I don't usually watch the entire broadcasts, but I do try and see some of the Grammys every year, especially if there an artist or tribue I want to see.
But it always just reminds me of how disconnected the Stones have always seemed from the Grammy thing.
I see Macca, Beach Boys, Allman Bros, Bowie, Plant/Page and even Dylan as well as other older acts I love...and they fit right in, are accepted by the whole Grammy establishment to an extent. Then there are the 'edgy' modern artists like Jack White, Mumford, Foo Fighters etc....and they're all there enjoying the festivities.
Then I think of the Stones. They just don't fit. Never have, never will.
Mick was there last year and it seemed weird. The audience cheered but it seemed like it was out of some kind of 'It's Mick Jagger!'
Its almost like the Stones are too out there. Not in a freaky way because alot of 'out there' artists, some really crazy-a** artists have been part of the Grammys over the years.
But is here something about the Stones that is too......bigger than life?
I know they honored the Stones in 86 and it was a joke to me then and the Stones treated it as a joke.
Musically, they rock, roll, funk better than any other rock and roll band. They've had mainstream hits etc....They're massively iconic, famous, they define Rock Star better than anyone.
And yet, they still seem to stick out like a sore thumb.
What is it that makes our band so.....not really able to join in the reindeer games.
Have the Stones transcended music - I mean, they've done it all, lorded over it all: fashion, drugs, sex, high-brow, low-brow....
Are the Stones just too ...gritty and unapologetically blase and seemingly arrogant?
I love this about the Stones. But what is it that makes them on-the-outside-but not-really-looking-in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-15 06:12 by stupidguy2.

If they had a product to promote I bet they'd appear on the Grammys like a shot.

After all performing on the Fashion Awards in 97 isn't very rock n roll is it?

You know who is too out there for the Grammys? GG Allin. The Stones are so in there that they can't get out. The Stones are as main stream as can be. They aren't bigger than life. They haven't transcended music. They're just a band. I have a hunch that they'll be on the Grammys next year.

I just can't see the Stones on the Grammys..
They're the last of the great bands who have yet to honored with a tribute, ala the Beatles, BeachBoys etc..... The 86 thing doesn't count......

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
You know who is too out there for the Grammys? GG Allin. The Stones are so in there that they can't get out. The Stones are as main stream as can be. They aren't bigger than life. They haven't transcended music. They're just a band. I have a hunch that they'll be on the Grammys next year.

haha! G.G. Allin on the Grammy's....that would've been worth it just to see the look of shock & horror on all of those self-absorbed egomaniac's faces.

Quote
stupidguy2
I don't usually watch the entire broadcasts, but I do try and see some of the Grammys every year, especially if there an artist or tribue I want to see.
But it always just reminds me of how disconnected the Stones have always seemed from the Grammy thing.
I see Macca, Beach Boys, Allman Bros, Bowie, Plant/Page and even Dylan as well as other older acts I love...and they fit right in, are accepted by the whole Grammy establishment to an extent. Then there are the 'edgy' modern artists like Jack White, Mumford, Foo Fighters etc....and they're all there enjoying the festivities.
Then I think of the Stones. They just don't fit. Never have, never will.
Mick was there last year and it seemed weird. The audience cheered but it seemed like it was out of some kind of 'It's Mick Jagger!'
Its almost like the Stones are too out there. Not in a freaky way because alot of 'out there' artists, some really crazy-a** artists have been part of the Grammys over the years.
But is here something about the Stones that is too......bigger than life?
I know they honored the Stones in 86 and it was a joke to me then and the Stones treated it as a joke.
Musically, they rock, roll, funk better than any other rock and roll band. They've had mainstream hits etc....They're massively iconic, famous, they define Rock Star better than anyone.
And yet, they still seem to stick out like a sore thumb.
What is it that makes our band so.....not really able to join in the reindeer games.
Have the Stones transcended music - I mean, they've done it all, lorded over it all: fashion, drugs, sex, high-brow, low-brow....
Are the Stones just too ...gritty and unapologetically blase and seemingly arrogant?
I love this about the Stones. But what is it that makes them on-the-outside-but not-really-looking-in.

What a great post!

Thanks Mary! I haven't seen an answer yet and Im really curious about what it is about the Stones that makes them such outsiders.....!

Very good post, stupidguy2!

