that group.

I don't watch the Grammys for relevancy! I watch it for the sheer spectacle of it all. :)

Precisely, Jackie! That was the point I was trying to make.

Great points, Jackie and Youndyc, but the end result is the Grammys are insulting. The fact that Beyonce won for a song that was release 18 months ago pokes major holes into the RIAA's assertion that these awards are relevant. The artists don't care, and neither do we. Why not just call the show what is it: a spectacle, not an awards ceremony.

CBS' Grammys Memo to Performers Calls Thongs and Bare Sides "Problematic," Prohibits Obscenity

the network asks talent to just say no to "sheer see-through" clothing that might expose female nipples.

The network also encourages celebrities to "adequately" cover their butts, boobs and "genital region." That last part is very important because it prevents anyone at home from seeing any "puffy" bare skin. We're still unclear what exactly CBS means by "puffy" bare skin near the genital region, but we strongly advise anyone with such a concern to consult a medical professional immediately.

http://www.tvguide.com/News/CBS-Gramm...

Yeah, what do they mean by puffy bare skin down there?

Camel toe?

Is it usually bare? Normally it's a result of ill-fitting clothing.

The ladies are frequently sans undies.

You would think that would make them appear less puffy.

So maybe someone once had a very high-slit dress and something showed. I'm sure that's possible. Why bother calling it puffy, though? Maybe it was Puffy Combs? Or maybe it was a lady who had a little too much weight down there, and the memo writer now thinks every woman is puffy in the genital area.

Just speculating! I don't know!

Speculation, continued.

Perhaps there was a garment malfunction. It could be that someone was not properly groomed. Possibly a shadow fell upon genital region creating an illusion of puffiness. These things require investigation to ensure safe viewing without offensive puffiness present.

Let's face it: this was all a smokescreen to distract viewers from the cold, hard truth that none of the nominees can sing worth a shit.

The music world she is a changing.

I like the fun. lead singer's voice. It's interesting. And I think Florence of Florence + the Machine can sing like crazy.

I only got through half the show last night - not as crazy as the year with MIA but still good entertainment. I DVR'ed it and will watch the rest tonight.

There was a lot of crappy singing: Elton John, Fun., Ziggy Marley, Hunter Hayes, The Lumineers, Mavis Staples, Frank Ocean (What the hell?). And there were some good moments: The Black Keys, Rihanna, Mumford and Sons, Carrie Underwood, Jack White.

Frank Ocean? Any relation to Billy Ocean? Never liked him much.

Carrie Underwood? I don't even like country music, but since when can she not sing?

EJ needs to be cut some slack, I mean, he's like 90! Kinda like McCartney at the Olympics. He was rubbish, but he's Paul FREAKIN McCartney!

Sacré bleu!

I love Billy Ocean.

::sings::

Carribean Queen, now we're sharing the same dream. And our hearts can beat as one. No more love on the run.

No.

We cannot love all of the same things, "diversity is the spice of life" and all that (yes, I know it is meant to be variety...).

Scout wrote: "There was a lot of crappy singing: Elton John, Fun., Ziggy Marley, Hunter Hayes, The Lumineers, Mavis Staples, Frank Ocean (What the hell?). And there were some good moments: The Black Keys, Rihann..."

Did you just say Mavis Staples and crappy singing in the same breath? I saw her last spring. She blew the roof off the place.

Sarah Pi wrote: "Scout wrote: "There was a lot of crappy singing: Elton John, Fun., Ziggy Marley, Hunter Hayes, The Lumineers, Mavis Staples, Frank Ocean (What the hell?). And there were some good moments: The Blac..."

I was thinking the same thing, Pi. Mavis Staples has swagger. She's the real deal.

Amelia wrote: ""

I love Caribbean Queen, too... and Get Out of My Dreams, Get Into My Car and Stay the Night and When the Going Gets Tough, The Tough Get Going and There'll Be Sad Songs and and... I like Billy Ocean.

Oh, no...not any of those.

Was it him or Lionel Richie that sang Dancing on the Ceiling? I hated that song too. Loathed. Still do.

Amelia wrote: "Oh, no...not any of those.

Was it him or Lionel Richie that sang Dancing on the Ceiling? I hated that song too. Loathed. Still do."

Lionel Richie.

Heidi gets it. Billy Ocean is some good mother firetrucking shiitake on a stick.

I draw the line at Lionel. You may not bash Lionel.

We don't have to be the same as all the time but, you know, go lightly where angels fear to tread and stuff.

;)

Amelia, read my post again. I did not say that Carrie Undrwood couldn't sing.

Heidi and Sarah Pi, did you watch the Grammys? If not, you might want to. Mavis Staples did some crappy singing, as did Elton John and others I mentioned.

I saw Elton John sing. I was surprised by how he sounded because he usually sounds great. I also noticed that seconds before he began singing, he coughed. It was not a clear your throat kind of cough and it almost seemed like he lost his voice for a second when he first began to sing. I think he might have been sick.

Ohhhh, sorry Scout. I see it now. I was just scanning the list. I didn't see it change.

Nor did I watch the Grammys...

Susan wrote: "I saw Elton John sing. I was surprised by how he sounded because he usually sounds great. I also noticed that seconds before he began singing, he coughed. It was not a clear your throat kind of ..."


He's 66 this year, Sus. Isn't that like 462 in rocker years? You know who I'm impressed is still kicking around after the punishment he's put his body through is Keith Richards. That guy has had one foot in the grave for 40 odd years...or more. But, every time I see him he's just as hard as ever! Amazing.

This is true. I am always impressed with the people who can still rock out as they get older. To me, they are the ones with the most pure talent and music in their veins.

For Keith Richard to still have functioning veins with which to hold said muisc is a miracle regardless of age!

Amelia wrote: "But, every time I see him he's just as hard as ever! Amazing."

TWSS

Phillip! (two "l's" or one?)

One.

heh, I never paid that much attention to the Grammys since that whole Kanye West + Taylor Swift incident. At least this year Justin Bieber and Gaga weren't nominated.