• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Entertainment
  • Music
Anyone else think the Brit Awards are rubbish?
<<
<
1 of 5
>>
>
SparkleBabe
18-02-2008
I think The Brits have been crap since about 1998 (Giving the oustanding achievment award to The Spice Girls, I mean FFS!). Maybe even before that. The whole ceremony is so pretentious and up its own arse that most of the time I sit at home watching it and cringing. Its not as prestigious as it thinks it is.

These days it seems to be more focussed on nominating and handing out awards to former pupils of The Brits School (Amy Winehouse, Kate Nash, Leona Lewis, Katie Melua, Mika etc) Im sure its no coincidence that the new 'critics choice' award for the new artist most likely to succeed has been awarded to Adele, a former pupil at The Brits School . I know the awards funds the school but that takes the piss quite frankly, its like some old boys club.

Why was Amy McDonald not nominated for Best Female, but 'Bat For Lashes' whoever in god's name she is was? Why give Adele all that hype, when Duffy is a better singer than she is? Not to mention the fact that its an award ceremony that celebrates British music, and they go and fill the stage with American peformers.

I also cannot believe its taken them till now to give Macca the Outsanding Achievment Award, and then they go and insult him by getting that botoxed mutton piece Kylie to hand it over to him.

What a ****ing joke its turned into!
ShiftyDundee
18-02-2008
Originally Posted by SparkleBabe:
“I think The Brits have been crap since about 1998 (Giving the oustanding achievment award to The Spice Girls, I mean FFS!). Maybe even before that. The whole ceremony is so pretentious and up its own arse that most of the time I sit at home watching it and cringing. Its not as prestigious as it thinks it is.

These days it seems to be more focussed on nominating and handing out awards to former pupils of The Brits School (Amy Winehouse, Kate Nash, Leona Lewis, Katie Melua, Mika etc) Im sure its no coincidence that the new 'critics choice' award for the new artist most likely to succeed has been awarded to Adele, a former pupil at The Brits School . I know the awards funds the school but that takes the piss quite frankly, its like some old boys club.

Why was Amy McDonald not nominated for Best Female, but 'Bat For Lashes' whoever in god's name she is was? Why give Adele all that hype, when Duffy is a better singer than she is? Not to mention the fact that its an award ceremony that celebrates British music, and they go and fill the stage with American peformers.

I also cannot believe its taken them till now to give Macca the Outsanding Achievment Award, and then they go and insult him by getting that botoxed mutton piece Kylie to hand it over to him.

What a ****ing joke its turned into!”

I agree it's crap. Why do you watch it if you hate it so much?

Incidentally, Bat For Lashes (a.k.a. Natasha Khan) is infinitely more talented than Amy McDonald and Duffy and Adele are both shit IMO.
ags_rule
18-02-2008
It's geared towards the genres that the music industry want to promote at that time. There is little there that celebrates true talent and creativity.
IndieLove92
18-02-2008
Originally Posted by SparkleBabe:
“I think The Brits have been crap since about 1998 (Giving the oustanding achievment award to The Spice Girls, I mean FFS!). Maybe even before that. The whole ceremony is so pretentious and up its own arse that most of the time I sit at home watching it and cringing. Its not as prestigious as it thinks it is.

These days it seems to be more focussed on nominating and handing out awards to former pupils of The Brits School (Amy Winehouse, Kate Nash, Leona Lewis, Katie Melua, Mika etc) Im sure its no coincidence that the new 'critics choice' award for the new artist most likely to succeed has been awarded to Adele, a former pupil at The Brits School . I know the awards funds the school but that takes the piss quite frankly, its like some old boys club.

Why was Amy McDonald not nominated for Best Female, but 'Bat For Lashes' whoever in god's name she is was? Why give Adele all that hype, when Duffy is a better singer than she is? Not to mention the fact that its an award ceremony that celebrates British music, and they go and fill the stage with American peformers.

I also cannot believe its taken them till now to give Macca the Outsanding Achievment Award, and then they go and insult him by getting that botoxed mutton piece Kylie to hand it over to him.

What a ****ing joke its turned into!”

I agree with you on the most part, the Brits are generally quite poor, though there have been a couple of well deserved winners in the last few years.

Amy MacDonald is good but she isn't even in the same league as Bat For Lashes. Honestly, she is bloody incredible and so different from everything else that's out there (which is why I was quite suprised she was nominated).
SparkleBabe
18-02-2008
Originally Posted by IndieLove92:
“Amy MacDonald is good but she isn't even in the same league as Bat For Lashes. Honestly, she is bloody incredible and so different from everything else that's out there (which is why I was quite suprised she was nominated).”

Yes, but who is she? I think most people are clueless as to who she is
IndieLove92
18-02-2008
Originally Posted by SparkleBabe:
“Yes, but who is she? I think most people are clueless as to who she is ”

Taken from Wikipedia:

'Bat for Lashes is the moniker of English musician Natasha Khan (born 25 October 1979), a Brighton-based songwriter.