I can agree with the sentiment you. Personally I have never taken the whole Grammy thing seriously at all. When the Stones and their generation of rock and roll made the music that changed teh world, the Grammys Awards had not any role in that. Yeah, the everyone's favourites, The Beatles got some Grammys during the 60's, but seemingly not any relevant artist in rock genre. Dylan got his fisrt Grammy in 1979 for his vocals in "Gotta Serve Somebody", Zeppelin never got any. I think the whole thing and hype over Grammys in pop music started around Michael Jackson's emergence. Then started that hype that the aristic achievemnts are to be measured in the amount of how many Grammys one gets. Whitney Houston, for example, belongs to that generation as well.

Yeah, like stupidguy2 mentiuned, the young rock groups seem to adapt the Grammy hype crap quite naturally. They are happy to get one and the limelight to perform, etc. And now there is a category to everyone, so anyone can get the place in the sun.

But I - an old romantic fool - also think that the Stones is somehow beyond all that. Yeah, they got Grammy for VOODOO LOUNGE... so must be their best record ever, right?

- Doxa

i think the reason why the Stones and Zeppelin and other bands didn't win Grammys in the 60s and 70s is because there wasn't a category for them. There was no "Best Rock Album" or "Best Rock Performance By A Group/Duo" category. Sure the Stones and Zeppelin made great records, but were they worthy of having the best album or song award? That's debatable. But to say that the Stones have "transcended music" and are too good for the Grammys is silly.

Quote
Doxa
Very good post, stupidguy2!

I can agree with the sentiment you. Personally I have never taken the whole Grammy thing seriously at all. When the Stones and their generation of rock and roll made the music that changed teh world, the Grammys Awards had not any role in that. Yeah, the everyone's favourites, The Beatles got some Grammys during the 60's, but seemingly not any relevant artist in rock genre. Dylan got his fisrt Grammy in 1979 for his vocals in "Gotta Serve Somebody", Zeppelin never got any. I think the whole thing and hype over Grammys in pop music started around Michael Jackson's emergence. Then started that hype that the aristic achievemnts are to be measured in the amount of how many Grammys one gets. Whitney Houston, for example, belongs to that generation as well.

Yeah, like stupidguy2 mentiuned, the young rock groups seem to adapt the Grammy hype crap quite naturally. They are happy to get one and the limelight to perform, etc. And now there is a category to everyone, so anyone can get the place in the sun.

But I - an old romantic fool - also think that the Stones is somehow beyond all that. Yeah, they got Grammy for VOODOO LOUNGE... so must be their best record ever, right?

- Doxa

They got a Grammy for VL - how did I not know that? I probably didn't care at the time...lol
I've never cared for the Grammys - Im old enough to remember as a kid watching Hellen Reddy and Andy Williams singing a melody of the nominated songs!
That's what the Grammys were in those days. You had Paul Simon, Roberta Flack, Carole King and other great artists that participated - I remember when Stevie Wonder swept the Grammys for Songs in the Key of Life and Fleetwood Mac for Runours.....but they were acceptable to that sort of middle-of-the-road sensibility.
So I get that the Stones and their generation were not really part of that - but in the last 25 years (you're right, it probably started with MJ), the Grammys has opened up and become more inclusive. They've also tried to tune into a new, hipper generation of music fans. I tried to explain this to my 19-year old neice - who just couldn't understand how Taylor Swift could beat Mumford and Sons for Best New Artist a few years ago. I explained that the Grammys has come a long way - there was a time Mumford or Jack White wouldn't have even been invited.
Even as the Grammys has become more inclusive, with tributes to all those previoiusly ignored artists (Beatles, Plant etc) the Stones remain very much removed from all of it. I don't mind. I just wonder why it is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-15 21:42 by stupidguy2.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
i think the reason why the Stones and Zeppelin and other bands didn't win Grammys in the 60s and 70s is because there wasn't a category for them. There was no "Best Rock Album" or "Best Rock Performance By A Group/Duo" category. Sure the Stones and Zeppelin made great records, but were they worthy of having the best album or song award? That's debatable. But to say that the Stones have "transcended music" and are too good for the Grammys is silly.

Not transcended the Grammys musically - we could say that about the Beatles, Dylan etc...
But just too big, like Doxa said, too beyond all that in a way that even Dylan or Macca are not.
The Stones, I think, may still be too incomprehensible for mainstream taste. I mean, no everybody is going to get why Tumbling Dice is so great. The Stones may still be to much of an acquired taste.

The Beatles weren't ignored, stupidguy2. They were nominated in the Best Album category for Help, Revolver, Magical Mystery Tour, and Abbey Road. Sgt. Pepper won 4 Grammys, including album of the year. They were nominated for song of the year a few times, Michelle winning the Grammy in that category. They were nominated for record of the year a few times as well.

