C@LAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

My first CD purchase was Bon Jovi Slippery When Wet in 1986.

Come at me.

---

If I did, then YOU'D be slippery when wet.

---

91_Aggie said:

---

I think my first "album" purchase was Cassette of Rush Power Windows.

My first CD was Queensryche Operation Mindcrime

---

free_mhayden said:

---

Living Colour was the band.

In Living Color was the Wayans TV show.

---

Rudyjax said:

---

free_mhayden said:

---

Living Colour was the band.

In Living Color was the Wayans TV show.

---

Go it right above. May have gotten it wrong while drinking the other night.

Edit: No. I got it right both times.
Edit 2: Forgot the u. My bad.

---

Bruce Almighty said:

---

It's a thread about Milli Vanilli. I'm impressed it stayed on topic as long as it did.

---

Aust Ag said:

---

This thread has now nothing to do whatsoever with topic

---

Counterpoint said:

---

I think I got ALL the CD's yall are mentioning (yes even the old dance stuff and death metal stuff) from BMG and Columbia House.

---

aTmAg said:

---

To me, this is an example of how the Grammys are a joke. If it were just about the music, then they would have given Milli Vinilli's award to the ex-convicts who actually recorded the music. I would have respected that. But since Grammy's are really nothing more than a popularity contest designed to get people to watch an award show, they have to give it to people who bring viewers. The last thing they can do is give it to unknowns (even if they have real talent). So to pretend it's a real award, they have to claim it's about the "overall presentation/experience" and whatnot.

---

62strat said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

To me, this is an example of how the Grammys are a joke. If it were just about the music, then they would have given Milli Vinilli's award to the ex-convicts who actually recorded the music. I would have respected that. But since Grammy's are really nothing more than a popularity contest designed to get people to watch an award show, they have to give it to people who bring viewers. The last thing they can do is give it to unknowns (even if they have real talent). So to pretend it's a real award, they have to claim it's about the "overall presentation/experience" and whatnot.

---

they give best songwriter Grammys all the time to writers who the public have no idea is.
My heart will go on, change the world, royals, from a distance... all given to the writer(s) of the song, not the famous person who sang it.

THen you have all the best country and pop songs, often the winner is an unknown writer.

I don't watch the Grammys, but I can only guess the 'singer' doesn't go up to accept, unless they were actually on the writing team right?

---

aTmAg said:

---

62strat said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

To me, this is an example of how the Grammys are a joke. If it were just about the music, then they would have given Milli Vinilli's award to the ex-convicts who actually recorded the music. I would have respected that. But since Grammy's are really nothing more than a popularity contest designed to get people to watch an award show, they have to give it to people who bring viewers. The last thing they can do is give it to unknowns (even if they have real talent). So to pretend it's a real award, they have to claim it's about the "overall presentation/experience" and whatnot.

---

they give best songwriter Grammys all the time to writers who the public have no idea is.
My heart will go on, change the world, royals, from a distance... all given to the writer(s) of the song, not the famous person who sang it.

THen you have all the best country and pop songs, often the winner is an unknown writer.

I don't watch the Grammys, but I can only guess the 'singer' doesn't go up to accept, unless they were actually on the writing team right?

---

They don't only give awards to the song writer. Song of the Year goes to song writer, Record of the Year goes to performing artist, producer, etc. There is also best male pop performance, best new artist (which is what Milli Vinilli won), etc.

---

62strat said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

62strat said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

To me, this is an example of how the Grammys are a joke. If it were just about the music, then they would have given Milli Vinilli's award to the ex-convicts who actually recorded the music. I would have respected that. But since Grammy's are really nothing more than a popularity contest designed to get people to watch an award show, they have to give it to people who bring viewers. The last thing they can do is give it to unknowns (even if they have real talent). So to pretend it's a real award, they have to claim it's about the "overall presentation/experience" and whatnot.

---

they give best songwriter Grammys all the time to writers who the public have no idea is.
My heart will go on, change the world, royals, from a distance... all given to the writer(s) of the song, not the famous person who sang it.

THen you have all the best country and pop songs, often the winner is an unknown writer.

I don't watch the Grammys, but I can only guess the 'singer' doesn't go up to accept, unless they were actually on the writing team right?

---

They don't only give awards to the song writer. Song of the Year goes to song writer, Record of the Year goes to performing artist, producer, etc. There is also best male pop performance, best new artist (which is what Milli Vinilli won), etc.

---

I know, but you're saying if it were about he music they'd give it to the songwriters. I'm telling you, for song of the year, they do.

