• Network: ABC , CBS
  • Series Premiere Date: Mar 16, 1971
User Score
2.1

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 16 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 16
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 16
  3. Negative: 13 out of 16

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. HectorM
    Feb 15, 2007
    0
    A complete waste of time. Every year that U2 doesn't release an album full of anthemic turgidity, the Grammys don't know what to do with themselves. Fergie for album of the year? Yeah, brings real credability to the awards show. And since when is John Mayer a star? He should be cleaning out a toilet at an Arby's somewhere in Louisville.
  2. WalkerR
    Feb 21, 2007
    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!
  3. TheFly
    Feb 25, 2007
    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. . .
  4. TonyT
    Feb 14, 2007
    0
    what a horrible show!! who votes on this crap?
  5. GaborA
    Feb 19, 2007
    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.
  6. ChrisC
    Feb 14, 2007
    0
    This installment of the Grammies served to do nothing but highlight how obsolete an affair they've become. It's really nothing but the mainstream music industry gratuitiously celebrating itself. I understand only giving awards to mainstream, major label music, but the winners aren't even very popular bands. Which leads me to believe the selection process is 70% politic, 30% This installment of the Grammies served to do nothing but highlight how obsolete an affair they've become. It's really nothing but the mainstream music industry gratuitiously celebrating itself. I understand only giving awards to mainstream, major label music, but the winners aren't even very popular bands. Which leads me to believe the selection process is 70% politic, 30% arbitrary. They gave an award to My Humps for Christ's sake! If I had a choice between listening to the Spice Girls for ten straight hours, and listening to one Black Eyed Peas song once, I'd pick the Spice Girls. Expand
  7. JakeB
    Feb 14, 2007
    3
    The Grammy Awards allways sucked.
Metascore
41

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. Mostly, it was a tasteful affair.
  3. 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.