[adamc01]

As the are back on the 20th Feb I thought I post a thread about how I think they could be improved.

I think the Brits need more awards here are some ideas:

- British Video
- Dance/electro Act
- Rock Act
- Urban Act

Also I think the O2 Arena is not the best venue for the awards or maybe it's just that when the performers are on you don't see people in the front row dancing just sat at tables looking bored and James Corden is not the best host for the awards as well.

[Scratchy7929]

no more music industry insiders patting themselves on the back thanks

[So 3008]

What they need to do is bring back Best International Album, it was ludicrous they axed it in the first place. And they've axed Best International Breakthrough this year as well; what next year, the axing of Best International Male and Female as well?

In my opinion for every British category there should be an International one alongside, so instead of keep axing the worldwide awards they should have added Best International Single.

No wonder most non-Brits don't bother to turn up when there is only the possibility of winning one solitary statue; and then you just get the award going to whoever of the said non-Brits that has bothered to turn up like Taylor Swift most likely this year.

[Zone_Out]

Originally Posted by adamc01

As the are back on the 20th Feb I thought I post a thread about how I think they could be improved.

I think the Brits need more awards here are some ideas:

- British Video
- Dance/electro Act
- Rock Act
- Urban Act

Also I think the O2 Arena is not the best venue for the awards or maybe it's just that when the performers are on you don't see people in the front row dancing just sat at tables looking bored and James Corden is not the best host for the awards as well.

Agree with everything you mentioned.

Why did they get rid of the Urban / Pop awards? Do they not have rock anymore? tbh i don`t know what category`s they still do have?

As to it being held at the 02 i don`t think it`s the venue it`s as u also mentioned it was so much better with a crowd around the stage,everyone enjoying much more, like if an act is performing and there`s a big production with it, it spoil`s it for me just seeing everyone sat at tables still.

[pasodabble]

I agree with the need for more categories. How can anyone take them seriously when they chop and change every year, and introduce random one-off awards when they want a particular person to turn up?

The Grammys has too many categories, but at least the bulk of them are given out before the actual award ceremony, and the large number means they remain very inclusive.

[MrJames]

I've never understood why we don't have 'Best Internationa Single'.

[Finny Skeleta]

No, they should get rid of the Brits altogether, and the Grammys.

Music is art, not competition.

You can't 'win' at music.

[ashtray88]

Originally Posted by Finny Skeleta

No, they should get rid of the Brits altogether, and the Grammys.

Music is art, not competition.

You can't 'win' at music.

Haven't you ever heard of art competitions?

[Finny Skeleta]

Originally Posted by ashtray88

Haven't you ever heard of art competitions?

Yes, and I think they're as pointless as music/film/literary awards etc.

[ashtray88]

Originally Posted by Finny Skeleta

Yes, and I think they're as pointless as music/film/literary awards etc.

That's nice. Some people like to be recognised and rewarded for their hard work in artistic endeavourers though.

[Finny Skeleta]

Originally Posted by ashtray88

That's nice. Some people like to be recognised and rewarded for their hard work in artistic endeavourers though.

Making good art is a reward in itself and if it is genuinely worthy then it will receive recognition as a matter of course.

Do artists really need to compete against each other and have one declared the winner at art while all the others are losers?

I constantly have local pubs and clubs asking me to put on 'Battle of the Bands' competitions but I refuse every time. I will put on a gig featuring lots of local bands, each playing a set and getting whatever appreciation they deserve but I won't say that one of them has 'won' at being a band at the end of it.

If you want to win something then enter a ping pong tournament; if you want to do art, do art.

[ags_rule]

Originally Posted by Finny Skeleta

Making good art is a reward in itself and if it is genuinely worthy then it will receive recognition as a matter of course.

Do artists really need to compete against each other and have one declared the winner at art while all the others are losers?

I constantly have local pubs and clubs asking me to put on 'Battle of the Bands' competitions but I refuse every time. I will put on a gig featuring lots of local bands, each playing a set and getting whatever appreciation they deserve but I won't say that one of them has 'won' at being a band at the end of it.

If you want to win something then enter a ping pong tournament; if you want to do art, do art.

Totally agreed, glad to see someone talking sense on here!

Brits are the worst of the lot though. How anybody takes them as a serious awards show is beyond me.

[Musick1]

Originally Posted by Finny Skeleta

Making good art is a reward in itself and if it is genuinely worthy then it will receive recognition as a matter of course.

Do artists really need to compete against each other and have one declared the winner at art while all the others are losers?

I constantly have local pubs and clubs asking me to put on 'Battle of the Bands' competitions but I refuse every time. I will put on a gig featuring lots of local bands, each playing a set and getting whatever appreciation they deserve but I won't say that one of them has 'won' at being a band at the end of it.

