Conference mr1pst::music

    This may sound like a dumb question, but does "1991" mean material
    released from 1/1/91 to 12/31/91 or is there a different time frame
    like October to October or November to November?
    
    

>    This may sound like a dumb question, but does "1991" mean material
>    released from 1/1/91 to 12/31/91 or is there a different time frame
>    like October to October or November to November?

I believe the actual timeframe is October 1st ('90) - September 30th ('91).

(Hence, some big releases like Michael Jackson and U2 aren't eligible yet.)

alan

    Thanks, Alan - those two artists not being nominated is exactly why I
    figured it wasn't calendar year '91.
    

    
    	Anybody got a run down of the winners lasted night?
    
    B.A.
    

    I'm curious, too.
    
    All I know is that Natalie Cole won *7* Grammies!!!, Bonnie Raitt won
    3 :^), R.E.M. won 3 (eh), Michael Bolton won at LEAST one, C&C Music
    Factory didn't get Best New Artist (8^) ) and James Brown and Barbra
    Streisand won special awards.
    
    On "Good Morning America", they had a little blurb of Kurt Loder (of
    MTV) complaining that most of the winners were all "old" songs.  Says
    something, doesn't it?  ;^)
    
    Oh, and Van Halen won one.
    
    I don't have specifics, or anything else.
    
    K.C.

Article 1515 of clari.news.music:
Subject: Cole, Raitt, R.E.M. big Grammy winners
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 1:09:22 PST

	NEW YORK (UPI) -- It was an ``Unforgettable'' night for singer Natalie
Cole, whose remake of her father's hit took six Grammys at Tuesday's 34
annual awards ceremony, including record of the year and song of the
year.
	Blues singer and guitarist Bonnie Raitt, who won four Grammys last
time, took three more, while Georgia rockers R.E.M. picked up their
first three, including the award for best pop group performance.
	``It has been an incredible, incredible time,'' said Cole, who scored
a comeback after beating a drug problem with her No. 1 album hit -- 
``Unforgettable'' -- a collection of her father Nat King Cole's most
prized songs from the 1940s and '50s.
	``I thank my dad for leaving me such a wonderful, wonderful heritage,
'' she said.
	And in a dig at those who had lost faith in her, Cole said, ``I want
to thank EMI for graciously letting me out of my contract.''
	``Unforgettable'' won for record of the year, song of the year, best
traditional pop performance, best instrumental arrangement accompanying
vocals, producer of the year, and best engineered album.
	Irving Gordon, who penned the tune for Cole's father and picked up
the song of the year award, said, ``It's like being in the middle of a
miracle.''
	``It was a miracle of electronics,'' he said of the current rendition
that features a ``duet'' of Cole and her late father.
	Gordon told UPI he wrote the song in 1951. That caused one wag
backstage to quip, ``They said 'song of the year' but they didn't say
which year.''
	Raitt, who turned her career around in 1990 with her Grammys, won the
award for best pop performance female, best rock performance solo, and
best rock performance for a duo or group with vocal for her duet with
Delbert McClinton.
	``I don't know what to say. I had enough already, really,'' Raitt
said.
	Michael Bolton won best pop vocal male and the best new artist was
Marc Cohn, who came to national attention with his invitation to perform
at Caroline Kennedy's wedding in 1986.
	Other winners were blues singer and guitarist B.B. King for best
traditional blues album and young vocal group Boyz II Men for best R&B
performance by a duo or group. Best rap solo performance went to L.L.
Cool J, and the award for best rap group went to DJ Jazzy Jeff & the
Fresh Prince.
	Best R&B performance female was a tie between Patti LaBelle and Lisa
Fischer, while the award for best R&B performance male went to Luther
Vandross.
	Best country group performance went to The Judds, while best country
vocal performance female went to Mary-Chapin Carpenter. Best country
performance male was won by Garth Brooks.
	Madonna picked up just one award, winning the Grammy for best music
video long for her ``Blonde Ambition World Tour Live.''
	Whoopi Goldberg, herself a 1985 Grammy winner for Best Comedy Album,
hosted the awards ceremony, which was held at Radio City Music Hall for
the second year in a row.
	``In the category of new faces of the year, the winner is Michael
Jackson,'' she quipped at one point.
	The show featured live performances by several nominees, including
Raitt, Grant, Mariah Carey, The Commitments, LL Cool J, Johnny Mathis,
Metallica, Roy Rogers and Clint Black.
	It also included a few scattered political statements, including the
wearing of red ribbons to call for more funding to fight AIDS and R.E.M.
's call for people to register and vote.
	Michael Greene, president of the National Academy of Recording Arts &
Sciences which bestows the music industry's most prestigious awards,
said the performers were chosen to reflect the spectrum of music in the
Grammy's 78 categories.
	Winners are chosen by the Academy's 6,000 voting members -- singers,
musicians, producers, composers, conductors and engineers -- who have
contributed creatively or technically to recordings.
	Lifetime Achievement Awards were bestowed to soul singer James Brown,
and posthumously to jazz musician John Coltrane, rock guitarist Jimi
Hendrix and blues legend Muddy Waters.
	Some of the best known performers in music went home empty-handed.
Bryan Adams, who had been nominated for the prestigious record of the
year, song of the year, best rock song and best pop vocal performance
Grammys was shut out in all four categories. 
	Stars such as Whitney Houston, George Michael, Hammer and Stevie
Wonder also failed to win in their slots.