---

Quote:

---

I actually think the original Milli Vinilli songs were pretty damned good. I wish those guys were given an opportunity to make another album (maybe they were, and I am unaware). To me, the fact that their careers went nowhere, is a condemnation of the music buying public. The fact we buy albums when the musicians look like models, but not when they are ugly, shows us to be shallow. Another example is Heart (the group). They were selling albums when they were hot, but when one sister started getting fat, their sales slumped. Their music wasn't any worse. They just didn't look as good on music videos. To me, that is pathetic.

(BTW.. just in case anybody asks... I am not musician who failed to hit it big. The only music talent I have is the ability to whistle. I'm not sure why this trend annoys me. I'm glad I can be ugly as hell in my chosen industry. Otherwise, I'd be screwed.)

Rant over.

---

aTmAg said:

---

62strat said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

62strat said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

To me, this is an example of how the Grammys are a joke. If it were just about the music, then they would have given Milli Vinilli's award to the ex-convicts who actually recorded the music. I would have respected that. But since Grammy's are really nothing more than a popularity contest designed to get people to watch an award show, they have to give it to people who bring viewers. The last thing they can do is give it to unknowns (even if they have real talent). So to pretend it's a real award, they have to claim it's about the "overall presentation/experience" and whatnot.

---

they give best songwriter Grammys all the time to writers who the public have no idea is.
My heart will go on, change the world, royals, from a distance... all given to the writer(s) of the song, not the famous person who sang it.

THen you have all the best country and pop songs, often the winner is an unknown writer.

I don't watch the Grammys, but I can only guess the 'singer' doesn't go up to accept, unless they were actually on the writing team right?

---

They don't only give awards to the song writer. Song of the Year goes to song writer, Record of the Year goes to performing artist, producer, etc. There is also best male pop performance, best new artist (which is what Milli Vinilli won), etc.

---

I know, but you're saying if it were about he music they'd give it to the songwriters. I'm telling you, for song of the year, they do.

---

I understand what you are saying. However, Milli Vinilli won best new artist though. So what I'm saying that if that award was about the music rather than some vague "general performance" criteria, then they would have granted it to the actual musicians. To me, a problem with pop today is that it's 90% hype and 10% talent. Sure you have the occasional Adelle who get there on talent alone, but that seems too rare nowadays.

---

62strat said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

62strat said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

62strat said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

To me, this is an example of how the Grammys are a joke. If it were just about the music, then they would have given Milli Vinilli's award to the ex-convicts who actually recorded the music. I would have respected that. But since Grammy's are really nothing more than a popularity contest designed to get people to watch an award show, they have to give it to people who bring viewers. The last thing they can do is give it to unknowns (even if they have real talent). So to pretend it's a real award, they have to claim it's about the "overall presentation/experience" and whatnot.

---

they give best songwriter Grammys all the time to writers who the public have no idea is.
My heart will go on, change the world, royals, from a distance... all given to the writer(s) of the song, not the famous person who sang it.

THen you have all the best country and pop songs, often the winner is an unknown writer.

I don't watch the Grammys, but I can only guess the 'singer' doesn't go up to accept, unless they were actually on the writing team right?

---

They don't only give awards to the song writer. Song of the Year goes to song writer, Record of the Year goes to performing artist, producer, etc. There is also best male pop performance, best new artist (which is what Milli Vinilli won), etc.

---

I know, but you're saying if it were about he music they'd give it to the songwriters. I'm telling you, for song of the year, they do.

---

I understand what you are saying. However, Milli Vinilli won best new artist though. So what I'm saying that if that award was about the music rather than some vague "general performance" criteria, then they would have granted it to the actual musicians. To me, a problem with pop today is that it's 90% hype and 10% talent. Sure you have the occasional Adelle who get there on talent alone, but that seems too rare nowadays.

---

They won best new artist, because those two guys were the 'artists'. The songwriter behind the scenes is not the artist. I mean, looking up a best new artist - Meghan Trainor. Every song on her album was written by her and the producer, kevin kadish. Did he get a share in that grammy? No, because he's not the artist. Leann Rhimes won best new artist, and her first album didn't have one song written by her.. but only she won the grammy.

You're not making any sense.

There is only ONE grammy that goes solely to the song writers, it's song of the year. Record of the year goes to artist and production team, album of year goes to artist and production team, and best new artist is solely for the artist, aka the singer/band.

If milli vanilli won song of the year, you'd have an argument here, but they didn't. If that song won song of the year, then those dudes would have received a grammy. But it didn't win song of the year.

---