Bat for Lashes' music has been likened to the work of Björk, Thom Yorke, Cat Power, Tori Amos, and Kate Bush.

Thom Yorke has also complimented her work.

In 2007, Bat for Lashes appeared at Glastonbury and toured the USA.[5] On 17 July the album Fur and Gold was announced as one of the albums nominated for the 2007 Mercury Prize. Despite being the favourite to win, by both the bookies and the pundits —and after performing the song "Horse and I" at the ceremony held at London's Grosvenor House and presented by Jools Holland on Tuesday 4 September 2007—Bat for Lashes lost out to rank outsiders, the Klaxons.'


Though I would say she's most famous for the What's A Girl To Do video (as shown by the number of views it's had!)
ShiftyDundee
18-02-2008
Originally Posted by SparkleBabe:
“Yes, but who is she? I think most people are clueless as to who she is ”

Well I'm clearly not and neither is IndieLove92

What do you want to know?
SparkleBabe
18-02-2008
Woah, thats a bit 'weird' isn't it?

I think it still has that 60's feel though, maybe more psyhcidelic than Amy Wino etc.
welshsarah
18-02-2008
i havent watched brits for years
Sayhey
18-02-2008
Im only watching it for Kylie
alienghost
18-02-2008
Originally Posted by ShiftyDundee:
“Incidentally, Bat For Lashes (a.k.a. Natasha Khan) is infinitely more talented than Amy McDonald and Duffy and Adele”

I agree.

Most award ceremonies are pointless, and The Brits are no exception.
Alrightmate
18-02-2008
Originally Posted by SparkleBabe:
“I think The Brits have been crap since about 1998 (Giving the oustanding achievment award to The Spice Girls, I mean FFS!). Maybe even before that. The whole ceremony is so pretentious and up its own arse that most of the time I sit at home watching it and cringing. Its not as prestigious as it thinks it is.

These days it seems to be more focussed on nominating and handing out awards to former pupils of The Brits School (Amy Winehouse, Kate Nash, Leona Lewis, Katie Melua, Mika etc) Im sure its no coincidence that the new 'critics choice' award for the new artist most likely to succeed has been awarded to Adele, a former pupil at The Brits School . I know the awards funds the school but that takes the piss quite frankly, its like some old boys club.

Why was Amy McDonald not nominated for Best Female, but 'Bat For Lashes' whoever in god's name she is was? Why give Adele all that hype, when Duffy is a better singer than she is? Not to mention the fact that its an award ceremony that celebrates British music, and they go and fill the stage with American peformers.

I also cannot believe its taken them till now to give Macca the Outsanding Achievment Award, and then they go and insult him by getting that botoxed mutton piece Kylie to hand it over to him.

What a ****ing joke its turned into!”

I agree with you entirely about The Brits School bias. But when you said this it kind of undermined your own argument a bit.
First you were coming across with a point of view I agreed with, which seemed to be criticial of the over-promotion and hype about certain acts who are propelled into the media spotlight,...but then you criticise an act just because you haven't heard of them. It kind of goes against your own argument a bit.

I think it's a good thing that somebody who isn't whored all over the media and on every blooming music show on mainstream television is a good thing.
I think you should have said why couldn't Amy McDonald AND Bat for Lashes be nominated.
Bat for Lashes is what I'd say is and act who is streets above most of the nominees as far as talent and creativity goes this year.

I thought Bat for Lashes was a good choice of nominee because it doesn't feel as though she's being forced onto me by the media. I don't feel that I'm 'supposed' to be worshipping her like I feel with many of the other nominees.

I agree with you about the industry favourites who happened to have gone to The Brits school though. Now I see why I'm being told that they possess musical genius of the like which is a privilege for us to witness. You did undermine that point a bit though by dismissing an act which you'd never heard of. If you don't give some relatively unknown acts a chance to break through then you're always going to get industry nepotism which swamps us with acts whom they'd want us to like.
Alrightmate
18-02-2008
Originally Posted by alienghost:
“I agree.

Most award ceremonies are pointless, and The Brits are no exception.”

First time I saw her was at the Mercurys (another farce), and I was really, really impressed with Bat For Lashes.
I'm so glad that I'm aware of her now.

In the current musical climate though I doubt she'd sell anywhere near as many records as the more commercially centred acts. So there's about zero chance of her winning at the Brits, which appears to be just about popularity polls and record sales competitions.
But I'd like to think that she has a good career ahead of her.

Alrightmate
18-02-2008
Originally Posted by ags_rule:
“It's geared towards the genres that the music industry want to promote at that time. There is little there that celebrates true talent and creativity.”

I agree. Right now it seems like it's a current trend to promote girls singing simple songs with simple music with a mawkish or bleak social commentary thing going on,....sort of, if you get where I'm coming from. Some are probably better than others, but it feels as though there's a glut of them at the moment. It feels a bit like a trend that has been forced onto us, I doubt it's sheer coincidence.

