Beatles & Stones Win Grammys

[TheBigA]

The Beatles and the Rolling Stones each won Grammy awards today. The Beatles won Best Rock Performance for their AI song "Now & Then." The Rolling Stones won Best Rock Album for Hackney Diamonds. So two classic rock bands won Grammy awards for their latest music.

Accepting for The Beatles: Sean Ono Lennon! He had won a Grammy earlier for a 50th anniversary version of his father's album Mind Games. Giles Martin was also in the house, but wasn't available to accept his Grammy. Sean pointed out that Giles produced Now & Then with Paul McCartney.

 

[PTBoardOp93]

As if if you needed more evidence that the Grammys are a farce, they go and give a Grammy to a guy (John Lennon) who has been dead for almost 50 years.

 

[TheBigA]

As if if you needed more evidence that the Grammys are a farce, they go and give a Grammy to a guy (John Lennon) who has been dead for almost 50 years.

The other way of looking at it is that great music lasts forever and often outlives the people who make it.

 

[davideduardo]

As if if you needed more evidence that the Grammys are a farce, they go and give a Grammy to a guy (John Lennon) who has been dead for almost 50 years.

I agree with BigA: the music lasts forever. And with today's technology, so do the artists.

 

[PTBoardOp93]

The other way of looking at it is that great music lasts forever and often outlives the people who make it.

Absolutely. Nothing wrong with my mom still liking Elvis decades after his death.

The difference is that my mom isn't handing out the most significant music awards in the country.

 

[TheBigA]

The difference is that my mom isn't handing out the most significant music awards in the country.

People vote for these awards. They're not just handed out. Blame the 13,000 voters, who I heard tonight are a lot younger than they used to be.

 

[Delete My Account]

I'm less concerned about the age of the artists and more irritated that anything involving "AI" is given legitimacy in music.

Noticed my Spotify recommends were getting a lot of generic sounding tracks with sketchy profiles. Turns out they're pushing AI "music" onto discovery playlists in the hope of reducing royalties. CEO already makes more than Taylor Swift, and he wants to run a music service that demotes human artists. And you can pay for his service, but you can't go into your options and ban the AI crap from your algorithm.

My philosophy's always been that of Doug Balough, the owner of WOXY in Oxford, OH, the legendary alt rock station.

"We have an obligation to be profitable. Not to be greedy."

AI is a tool. Replacing the human in art - be it visual or musical, to me, is repugnant. I know this doesn't apply directly to the Beatles track, I'm speaking more broadly and having a get off my lawn moment. AI can't live, travel, read, experience love, pain, a sunset. Can't anything be sacred, like music? AI will never be the Beatles, Bowie, Petty or Prince.

 

[KilowattKat]

I don't watch award shows, but who accepted and gave a speech for the Rolling Stones?

 

[tbolt909]

The other way of looking at it is that great music lasts forever and often outlives the people who make it.

This is true. The Beatles, Quincy Jones, Prince (and many others I could name) were extremely talented. Unfortunately, the Grammys have become vapid spectacle. Many that have won or been nominated in the last 25 years have already been forgotten...

 

[PTBoardOp93]

People vote for these awards. They're not just handed out. Blame the 13,000 voters, who I heard tonight are a lot younger than they used to be.

I'm very happy to blame all 13,000 of them.

The Oscars have been lost for a long time (just compare the list of best picture winners to the box office list). It's too bad the Grammys have decided to join them.

 

[Miss Tuned]

Noticed my Spotify recommends were getting a lot of generic sounding tracks with sketchy profiles. Turns out they're pushing AI "music" onto discovery playlists in the hope of reducing royalties. CEO already makes more than Taylor Swift, and he wants to run a music service that demotes human artists. And you can pay for his service, but you can't go into your options and ban the AI crap from your algorithm.

I've noticed it trying to push "Smart Shuffle" a lot more, to the point where it's almost impossible to turn off, it's deliberately undocumented. You make a playlist of your own choice of tracks, spend time curating it, but when you go to play it on a device, Spotify will turn it into a Smart Shuffle, which includes one of their selections every couple of songs.

