Lindsey & NIN/QOTSA/Grohl To Perform Grammy Awards Finale

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by SpyNote

Ultimately it comes down to money. The acts that sell well will be placed earlier in the show. The ones that don't sell as well will be placed towards the end when there are fewer people watching, fewer people who regularly buy music.

I would have thought that since these awards shows traditionally present the biggest award last that viewership picks up at the end of the show.

Michele

[aprilsrain]

Waiting for uncut version to circulate around the internets....

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by aprilsrain

Waiting for uncut version to circulate around the internets....

I was wondering if there was a chance of that happening.

Michele

[elle]

Originally Posted by michelej1

I was wondering if there was a chance of that happening.

Michele

so far, [grammys or cbs?] have been taking down from youtube all the different versions of their performance that keep cropping up.

i recently saw a new upload here http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=FSN9EmnbAHY , not sure how long that was will last (or whether it's even still up).

it would be nice to think they are blocking all these uploaded versions because they plan on putting up a full version, without cutting the end, but somehow i doubt that's why they are doing it.

TR's tweet received a lot of publicity.

[aprilsrain]

Originally Posted by elle

so far, [grammys or cbs?] have been taking down from youtube all the different versions of their performance that keep cropping up.

i recently saw a new upload here http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=FSN9EmnbAHY , not sure how long that was will last (or whether it's even still up).

it would be nice to think they are blocking all these uploaded versions because they plan on putting up a full version, without cutting the end, but somehow i doubt that's why they are doing it.

TR's tweet received a lot of publicity.

Grammy's I don't think has ever put out performances save for a "best of the grammy's" yearrrrs ago. That's the lame part if they're taking it all down. I'm sure it'll trickle around somewhere. I believe in the power of the internet!

[jwd]

That was some bull**** editing on the night's best performance. Grammys suck for that! Well mostly the Grammys just suck anyway. To think that we may never hear that rendition of "The Chain" makes me real mad!! After these musicians lend their time and talent to a show and then get treated like that is just flat out rude and disrespectful. Do a better of job of scheduling your show ****tards! Trent Reznor has every right to feel the way he does.

[SpyNote]

Originally Posted by michelej1

I would have thought that since these awards shows traditionally present the biggest award last that viewership picks up at the end of the show.

Michele

Ratings are highest at the beginning of any awards show. That's why last year's biggest sellers Beyoncé, Jay Z, Katy Perry, Lorde, and Robin Thicke all performed in the first hour of the show. But as the night went on, the performers got older, from Willie Nelson to Stevie Wonder to NIN, all respected in their own right, but not big sellers today.

The awards themselves, while important, have come to be secondary to performances. So the ones that will generate the biggest buzz and sales will always come first.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by SpyNote

Ratings are highest at the beginning of any awards show. That's why last year's biggest sellers Beyoncé, Jay Z, Katy Perry, Lorde, and Robin Thicke all performed in the first hour of the show. But as the night went on, the performers got older, from Willie Nelson to Stevie Wonder to NIN, all respected in their own right, but not big sellers today.

The awards themselves, while important, have come to be secondary to performances. So the ones that will generate the biggest buzz and sales will always come first.

I don't think that's true at all.

The ratings for the Grammys didn't significantly decrease throughout the night. The first hour was not the highest rated. The second hour was. From 8-9 the rating was 29.3 million and then it went to 30.74 and then it went back to 29.03 for the last hour from 10-11, BUT for the target audience, the rating was actually HIGHER for the last hour than it was in the first hour. It was 9.5 for that demographic in the first hour and 10.00 in the last hour. Again, middle hour was higher. But the difference between the last hour and the middle hour was so negligible that I don't buy the premise that they push the old acts back there because the ratings are lower.

Michele

[elle]

Originally Posted by SpyNote

But as the night went on, the performers got older,

you came up with some interesting logic which i doubt pans out if you would look at performers' ages as the show progressed (which i really don't care to do). but let's look at just the opening and closing songs/acts:

• opening act Beyonce and Jay Z - Beyonce 32, Jay Z 44 - not exactly Lorde's 17 .
• closing act QOTSA - Josh Homme 40.

and then of course there's this - the sheer numbers of viewership :

Originally Posted by michelej1

I don't think that's true at all.

The ratings for the Grammys didn't significantly decrease throughout the night. The first hour was not the highest rated. The second hour was. From 8-9 the rating was 29.3 million and then it went to 30.74 and then it went back to 29.03 for the last hour from 10-11, BUT for the target audience, the rating was actually HIGHER for the last hour than it was in the first hour. It was 9.5 for that demographic in the first hour and 10.00 in the last hour. Again, middle hour was higher. But the difference between the last hour and the middle hour was so negligible

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by elle

you came up with some interesting logic which i doubt pans out if you would look at performers' ages as the show progressed (which i really don't care to do). but let's look at just the opening and closing songs/acts:

• opening act Beyonce and Jay Z - Beyonce 32, Jay Z 44 - not exactly Lorde's 17 .
• closing act QOTSA - Josh Homme 40.

and then of course there's this - the sheer numbers of viewership :

The middle hour is traditionally the one with the highest ratings, but really they maintain a steady audience for all THREE hours. Now, that Pro Bowl that was on NBC DID see a steady decline in viewership during the night. They lost 3 million viewers from first hour to last, but that doesn't happen with the Grammys.

