The 45th Annual Grammy Awards....Norah cleans up!

I think she was doing the folkey thing before being packaged by the record company. But it's true, she is a real songwriter and singer and I don't mind my daughters listening to her.

Dan C

 

No, Chris, the million lounge acts are "equally as good" as Britney, that's why just about all of them will stay where they are or end up waiting tables.

(And one of the big advantages Norah Jones offers--she appeals to more of the population who actually BUYS music. At this point, that's no small feat from a record label's perspective.)

Bottom line? If predictable behavior is all they were interested in, what was Eminem, Nelly and P-Diddy doing out there? Eminem DID win the tight for crotch grabs--you gotta "hand"him that.

You don't like Norah Jones? Fine. But I would say your "tired ass" cheap shots are not really going to impress anyone.

doug

 

Entertainment Weekly had a piece on her a while back, and she was being groomed to be the next Faith Hill until her agents/managers decided pop-punk was a better way to go.

Not saying she isn't talented and may well have a long career, but it definitely isn't a case of living a dream to play that kind of music.

Ryan

 

I think that Avril has been somewhat manufactured in the same vein as another of Canadian lasses, Alanis Morrisette. Before last night's awards, they showed Avril's mother in a news story on the 6 o'clock news here in Toronto (she's from 150 miles east of here). A recent high school picture shows her to be somewhat sweet looking with a nice hair style. To become the "anti Britney" or 'punk Britney", she now has straight unstyled, unkempt hair and wears a scowl all the time. Alanis used to be a teen dance artist with big hair and the appropriate wardrobe here in Canada. Then she suddenly becomes a bitter, jaded "artist" in 1995 with requisite straight hippy hair and jeans. These gals have talent, no doubt. But a carefully manipulated image has also been created for each of them.

As for Norah Jones, yes she was born in the US and is the daughter of Ravi Shankar (I haven't quoted the original message that couldn't connect these two facts). Ravi (a family friend of ours) tours and records abroad quite a bit, even though he maintains homes in India, London and San Diego. I believe her mother arranges tours and they had a "relationship". I haven't read anything that says that Ravi Shankar's mojo didn't work in the U.S. He also had a son (deceased) from his first marriage, and another daughter, Anoushka (a sitar player as well) who is three years younger than Norah. I've seen a picture that shows that the two sisters have the same tatoo on their lower backs (I think). I'll try to find it and post it.

Cliff

 

I agree that Britney is not the greatest musical talent that the world has ever seen, but I never cease to be confused by the automatic equation that "artist writes their own songs = good" / "artist doesn't write their songs = bad".

How many readers of this forum would agree that the Supremes were one of the best pop vocal groups ever? They didn't write their own songs (Holland/Dozier/Holland did that). They didn't play their own instruments (James Jamerson and the other Motwon session musicians did that). So what? Were Frank Sinatra and Ella Fitzgerald somehow inferior artists because they didn't write their own songs? No. The whole notion that a pop artist has to write all of their own material is a direct legacy of John Lennon and Paul McCartney. Unfortunately, all pop musicians are not as talented at writing songs as John Lennon and Paul McCartney. Just because someone has a beautiful voice or can play a great guitar solo doesn't mean they are capable of writing the next "Yesterday" or "In My Life". Even today, the tradition of covering other songwriters' material is accepted in country and jazz. I don't understand why pop artists have to write their own material in order to be taken seriously - witness the comment above that Avril Lavigne writes her own songs, so, therefore, she must have some merit. I *do* like Avril's song "Sk8er Boi", which has some semblance of "punky" energy to it, but the whole notion that Avril is "authentic" because she writes her songs is as much of a marketing campaign as anything to do with Britney. My understanding is that Avril co-wrote the songs on her album with the producers of her record. She clearly got a lot of help, some of it perhaps not so good - her current power ballad "I'm With You" veers dangerously close to 17-year-old Celine Dion territory. Going back to my previous point, however, why can't we judge Avril's songs on their own merits, regardless of who wrote them, and not assume that "if Avril wrote it, it must be good" / "If someone else wrote it, it must be bad".

