February 15, 2005
-
I finally saw the 47th Grammy Awards
which I recorded on tape for later viewing. I started watching it
at around 6:30pm thinking that I’ll just catch the first half since
it’s a 3 1/2 hour show with commercials. Well, by 8pm, I was done
with the whole show! That’s right, I fast forwarded through the
commercials and most everything I wasn’t interested in (which I guess
was over half the show).Firstly, is this an awards show or just a concert on TV? Because
I could have sworn that there were more live performances than actual
awards given out. It also didn’t help that a lot of the
performances were very luke warm and weren’t really that
exciting. You got the given good ones like Green Day and U2, but
overall there weren’t any acts that was spectacular. The funny
thing about that is that they made many many attempts at making
memorable performances. The intro was with a mix of five
different bands switching between a popular hit of theirs. Lasted
too long, could have been better. Then you have other “should
have been great” performances like Jamie Foxx making a cameo
appearance, Queen Latifah, Marc Anthony – Jennifer Lopez duet, that
Southern Rock thing, and the collaboration between popular artists
singing the Beatles’ “Across the Universe.” I guess on paper, all
that looked good, because in reality it wasn’t all that.Also, I admit that the Grammy’s wanted to pay tribute to Ray Charles,
but he received way too many awards that he really shouldn’t have
gotten. I mean, album of the year too?! Too much overkill
there.oh yeah, two other things… Does Jamie Foxx think he is Ray Charles
now? I won’t be surprised if he releases an album. Also, does
Alicia Keys have to sing everything like a gospel song?Oscars is just around the corner too, so let’s see how that fares compared to the Grammys.
