15 replies to this topic

[Xenobia]

And so on came Sunday night, and I settled in by my computer to surf the web mostly, and half listen to the Grammys. But then something very strange happened....


I watched the Grammys, and occasionally came back to the computer.

This is the best Grammy show I have seen in a very long time. From start to finish, it was a very entertaining show. There were problems to be sure (starting with the idea of having it in an Arena instead of a theatre), but all and all the acts were beyond fantastic. They were brilliant in their performances and combinations.

Here are a few highlights:

Beyonce and Prince: Who knew the girl had enough soul to pull off "Purple Rain"? Evidently she does, and that entire opening set helped set the stage of the past / present tributes that dotted the evening. Prince never looked or sounded better.

Beatles Tribute I: Sting, Dave Matthews, and Vince Gill? Who would have thought it, but it worked. They were ideally suited to blend as similarly as possible to the Fab Four. Nicely done.

The Funk Tribute: Consider me converted. Enough said. Well, not quite. Samuel L. Jackson is God. Now, 'nuff said.

Beatles Tribute II: Mrs. Harrison and Mrs. Lennon were class acts. Ringo Starr was terrific. My thoughts on Sir Paul, I'll keep to myself, lest McCartney 007 come after me.

And of course, as I said there were problems:

Justin Timberlake: Finally proving to the world what a jerk he is with his ridiculous acceptance speech for Best Pop Male Performance. But the true morons were the voters who gave it to him and not to Warren Zevon or George Harrison.

Celine Dion's performance: You would think that at a music show they would be sure all the equipment worked. *shakes head* Not this time. Kudos to her for staying on key when she couldn't even hear herself. Boo hisss to the technical people.

The Lifetime Achievement Awards: Just how many did they give out this year? All were deserving, but given the fact that some of those people will probably be alive next year...they should have waited.

No defense of Janet: She was wrong, but banning her from the Grammys was worse. And yet no one defended her. Bad, bad, bad.

And finally folks, a curious note:

Beyonce's first award: When Beyonce won her first award, she thanked someone named Bryce.

003, is there something you would like to share with the rest of us?

-- Xenobia

[Monique]

Janet wasn't banned. She was told she could come to the Grammy's, but in light of how she was treated over the matter, she chose not to attend. I don't blame her. And what exactly was ridiculous about Justin's speech? He humbly thanked them, graciously apologized ONCE AGAIN, and acknowledged his mother in the front row....what was wrong with that????

I do agree with one thing, it was one of the best Grammy's I've seen in a while.

Edited by Monique, 09 February 2004 - 05:32 AM.

[Xenobia]

Monique, from what I had heard, Janet wasn't banned, but she was told that she would have to apologize for what happened, much in the same fashion Justin Timberlake did. She refused to do so, and ergo she couldn't go.

What is wrong with Justin is, he is letting Janet swing on the rope for something I have a feeling they both knew about and planned. He gave an interview to a LA TV station and said he was disgusted by what happened. I say, "Yeah right."

I also don't think he is really sorry for what happened, and personally, I think he is a no talent who shouldn't even have been nominated in the Best Pop Vocal category, especially with the company he was keeping.

-- Xenobia

[Dmitri Mishkin]

What is wrong with Justin is, he is letting Janet swing on the rope for something I have a feeling they both knew about and planned. He gave an interview to a LA TV station and said he was disgusted by what happened. I say, "Yeah right."

I also don't think he is really sorry for what happened, and personally, I think he is a no talent who shouldn't even have been nominated in the Best Pop Vocal category, especially with the company he was keeping.

-- Xenobia

Xen, you couldn't have much more agreement from me on this topic. A hollow apology. How fitting.

[Q-Zar]

I think he is a no talent who shouldn't even have been nominated in the Best Pop Vocal category, especially with the company he was keeping.

I second that, I always thought he was horrible. The problem is he gets the support of all the drooling teenage girls.