There's an external web page about the obscure method of turning the thing off, but nothing on Spotify's official site, so it's a deliberately obfuscated thing to allow them to push their favored stuff onto your playlists:

How to Turn Off Smart Shuffle on Spotify: 4 Quick Steps

Easily disable Spotify's Smart Shuffle feature on mobile Spotify's Enhance feature has been replaced by the Smart Shuffle feature, which adds personalized recommendations to a playlist as you listen. To remove it, you'll just need to tap...

www.wikihow.com

 

[Miss Tuned]

I noticed (at least here) that Now and Then burst onto radio playlists at release, was everywhere but then very quickly disappeared, within a week or so, far quicker than most currents do. I presume it tested incredibly poorly (because it was a dreadful dirge) and was taken out of rotation.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm less concerned about the age of the artists and more irritated that anything involving "AI" is given legitimacy in music.

I haven't seen that at all. In fact what I'm seeing is the complete opposite especially from within the artists and songwriters.

 

[tbolt909]

It was interesting that a version of Randy Newman's
"I Love LA" was performed last night. The line "Look at that Bum he's down on his knees" was changed to something like "Look at our city get up off our knees". Sort of reminded me of when the Lawrence Welk show would have its singers perform the Beatles--"With A Little Help from my Friends", but omit the GET HIGH line. Just an observation.

It's understandable that "Bum on his knees" after the fires would be out of place...

 

[Delete My Account]

The high water mark of Lawrence Welk's show will in my mind always be that amazing rendition of the classic spiritual "One Toke Over the Line."

 

[tbolt909]

The high water mark of Lawrence Welk's show will in my mind always be that amazing rendition of the classic spiritual "One Toke Over the Line."

Yeah, The Welk folks weren't hip to drug lingo. Some may have had no idea what they were singing...😑

The Grammys just seem to be lacking grit and substance these days. It's just an empty exercise especially given the state of the industry...

 

[vchimpanzee]

I don't watch award shows, but who accepted and gave a speech for the Rolling Stones?

I am assuming there is a way to watch the actual awards show, but on CBS, that award wasn't important enough to be given out in between performances of songs. You'd have to ask someone who knows how to see the actual awards show.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't watch award shows, but who accepted and gave a speech for the Rolling Stones?

Andrew Watt, the album's producer

Watch The Rolling Stones Win Best Rock Album For Hackney Diamonds | 2025 GRAMMYs Acceptance Speech | GRAMMY.com

**[<span class="NormalTextRun SCXW254742270 BCX4">The Rolling Stones</span>](https://www.grammy.com/artists/rolling-stones/8331)**<span class="NormalTextRun SCXW254742270 BCX4"> deliver an acceptance speech after winning Best Rock Album for </span>*<span class="NormalTextRun SCXW254742270...

www.grammy.com

 

[Don CT]

I am assuming there is a way to watch the actual awards show, but on CBS, that award wasn't important enough to be given out in between performances of songs. You'd have to ask someone who knows how to see the actual awards show.

Most of the awards are done preshow and not televised.

 

[davideduardo]

I'm less concerned about the age of the artists and more irritated that anything involving "AI" is given legitimacy in music.

And did you object when Les Paul pushed the electric guitar into pop music? This is technology that allows human inspiration to be amplified, just as the amp on that guitar...

Noticed my Spotify recommends were getting a lot of generic sounding tracks with sketchy profiles. Turns out they're pushing AI "music" onto discovery playlists in the hope of reducing royalties. CEO already makes more than Taylor Swift, and he wants to run a music service that demotes human artists. And you can pay for his service, but you can't go into your options and ban the AI crap from your algorithm.

And you are obligated to subscribe? Just don't listen.

My philosophy's always been that of Doug Balough, the owner of WOXY in Oxford, OH, the legendary alt rock station.

"We have an obligation to be profitable. Not to be greedy."

I've been in radio for 66 years, 61 in management and ownership. I've never seen a station that I considered "greedy". That statement reads well, but it is not fact based.

AI is a tool. Replacing the human in art - be it visual or musical, to me, is repugnant.

AI is simply a new way of creating art. Humans created AI as a tool. I remember all the similar objections to the Moog synthesizers way back then.

I know this doesn't apply directly to the Beatles track, I'm speaking more broadly and having a get off my lawn moment. AI can't live, travel, read, experience love, pain, a sunset. Can't anything be sacred, like music? AI will never be the Beatles, Bowie, Petty or Prince.

With time, it has the potential to be even greater, combining the art and skills of many. Remember, when the printing press was created, technology took art to millions of people yet some decried it as thwarting the work of scribes that made books one by one by hand for royalty.