Metascore
41 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 5 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 5
  2. Negative: 2 out of 5
  1. 50
    Some of the performances were strong -- Aguilera actually managed to make good with her yodel on "It's a Man's Man's Man's World." And some were underwhelming -- the Chili Peppers singing a listless "Snow (Hey Oh)" amid crazy confetti.
  2. With a host of performers skilled in delivering Big Effects, the evening regularly delivered top-grade professional pop music, though it was rarely thrilling in a way that made you reconsider an act or decide to change your life.
  3. Mostly, it was a tasteful affair.
  4. Reviewed by: Troy Patterson
    30
    A broadcast marked by an unusual number of glitches, miscues, and deflating juxtapositions.
  5. Reviewed by: Jon Pareles
    30
    At a time when recorded music needs all the commercial help and television exposure it can get, the Grammy Awards broadcast retreated too often into memories.
User Score

Overwhelming dislike- based on 14 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 8
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 8
  3. Negative: 7 out of 8
  1. TheFly
    2
    Nice to see the police return to action, but I agree with Hector M - when U2 doesn't show and perform, the whole thing is a joke - unfortunately for those of us that love music, with the death of rock comes the death of meaningful reward shows. . . Full Review »
  2. WalkerR
    0
    What a joke! I won't watch the show and never will. The Grammy's are a total waste of time. They celebrate awfull american music. It's really a show for people that have absolutely no taste in music. Crap! Full Review »
  3. GaborA
    1
    The Grammy's might as well be called the people's choice awards. Or better yet, the stupid people's choice awards. Unlike the Oscars and other awards shows the grammy's haven't even tried to applaud good music over the years. A high school talent contest award has more merit. Full Review »