I don't understand the Grammy Awards. They reward mostly schlock that sold well. I mean, Mariah Carey has a wonderful voice, but she uses it to sing cheesy ballads, and crappy "R&B" bullsh*t. Gwen Stefani's Hollaback Girl is nominated, I think that's the second worst song ever written behind the "lovely lady lumps" song by BEP it's not one of the best songs of the year. Maroon 5 is nominated for Best Pop Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal for This Love, I might be wrong, but wasn't this song nominated last year for something? One song, 2 Grammy nominations in different years. Is that strange? How is this possible? I'd like to nominate Fargo for an Oscar again because it didn't win in 1997. Can we do that? Plus, what's with the soundtrack and score catagories? Million Dollar Baby, The Aviator, Ray, Napoleon Dynamite? These were all movies and soundtracks from 2004, weren't they? I mean, 3 of those movies won Oscars for 2004. I think the grammys needs to go more the way of the Oscars. They award great performances, and great movies. They don't just pick the biggest box off hit, or the most popular movie, they pick movies based on something other than money. I know there's a lot of money behind getting someone nominated, but if the Oscars were like the Grammys we'd see Star Wars III vs. The 40-Year Old Virgin for best picture. Those are good movies, but not the best of the year.
I have issue with The Emancipation of Mimi being a "comeback" album too. What is she coming back from? Lots of bands and people take 3 years to release a new album, and it's not a "comeback."
That's my grammy rant. Sorry for the length.