^Quality? They say they award artistic excellence. Where, though? They're all about the charts. They only throw in a couple of unknown records to make it seem like it's about talent.
LMAO! Exactly!QueenCedar101 wrote:^Quality? They say they award artistic excellence. Where, though? They're all about the charts. They only throw in a couple of unknown records to make it seem like it's about talent.
- 2,03399
I agree but they snubbed Despacito. Despite what someone thinks, that song broke every record and had the biggest impact this decade. I can't believe Bruno got that one. And that Shakira is one of the two ladies that even got Grammy in some big category :wowQueenCedar101 wrote:^Quality? They say they award artistic excellence. Where, though? They're all about the charts. They only throw in a couple of unknown records to make it seem like it's about talent.
- 1,562264
So broken records mean a song is better? Quantity =/= Quality. And the Best Latin Pop Album category can't be that big. Those are like the smaller ones. AOTY, ROTY, SOTY are the three biggies. I do think that Bruno sweeping in all of those categories wasn't right.pitbulljlo wrote:I agree but they snubbed Despacito. Despite what someone thinks, that song broke every record and had the biggest impact this decade. I can't believe Bruno got that one. And that Shakira is one of the two ladies that even got Grammy in some big category :wowQueenCedar101 wrote:^Quality? They say they award artistic excellence. Where, though? They're all about the charts. They only throw in a couple of unknown records to make it seem like it's about talent.
- 2,03399
No, you said they are about the charts and in that terms Despacito was snubbed.QueenCedar101 wrote:So broken records mean a song is better? Quantity =/= Quality. And the Best Latin Pop Album category can't be that big. Those are like the smaller ones. AOTY, ROTY, SOTY are the three biggies. I do think that Bruno sweeping in all of those categories wasn't right.pitbulljlo wrote:I agree but they snubbed Despacito. Despite what someone thinks, that song broke every record and had the biggest impact this decade. I can't believe Bruno got that one. And that Shakira is one of the two ladies that even got Grammy in some big category :wowQueenCedar101 wrote:^Quality? They say they award artistic excellence. Where, though? They're all about the charts. They only throw in a couple of unknown records to make it seem like it's about talent.
Imo, they are the smaller ones but on news they said it was night for male artists with only Shakira & Alessa Cara as female winners in important categories.
- 1,562264
Despacito may have been snubbed, but Bruno was very popular on the radio, and in terms of views, probably more so than Despacito. As for females, Rihanna won a category, but I think it was as a feature. Not a fan of Alessia at all, but better than Julia.pitbulljlo wrote:No, you said they are about the charts and in that terms Despacito was snubbed.QueenCedar101 wrote:So broken records mean a song is better? Quantity =/= Quality. And the Best Latin Pop Album category can't be that big. Those are like the smaller ones. AOTY, ROTY, SOTY are the three biggies. I do think that Bruno sweeping in all of those categories wasn't right.pitbulljlo wrote:I agree but they snubbed Despacito. Despite what someone thinks, that song broke every record and had the biggest impact this decade. I can't believe Bruno got that one. And that Shakira is one of the two ladies that even got Grammy in some big category :wowQueenCedar101 wrote:^Quality? They say they award artistic excellence. Where, though? They're all about the charts. They only throw in a couple of unknown records to make it seem like it's about talent.
Imo, they are the smaller ones but on news they said it was night for male artists with only Shakira & Alessa Cara as female winners in important categories.
I think The Grammys are just like some bbers, they care only for hits, in other case Shakira and Fonsi would not even have been nominated for their generic records, cause you need to admit, there are some urban and reggaeton bops out there with quality, but Shakira and Luis Fonsi aren't one of those.
- 1,562264
Very true. I agree with you tbh. If they were worthy for any Grammys, it would be for their earlier records from the early 2000's or somewhere like that. Plus, I find it hard to understand why Shakira has more Grammys than Gloria Estefan or Celia Cruz.daxview wrote:I think The Grammys are just like some bbers, they care only for hits, in other case Shakira and Fonsi would not even have been nominated for their generic records, cause you need to admit, there are some urban and reggaeton bops out there with quality, but Shakira and Luis Fonsi aren't one of those.
