how is Maroon5 considered a "new artist?"

Maroon5 best new artist over Los Lonely Boys? The Academy's taste is in its mouth.

It's not sentiment, it's called GUILT.

Motorhead. alright. That's the shit. I'll have to update my interview post.

Best Historical Album: Night Train To Nashville: Music City Rhythm & Blues, 1945-1970, Daniel Cooper & Michael Gray, compilation producers; Joseph M. Palmaccio & Alan Stoker, mastering engineers (Various Artists)

Way to go Michael Gray!!! I spent five years working beside the fellow at Phonoluxe Used Records.

John Lars, the dead guy factor is hard to beat, especially if the dead guy is a legend who put out his best album in about 30 years, which sold like free beer.

It's just difficult to get past the whole "yeah, you like me now, bitches!" factor in the Grammys. Especially in the last couple of years. It really seems like they care less about the good music being produced, and more about who they can side with in a successful marketing campaign.

I guess I just wonder why the Oscars managed to (mostly) get over that hump and the Grammys are still stuck at the bottom of the hill.

Eric, free beer sells? I wouldn't pay a dime for free beer!

Anyway, I couldn't care less about the Grammys, I thought, but then on the radio last night the announcer said that he had just received a phone call from L.A. from one of the guys in Brave Combo, who won another Grammy. And I realized that maybe I care, just a little. :-)

I do not know what the Grammys are supposed to represent but I do know last night was not the best in music.

I know mainstream award ceremonies are easy targets and Ray Charles is a legend, but the Grammys could not be any more irrelevant. What horseshit! John Mayer and Alicia Keys have Grammys. 3 Doors Down and Creed have Grammys. Jimi Hendrix? No fucking Grammys (unless they gave him a late posthumous one). Enough said.

not to be an apologist, but the Grammys were an atavistic atrocity in the early days and ignored rock 'n' roll almost entirely. They have progressively become more current and relevant over the years, adding all kinds of new catagories, increasing the performance aspect of the broadcast. The main awards themselves are still often very safe and middle of the road, but great strides have been made, and they also seem to be trying hard to make up for the glaring omissions of the past with all these lifetime achievement awards - looks like Hendrix is still shut out, though.

"Jimi Hendrix? No fucking Grammys...Enough said."

This just makes it sting even more when you think about the fact that The Starland Vocal Band have a Grammy.

LOTS of people have Grammys: the way it is now, the more niche-oriented you are, the more likely you are to score

I am pleased to see Green Day did not walk away with a truckload of awards. Not because of their politics, since I tend to align myself on the left side of things. But because they suck. I cannot take any band seriously that has an album named "Dookie", first off. I saw the performance last night, and the new song sounds just like all of their other crappy music, with that goofball singing in his annoying voice. I was wondering what that album sounded like, and now I know. MOre crap from Green Day.

i have to admit it: i really used to like "Afternoonn Delight".

gawd.

the grammy people know nothing. nothing. it's all fodder for the perpetuation of the sick state of the music industry. i will never bother with the grammy's again.

? for anyone: why do they call it a Grammy?

grammy is short for gramophone, the early record player