Second, I just don't get the "Norah Jones plays a REAL PIANO" fetish displayed by several posters on this board. As Miles Davis might put it, so what? Judge the music someone plays and the sounds they create by whether they are good or bad, not by whether they played a "real" instrument or a "fake" one. And before the flood of "back in the 60s, they played REAL INSTRUMENTS" posts begins, ask yourself whether "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Strawberry Fields Forever" were "organic" performances or "artificial" studio creations.Bob Dylan alienated a portion of his fan base by going electric in '65, but the electric guitar hardly seems like a radical instrument today, does it?

Over the past 25 years, New Order, Depeche Mode, the Pet Shop Boys, and a thousand other artists have all created melodic, well-crafted songs with synthesized keyboards. Contemporary rap and hip-hop is the most exciting sonic universe in music today. Computer technology has allowed the creations of whole new genres of music, from trip-hop to techno to acid house and on and on and on. Some of this music is good, some of it is bad. Judge each artist in these genres on their own merits rather than dismissing the genre outrigh, however.

The "real piano" that Norah Jones plays is just as much a technological creation as a modern synthesizer. In Mozart's day, a piano more closely resembled a harpsichord than today's concert grand. Technological improvements led to a louder, bigger, instrument that bears very little resemblance to an eighteenth-century pianoforte. Should the technological progress of musical instruments have been stopped in the eighteenth century? In the nineteenth century?

 

He's very close to my wife's family and had never mentioned her to us (we met his other daughter). He is very conservative (he refused to play on the same Friday night set at the Monterrey Pop festival in 1967 as Jimi Hendrix (humping his guitar) and The Who (destroying their instruments) Instead he played on the Sunday). As such, I think he's always been in denial about his "illegitimate" duaghter. However, I saw him on CNN this morning and he was very proud of her and quite modest in saying that he deserves no credit for her talent. Also, after her first award, she thanked her mother and her boyfriend but not her father. Not a close relationship, methinks.

Cliff

 

Dan-

See the attached photo from last Saturday, at a party at the Canadian Consul General's house for Canadian Grammy nominees. Based on the results of Indy Mike's 'O Canada' thread, I do not believe Costello has an ounce of Canadian blood in him, so infer whatever other reason you want from his attendance.

 

I was having lunch one afternoon last spring while listening to WFUV, a public/college radio station. They had Norah and band in their studio for a chat and to play a few tunes.

I had never heard of her and just listened to the banter between her and the DJ/interviewer. She explained that she had a normal upbringing splitting her time between NYC & Texas, with her education centered in Texas.

I remember being impressed with her music and promptly picked up the CD. I think she is talented and wisely cast a broad net towards jazz/blues/country which should appeal to many, plus she likes to play live. Let's hope she continues to develop and mature.

Good to see the Grammy's back in NYC. I watched on a high def display w/5.1 sound They did a great job.

 

Did I miss something, or did George Harrison die last year? He didn't show up last in the memorium (or at all?) To ignore one of the Beatles dying is an incredible travesty.
Or maybe his dying missed the November cutoff to be considered in that year's Grammys?

 

He died in 2001 - if a tribute was to be performed, it would have been most relevant to be done at the awards held in 2002.

 

He died in November 2001. This was noted in the February 2002 ceremony.

 

sorry. My error.

 

I never said that.

Not me. I don't like most of that early Motown stuff for the the very fact that it ismanufactured, but at least there are actual instruments on it played by 'real' musicians and not all on a Korg or Roland programmed in by producers and engineers and not the actual 'artist' themselves.

I never liked Frank Sinatra, but Ella Fitzgerald had one thing going for her that neither Avril Lavigne nor Britney spears have - and that's a great voice. backed by some of the greatest Jazz musicians and composers of all time.