The year they lost the most viewers was 2012 after Whitney's death. They had very high ratings that year and it can be assumed that a lot of extra people tuned in to see the Whitney tribute and then stopped watching when it was over. But most years, there's not that kind of fluctuation between the hours.

Now, the demographic rating is based on viewers 18-49. I don't have the age break down beyond that.

Michele

[Lindsfan]

For those of you that don't do torrents (and the video in the torrent only plays with VLC (not WMP)...at least for me )

here's the rehearsal video:
http://www.sendspace.com/file/9gsm93

And here's the rehearsal mp3:
http://www.sendspace.com/file/t9hneo

The sound is definitely louder on the video in the torrent, but the sound is fine on this one, too (just turn it up!), and the video is the same thing. Either way, it's a tad out of sync, but still wonderful to watch!

[elle]

there has been many articles like this, it seems, over the years. while that may be the music that's pushed in the traditional media (kinda like reality shows vs tradition sitcoms maybe?), not sure that's completely what's happening in the real world. grammy closing has been interpreted both ways - as the return of rock as well as the way this article does. but i see a lot of teenagers learning to play guitars and jamming... although guitar center tidbit makes you think.

http://thelantern.com/2014/02/opinio...-unsurprising/

Opinion: Death of rock'n'roll disappointing, yet unsurprising

February 6, 2014
Ismail Rahman
rahman.65@osu.edu

Trent Reznor fronts rock band Nine Inch Nails during a warm-up gig at Scala, King's Cross, prior to Reading and Leeds festivals in August. Credit: Courtesy of MCT
Credit: Courtesy of MCT

I recently went to my local Guitar Center. I needed a guitar at the time to replace my aging and worn-out Fender Stratocaster, and I spoke with the salesman there. He showed me the available guitars, and I immediately noticed something: prices for guitars are getting lower. Why would that be? It was easy to look around and notice because not too many people were browsing the guitar area of the store, but I did notice a sizable crowd checking out the keyboards and DJ equipment. It makes sense. The Top 40 radio stations are full of heavily engineered music, the backing force for pop and hip-hop now. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but you might ponder at what happened to the music that was more “raw” in nature. Fairness should be given to both styles, yet the raw ones don’t get played as much on many radio stations.

If that doesn’t quite make you think, another situation to take a gander at is actually the Grammys.

The night of the Grammy Awards this year was full of entertaining performances, and a slew of new artists were able to make me clap my hands and sing along. Macklemore and Ryan Lewis certainly have great hooks, and Daft Punk used its nostalgic beats to bring excitement to dance music and cruise its way to multiple wins. Then came another event of nostalgia to close the show: Trent Reznor (of Nine Inch Nails), worked with Queens of the Stone Age’s Josh Homme and Lindsey Buckingham to play the closing song of the show. The combination sent shivers down my spine. Being an avid rock fan, I was thinking this performance would be an awesome close to the Grammys. It started out great, and my mind was successfully being blown by the heavy drum beat of Dave Grohl and the stiff, industrial riffs of Reznor when right after, the music died out before the performance was even over and CBS conveniently showed that Delta Airlines and other partners that sponsored the Grammys.

While a little angry, I was mostly confused. Why invite rock legends who persevered through years of being musicians (which is very tough, indeed), only to dismiss their hard work by saying that you had some money loans to make your show possible? That’s pure disrespect. After a bit, I thought it over. My conclusion is that I shouldn’t be really that surprised. Rock ‘n’ roll might not be saved after all, and it is a topic that has been brought up numerous times.

Looking at many nominees in the rock category over the past couple of years, you can see they are actually not new artists, but rock legends, such as Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and others who built massive followings over time. This also is hardly a crime, for they deserve to be commemorated, but very few new bands make the cut, unlike the categories in other genres. People give rappers and pop artists a chance right away sometimes. On the contrary, America is focusing on the past when it comes to rock.

Why is this happening? No one can really say. There are clearly many theories on the table. Technology is improving. Hip-hop and mainstream pop are on the rise. People miss the “old” style of rock as opposed to that of the new era. It’s probably ideal to appreciate the nature of all music. I do like the Katy Perrys and Kanye Wests of today, but being a veteran fan of rock, I can only sit back and hope the future of this roughed-up genre will look brighter.

Sorry about the disrespect, Trent. Better luck next time.