Are we going to see a TV show worth watching tomorrow night? Full of entertainment? Interesting and amusing us? A segment by Alexander and Richard Pointless on facts you never knew about music? A tribute to Shadow Morton featuring Shangi Las, Vanilla Fudge, Janis Ian, Iron Butterfly? Doing a show, as I did, that brings great old music to the ears of new listeners and great new talent to the attention of us oldies? Or will it be just another, uninspired, ordinary, open the envelope bore like Grammys, MTV, Oscars...

Guess what I would suspect. The BPI haven't learned a thing from Danny Boyle and the Olympics opener.

I wonder who will win the dead druggie award ?

In The Know wrote:
I wonder who will win the dead druggie award ?

and the winner of dickhead of the year goes to ...........

Congrats ITK, you have no limits when it comes to insensitivity

Yes; totally tasteless ITK but raises the point - should awards be granted without taking lifestyle into account? I think they should - only talent and quality of music considered.

I don't think I'd have liked Charles Dickens but by God he was a terrific writer.

Agreed, whoever I seem to mention these days, someone has a negative view of them and it's always something to do with their private lives which has been trawled up, blown out of proportion or invented by the media... never their talent.

For those who are too young (or too senile) to know about my turbulent relationship with The Brits...

I was asked to write and host the 1987 British Music Awards. They were a huge success in the Dorchester Hotel. I was promised a permanent gig hosting and writing them if it was a hit but it was so big a hit that they decided to change the venue to the bigger Albert Hall (ghastly acoustics but more money) and get Noel Edmonds to host it. Noel, a decent presenter, didn't write them; as a result the show over ran causing Rick Astley to burst into tears when he was snubbed (like Adele last year).

The year after (1989) was a total disaster (Mick Fleetwood and Sam Fox hosting). The BPI begged me on bended knees to take over as writer and producer and promised me the gig forever with total control over content.

1990 was a great show - big success. So was 1991. I managed to put together a great show with some unsigned acts on the bill. So the big label bosses starting trying to grab back control, ordering me to book certain acts, giving most of the awards to Seal.

So I quit after the 1992 show, giving up £250,000 a year for 3 weeks work. I would not conform to their pedestrian and selfish rules.

Ever since I've criticised the shows for being ordinary.

Mind you, so are the Grammys, Oscars, Baftas etc.

So far absolutely fine, totally unmemorable, absolutely adequate, uninspired, unoriginal; exactly reflecting the music industry, down to the dinner jackets and artfully messed up hair.

Question - why does everyone keep going on about Adele (including her) being cut short last year? Answer - because they all think media coverage means public interest. It doesn't.
Question - why do they keep going on about Harry Styles' love life? Answer - because the media needs to create stories but nobody gives a shit.

Why are they using James Corden and other low rate comedians to present the awards ?

I think he's OK but why book a comic and tell him to be serious? Brian Ferry is starting to look like George Martin.

Well; to complete the review - absolutely fine; nice "spectacular" show from an arena (fireworks, big set); nobody really showed themselves up; mediocre music put together by mediocre executives; a show celebrating how dull the music industry is at the moment. Excitement? No. Original? No. Imaginative? No.

Which exactly reflects the current charts, radio programmes, retail situation and TV coverage.

JK - watch "Nathan Barley" (written by Charlie Brooker & Chris Morris) ASAP

Another prediction they got spot-on.

Real life Nathan Barley was what I saw tonight - especially that twat from Radio 1

JK2006 wrote:
Yes; totally tasteless ITK but raises the point - should awards be granted without taking lifestyle into account? I think they should - only talent and quality of music considered.

I don't think I'd have liked Charles Dickens but by God he was a terrific writer.

Indeed.

JK and GG records are banned by radio - why?
Oscar Wilde plays are still performed.

btw - Who did win the dead druggie award (couldnt be bothered to watch).

Bertie wrote:
Congrats ITK, you have no limits when it comes to insensitivity

... or perceptivity !

Overwhelmingly the opinion seems to be that The Brits were absolutely fine and totally lacking in any entertainment value whatsoever. Probably did very little for sales of music. Certainly did nothing for beleaguered retailers.

The perfect show for those who think there's nothing wrong with the music industry today. So why should they put it right when it's not wrong in any way?

Uninspired, unimaginative, unoriginal. Not one second in the entire two hours would have made a young person think "I'd love to make music".

Television for morons who like manufactured, marketed music and bland artistes.

JK2006 wrote:
... morons who like manufactured, marketed music and bland artistes.

Radio producers perhaps?

Robbie Williams and Guy Chambers don't hold back on the reality of the Brits:

www.robbiewilliams.com/news-blogs/heres-a-gift-from-me-and-guy

But the sad and ironic thing is... The Brits are bad for the same reason this track is bad; boring, mutton trying to be dressed as lamb; unoriginal;...

Guy and Robbie don't realise they are too staid to be sensationalist.

Anomalous at the Brits: Lana Del Pay collected a high status award. So far as the show was concerned, she may as well have been on ignore. Can't imagine American or international gong shows showing contempt to UK acts.

The other GG, BTW

Sorry I'm late to this thread.


I was at the lackluster Brits, and it certainly seems like they are morphing into the polished British Grammys. My observation is that the truly talented like Emeli Sande and (a veteran at this point) Justin Timberlake make acts like One Direction and Taylor Swift look like rank amateurs. So very apparent on the night. And I will remind everyone that the Beatles where the same age as One Direction when they appeared on Ed Sullivan.

I was present at the Grammys when Swift was badly embarrassed singing next to Stevie Nicks, and her smoke and mirrors at this years Brits really have me scratching my head. I think she is almost as over-hyped as Beyonce.

It's as if they took a kid out of a high school theater club and put her onstage at the Brits....That bad.

Where is Jarvis when you need him.........or you JK for that matter?