    
    	RE: .5 Kurt Loder is one reason for my trying (as of late) to not 
    	say negative things about MTV.
    
    	- Jim

    
    	So what about the Heavy Metal awards?
    
    	Also,
    		I fail to see what was so great about Ms. Cole's
    performance with her dad..Hank Jr. did the same thing with a song with
    his father. I guess that academy thinks that Cole sings better than
    Hank Jr. :*)
    
    FWIW
    
    
    B.A.
    

    
    Metallica won.

There was another heavy metal category (best song?).  I thought the ten-second
clips (Anthrax, others) for that were better than the entire song played by 
Metallica (how long were they on? 45 minutes?  an hour?)

Mary Chapin Carter and Beausoleil took the prize for the best live performance
on the show.

"Soomething to Talk About" and "Losing My Religion" stood head and shoulders
above the muck of all the other songs that were quoted or played during the 
evening.  How about a suicide pact for Michael Bolton and Bryan Adams?

    
    I think it's a crime that Cole got 7 Grammy awards for a song she
    didn't even write, and didn't have the guts to sing by herself.

Mickey Hart's "Planet Drum" CD got a grammy for best world music album, or 
some such thing.

If you haven't heard this, find a way to listen to it. over 70 minutes of 
wonderful percussionists doing what they do best.

Geoff

    
    
    RE:  .11
    
    I take exception (and offense) to that last reply--first of all, it
    was always Natalie's intent to pay homage to her father and record
    an album of songs he made famous.  It was during the initial record-
    ing sessions when the idea formed to electronically fashion a "duet"
    between Natalie and her father.  It wasn't a question of "guts", as
    you put it.  For the record, I think it's great that respect was
    simultaneously shown to Natalie and Nat King Cole--particularly to
    Nat--for his artistry...and for her vision and commitment to the
    project.  You may not like the record or album; that's your prero-
    gative.  But don't insinuate that Natalie doesn't have any guts.
    And why should it matter that she didn't write the song??  How many
    other songs that received Song Of The Year Grammys were recorded
    by people who didn't write them??  And why should that negate the
    value of the song???  Who decides whether a song written by the
    artist who recorded it is "better" or deserves a Grammy?  Again, 
    we're talking about subjective value judgements here.  Besides,
    the whole nominating/voting process is all about politics, anyway.
    
    (BTW, speaking of guts--why didn't you sign your note?  Just asking...)
    
    Actually, other than the disappointments of Seal not getting the Best
    New Artist Grammy, Public Enemy not getting the Best Rap Performance
    By A Group, Duo or Chorus and Michael Bolton GETTING Best Male Pop
    Vocal again, *I* was VERY happy with the outcome of the Grammys.
    The big major gripe was that the program went on too damn long--
    nearly FOUR HOURS!!!  Longer than "Dances With Wolves"!!!  >:^
    
    I also think they need to bring the Grammy awards back to L.A. next
    year (spoken like a true native Angeleno!!)...
    
    
    Sylvia
    
    
    
    

    
    Take it to Soapbox.
    
    /prc

    Personally, when I heard that Natalie took the whole show, I was SO
    pleased!  I wish that I had actually watched.
    
    Basically, what I'm saying is...yeah...what .13 said!  ;^)  (Except I'd
    never even HEARD Seal, and don't like rap.)
    
    Re: .14...why, because .13 disagreed with you?  I found the note
    totally relevant to the topic.
    
    K.C.

    
    re: -1
    
    Why? Because I'd rather rip his note to shreds and send him off crying
    in Soapbox. I'd hate to disturb the rest of the ::MUSIC community.
    
    /prc

    .16
    
    Then take it off line and address your issues in mail or by phone
    or some other method. You're right I'd rather not hear it in here. 8-)
    
    Jim C.
    

    
    It's not THAT important. 

    
    	RE: Pete
    
    >It's not THAT important. 
    
    
    	Now that we all agree, we can get back to the topic.
    
    	8^)
    
    							GTI

    Did anyone see when Robbie Robertson (my all-time favorite) and
    Little Steven got on stage to give the best Heavy Metal Group
    Award.
    
