Best Ever Albums

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

nf0603 — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 22:54:50 GMT

Author: nf0603

Posted: 08/06/2013 02:54

This was probably the best Best Albums roster in eons. All five albums are solid in their own right, but I do think Babel was deserved even though its trendy to hate Mumford now.

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

Necharsian — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 22:29:23 GMT

Author: Necharsian

Posted: 08/06/2013 02:29

I would take any of the grammy nominations over the Seer.

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

lightmyway — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 22:15:59 GMT

Author: lightmyway

Posted: 08/06/2013 02:15

Puncture Repair wrote:

I don't understand why there isn't a legitimate music award that awards real critically acclaimed music. Films have plenty, The Oscars and BAFTA always select genuinely well made films. Where are the awards for albums like The Seer of 2012? That was acclaimed almost unanimously by critics and fans, whilst some half-arsed pop-folk walks away with one of the most prestigious music awards. Just don't get it.

Well the Grammys have a sort of unspoken prerequisite that an album should be mainstream to get nominated, The Seer would never in a million years qualify and if it did qualify and win there would be heavy backlash that they'd hope to avoid. The Oscars are the same way. They always nominate a lesser known or indie film but the winner is almost always a popular movie. There is not a lot of critically acclaimed popular music though unlike with films, so the Grammys have less to work with, hence their sometimes laughable picks.

The reason the film industry gets good mainstream stuff and music doesn't is that the Oscar is a brand in itself and film distributors will heavily promote a movie that critics like if they think it will win or be nominated for Oscars. People will rent a movie just because it was nominated for an Oscar, nobody will listen to an album just because it was nominated for a Grammy. If the Oscars had less clout they would have to resort to nominating Transformers and the Smurfs 2 for viewers, but since the industry caters to their taste they can nominate good things.

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

GeevyDallas — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 20:08:58 GMT

Author: GeevyDallas

Posted: 08/06/2013 00:08

sszwalbenest wrote:

1. Channel Orange
2. Blunderbuss
3. Some Nights
4. Babel
5. El Camino

You got the right order too, well done.

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

sszwalbenest — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 16:39:34 GMT

Author: sszwalbenest

Posted: 08/05/2013 20:39

While many may consider me a slave to the industry I do buy each nominee for album of the year. After listening to them I would rank them like so:
1. Channel Orange
2. Blunderbuss
3. Some Nights
4. Babel
5. El Camino
The only two years I can think of in which each nominee was deserving were 1971 and 2001. I may post polls on them too.

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

meccalecca — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:20:55 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 08/05/2013 19:20

ShaneSpear wrote:

I think Pitchfork actually put a good example of For Emma's increase in respect (at least over here) towards the end of the decade.

Pitchfork's Top 50 albums of 2007 - #29
Pitchfork's Top 200 albums of the 2000s (produced late 2009) - .....#29

Ehh. If my memory serves me right, For Emma was incredibly well received by critics when it was released. I'd ever go as far as saying it got more consistent praise than his follow up. But naturally he was more well known by the time Bonnie Bear came out, but clearly not know enough to be a totally mystery to about 90% of the people watching the Grammys

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

meccalecca — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:16:47 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 08/05/2013 19:16

junodog4 wrote:

For Canadian music, check out the Polaris prize. Much better choices.

Ahh. thank you. i was apparently mixing the 2 up. that makes more sense.

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

junodog4 — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:14:43 GMT

Author: junodog4

Posted: 08/05/2013 19:14

meccalecca wrote:

I was gonna say the Juno Awards are another more well done music award and then I looked at the 2013 Winners and Nominations. There's a very clear trend. One name appears next to essentially every artist listed. Universal

http://junoawards.ca/nominees-winners/

I agree. the Mercury Prize is probably the best high profile music award.

For Canadian music, check out the Polaris prize. Much better choices.

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

ShaneSpear — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:44:53 GMT

Author: ShaneSpear

Posted: 08/05/2013 18:44

I think Pitchfork actually put a good example of For Emma's increase in respect (at least over here) towards the end of the decade.

Pitchfork's Top 50 albums of 2007 - #29
Pitchfork's Top 200 albums of the 2000s (produced late 2009) - .....#29

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

Anonymous — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:32:01 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/05/2013 18:32

ShaneSpear wrote:

As good as For Emma may be, it was released to little fanfare in 2007 and ended up growing in popularity and respect over time. You can't really go back in time and award him best new artist in 2007 or 2008. His 2012 Best New Artist grammy was to establish his place in the mainstream eye (which he did with Bon Iver x2.)

I remember For Emma being pretty big. My mum even bought a copy, and the last albums she bought before that were Coldplay's Parachutes and a compilation of million-selling singles that cost £1. Maybe he was better received over here than in the States, but he still got universally great reviews and was hardly an unknown.

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

ShaneSpear — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:06:33 GMT

Author: ShaneSpear

Posted: 08/05/2013 18:06

The guidelines for the Best New Artist grammy is: "For a new artist who releases, during the Eligibility Year, the first recording which establishes the public identity of that artist."

As good as For Emma may be, it was released to little fanfare in 2007 and ended up growing in popularity and respect over time. You can't really go back in time and award him best new artist in 2007 or 2008. His 2012 Best New Artist grammy was to establish his place in the mainstream eye (which he did with Bon Iver x2.)

I've never understood why people don't get this.

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

meruizh — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 13:03:49 GMT

Author: meruizh

Posted: 08/05/2013 17:03

Bon Iver won "Best New Artist" IN 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that's how serious you can take the Grammy's opinion on music.

