Dave Grohl "Clarifies" Grammy Speech After We Call Him Out for Sounding Like an Anti-EDM Geezer

Whoah.  Back up there!! Dave Grohl is a luddite?  He can play music using instruments.  He does these things called "takes".  He practices.  For hours.  Day after day.  He plays live.  When he misses a note live, you can hear it.  That's human.  Oh year, and he gets blisters.  Like I'm getting from ranting at this troll piece...

Two words; yellow journalism.

Fuck Dave Grohl.  And fuck all the other commenters on this article.

Sounds to me like someone is just butt hurt because he assumed Dave was dissing his music. Let them do what they do, and you do the same. Dave's words are not gonna stop you from listening to EDM so theres no need to disrespect what he enjoys doing. He is simply stating that nothing beats raw talent, no matter what talent it may be.

Oh for the love of god. He wasn't making a stab at electronic music. It's as though he's said "I prefer to eat carrots" and you've gone "HOW DARE YOU INSULT BROCCOLI YOU HEATHEN."No. Just no. You're being stupid and reading between all the wrong lines.

What I find funny is the fact that somehow this "journalist" thinks Dave is reading and responding to his blogs personally. What you should do is find a way to get an interview with Grohl or hell, just walk up to him in public (because we all know he's a humble guy) and tell him what you think to his face if you have such an issue with him. It's easy to hide behind a computer monitor and blog for a below average paper but approaching him and lettting him respond to your idiotic comments would be the more admirable route to take. Grohl's point is pretty simple and your response has taken it completely out of context. All he said was music has become too general and less humanized simply because of the advancement of technology that has made many artists lazy. I don't even like Foo Fighters music, I just appreciate Dave Grohl because he "gets it." The living musical geniuses in the world today, McCartney, Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones, Prince, etc he has a huge respect for and they have respect for him. Honestly I haven't even listened to their newest album but because it was done analog and it won a few Grammys, I think it should've won album of the year. I'd love to see artists today try and record an album that they wrote 100% and in their garage without the latest digital advancements.

People shouldn't be allowed to contribute opinions to blogs or newspapers on topics like this unless they are on the same level as the person they are criticizing. I mean, when talking about music or the state of music today who is the more reliable source? This guy or Dave Grohl?

I just want to say that I agree with the previous article and this one as well; I think that Grohl, while not being really meaning to be racist, did sound as if he thinks that only rock and roll is better than electronica, funk, dance, techno, rap, or urban, and that his acceptance speech indeed made him sound like an old, uptight, and backward fogy scared of progress-which, despite denials from most people, Auto Tune and any innovations in the last ten years are. 

Simply making an album in an analog manner is like me taking pictures with my Minolta Maxxum 5000 film camera; yes, it's great that I can do so, but it doesn't mean that digital photography is less better than film, nor does it replace the fact that digital is here to stay and is the only game in town if you want to submit photographs to a newspaper or magazine, simply because of the speed that newspapers and magazines work at in getting issues out requires digital to be what's used. 

That Grohl can't or won't use Auto Tune or the other processes only shows that he's unwilling to progress musically and is as described by Dennis in the previous article.  

Stoeteleven: He's not digging any hole deeper, asshole, except for white people like you that can't see beyond their own white privilege (and hatred of pop music/willingness to start a backlash) to understand what he said in the previous article.  

I think that this need to be repeated, as much as possible:

Reviewing the outcomes of this year’s Grammy Awards, Jon Caramanica of the New York Times described how, “for the umpteenth time, the Grammys went with familiarity over risk, bestowing album of the year honors (and several more) on an album that reinforced the values of an older generation suspicious of change.”For Caramanica, the issue is not the quality of Adele’s musical offerings, but that her spectacular success at the Grammys – her album 21 brought her six awards, including Album of the Year and Song of the Year for “Rolling in the Deep – represents a particular cultural refusal of progressivism, a nostalgic clinging onto the safety and familiarity of a tried and true musical conservatism. What I want to suggest is that this nostalgia might also be understood as certain kind of white nostalgia for cultural dominance that is perceived as threatened within what is now known as the “post-racial.”Within the post-racial, which names the illusion that race has been dissolved as a meaningful aspect of social discourse, there is a great tension inside whiteness itself, because while it certainly continues to exercise its power of social dominance, it has had to give up certain privileges of visibility that it once enjoyed. The reality is that whiteness no longer enjoys the full and unencumbered access to the spotlight of cultural influence that it once did. For example, where a televised show like the Grammy Awards was once dominated by images of white bodies (with the occasional black body), the racially diverse performance lineup represented by this year’s Grammys has become commonplace. The reality is that white bodies no longer dominate as the primary images of the show and others like it. At first glance, it would appear that the Grammys have entered into a “post-racial” moment.Yet, when “post-racial” is understood for what it really is, the racial dynamic of this year’s Grammy Awards becomes much more complex. For in reality, this year’s awards show represents quite clearly that whiteness still can maneuver itself as the apex of cultural iconicity. In the end, this year’s Grammys was nothing more than an exercise in white nostalgia for a bygone era when white music (much of which was a mirrored version of black creativity) enjoyed its place at the top of the music industry’s most privileged spaces.2

Such white nostalgia becomes conspicuously evident when this year’s Grammy performances are surveyed. Despite the provocative and flaccidly controversial performance of Nicki Minaj’s “Roman Holiday”(for an ongoing discussion see this thread) and a few other younger acts including Jennifer Hudson’s tribute to the recently deceased Whitney Houston, most up and coming artists exemplifying what might be described as a more progressive stream (i.e. music that doesn’t simply recycle old forms and sounds) within mainstream pop music were accompanied by more traditional acts. It was as if these artists were only being made legitimate by being allowed to perform with more established, authorative, and, most importantly, white figures.For example, Rihanna’s performance, starting off with the sexually charged and sinister dance theme “We Found Love,” was met and quickly stifled with a bland duet with Chris Martin and then the clichéd anthems of Coldplay’s calm aura of non-threatening white British rock. In the end, the electric energy of Rihanna’s black body is literally overshadowed by four white men playing very conservative rock n roll. In contrast to these pairings, as Caramanica notes, “more traditional artists like Adele, Bruce Springsteen, Taylor Swift, and Paul McCartney got to perform unencumbered.”Another moment that might be interpreted under to rubric of the post-racial happened when former Nirvana drummer and current Foo Fighters frontman Dave Grohl, accepting the award for best Rock album of 2011 at this year’s Grammy Awards, had this to say:For me this award means a lot because it shows that the human element of making rock is the most important. Singing into a microphone and learning to play an instrument and learning your craft is the most important thing for people to do. It’s not about being perfect. It’s not about sounding correct. It’s not about what goes on in a computer. It’s about what goes on in here [points to heart] and what goes on in here [points to head].For most people, this might come off as a rather uncontroversial statement about the process of recording music. But when one realizes that the majority of the acts at the Grammys that might represent more or less what Grohl was talking about (“non-computer driven, singing into a microphone while playing an instrument” type music) were white (Jennifer Hudson and Bruno Mars being the exceptions), his statement takes on a whole different meaning. The key term here is “human element.”For what Grohl is really saying is that forms of music that are not produced in the way that he has determined as traditionally “authentic” (i.e. analog, raw, and unencumbered by technology’s ability to manipulate sound in ways that “improve” it) is somehow below the ideal of the musically human. In other words, hearing Grohl’s statement within the context of the Grammy performances, almost every black act that performed was inauthentically human, while almost every white act that performed, with their unprocessed vocals and guitar driven sounds, was able to remain within that descriptive realm.This is not to say that Grohl was being intentionally racist (and his comments can certainly be read in a very different light), but rather that he was simply operating within the realm of a white nostalgia that still longs for its own claim to a sort of musical authenticity that has been challenged over the last three decades with the advent of electronically driven musical forms, most notably the various forms associated with the signifier “hip-hop.”If all of this is quite unbelievable for some, consider the way the Grammys began and the way it ended: Bruce Springsteen at the front and Paul McCartney, Bruce Springsteen, Joe Walsh, and Dave Grohl at the end. For all of the racial diversity of the performers, white men end up framing the entire show. It also is worth noting here that Springsteen and Grohl, along with Elvis Costello, had already closed the Grammys in 2003 with a memorial tribute to Joe Strummer of The Clash.1

