Amazon.com Widgets

Should the Arcade Fire really have won the Record of the Year at the 2011 Grammy's?

  • Defninitely deserving of the Grammy

    I understand that Eminem is a great rapper of our era but Arcade Fire have put out an album that shows true musicianship, meaningful lyrics, and this album was truly innovative. Eminem (and most other bands/artists in contention for the award) were not innovative in their new albums in any way, and because of this I believe that Arcade Fire was deserving of their Grammy.

  • Defninitely deserving of the Grammy

    I understand that Eminem is a great rapper of our era but Arcade Fire have put out an album that shows true musicianship, meaningful lyrics, and this album was truly innovative. Eminem (and most other bands/artists in contention for the award) were not innovative in their new albums in any way, and because of this I believe that Arcade Fire was deserving of their Grammy.

  • Yes they should have.

    Arcade Fire is an excellent band and have some really great songs with an interesting sound and a unique way of voice that draws a person in. The instruments are perfect and really draw you in, not to mention they worked very hard to get that reward and deserved it.

  • Arcade Fire is one of the most innovative bands of this century, and their win at the 2011 Grammys was well-deserved.

    The Arcade Fire have been pioneers of the music industry for over 10 years now, and their win at the 2011 Grammys was well-deserved. Their albums have all been thematic masterpieces with important underlying messages. Just because many Americans remain ethnocentric in their musical tastes, it does not mean we should strip such an important band of such an important award.

    Posted by: C0n5tGet
  • Arcade Fire has infused new life into the world of popular music and, as such, was aptly rewarded for their work through their victory at the 2011 Grammys.

    As one of the better-known "indie" rock acts in North America, Arcade Fire uses a vast array of musicians and arrangements to create original songs that resonate with a variety of audiences. Their victory in the Record of the Year category was a recognition of Arcade Fire's work over the past few years. At the same time, the Record of the Year honor can be seen as a welcome departure from the stale auto-tune pop movement and the trite, predictable music churned out by many of today's artists.

    Posted by: InvincibleBradley
  • Arcade Fire produced an album that was sonically, musically and lyrically different than anything else put out in the eligible year and on those grounds I believe it deserves the award.

    The Grammy for Album of the Year is known as the most prestigious of the entire ceremony. It goes to the artist whose album shows true innovation and put out a collection of songs that are coherent, cohesive and offer something new to the music community. On those grounds, Arcade Fire truly deserves this award with their album The Suburbs. They had shown in the past on their previous album Funeral that they can take an entire concept and write and produce music that fits that mood and theme while creating something that sounds entirely different. The Suburbs took that idea one step further and broke new ground with the ideas it posited.

    Posted by: CompleteJerrod
  • They should've won because everyone has different tastes, and they obviously fit those of enough people.

    Everyone has a different musical preference. Some like country while others like rap and so on throughout all different genres. Who are we to say someone shouldn't win just because they aren't to our taste?

    Posted by: darcyska
  • Quality of music is relative, so no single band can be the best, but I do think The Arcade Fire is an excellent band, though.

    The Arcade Fire is an extremely popular and skillful set of musicians. No music can be qualified as "the best", and all perception is relative. There were many other qualified winners for this position. But, in my opinion, The Arcade Fire was most definitely qualified to receive this prestigious award.

    Posted by: KaputFederico
  • It was a great album, innovative and exciting. They're a good band.

    I was excited by Arcade Fire's win. I realize most people want what's really popular, and music is subjective. What most fail to realize, however, is that The Grammys are voted and judged by musicians and artists of all kinds. This was a good win.

    Posted by: wait4me2fall
  • Yes they should have won, because Arcade Fire is a good band, and they were on the top of several critics' lists.

    Arcade Fire was a well-liked band and had a valid reason for being nominated in the first place. They would not have even been nominated if they did not deserve a chance to win. Eminem was one of their greatest rivals for the award, and even if he lost, he still walked away with two others in another category. While Arcade Fire winning was a surprise, they did not steal a win from another more deserving band.

    Posted by: H_Baird
  • Since I have no idea who the band Arcade Fire is, I can't say that I agree they should have won Record of the Year.

    Normally, I would assume that a Record Of The Year Grammy goes to a recording that a lot of people have heard. I have never heard of this band Arcade Fire, so I wouldn't be able to give an honest opinion as to whether or not they should have won a Grammy. If they should have, it seems like I would have heard of them.

    Posted by: BrownDustin82
  • I do not believe that Arcade Fire should have won the Record of the Year, because their music sounds dated, and it is very boring to listen to.

    There is no "evidence" for why they should not have won the award. It is simply my opinion that they should not have won the Grammy for Record of the Year. I do not believe they are that talented. It sounds like they just spit out their songs, and they all sound the same. It doesn't sound like music you could dance to, and it is pretty lame.

    Posted by: EfrenCIown
  • I feel that while Arcade Fire earned its way into the nominees, Lady GaGa is an incredible performer.

    Lady GaGa is a top performer today. She is new and fresh, without fear- something that kids these days need to see and look up to. Arcade Fire is just not on the same level of talent and showmanship as other performers. Personally I do not enjoy the sound of their music; it sounds like a garage band with only power chords on guitar and simple rhythmic beats for percussion.

    Posted by: babinchak
  • Arcade Fire should not have won the Grammy because Eminem was the rightful winner.

    First of all, they were not nominated for the award. Second of all, none of the albums that were nominated were that good, and really shouldn't have been nominated probably. If I had to pick one of those that was nominated, I would probably pick Eminem, because he has some definite real talent. Back to Arcade Fire, well they won the Album of the Year, not the Record of the Year. Again, I would have picked Eminem. But if he hadn't been nominated, then Arcade Fire was definitely a better choice than any of the other junk that was nominated.

    Posted by: MariaR
  • No, because Justin Beiber should have won Record of the Year.

    Justin Beiber should have won Record of the Year at the Grammys, because his music appeals to millions of more people, and he has very devoted fans. His songs have been used in various movies and TV shows, including Glee. Beiber was also robbed of the best new artist award at the Grammys.

    Posted by: WardGrad

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.