No kidding, Really?

You don't say?

Yes, but most of the ones that are great are highly skilled musicians that play most or all of their own instruments (i.e. Alison Krauss) and may write some of their own material as well as play their own instruments (i.e. Dolly Parton, Dixie Chicks, Nickel Creek)

I think if you re-read what I said you will see that I said she was a 'real' musician, I never mentioned anything about authenticity. In fact, I even questioned her 'authenticity':

The problem here is, if she didn't write them, technically, they're not 'Avril's Songs'. Then it all comes down to how she performs it. I'm not an Avril Lavigne fan, so I don't give two hoots about whether she really wrote her stuff or not. If Norah Jones didn't write her song, at least she sat down at the piano, played it displaying her rather skilled musicianship and sang it quite nicely.

I don't care if someone plays a Steinway or a Korg. The difference is Britney Spears' music is all fake produced garbage, IMO, that she neither played or programmed. It's all about image without quality.

And I'm a big Depeche Mode and New Order fan and they played all of their instruments, acoustic, electric, or electronic wrote all their material and did it with skill. Their sounds/songs/production weren't all in someone else's hands.

In your opinion it is.

Which is what I do, so what's your point? Is it somehow dismissive of an entire genre if I voice dislike for Britney Spears? Does saying I don't like Avril Lavigne mean I have dismissed the entire pop-punk genre? I think not.

Very true, and I don't disagree. My point was she was actually there on stage playing it, herself, not dancing around half-naked while a backing track or group of hired musicians played. What the heck does Britney Spears play? Write? Mix? Record? Program? Those are the questions.

 

What the heck did Frank Sinatra play? Write? Mix? Record? Program?

What the heck did Ella Fitzgerald play? Write? Mix? Record? Program?

What the heck did the Ronettes/the Supremes/insert 60s girl-group here play? Write? Mix? Record? Program?

What the heck does Renee Fleming or any other classical soprano play? Write? Mix? Record? Program?

Dismiss Britney Spears because you don't think she's a good singer, but don't dismiss her because she sings other people's songs. I said it before and I'll say it again, the worst effect that John Lennon and Paul McCartney had on popular music was the creation of the consensus that pop/rock musicians have to write all of their own material. As the above examples suggest, there are some very talented vocalists who don't necessarily have the ability or desire to write their own material. Does that mean that we can't enjoy listening to them sing other people's songs? In the classical, jazz, and country genres, this is not really an issue. But for some reason, there is a romantic cult of "authenticity" in rock that frowns on cover versions.

Jeff Beck may be the most talented lead guitarist that the British Invasion produced. But he is underrated compared to Jimi Hendrix and Jimmy Page because he's never been very good at writing his own material (of course, it can be argued that Jimmy Page didn't "write" a lot of Led Zeppelin's material, but that's another debate).

Norah Jones, who started this whole discussion, shows at least some influence from the jazz tradition when she covers standards such as "Cold, Cold Heart" on her album. If Norah recorded an entire album of jazz standards, I wouldn't dismiss the record simply because "she didn't write her own material".

I'm not interested in starting a flame war on this topic. I am interested in why so many rock fans can't accept that there are other models for musicians to follow than the Lennon/McCartney self-contained writer/performer unit.

 

The two most exciting artists in pop music today, in my humble opinion, are Missy Elliot and Bjork. Both pass the "write your own songs" test, but neither woman is afraid of modern technology. If you want to dismiss them because they use drum machines or Pro Tools, it's your loss. And just because you get hip to some new sounds doesn't mean you have to quit going to the opera. I haven't. I still love Mozart. [/B][/QUOTE]

No, it's not my 'loss', it's my GAIN. Because there is a ton of great music to listen to and not enough hours in the day to listen to it all. I don't have time for music I can't stand.

