12-31-2024, 06:44 PM
I would not have guessed that some of those groups never won a competitive Grammy. Going with what I listen to:
Hendrix makes sense. Probably ahead of his time. I think I'll drop needle on Axis later tonight. It's been awhile.
Buddy Holly is surprising.
Iggy Pop is for me, but not for everyone, so I get that.
I could see The Ramones tossing a Grammy into the East River. A Grammy ain't punk.
Ditto The Who, but into The Thames. Who's Next was voted best album of 1971, which is the best year of all years, by whichever list I always have open when scrounging for vinyl up and down the west coast. The Grammy winner in 1971 was Bridge Over Troubled Water by Simon and Garfunkel, which is a damn good album. It's no Who's Next, but a damn good album.
Wow. Queen. Who knew?
The Doors were non-commercially commercial, so that makes some sense.
Bob Marley is only the king of an entire genre of music, so why would he ever win a Grammy?
Diana Ross is surprising.
Beach Boys is shocking. Pet Sounds was a seminal album released in 1966. It eventually begat Sgt. Pepper out of competition. The 1966 Grammy winner for best pop album was....Sinatra's September of My Years. OK, that doesn't suck. Stiff competition including Herb Alpert (yay), Tony Bennett (yay), Tom Jones (what is new, pussycat?). Can't beef with that too much.
There are some good artists on your list. Maybe there is just a lot of good music, and the Grammy's are awfully random?
Cool question Mick, and I say that as someone who likes to remain at least ten years behind the times musically. But to be fair, someone that kept his son-in-law from tossing a crate full of vinyl someone gave him for $5 at a garage sale just to dump it. He had never heard the awesomeness of what was in there. He only wanted the Sound of Music soundtrack for my granddaughter (would pay five bucks for that alone) but came away with a range of stuff including pristine (sealed) copies of Miles, Tijuana Brass, Chet Baker, Chick Correa, Ornette Colman, Thelonious, James Gang, and "Who is this Led Zeppelin guy?"
Hendrix makes sense. Probably ahead of his time. I think I'll drop needle on Axis later tonight. It's been awhile.
Buddy Holly is surprising.
Iggy Pop is for me, but not for everyone, so I get that.
I could see The Ramones tossing a Grammy into the East River. A Grammy ain't punk.
Ditto The Who, but into The Thames. Who's Next was voted best album of 1971, which is the best year of all years, by whichever list I always have open when scrounging for vinyl up and down the west coast. The Grammy winner in 1971 was Bridge Over Troubled Water by Simon and Garfunkel, which is a damn good album. It's no Who's Next, but a damn good album.
Wow. Queen. Who knew?
The Doors were non-commercially commercial, so that makes some sense.
Bob Marley is only the king of an entire genre of music, so why would he ever win a Grammy?
Diana Ross is surprising.
Beach Boys is shocking. Pet Sounds was a seminal album released in 1966. It eventually begat Sgt. Pepper out of competition. The 1966 Grammy winner for best pop album was....Sinatra's September of My Years. OK, that doesn't suck. Stiff competition including Herb Alpert (yay), Tony Bennett (yay), Tom Jones (what is new, pussycat?). Can't beef with that too much.
There are some good artists on your list. Maybe there is just a lot of good music, and the Grammy's are awfully random?
Cool question Mick, and I say that as someone who likes to remain at least ten years behind the times musically. But to be fair, someone that kept his son-in-law from tossing a crate full of vinyl someone gave him for $5 at a garage sale just to dump it. He had never heard the awesomeness of what was in there. He only wanted the Sound of Music soundtrack for my granddaughter (would pay five bucks for that alone) but came away with a range of stuff including pristine (sealed) copies of Miles, Tijuana Brass, Chet Baker, Chick Correa, Ornette Colman, Thelonious, James Gang, and "Who is this Led Zeppelin guy?"