Sticky Fingers was nominated for "best album package". Warhol lost. But Tattoo You won a few years later in that category.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
The Beatles weren't ignored, stupidguy2. They were nominated in the Best Album category for Help, Revolver, Magical Mystery Tour, and Abbey Road. Sgt. Pepper won 4 Grammys, including album of the year. They were nominated for song of the year a few times, Michelle winning the Grammy in that category. They were nominated for record of the year a few times as well.

Sticky Fingers was nominated for "best album package". Warhol lost. But Tattoo You won a few years later in that category.

So those acknowledgments make the Grammy Institution alright all the way? We stupid rock fans listened music that sucked but it was served in nice packages? So great that the people in high places acknowledged that there was at least something good in this genre of music...(damn I love that Stones appearance in 1986! The last real rock and roll band...)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-15 22:11 by Doxa.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
The Beatles weren't ignored, stupidguy2. They were nominated in the Best Album category for Help, Revolver, Magical Mystery Tour, and Abbey Road. Sgt. Pepper won 4 Grammys, including album of the year. They were nominated for song of the year a few times, Michelle winning the Grammy in that category. They were nominated for record of the year a few times as well.

Sticky Fingers was nominated for "best album package". Warhol lost. But Tattoo You won a few years later in that category.

I knew the Beatles were not totally ignored, but truthfully, I never really paid that much attention to a few marginal nominations over the years in regard to the Stones. I think most bands have been nominated in some fashion. But the Stones have never really been feted, ala Macca and Beatles, Allman Bros this year, Dylan, U2 etc.....
A few 'best package' nominations in a 50-year span of massive success is miniscule.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
The Beatles weren't ignored, stupidguy2. They were nominated in the Best Album category for Help, Revolver, Magical Mystery Tour, and Abbey Road. Sgt. Pepper won 4 Grammys, including album of the year. They were nominated for song of the year a few times, Michelle winning the Grammy in that category. They were nominated for record of the year a few times as well.

Sticky Fingers was nominated for "best album package". Warhol lost. But Tattoo You won a few years later in that category.

So those acknowledgments make the Grammy Institution alright all the way? We stupid rock fans listened music that sucked but it was served in nice packages? So great that the people in high places acknowledged that there was at least something good in this genre of music...(damn I love that Stones appearance in 1986! The last real rock and roll band...)

- Doxa

I'm not saying the Grammys are awesome and always have been. I hate awards shows. But this whole "The Stones are too big for the Grammys" idea is silly. It was the Grammys that were too small. Today there are dozens and dozens and dozens of categories. Back then there weren't. It wasn't until 1995 that they implemented the Best Rock Album category (The Stones won). If they had that category in the 60s and 70s then I'm sure The Stones and Zeppelin and other bands would have been recognized. The Velvet Underground never were nominated. Does that make them bigger than the Grammys? No. They just didn't fit in. The Grammys didn't have a category for them. Are they pop? Are the Stones pop? I'm sure if the Stones were nominated for Best Pop Album for Exile then some fans on this board would be going bonkers for them being labeled "pop". There wasn't a Best Polka Album in the 60s or 70s. Does that make all polka players (up until 1986 when that category was established) bigger than the Grammys?

Aah, that precious Grammy presentation deserves to be shown! Is this probably the last time The Stones are somehow controversial, and not yet safe and sure family entertainment in public. Even Clapton is spot on in reflecting the ridiculousness of the whole situation. And Charlie is he wild man: Keith needs to keep him in order!! This clip doesn't show the reaction by Kenny Rogers and all the 'good people' in the audience but who cares...





- Doxa

I know what you mean, Stupidguy, and I'm not sure why it's that way. Paul McCartney was dancing away in the front row to the Beach Boys, totally enjoying the moment. I can't picture Mick doing that, or Charlie either...Maybe Ronnie would ( pardon the pun, not intended). I think it may have something to do with peoples' perceptions about the Stones, even though they may not be truly what the Stones are all about.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
But this whole "The Stones are too big for the Grammys" idea is silly. It was the Grammys that were too small. Today there are dozens and dozens and dozens of categories. Back then there weren't.

I think you are right about that the Grammys were 'too small' - well put. But I think that for that very reason the institution sucks. when rock and roll was finally recognized - 1995! - the whole genre had long ago seen its greatest artists and works. Some of them having died decades earlier. This shows what kind of artificial institution the whole thing is. If it took so many decades to really see what is going on in music world, just forget it. These new rock bands and all the artists of any damn category of today - who seem to sound grateful for being now recognized - are just making a lip service to this damn institution. Ugh!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-15 22:35 by Doxa.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
Doxa

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
The Beatles weren't ignored, stupidguy2. They were nominated in the Best Album category for Help, Revolver, Magical Mystery Tour, and Abbey Road. Sgt. Pepper won 4 Grammys, including album of the year. They were nominated for song of the year a few times, Michelle winning the Grammy in that category. They were nominated for record of the year a few times as well.