If you want to win something then enter a ping pong tournament; if you want to do art, do art.

Yes, artists really do need to compete against each other!
Have you not heard of THE CHARTS!?? .. Every country has one.
One person will get to the number 1 spot aka. winning the competition.

Appreciation comes in different forms, some are happy with their mum telling them "sweety, that was amazing"
Others are happy that they managed to perform infront of a small group in their local pub. Some are happy with 20 views on youtube & others want to win a Brit Award or get that number 1 single.

There's nothing wrong with ambition or competition - If that means wanting a number 1 or competing for that "Brit Award" so be it.

[Finny Skeleta]

Originally Posted by Musick1

Yes, artists really do need to compete against each other!
Have you not heard of THE CHARTS!?? .. Every country has one.
One person will get to the number 1 spot aka. winning the competition.

Appreciation comes in different forms, some are happy with their mum telling them "sweety, that was amazing"
Others are happy that they managed to perform infront of a small group in their local pub. Some are happy with 20 views on youtube & others want to win a Brit Award or get that number 1 single.

There's nothing wrong with ambition or competition - If that means wanting a number 1 or competing for that "Brit Award" so be it.

I despise the charts as well.

[Musick1]

Originally Posted by Finny Skeleta

I despise the charts as well.

Fair enough
"The Music Industry" isn't something I'd imagine you'd like then!??

Stick to making people happy with their "art"

Each to their own

[Finny Skeleta]

Originally Posted by Musick1

Fair enough
"The Music Industry" isn't something I'd imagine you'd like then!??

Stick to making people happy with their "art"

Each to their own

The music industry is to music what the fishing industry is to fish.

[DRAGON LANCE]

Whilst we can all like to dream of a free hippy world where everybody treats everybody with love, peace, respect and people actually get into music purely because it sounds great, the sad reality is that to get the general Joe public interesting if you have to have things like award ceremonies.

Yes, I agree they are all a load of tosh, but the simple fact is they draw people in, get people interested in who is out there and stimulate sales. And if you want to get high and mighty about how crass and commercial that is the simple truth is no sales=no more new music. It costs money to actually make it you know.

The Lady Gaga's of this world pay for all the little arty acts out there these days, especially since with live in an age where so many people merrily pirate everything they can. Yet, bizarrely after claiming they do this because CD's/legal downloads are apparently too expensive, the same people will often pay astronomical amounts of money for gig tickets, often off touts so all the cash isn't even going to their fave band. But I'll stop there, that's a different argument totally altogether.

Whilst the Grammy's and Brits only cover the big sellers, things like the Mercury Prize cover the more obscure. Indeed, the Mercury prize is in many ways an even bigger sham than the Brits. We all know something totally oddball or obscure will win it every year, rather than the person who has actually done the best album, but at the same time (shudder) notched up the most sales.

I like to delude myself I still have an ear for every little band out there, but the truth is you can't listen to them all, and something like Mercury can inform you about something you've never heard before. Like (and its going back a few years) I actually got into Bat For Lashes because I watched the Mercury awards and saw her play her track Horse and I, so yeah you can discover people sometimes.

I imagine the mainstream ITV audience will have never heard many of the acts at the Brits. You can sneer at that, and how "stupid" ITV viewers are, but the fact is there is no mainstream TV Top of the Pops style programme anymore, bar the X-Factor or The Voice, and they are just vehicles for the puppets that get created by those shows.

So maybe for them the crass sales motivated Brits will be a place they'll discover a few people they've never heard of before, as well as listen to lots of mainstream acts everybody knows.

[little-monster]

I agree

I think back in the day there used to be awards based on genre like one for Dance, one for Pop, one for R&B etc

Never understood why they got rid of International album and why they have never done an International single award.

[4troy7]

It's weird they don't have a Best Video catergory have they ever had one before ?

[Dizzle]

Originally Posted by Finny Skeleta

Making good art is a reward in itself and if it is genuinely worthy then it will receive recognition as a matter of course.

Do artists really need to compete against each other and have one declared the winner at art while all the others are losers?

I constantly have local pubs and clubs asking me to put on 'Battle of the Bands' competitions but I refuse every time. I will put on a gig featuring lots of local bands, each playing a set and getting whatever appreciation they deserve but I won't say that one of them has 'won' at being a band at the end of it.

If you want to win something then enter a ping pong tournament; if you want to do art, do art.

What a load of pretentious drivel.

You're speaking as if music and art is nothing more than a hobby. But what about the people who make a living out of it? Like every other job in the world, without some sort of recognition, you ain't getting paid.

[Zone_Out]

Originally Posted by 4troy7

It's weird they don't have a Best Video catergory have they ever had one before ?

yes i`m sure they used to not sure when they dropped it though.