Maybe the music industry is trying to promote a load of Lily Allen/Kate Nash clones. Which I admit, may be an unfair description of all of them, but it does feel as though there's been an industry decision taken somewhere to latch onto the Lily Allen/Kate Nash bandwagon and has been made to promote and hype up a very particular trend right now.

They like 'trends' because then they know what they're doing and can have a degree of control over what's going on.
alienghost
18-02-2008
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“First time I saw her was at the Mercurys (another farce), and I was really, really impressed with Bat to Lashes.
I'm so glad that I'm aware of her now.

In the current musical climate though I doubt she'd sell anywhere near as many records as the more commercially centred acts. So there's about zero chance of her winning at the Brits, which appears to be just about popularity polls and record sales competitions.
But I'd like to think that she has a good career ahead of her.

”

These award cermonies are just the industry congratulating themselves really. That said, I suppose the publicty of being "Brit nominated" won't do her any harm. Like the Mercurys, it may help bring her to the attention of a wider audience.
major winters
18-02-2008
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you have said sparklebabe. The brits now seem to be a measure of artists who lack any credibility.
Alrightmate
18-02-2008
Originally Posted by major winters:
“I agree wholeheartedly with everything you have said sparklebabe. The brits now seem to be a measure of artists who lack any credibility.”

In the current music climate somebody would answer your point by saying that credibility is about the most record sales.
Or direct you to some online popularity poll.
major winters
18-02-2008
Yes I agree with you Alightmate. It is quite sad that thats the way things are at the moment. It is all about the hype and the marketing and not enough about the actual talent and musical ability
delgado
18-02-2008
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“First time I saw her was at the Mercurys (another farce), and I was really, really impressed with Bat For Lashes.
I'm so glad that I'm aware of her now.”

Why do you call the Mercury Prize a farce when it introduced you to a new artist? Surely that shows it's a good thing . The Mercury Prize (along with the US, Canadian, Australian and Irish equivalents) are the only music awards I take an interest in because they're not about popularity. Also, you can be sure that M.I.A. will be nominated this year, something The Brits spectacularly failed to do .
Plant
18-02-2008
Think of it as a three hour long advert then it won't annoy so much.
Alrightmate
18-02-2008
Originally Posted by delgado:
“Why do you call the Mercury Prize a farce when it introduced you to a new artist? Surely that shows it's a good thing . The Mercury Prize (along with the US, Canadian, Australian and Irish equivalents) are the only music awards I take an interest in because they're not about popularity. Also, you can be sure that M.I.A. will be nominated this year, something The Brits spectacularly failed to do .”

I was talking mainly about the last awards. Which I won't go into too much depth about for risk of derailing the thread, but mainly because of the winner and the reasons given. To me it just came across as NME inspired bullshit. All the commentators talking nonsense about new rave and moving music forward. (For being a guitar band with a synth in it).

It just felt to me as the Mercurys trying to predict 'the next big thing', and about trying to be be trendy according to what another area of the media wants to promote. It just felt as biased and skewed, with it's own media agenda, as much as the Brits usually does.

I'm speaking mainly about last year's awards though. It just didn't come across to me as genuinely credible.
i love sky
18-02-2008
I Remember back in the early days it used to be a must see show with the family but over the years its got so bad that i wouldnt even let my kids see it.

You just dont know what crap will come out off the so called stars gobs and its just full off groups making a big name for themselfs and then going back to the green room or whatever they call them and getting pissed up and then ending up in papers like the sun.

So deff wont be watching it this year.
|Stefan
18-02-2008
I always feel like the nominations are scapring the barrel or just picking the obvious choices
delgado
18-02-2008
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“I was talking mainly about the last awards. Which I won't go into too much depth about for risk of derailing the thread, but mainly because of the winner and the reasons given. To me it just came across as NME inspired bullshit. All the commentators talking nonsense about new rave and moving music forward. (For being a guitar band with a synth in it).

It just felt to me as the Mercurys trying to predict 'the next big thing', and about trying to be be trendy according to what another area of the media wants to promote. It just felt as biased and skewed, with it's own media agenda, as much as the Brits usually does.

I'm speaking mainly about last year's awards though. It just didn't come across to me as genuinely credible.”

Well, yes there's alot of nonsense talked about Klaxons (mainly from the blokes themselves ) but not liking the winner doesn't make the whole award a farce. The voting system is stupid and is done better in other countries like Canada but the idea of the award and the attention it can bring to lesser known artists is good imo.
delgado
18-02-2008
It's easy to criticise The Brits but how many people can come up with a decent size list of artists that should have been nominated instead? Who are all these good, 'credible' British artists from the last 12 months people are talking about?

I can think of a few but not that many. Only 4 of my top 20 albums last year were by British artists and none of them are nominated. Go figure....
<<
<
1 of 5
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map