Sticky Fingers was nominated for "best album package". Warhol lost. But Tattoo You won a few years later in that category.

So those acknowledgments make the Grammy Institution alright all the way? We stupid rock fans listened music that sucked but it was served in nice packages? So great that the people in high places acknowledged that there was at least something good in this genre of music...(damn I love that Stones appearance in 1986! The last real rock and roll band...)

- Doxa

I'm not saying the Grammys are awesome and always have been. I hate awards shows. But this whole "The Stones are too big for the Grammys" idea is silly. It was the Grammys that were too small. Today there are dozens and dozens and dozens of categories. Back then there weren't. It wasn't until 1995 that they implemented the Best Rock Album category (The Stones won). If they had that category in the 60s and 70s then I'm sure The Stones and Zeppelin and other bands would have been recognized. The Velvet Underground never were nominated. Does that make them bigger than the Grammys? No. They just didn't fit in. The Grammys didn't have a category for them. Are they pop? Are the Stones pop? I'm sure if the Stones were nominated for Best Pop Album for Exile then some fans on this board would be going bonkers for them being labeled "pop". There wasn't a Best Polka Album in the 60s or 70s. Does that make all polka players (up until 1986 when that category was established) bigger than the Grammys?

Not 'bigger' than the Grammys.
Gumboot, your misunderstanding what I'm trying to say: in the years since, when their peers have been feted like royalty by the Grammys, there has been no 'tribute' to the Stones. You seem to think Im pissed about it. Im not, I kind of like that outsider status and I hope they keep it that way. But i just wondered what made them not invited.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-15 22:41 by stupidguy2.

Quote
mickschix
I know what you mean, Stupidguy, and I'm not sure why it's that way. Paul McCartney was dancing away in the front row to the Beach Boys, totally enjoying the moment. I can't picture Mick doing that, or Charlie either...Maybe Ronnie would ( pardon the pun, not intended). I think it may have something to do with peoples' perceptions about the Stones, even though they may not be truly what the Stones are all about.

That's exactly it! ts hard to explain Chix, but that's exactly it! Watching Macca enjoying it all, or Dylan last year enjoying the moment onstage with Mumford....can't see Mick or Keith being that impressed.
Mick was there last year, but that was an anomaly - and it had nothing to do with the Stones. The Stones just don't fit in.
Can any of you imagine the Stones in the audience, clapping along appreciatively or standing up for the latest tribute or acoustic performance, or new star...?
No. I can't either. That's what I mean when I wonder if the Stones are too "big"?
They're seen it all, been there, done that - and always mocked any real establishment cred, even as they get accused of being old men in it for the money.
That just makes them rich. I think you're right in that people's perception of the Stones is kind of ambiguous. For all their alleged latter-day conservatism, maybe the Stones are still considered the 'bad boys'. That 86 clip perfectly represents that - Jagger just mocked the whole thing and treated as a big joke. It meant nothing to the Stones. It means something to other artists.
But seriously, do you think that Grammy they got in 86 is sitting on Mick's mantle somewhere? Keith's, Charlie's?
Hell no!
I remember reading a nanny talking about how when they were children, you might find Marlon, Jade or Saraphina playing with the Stones gold records...in the bathtub or wherever!
That's the Stones I love!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-15 22:59 by stupidguy2.

it seems to be because they just don't want to be included, never wanted to go on talk shows, mainstream American staple of entertainment, and when they did they riled people up..Ed Sullivan....getting in trouble with Dean Martin...

Live Aid, Keith, Bob, and Ronnie...

they just don't play that game.

that appearance on the Grammys in '86 is something I'll never forget watching..

.. Kenny Rogers' response after their appearance..."thanks guys, we're all real excited about it here, too..."

a funny, strange moment on TV...

Quote
duke richardson
it seems to be because they just don't want to be included, never wanted to go on talk shows, mainstream American staple of entertainment, and when they did they riled people up..Ed Sullivan....getting in trouble with Dean Martin...

Live Aid, Keith, Bob, and Ronnie...

they just don't play that game.

that appearance on the Grammys in '86 is something I'll never forget watching..

.. Kenny Rogers' response after their appearance..."thanks guys, we're all real excited about it here, too..."

a funny, strange moment on TV...