[iseloid]

Originally Posted by So 3008

What they need to do is bring back Best International Album, it was ludicrous they axed it in the first place. And they've axed Best International Breakthrough this year as well; what next year, the axing of Best International Male and Female as well?

In my opinion for every British category there should be an International one alongside, so instead of keep axing the worldwide awards they should have added Best International Single.

No wonder most non-Brits don't bother to turn up when there is only the possibility of winning one solitary statue; and then you just get the award going to whoever of the said non-Brits that has bothered to turn up like Taylor Swift most likely this year.

This.

[Finny Skeleta]

Originally Posted by Dizzle

What a load of pretentious drivel.

You're speaking as if music and art is nothing more than a hobby. But what about the people who make a living out of it? Like every other job in the world, without some sort of recognition, you ain't getting paid.

I never said anything against getting paid. As someone who makes a living from music I am a big fan of musicians getting paid properly.

What I object to is a self-congratulatory backslapping fest which is more a measure of which acts have had the most cash pumped into their marketing budgets over the past twelve months rather than any sort of creative merit.

Originally Posted by DRAGON LANCE

Whilst we can all like to dream of a free hippy world where everybody treats everybody with love, peace, respect and people actually get into music purely because it sounds great, the sad reality is that to get the general Joe public interesting if you have to have things like award ceremonies.

Yes, I agree they are all a load of tosh, but the simple fact is they draw people in, get people interested in who is out there and stimulate sales. And if you want to get high and mighty about how crass and commercial that is the simple truth is no sales=no more new music. It costs money to actually make it you know.

The Lady Gaga's of this world pay for all the little arty acts out there these days, especially since with live in an age where so many people merrily pirate everything they can. Yet, bizarrely after claiming they do this because CD's/legal downloads are apparently too expensive, the same people will often pay astronomical amounts of money for gig tickets, often off touts so all the cash isn't even going to their fave band. But I'll stop there, that's a different argument totally altogether.

Whilst the Grammy's and Brits only cover the big sellers, things like the Mercury Prize cover the more obscure. Indeed, the Mercury prize is in many ways an even bigger sham than the Brits. We all know something totally oddball or obscure will win it every year, rather than the person who has actually done the best album, but at the same time (shudder) notched up the most sales.

I like to delude myself I still have an ear for every little band out there, but the truth is you can't listen to them all, and something like Mercury can inform you about something you've never heard before. Like (and its going back a few years) I actually got into Bat For Lashes because I watched the Mercury awards and saw her play her track Horse and I, so yeah you can discover people sometimes.

I imagine the mainstream ITV audience will have never heard many of the acts at the Brits. You can sneer at that, and how "stupid" ITV viewers are, but the fact is there is no mainstream TV Top of the Pops style programme anymore, bar the X-Factor or The Voice, and they are just vehicles for the puppets that get created by those shows.

So maybe for them the crass sales motivated Brits will be a place they'll discover a few people they've never heard of before, as well as listen to lots of mainstream acts everybody knows.

All fair points and, as depressing as they are, I can't argue with them.

My point still stands however that I fail to see how someone could or would even want to 'win' at music.

When I go to watch the rugby on a Saturday afternoon I want to see fierce competition between two evenly matched sides playing to set rules that will eventually determine a winner and a loser. I enjoy that immensely.

On the other hand when I go to a gig on a Saturday night I just want to see a good show. The bands will all be 'competing' in the sense that they will all want to be the best act of the night and maybe I and the rest of the crowd will think that the second support act were the best of the night, that's to be expected. But the idea of having someone get up on stage at the end and announce that the second support act has 'won' the gig and present them with a prize is so ridiculous that my brain struggles to process why anyone would want to do that at any level.

If the band was that good then their prize would be everyone rushing to the merch table, buying their records and shirts and committing to going to see them again in the future . The sloppy, under-rehearsed, derivative wasters in the first support band on the other hand are punished for their rubbish performance by having to spend all night standing behind their sad little display of two CDRs and a few stickers and badges watching the other bands have a rush on their stuff that looks like John Lewis on Boxing Day.

[Smudged]

Originally Posted by DRAGON LANCE

The Lady Gaga's of this world pay for all the little arty acts out there these days,

Indeed, the Mercury prize is in many ways an even bigger sham than the Brits. We all know something totally oddball or obscure will win it every year, rather than the person who has actually done the best album, but at the same time (shudder) notched up the most sales

Don't agree with these points at all. In fact I find them quite ridiculous.

But the main point you've made that awards are mostly about promotion is correct imo. It is unnecessary to pick winners but it can be good promotion for lesser known artists to simply be nominated, even if they're very unlikely to win, so awards aren't totally pointless imo.