The Grammy Awards Image
Metascore
41

Mixed or average reviews - based on 5 Critics What's this?

User Score
1.6

Overwhelming dislike- based on 15 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: The annual music awards show (held again at Los Angeles' Staples Center) was highlighted by only the second performance by a reunited Police in 25 years. The Dixie Chicks and Mary J. Blige were among the night's biggest winners.
  • Genre(s): Arts, Events & Specials
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 5
  2. Negative: 2 out of 5
  1. Mostly, it was a tasteful affair.
  2. 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.
  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.
  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.
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 8
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 8
  3. Negative: 7 out of 8
  1. LauraD
    Feb 18, 2007
    8
    Lots of great performances. Liked also that there was not a show host this year.
  2. JakeB
    Feb 14, 2007
    3
    The Grammy Awards allways sucked.
  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. . . Expand
  4. TonyT
    Feb 14, 2007
    0
    what a horrible show!! who votes on this crap?
  5. 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% 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
  6. 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! Expand
  7. 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. Collapse

See all 8 User Reviews