Chantaje and Despacito >>>>>>>>>>>>
And no, Shakira does not have more Grammys than Gloria Estefan or Celia Cruz. Nice try though!!! :jenlmao
Gloria Estefan and Celia Cruz = different generation/different genre! Comparing apples to oranges again. :coffeeQueenCedar101 wrote:Very true. I agree with you tbh. If they were worthy for any Grammys, it would be for their earlier records from the early 2000's or somewhere like that. Plus, I find it hard to understand why Shakira has more Grammys than Gloria Estefan or Celia Cruz.daxview wrote:I think The Grammys are just like some bbers, they care only for hits, in other case Shakira and Fonsi would not even have been nominated for their generic records, cause you need to admit, there are some urban and reggaeton bops out there with quality, but Shakira and Luis Fonsi aren't one of those.
And no, Shakira does not have more Grammys than Gloria Estefan or Celia Cruz. Nice try though!!! :jenlmao
- 1,562264
How many times are you going to keep using the apples to oranges argument? Also, don't Latin Grammys count as actual Grammys? I would think so.J wrote:Chantaje and Despacito >>>>>>>>>>>>
Gloria Estefan and Celia Cruz = different generation/different genre! Comparing apples to oranges again. :coffeeQueenCedar101 wrote:Very true. I agree with you tbh. If they were worthy for any Grammys, it would be for their earlier records from the early 2000's or somewhere like that. Plus, I find it hard to understand why Shakira has more Grammys than Gloria Estefan or Celia Cruz.daxview wrote:I think The Grammys are just like some bbers, they care only for hits, in other case Shakira and Fonsi would not even have been nominated for their generic records, cause you need to admit, there are some urban and reggaeton bops out there with quality, but Shakira and Luis Fonsi aren't one of those.
And no, Shakira does not have more Grammys than Gloria Estefan or Celia Cruz. Nice try though!!! :jenlmao
Shakira: 15 Grammys
Gloria Estefan: 7 Grammys
Celia Cruz: 5 Grammys (somewhere in there)
Funny how you keep saying that, yet can't back up with any real evidence. Nice try, though.
Well said. :clapDan#jlofan wrote:Lol at y'all acting dumb. Everyone here knows how the game works. Charts don't determine Grammys, but it does help determine what's on their radar. The stuff Jen has been releasing has been on no award shows radar. Do u think if desposito was a flop it would be getting nominated for anything?
I can't believe that some of you are actually trashing her vocal ability when every other fan base does that to Jen.
- 1,562264
Both? Where? You said that Despacito wouldn't have been nominated if not popular. And El Dorado would've been nominated if it wasn't known?Dan#jlofan wrote:The simple answer is both.rafaelsalguero wrote:So the Grammy its about Charts or Quality??
Eh.... NO! Grammys =/= Latin Grammys. The Recording Academy =/= Latin Recording Academy. :jenlocoQueenCedar101 wrote:How many times are you going to keep using the apples to oranges argument? Also, don't Latin Grammys count as actual Grammys? I would think so.
Gloria released most of her albums in the 80/90s. Celia in the 50s/60s/70s/80s/90s. The Latin Grammy Awards debuted in September 2000. So yeah. Comparing apples to oranges again.
Nice try though! :jenlmao
Definition of bothQueenCedar101 wrote:Both? Where? You said that Despacito wouldn't have been nominated if not popular. And El Dorado would've been nominated if it wasn't known?Dan#jlofan wrote:The simple answer is both.rafaelsalguero wrote:So the Grammy its about Charts or Quality??
: the one as well as the other
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/both
- 1,562264
Yeah. That means Shakira has the same talent they do.J wrote:Eh.... NO! Grammys =/= Latin Grammys. The Recording Academy =/= Latin Recording Academy. :jenlocoQueenCedar101 wrote:How many times are you going to keep using the apples to oranges argument? Also, don't Latin Grammys count as actual Grammys? I would think so.
Gloria released most of her albums in the 80/90s. Celia in the 50s/60s/70s/80s/90s. The Latin Grammy Awards debuted in September 2000. So yeah. Comparing apples to oranges again.
Nice try though! :jenlmao
"Hey, Becky, did you know that you shouldn't compare artists from different generations, because it's like comparing apples to oranges? Everyone has the same amount of talent".
Why are you so mad at Shakira's success? Haters gonna hate. :jenlmaoQueenCedar101 wrote:Yeah. That means Shakira has the same talent they do.J wrote:Eh.... NO! Grammys =/= Latin Grammys. The Recording Academy =/= Latin Recording Academy. :jenlocoQueenCedar101 wrote:How many times are you going to keep using the apples to oranges argument? Also, don't Latin Grammys count as actual Grammys? I would think so.
