Why J&H didn't get 2004 GRAMMY Award?

adrinux · Post by **adrinux** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:01 am

I think that J&H is good enough, and it's worthy of getting GRAMMY.
Why didn't it happen?

epdc · Post by **epdc** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:10 am

petra didn`t pay the judges for winning.

I personally don`t believe in those awards, I think there are a lot interests there.

adrinux · Post by **adrinux** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:45 am

Petra dont need to gain GRAMMY...but I thought they were gonna get it, as they were nominated for it...
it would be like the old times... Petra getting GRAMMY and DOVE awards...

petrarocksA2 · Post by **petrarocksA2** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:32 am

I think half the time they are rigged. It's a popularity contest. I think this stinks.

separateunion · Post by **separateunion** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:46 pm

The Grammy Awards actually seem to be based more on artistry than the Dove Awards.

epdc · Post by **epdc** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:33 pm

personally don`t think Petra needs that. Yeah, you can be able to promote yourself by saying you have won stuff but at the end we gotta ask ourselves this: WHO is deciding who`s best? and WHAT REASONS this people have for picking you or anyone else? ya know.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:30 pm

It was probably backlash for Petra getting the Grammy for Double Take. I like the album, but I don't think that Petra was necessarily deserving of a Grammy then, considering their competition.

brent · Post by **brent** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:35 pm

separateunion wrote:The Grammy Awards actually seem to be based more on artistry than the Dove Awards.

Right.

Nope. If you are a paying member, you get to vote. I have seen a couple of bids and offers for Grammy nominations on recording/producing messageboards.

It is by the industry, for the industry. It is self serving BS.

Dove awards mean nothing. It is a chance for people to put themselves on a stage by nominating and voting for each other. It is whacked as well.

Our reward is in Heaven. We shouldn't have to need a $25 award and a televised ceremony.

brent · Post by **brent** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:37 pm

Jonathan wrote:It was probably backlash for Petra getting the Grammy for Double Take. I like the album, but I don't think that Petra was necessarily deserving of a Grammy then, considering their competition.

Especially when it sold only 30k copies or so world wide. What a joke. Meanwhile great albums see no award. Oh well. It is Satan's game. Who wants to play in that?

adrinux · Post by **adrinux** » Sun May 01, 2005 12:31 am

brent, I think just like you. I wonder why J&H didnt get GRAMMY once double take got it...
J&H is much better than Double Take. I really dont know
what happened.

there must be some mistake

brent · Post by **brent** » Sun May 01, 2005 9:08 am

Speculating here....

Double Take was on Word. Word is owned by secular label. Secular labels have more affiliations and networkings with the secular engineers. producers in the Grammy association. These large companies like the bragging rights for winning the most in all catagories. J&H is on Inpop, which is small Christian label (compared to Word). Maybe they don't pay enough or have people of influence to make it happen.

Petra_Pete · Post by **Petra_Pete** » Sun May 01, 2005 6:19 pm

At least they lost out to a worthy opponant (A.A.) rather than say Big Daddy Weave or Kindred 3. They're okay, but come on- no Petra.

sue d. · Post by **sue d.** » Mon May 02, 2005 9:44 am

Especially when it sold only 30k copies or so world wide.

Sales & distribution is not an indication of a great - or crummy - album.

Grammys are (supposed to be) based on the album and artistry of the product itself - not pre-conceived notions about the artist or sales figures.

Double Take is a VERY artist album and well deserving of the Grammy, whether or not you personally like the album.

You can't tell me that this wouldn't look pretty sitting on your mantle!
http://www.johnschlitt.net/images/AwardsGrammyDTbig.JPG

brent · Post by **brent** » Mon May 02, 2005 10:13 am

Sue, you're right about the concept of the Grammy. But that is the concept and not always reality.

I have friends that are multiplatinum, Grammy nominated and award winning artists. It is a fraternity. People buy and sell votes. It is as crooked as the day is long in the major catagories. The artistic type awards, engineering, etc are debatable. Some of these decisions are lined out long before the album hits the streets, because of the label, producers or engineers used, etc.

From a sales/public opinion standpoint, which is who Petra relies on for it's income, selling 70k units less +/- than normal speaks volumes. For the hardcore Petra fan, not knowing how things work, it appears like a good Grammy was wasted on DT (as it wasn't even a rock record) and should be awarded to J&H, as this album truely encapsulates what Petra means and should have been all along.

I did buy the record. I hated it. But I really, really tried to like it. I just couldn't get the originals outta my head, you know? IMO they should have known better. Metallica's watered down stuff wasn't impressive sales wise, the MTV acoustic stuff had already been done and lost steam.

spottacus · Post by **spottacus** » Tue May 03, 2005 5:16 pm

Why didn't Petra win the Grammy? Because somebody else did.

Why am I not tall and athletic? Because I'm short and fat.

Tough luck for Petra and me.

The Petra Zone

Why J&H didn't get 2004 GRAMMY Award?

Why J&H didn't get 2004 GRAMMY Award?

because

Petra and the Grammy's

I

Who is online