No Grammy Nominations for 2018?

[WhiteTim]

Grammys are voted by musicians and other people in the music business 

my thoughts is RevRad didn't stay on the minds of the academy members with so many albums it's very easy for albums to be overlooked and forgotten about 

[The Great Saiyaman]

5 hours ago, Stefano Bras said:

This is bull shit!

Flynn 

[greendepent]

Well, is not like RevRad was that great. It doesn't offer something attractive, probably the ones who choose the nominees just said "more of the same, next". Just in sonic terms, Villians is far more interesting and showcases how a band who made a very sophisticated album (Like Clockwork) did another in the same fashion, but with totally different results. Green Day was only emulating their AI sound with a lower budget with RevRad. And bow guitar

I think "Run" as song is quite average, but the Foos sounded far more interesting under the production of Greg Kurstin.

I'm not surprised. Even if Grammys are usually full of shit, this time they are right

 

[gaslight13]

2 hours ago, Grubby Poop said:

I think that is a bit of a stretch. It is a standard chord progression.  

By pattern I don't mean chord progression. I don't know if there's a better term to describe what I'm talking about but there's a rhythm to how he delivers the lyrics in the verses and it's pretty similar in these two songs.

[Chin for a Day]

10 minutes ago, gaslight13 said:

By pattern I don't mean chord progression. I don't know if there's a better term to describe what I'm talking about but there's a rhythm to how he delivers the lyrics in the verses and it's pretty similar in these two songs.

I don't here it, at all

[DookieLukie]

I know "Bang, Bang" wasn't eligible, but it's a shame that song didn't get much recognition. I think it's a great track sonically and lyrically, and it was cleverly topical at the right time. However, RevRad was solid but I wouldn't say it broke any new ground or was award-worthy. Just trying to stay objective. But honestly, Grammys nominations are all over the place, so who even knows what "Grammy-worthy" means? Look at record of the year, for example. You have "Despacito," a catchy pop song featuring Justin Beiber, going up against "The Story of OJ" by Jay-Z, which I thought was very sophisticated and topical. These two songs are fundamentally different and serve different purposes to the listener. It's like an Adam Sandler movie and a Tarantino movie both being nominated for Best Picture. The Grammys show no clear idea of what they are looking for in music aside from being swayed by fads. Look at the past 10 winners of Record of the Year and Album of the Year, and try to tell me what kind of consistent characteristics any of those pieces of music have. It's all so random. Even if the Academy loves snobby, art-house films, they at least have a criteria.

[BucksCoEric]

Well...this is disappointing

[1039Revolutions]

I'm honestly not surprised because the mixing on RevRad is unacceptable, and something like that doesn't sneak by critics and the board the makes the selections. I was actually thinking that if Green Day was nominated, it would have been only because of the fact that it's Green Day, and that's not right for something like the Grammys.

The songs on RevRad are definitely worthy of being nominated, and if they were produced by a producer, it would have likely been nominated, and probably would have won. They decided to 100% self produce and that's a HUGE gamble because they are not producers, they are artists. The volume controls are all over place, and if I was an artist and saw bang bang nominated for a Grammy, I would be offended.

[WhiteTim]

21 minutes ago, 1039Revolutions said:

I'm honestly not surprised because the mixing on RevRad is unacceptable, and something like that doesn't sneak by critics and the board the makes the selections. I was actually thinking that if Green Day was nominated, it would have been only because of the fact that it's Green Day, and that's not right for something like the Grammys.

The songs on RevRad are definitely worthy of being nominated, and if they were produced by a producer, it would have likely been nominated, and probably would have won. They decided to 100% self produce and that's a HUGE gamble because they are not producers, they are artists. The volume controls are all over place, and if I was an artist and saw bang bang nominated for a Grammy, I would be offended.

that has nothing at all to do with not being nominated...

[1039Revolutions]

1 hour ago, WhiteTim said:

that has nothing at all to do with not being nominated...

I disagree.. I think mixing and production has an impact on a song/album being nominated in all categories. I think the quality of the song writing has a big part in it obviously, but definitely not the sole reason it would be nominated. 

[Cunt]

Of course the foo fighters ass kissing is still going around 

[WhiteTim]

25 minutes ago, 1039Revolutions said:

I disagree.. I think mixing and production has an impact on a song/album being nominated in all categories. I think the quality of the song writing has a big part in it obviously, but definitely not the sole reason it would be nominated. 

I was a voting member from 2008-2013 mixing doesn’t have much to do when it comes to the bigger categories 

[Hermione]

Might've had a chance last year (when there was still hype for the album) if they'd hurried up and released it a week earlier. Even though this is the year it qualifies for it's over a year old....too late. Bad release timing.