Gloria released most of her albums in the 80/90s. Celia in the 50s/60s/70s/80s/90s. The Latin Grammy Awards debuted in September 2000. So yeah. Comparing apples to oranges again.
Nice try though! :jenlmao
"Hey, Becky, did you know that you shouldn't compare artists from different generations, because it's like comparing apples to oranges? Everyone has the same amount of talent".
- 1,562264
Yeah, because Shakira's album is definitely new and ground-breaking. No other Latin artists can do the style and music she's doing. Not even Anitta can do what she's doing.J wrote:Why are you so mad at Shakira's success? Haters gonna hate. :jenlmaoQueenCedar101 wrote:Yeah. That means Shakira has the same talent they do.J wrote:Eh.... NO! Grammys =/= Latin Grammys. The Recording Academy =/= Latin Recording Academy. :jenlocoQueenCedar101 wrote:How many times are you going to keep using the apples to oranges argument? Also, don't Latin Grammys count as actual Grammys? I would think so.
Gloria released most of her albums in the 80/90s. Celia in the 50s/60s/70s/80s/90s. The Latin Grammy Awards debuted in September 2000. So yeah. Comparing apples to oranges again.
Nice try though! :jenlmao
"Hey, Becky, did you know that you shouldn't compare artists from different generations, because it's like comparing apples to oranges? Everyone has the same amount of talent".
Maybe you should just give up. :lmaoQueenCedar101 wrote:
Yeah, because Shakira's album is definitely new and ground-breaking. No other Latin artists can do the style and music she's doing. Not even Anitta can do what she's doing.
Shakira deserved to win.
Tú eres puro, puro chantaje
Puro, puro chantaje :dance
- 1,562264
:giggles Because she was the most successful out of all of them. Yep. She totally deserved it.J wrote:Maybe you should just give up. :lmaoQueenCedar101 wrote:
Yeah, because Shakira's album is definitely new and ground-breaking. No other Latin artists can do the style and music she's doing. Not even Anitta can do what she's doing.
Shakira deserved to win.
Tú eres puro, puro chantaje
Puro, puro chantaje :dance
No. She won, because the members of the Recording Academy (music industry professionals) think she deserved to win a Grammy (= the highest honor in music). :danceQueenCedar101 wrote::giggles Because she was the most successful out of all of them. Yep. She totally deserved it.J wrote:Maybe you should just give up. :lmaoQueenCedar101 wrote:
Yeah, because Shakira's album is definitely new and ground-breaking. No other Latin artists can do the style and music she's doing. Not even Anitta can do what she's doing.
Shakira deserved to win.
Tú eres puro, puro chantaje
Puro, puro chantaje :dance
- 1,562264
Yep. Because her music definitely represents "artistic excellence". Grammys =/= Talent one bit.J wrote:No. She won, because the members of the Recording Academy (music industry professionals) think she deserved to win a Grammy (= the highest honor in music). :danceQueenCedar101 wrote::giggles Because she was the most successful out of all of them. Yep. She totally deserved it.J wrote:Maybe you should just give up. :lmaoQueenCedar101 wrote:
Yeah, because Shakira's album is definitely new and ground-breaking. No other Latin artists can do the style and music she's doing. Not even Anitta can do what she's doing.
Shakira deserved to win.
Tú eres puro, puro chantaje
Puro, puro chantaje :dance
- 9,936335
No she didnt deserve anything for that album. I used to be fan of her for years but damn that album was too bad lyrically: "Que boca más redondita, Me gusta esa barbita" I mean seriously?!
CAUM didnt have any nomination but El Dorato won it, sο the whole discussion of value is totally a fiasco...............
CAUM didnt have any nomination but El Dorato won it, sο the whole discussion of value is totally a fiasco...............
- 1,562264
Translating that lyric into English, you're actually right. If I'm not lying, I heard that her songs were about sex, and I believe it had to have been dirty. I think that instead of trying to keep up with the trends and do what's popular to get publicity, she should be doing what she did back then, and go back to making great, memorable albums like Laundry Service. She might would be more worthy for Grammys then, and would probably be even more popular.alexjlover wrote:No she didnt deserve anything for that album. I used to be fan of her for years but damn that album was too bad lyrically: "Que boca más redondita, Me gusta esa barbita" I mean seriously?!
CAUM didnt have any nomination but El Dorato won it, sο the whole discussion of value is totally a fiasco...............