Yeah, it was very awkward, but great.
And you're right, that's a huge part of it - the Stones just don't care....lol

man Charlie was high as a kite on that night.

'Its got wilms on it!'...

ROCKMAN

"Especially me and Brian." Love that line.

My theory is that it's about brand control. The Beatles, Stones, Led Zeppelin, and I believe Bowie, are record makers who never lowered their album/CD costs. You never saw one of their albums in the reduced price bargain bin. (I'm not talking about used CD stores when you can get some latter day Stones CDs for cheap.) This has kept it an 'event' if the Stones appear on your program. Which is why they only appeared on SNL once. Or the Super Bowl. I don't think the Grammys have ever been in that position to be attractive to the group to promote themselves. They appeared on MTV around Voodoo Lounge but I think they wanted to go out of their way to appeal to a younger crowd.

Quote
Doxa
Aah, that precious Grammy presentation deserves to be shown! Is this probably the last time The Stones are somehow controversial, and not yet safe and sure family entertainment in public. Even Clapton is spot on in reflecting the ridiculousness of the whole situation. And Charlie is he wild man: Keith needs to keep him in order!! This clip doesn't show the reaction by Kenny Rogers and all the 'good people' in the audience but who cares...





- Doxa

What's Charlie trying to say when receiving the price from Eric?? Charlie looks crazy ))

This might have been during Charlie's struggles with heroin because this was totally out of character for him. I thought his reaction was weird at the time....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-15 23:34 by stupidguy2.

What's Charlie trying to say when receiving the price from Eric??

.....There's no wheels on it...

ROCKMAN



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-15 23:36 by Rockman.

Probably the only Stones public appearance ever where the most outrageously behaved member of the band is Charlie Watts.

Was that him making the 'barking' noises off-camera at 1:32 ?

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
Doxa

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
The Beatles weren't ignored, stupidguy2. They were nominated in the Best Album category for Help, Revolver, Magical Mystery Tour, and Abbey Road. Sgt. Pepper won 4 Grammys, including album of the year. They were nominated for song of the year a few times, Michelle winning the Grammy in that category. They were nominated for record of the year a few times as well.

Sticky Fingers was nominated for "best album package". Warhol lost. But Tattoo You won a few years later in that category.

So those acknowledgments make the Grammy Institution alright all the way? We stupid rock fans listened music that sucked but it was served in nice packages? So great that the people in high places acknowledged that there was at least something good in this genre of music...(damn I love that Stones appearance in 1986! The last real rock and roll band...)

- Doxa

I'm not saying the Grammys are awesome and always have been. I hate awards shows. But this whole "The Stones are too big for the Grammys" idea is silly. It was the Grammys that were too small. Today there are dozens and dozens and dozens of categories. Back then there weren't. It wasn't until 1995 that they implemented the Best Rock Album category (The Stones won). If they had that category in the 60s and 70s then I'm sure The Stones and Zeppelin and other bands would have been recognized. The Velvet Underground never were nominated. Does that make them bigger than the Grammys? No. They just didn't fit in. The Grammys didn't have a category for them. Are they pop? Are the Stones pop? I'm sure if the Stones were nominated for Best Pop Album for Exile then some fans on this board would be going bonkers for them being labeled "pop". There wasn't a Best Polka Album in the 60s or 70s. Does that make all polka players (up until 1986 when that category was established) bigger than the Grammys?

Not 'bigger' than the Grammys.
Gumboot, your misunderstanding what I'm trying to say: in the years since, when their peers have been feted like royalty by the Grammys, there has been no 'tribute' to the Stones. You seem to think Im pissed about it. Im not, I kind of like that outsider status and I hope they keep it that way. But i just wondered what made them not invited.

They got a 'tribute' in 1986 in the shape of a lifetime achievement award.

Maybe its just a case of it not being the norm back then for 'tributes' to be a musical performance by other artists the way it has often become now.

The bottom line is that the Stones just aren't interested in performing unless they have a tour to promote. They haven't done a single performance outside of the confines of a tour since the two CNIB shows in 1979 - and both of those were only 45-50 minutes in length.

For a band who hate awards shows so much, since 1989 they've either performed at or had their performances beamed into the MTV VMAs, the Billboard Music Awards, The International Rock Awards, the VH1 Fashion Awards (!!) and The American Music Awards. I may have missed one or two. Most of the band appeared at their Rock n Roll Hall of Fame induction in January 1989 too (and jammed afterwards).

They've never once been honoured by the BPI - the British equivalent of the Grammys. They've also never performed at the show - which appears to be a criteria for being honoured with their meaningless and laughable 'lifetime achievement' award.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-16 00:12 by Gazza.