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

meccalecca — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 11:28:10 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 08/05/2013 15:28

lethalnezzle wrote:

I think a good solution to this problem would be an expansion of the aforementioned Mercury Prize. If they stayed true to the idea that it's supposed to be about the best records (whatever that means), as opposed to what sold the most, and continued to have the panel populated by peers, journalists and label people (including those representing indie labels), it could work. Imagine if it were to branch out to include 'Best International Album', 'Best Instrumental Album', 'Best Non-English Language Album', 'Best Album Production', 'Best Single'. It would give fans much more to discuss, as you say, and make room for a far wider variety of albums to check out.

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

Anonymous — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 11:12:35 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/05/2013 15:12

Puncture Repair wrote:

I try to ignore the Grammys, it's more a yearning for an award rather than spitting on the current ones.
It certainly isn't a necessity, but something I feel that music fans are left out of. My Brother and my Dad are huge film buffs, and The Oscars and BAFTA awards are exciting times for them and provides a good basis to discuss films, actors, soundtracks etc. There's a lot of fun in simply anticipating the winner or certain awards and deciding yourself who you think should win. Not dissimilar, video games are starting to see awards and many websites have a big build up to what the GOTY is, it's hard not to get pulled into that and really start discussing what great games the year had provided - a fantastic retrospective.
And for a short period of time, I would really enjoy championing my favourite albums with the nation, not just those with similar tastes to mine.

As I said, not a necessity, but without a doubt in my mind a hole that really ought to be filled.

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

meccalecca — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 11:04:29 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 08/05/2013 15:04

The Grammys are run by the major labels. Every once in a while they let something like Bon Iver or Arcade Fire slip through the cracks, but nominations are decided by wallet size and who you know. I'm pretty sure there's a fee labels have to pay to have an album even considered. There's also a lot of thought put into the nominations based around building up the tv viewing audience so they can maximize advertising dollars. This explains why token indie artists receive nominations along with scandal-fueling artists like Chris Brown

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

Anonymous — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 10:33:18 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/05/2013 14:33

lethalnezzle wrote:

Whilst I agree it would be nice, it's not a necessity, and any sustained success such an endeavor may achieve would most likely lead to it turning more to the mainstream in order to attract more viewers, in turn only adding to the current homogenisation of such events. I think the best thing to do is just to ignore them and let them get on with it, and try to champion your favourite albums among friends and on sites such as this one.

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

Anonymous — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 09:43:12 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/05/2013 13:43

Puncture Repair wrote:

Channel Orange I guess, but who cares? The Grammys is a complete joke. The leader singer of Tool put it best:

I think the Grammys are nothing more than some gigantic promotional machine for the music industry. They cater to a low intellect and they feed the masses. They don't honor the arts or the artist for what he created. It's the music business celebrating itself. That's basically what it's all about

I don't understand why there isn't a legitimate music award that awards real critically acclaimed music. Films have plenty, The Oscars and BAFTA always select genuinely well made films. Where are the awards for albums like The Seer of 2012? That was acclaimed almost unanimously by critics and fans, whilst some half-arsed pop-folk walks away with one of the most prestigious music awards. Just don't get it.

The Mercury Prize, whether or not I agree with their nominations or choices, tends to reward critically acclaimed albums, I assume because a significant proportion of the panel is made up of music journalists, but that's a niche award (British albums only, in theory anyway) so your point still stands. These days, with the rise of free journalism, awards ceremonies are becoming less and less relevant by the year anyway. People know which publications they enjoy reading, and are far more likely to pay attention to their end-of-year lists than to awards shows that attempt to please the most amount of people possible. I think it's a healthy development, and one that could force awards shows to start thinking outside the box a little (whether they will or not is a different matter, but nobody wants to be seen as being out of touch). That said, while people still tune in and watch them in droves, there appears to be little reason to change the format and, as I said, the fact that switched on, enthusiastic music fans get their fix from their favourite website or blog's end-of-year lists means that there isn't really the demand for an awards ceremony aimed at people like us. Whilst I agree it would be nice, it's not a necessity, and any sustained success such an endeavor may achieve would most likely lead to it turning more to the mainstream in order to attract more viewers, in turn only adding to the current homogenisation of such events. I think the best thing to do is just to ignore them and let them get on with it, and try to champion your favourite albums among friends and on sites such as this one.

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

Anonymous — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 09:23:56 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/05/2013 13:23

Channel Orange I guess, but who cares? The Grammys is a complete joke. The leader singer of Tool put it best:

I think the Grammys are nothing more than some gigantic promotional machine for the music industry. They cater to a low intellect and they feed the masses. They don't honor the arts or the artist for what he created. It's the music business celebrating itself. That's basically what it's all about

I don't understand why there isn't a legitimate music award that awards real critically acclaimed music. Films have plenty, The Oscars and BAFTA always select genuinely well made films. Where are the awards for albums like The Seer of 2012? That was acclaimed almost unanimously by critics and fans, whilst some half-arsed pop-folk walks away with one of the most prestigious music awards. Just don't get it.

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

Patman360 — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 09:16:49 GMT

Author: Patman360

Posted: 08/05/2013 13:16

DLGGLD wrote:

It's a weird one, good kid, m.A.A.d. city won't be eligible until the 2014 Grammys, which would be nearly 2 years after it was released. I think Drake won rap album of the year last year in the same situation.

We live in one crazy world...

Re: grammy album of the year 2013

ArizonaGreenTea — Mon, 5 Aug 2013 08:56:09 GMT

Author: ArizonaGreenTea

Posted: 08/05/2013 12:56

El Camino was the best by far