[mccartney007]

I'm curious to hear what you have to say about Paul, Xen. I've learned that a lot of people misread him -- and Ringo, too, for that matter. I do think it's about time for Paul to stop dying his hair because it really does look ridiculous. I remember seeing pictures of him in Paris with his son James shortly after Linda died with short, grey hair and he looked great. Ringo, on the other hand, can pull of the dyed hair look.

As for Justin Timberlake, I was involved in conversation when he was speaking but I did catch his remarks about the Super Bowl incident. His remarks weren't sincere in my eyes, but I don't think he had any reason to be sincere. What happened at the Super Bowl was such a non-event that he has no reason to apologise. I don't see how a nipple is going to scar children and I don't know why people feel they need to shelter their kids from such things. Everyone has got'em and we've all seen'em. The only reason a nipple or any part of the human body would scar a person in this country is when American society explodes with rage and tells everyone that it's wrong for us to see such things. It's pathetic that the two biggest stories in America right now are Janet Jackson's nipple and banning gay marriage. How is it everyone else's right to tell certain people who they can and can't marry? I'm really starting the hate this country and all of it's "freedoms."

Anyway, back on topic. I like Justin Timberlake. I've discovered a lot of people who claim to dislike him actually do like him. They just think it's unfashionable to dislike him and so they jump on the bandwagon.

[License To Kill]

Justin Timberlake: Finally proving to the world what a jerk he is with his ridiculous acceptance speech for Best Pop Male Performance. But the true morons were the voters who gave it to him and not to Warren Zevon or George Harrison.

Exactly right! Warren and George are clearly better artists than Justin Timbelake. He is a cocky, sex crazed fiend that couldn't hold back of exposing Jackson's goods.. It just shows you how dumb the music today is...

And all those Beatles tributes, so fitting for the greatest musical influence ever!

[Xenobia]

The Beatles' tributes were awesome, and well put together.

Macca, I like my life, so I am keeping my PMC remarks to myself.

-- Xen

[mccartney007]

Macca, I like my life, so I am keeping my PMC remarks to myself.

-- Xen

Hmm... I have an idea what you might have issues with.

[Xenobia]

Hon, I am being a bit prickly on this, but give it your best shot. What do you think I disagreed with?

-- Xen

[Loomis]

My thoughts on Sir Paul, I'll keep to myself, lest McCartney 007 come after me.

What have you got against McCartney? Not trying to start anything, just curious (as you knew we would be, you little minx, you ). Are your gripes purely musical (in Britain he's commonly considered, rightly or wrongly, as the flabby, boring sellout to Lennon's visionary musician and all-round genius), or has he behaved in ways you find offensive?

[Xenobia]

I just thought his whole guitar playing and choice of song was strange.

-- Xen

[mccartney007]

I just thought his whole guitar playing and choice of song was strange.

-- Xen

Was he featured other than in the video clip following Olivia, Yoko, and Ringo?

If not, I can't really see your complaint because it's not like he was actually performing. He was just having a bit of fun (as he tends to do) with "Yesterday."

[Xenobia]

But why "Yesterday?" If he was using his guitar from that very night 40 years ago, why not do one of the songs from that night?

--Xenobia

PS: What did you think my issue was?

[Monique]

They were doing a tribute to something that happened 40 years ago, bringing back memories for him, so the reminiscent feel of "Yesterday" made sense to me.

Edited by Monique, 11 February 2004 - 04:44 AM.

[mccartney007]

But why "Yesterday?"  If he was using his guitar from that very night 40 years ago, why not do one of the songs from that night?

--Xenobia

PS:  What did you think my issue was?

The guitar Paul played the night of the Grammy's was used tp play "Yesterday" on the Ed Sullivan show. However, the night he played "Yesterday" was The Beatles' third appearance on the program on August 14, 1965.

I don't see any reason Paul couldn't have or shouldn't have done "Yesterday", because The Beatles were being honored for their contribution to the world of music -- not for appearing on Ed Sullivan. And the Grammys weren't held on the 40th anniversary of their first appearance on The Ed Sullivan show -- Monday was the anniversary.

As for what I thought your issue was, I actually don't remember.

Here's a clip of Paul singing "Yesterday" all those years ago: http://213.248.114.9...esterdaymix.asx