[Thatsername]

1 hour ago, Hermione said:

Might've had a chance last year (when there was still hype for the album) if they'd hurried up and released it a week earlier. Even though this is the year it qualifies for it's over a year old....too late. Bad release timing.

But things like this should be taken into account when you're releasing an album, shouldn't they? Kind of annoying.

But oh well, it doesn't matter. I think RevRad is an album that only gets you when you know the story and the meaning behind it, if you don't know the background, it might just seem average. That's ok, it's still a great album for me

Oh and the Foo Fighters are so overrated imo..... sorry

[jengd]

1 hour ago, Hermione said:

Might've had a chance last year (when there was still hype for the album) if they'd hurried up and released it a week earlier. Even though this is the year it qualifies for it's over a year old....too late. Bad release timing.

I agree with @Hermione their timing was off.  As ever, I wonder who on earth decides on the categories with these things and don't think the QOTSA album belongs on there, I was really disappointed in it, it's not great at all.  Hardly heard the rest.  There is quite a bit in the press today I notice about the nominations, which I guess is standard also with all of these things.

 

[Red Lights Flash]

Guys, just because Green Day didn't get a nomination, doesn't mean that Foo Fighters didn't deserve theirs. I'm a Green Day fan (obviously), but I'm willing to bet more people think that Green Day is overrated than Foo Fighters.

Imo, concrete and gold was not a masterpiece, but at least it breathes a lot more originality than Rev Rav (although producer Greg Kurstin is probably the biggest reason for that).

[Guest]

I know right? Sooo disappointing! Who knows maybe it isn't too late to sign a petition of something to make sure they are still included

One of my theories is maybe the time of the release of Revolution Radio affected this? I could be wrong but hey, many of the nominations for next year do not top Rev Red at all. Not even the slightest chance.

I hope things are different in the future!

[Hero_Of_The_Hour]

14 hours ago, Billie Joe Armstrong said:

DiCaprio bought his when he finally realized he wasn't gonna earn it by his acting.

Which is exactly why Green Day still have the receipts from their Grammy purchase right?

Everyone here bitching about how corrupt the Grammys are would be doing quite the opposite if GD were nominated and won. Get over it. 

 

[BilIie Joe Armstrong]

4 hours ago, Hero_Of_The_Hour said:

Which is exactly why Green Day still have the receipts from their Grammy purchase right?

[Chin for a Day]

27 minutes ago, Hero_Of_The_Hour said:

Which is exactly why Green Day still have the receipts from their Grammy purchase right?

 

 

Of course they don't. You only need to keep receipts for 7 years for tax purposes.

[gaslight13]

2 hours ago, JorickF said:

Guys, just because Green Day didn't get a nomination, doesn't mean that Foo Fighters didn't deserve theirs. I'm a Green Day fan (obviously), but I'm willing to bet more people think that Green Day is overrated than Foo Fighters.

Imo, concrete and gold was not a masterpiece, but at least it breathes a lot more originality than Rev Rav (although producer Greg Kurstin is probably the biggest reason for that).

I’m not going to pretend that I’ve listened to that album especially closely, but from my two casual listens, I found it to be one of the most boring albums FF have put out. Granted, I also find 90% of their catalogue to be boring, but they’ve definitely done better and I really don’t think Run is even the best song on the album. So I think it’s completely undeserved apart from GD. But add on that Run made it and no aspect of Rev Rad did and it just adds to GD’s snub. And I do think it’s a snub because Grammys are given out to so much mediocre music anyway, so for an album that’s by no means bad to not be nominated at all, is a snub.

[Mar]

Disappointed a bit, but also not surprised. I think critics/voters enjoyed the album, but I'm not sure it has as much of an impact as (most of) the ones who are nominated, especially since it's not as fresh on the minds of voters compared to some of these. And, yknow, it's hard to compete against the dead, as we see in the Performance category.

[CherryBombs&Gasoline]

To be honest, I don't understand the concept of all these award shows. Art is something very personal and whether you like a song, an album or an artist mainly depends on your personal taste. And just because a lot of critics praise something doesn't always mean that it's great. That's why I don't really care for the Grammys or the Academy Awards, even though I love music and films. 

By the way, songs like Despacito, which is mainly about sex, or Thunder, which sounds like a random person doing nothing but saying the word "Thunder" all the time, are nominated. So I doubt that a Grammy nomination is necessarily an indicator for quality ;). It would have been cool if GD had been nominated. But RevRad was not really the biggest commercial succes of GDs career and I believe that commercial success is quite an important factor when it comes to awards like this. But it is how it is, doesn't make the album worse :).

[Signe]

urrgh.. foo fighters, such a bore. Except from the Nirvana connection I never understood the hype. 

 

Green Day rule all and we know it. 

 

[moonflower93]

i'm sorry after american idiot GD went to shit with the quality of songs. (doesn't mean i don't like the songs) but there are more GD haters than before!