 

I don't like Frank Sinatra as I said before. Ella Fitzgerald played her vocal chords and was backed by some of the greates Jazz musicians and composers of all time, as I stated before. I don't like The Supremes or The Ronettes because I find their music to be too 'manufactured' as I stated before. Renee Fleming plays her voice, very skillfully and as she was more likely than not trained somewhere like Juliard or the Peabody, is very well versed in music theory and can read sheet music, and could pobably do some heavy-duty arrangements if she need ed to, can Britney spears? What is her actual 'musical' talent?

I sad it before and I'll say it again I don't dismiss her because she didn;t write her on songs - I dismiss her because she has none of what I consider true musical talent, and I consider her music to be overproduced, non-melodic garbage. Okay?

Yes, but in the Classical and Jazz genres, no one hailed Mozart as a great 'artist' because he was handing in compositions to his publishers that were actually composed by a team of composers and then marketed as his own. I don't listen to overproduced pop-country artists whose only talent is a cowboy hat or a good set of legs either.

So perhaps he should have known his on limitations and remained a backing player and not the headliner.

Nor would I, but I think you're having a problem comprehending that.

I liked The Beatles, but they are certainly not on some unobtainable pinnacle as far as I'm concerned, but if you're going to consider someone a musician or musical 'artist' there are certain prerequisites that need to be applied. Song writing ability is an instant mark of artistic talent, a strong ability to put together musical arrangements (i.e. Allison Krauss and Union Station), the ability to play a musical instrument with a competent level of skill, and, if you just sing, a reasonably strong voice and the ability to stay in key and hold a note without the assistance of Pro-Tools would be requirements too. All or any can be applied.

 

Ah, musical debate! Just please remember to keep it civil, guys. It's music, not holy writ.

First things first: Eminem's performance was censored on both coasts; I came in late for the east coast feed, caught the 2nd half, then went over to the west coast feed to catch up. So he got the eraser twice. I could have lived just fine without Nelly, myself. I think Dan has Fred Durst pegged pretty well.

I didn't find Norah's victories at all surprising; whether you find her music bland, or just plain nice'n'easy(as I do)or whether you want to call if pop jazz or light pop, whatever, she is very easy to like. But, typical of every year, notice that for all the supposed 'diversity,' the Grammy choices are, in fact, very narrow. I will say, though, that for a first album, Norah did pretty well out of the box; remember, Springsteen's first only hinted at his talent; BORN TO RUN was still unthinkable at that time. She'll get better, and very likely challenge herself. I hope so, anyway.

That THE RISING may have 'meaning' compared to Norah's album doesn't impress me much. Not only do I think Bruce's best days are behind him, but music is about entertainment; messages are all well and good if you can put them across with a great song, but messages in and of themselves don't make great music. I wouldn't describe anything Joan Baez ever did as being particularly 'essential,' and it's worth remembering the Dylan music we cherish the most isn't the obvious and overt 'protest' material from the early albums, but the cleverer, more rocking mid-'60s masterpieces; or the more personal BLOOD ON THE TRACKS a decade later.

Yet for a Grammy program, this was one of the better years. Not so much for the winners, but for the overall presentation and relative lack of controversy or artist shenanigans that tend to taint these broadcasts. The politics was kept to a minimum, and if there could have been more talented winners, I blame the limited, myopic choices to begin with. As much as I did Norah's album, I have to admit a Best New Artist nominee probably shouldn't be getting so many noms in other categories. What will happen in years to come is, very likely, she will make far better albums than the current one, yet find herself nominated less, if at all, because of what she achieved here.

The worst aspect of the Grammys has always been the omissions; I'm sure each of us here could come up with a few fine albums that went totally ignored.

ED

 

That's because he is 25, he meant that he felt like a 16 year old...

 

But award shows do teach people who do not necessarily keep up with who's popular with the masses and become somewhat aware of who's popular with the masses.

 

Can't you rebel, Steve? Do they mail it out for you, too, or can't you scratch out the marks?