    Robbie said "I can't say/read this" - I don't know if he meant that
    he actually couln't read it because he couldn't see the cue cards or
    just that what he was reading was so bogus that he felt it wasn't right
    to say it.  
    
    Anybody got an opinion?
    
    Monique
    

    
    i got the impression he felt it to be rather bogus expression, although
    he did go on to do it passibly.
    
    i have to agree, i've never found some of the best musicians in the
    industry playing Heavy Metal, unless you DO count the award Jethro Tull
    DID win a year or so again.  I would like to SEE and HEAR some great
    musicianship from Metal Groups - i love power chords as much as anyone,
    but the MTV influence, and the cartoon behavior and poses have been
    far too strong a stereotype to overcome. (yes, i accept the blame for
    that attitude also)
    
    	bob

Jethro Tull is Heavy Metal?  NOT.  I thought that was a major mistake back in
1988 to put them on the heavy metal category.  I'd give them rock or even could
be talked into hard rock, but heavy metal - no way.

I think they choose the least controversial group.  ie this year they picked
Van Halen although Guns N Roses had two albums out that went triple platinum
and were one of the few acts that consistently managed to sellout venues.



Tim

    RE: .22
    
>Jethro Tull is Heavy Metal?  NOT.  I thought that was a major mistake back in
>1988 to put them on the heavy metal category.  I'd give them rock or even could
>be talked into hard rock, but heavy metal - no way.

    Back in '88, the category was "Hard Rock/Heavy Metal", so by your own
    definition, they got the award that they deserved.  :^)
    
>I think they choose the least controversial group.  ie this year they picked
>Van Halen although Guns N Roses had two albums out that went triple platinum
>and were one of the few acts that consistently managed to sellout venues.

    I agree that they tend to pick "the least controversial", but IMO Guns
    'n' Roses don't deserve an award...I don't think that they are good at
    all.  But then again, I hardly think that Van Hagar deserves it that
    much, either.
    
    Who were the other nominees?

    K.C.

I think Jane's Addiction, 9 Inch Nails and Nirvana...  Not sure though.

    
    it was more a reference to skilled musicianship than the particular
    "label"
    
    i dunno KC, i ended buying 2 G-n-R for my youngest and it certainly is
    not all bad - i actually like some gritty undertones in my rock-n-roll.
    

    FWIW, keep in mind that it took the Grammy nominating committee nearly
    30 years (this past awards ceremony was the 34th annual) before they
    even deigned to HAVE a Rock category, let alone a Heavy Metal cate-
    gory.  The nomination of Jethro Tull (and their subsequent win) just
    shows how "retro" most of the NARAS members are (though personally,
    I thought it was tacky and obnoxious of Metallica to keep making
    cracks about that gaffe, particularly since they've won that cate-
    gory for the past two years--I mean, come on, give it a rest, guys,
    OK?).  Link that with their penchant for latching onto one or two 
    names and continually tossing them into the hat regardless of the 
    worth of their current project, simply because they want to show 
    that they ARE "paying attention to what's happening on the charts" 
    (though not necessarily, as we've seen in the past, what consumers 
    are buying), and there's not much room for innovation.  This is what 
    accounts for Guns 'N' Roses being passed over for Van Halen, despite 
    their undeniable success on the charts with both "Use Your Illusion" 
    projects.  Even though I like Van Halen and detest G-N-R, it was still 
    hard to fathom.  The same can be said for Nirvana's being slighted for 
    the newly-created "Best Alternative" category (for which they'd been 
    touted and favored to win) by R.E.M., who lost in all the "important" 
    categories.  Though IMO, the designating of BOTH these groups as 
    Alternative is too little, too late:  They've both long since made 
    their mark on the popular music conscience (though Nirvana's wasn't 
    until last year).  What is unfortunate is that neither of these groups 
    can sustain their momentum--or be guaranteed a shot at next year's 
    Grammy nominations--unless they put out a new release near the end of 
    this year.  And there's really no need, since "Out Of Time" and "Never 
    Mind" are both going great guns now (particularly in the wake of this 
    past Grammy telecast).
    
    The only cure for the category paralysis that seems to occur every year
    is for new, younger artisans, technicians and artists to make a conscious 
    and concerted effort to become NARAS members and get actively involved in
    Academy business, particularly in Grammy nominating business...It seems 
    to me that that's the only way to ensure that the nominations for future 
    years will TRULY and ACCURATELY reflect not only what everybody's buying,
    but what--and who--deserves all the attention.  I think the music critics 
    in particular (who are always bad-mouthing the choices and winners, no 
    matter WHO they are!) are the ones who really need to "put up or shut up."
    
    Just my humble opinion, FWIW...
    
    
    Sylvia
    

    re .26
    
    Both Metallica and Jethro Tull often make fun of that incident....
    
    I think it's impossible NOT to make fun of the Grammys.