In contrast to this year’s Whitney Houston memorial, which was sandwiched between the Chris Brown double-feature, the Strummer memorial enjoyed the privilege of closing the show, capping the Grammys off with the indelible image of white males (with the exception of No Doubt bassist Tony Kanal, who is of Indian descent) playing traditionally white music. This year’s ending proved no different. Caramanica is worth quoting here:Forget women, Forget black or Latin stars or those of any other ethnic background. In a year in which the Grammys could have reasonably tried to sell progress as a narrative, it chose to end the night with a phalanx of older white men playing guitars, a battalion guarding the rickety old castle from attack, a defiant stand of yesteryear.Such a “defiant stand of yesteryear,” it appears, is not only a nostalgia for the dominant musical forms and sounds of a past time, it is also a nostalgia for a time when white bodies enjoyed the spotlight as the undisputed image of a cultural status quo. Certainly we live in a different time when this status quo is being challenged with much success, and some might point to this year’s Grammys’ racially diverse lineup as a testament to that. Yet in a world where race is thought to no longer matter, it seems that white men still get to mark the boundaries of artistic humanity and cultural authenticity.

The Grammys As White Nostalgia?

I don't think that Dennis has 'dug a deeper hole' or any of the other bullshit responses that have been sad here and elseplace; I think that he was right, and that most of you need to reexamine your white (or otherwise) privilege when it comes to music, as well as how most of you regard music that isn't rock. 

Well done Dennis the pennis, you have once and for all convinced me not only that reading blogs are a waste of my time, but also the time of everyone else who bothered till now,and that without any music credentials, who the fuck are you to be writing about music in the first place as if you are any kind of authority- most importantly wether anyone likes or hates Grohl, one thing is certain, he couldnt care less even if he did come across your pathetic excuse for 'writing', you let yourself down the moment you said that YOU fucking love Skrillex- piss off

Yeah, get over it Dave.

People now have the technology to do whatever they want in the studio.Lets not forget Anthony Kedis has his voice tuned on the recent chilli pepper albums. But are his recordings less sincere? Maybe, but i dont think so, he just needs help hitting the note so listeners dont cringe.

Someone who CAN hold the note themselves, convincingly, will usually win the audience over for longer and in greater numbers, than the "polished turds" that come off the DR Luke conveyer belt (not a dr luke hater).Recent Examples: Adele, Gotye. Thats still the nature of human beings. They are drawn to the honest and real in other humans. And i can say this with confidence, because as a DJ, I hear Gotye's "Somebody I Used To Know" mashed up with a bunch of commercial electronic tracks in clubs, so even to a crowd that love the "perfect, tuned" music your dissing, the real, acoustic, heartfelt vocal still trumps.Ok?

Dave, if you want to make purely analog music - do it. I dont see T-Pain bitching at some awards speech that your voice is a bit pitchy on that last record.

The feeling I get from reading both articles is that Grohl is this dinosaur that is against any kind of progress and he want people to follow his steps. He isn't against innovation of the digital side in music he is against the money making inflated stardom of artists who are 100% relaying on the magics of technology to get they anywhere.

There was trance track I heard a few years back - I wish I would have remembered the artist. It was somewhere similar to - "Electronic music is important and unique because it can create sounds that no instrument out there can ever create." So its not about Kraftwerk doing what they did, its not about Jimi pushing the boundaries. But its about people who create music without soul - and this is what Grohl is against.

This article and the other one is pathetic...Grohl's speech is aimed at artists who sound like crap live, who rely on electronics to sound too good to be true...the fakesters out there. He does covers of electro/R & B/ and dance bands with full respect.Do more research before you bash someone!

Actually, it was pretty obvious that his Grammy was actually about what he says it is about now. If you paid attention to the fanfare about the new Foo Fighters album, he said multiple times that he didn't want to make an album with Pro Tools where everything sounded "perfect," even if it wasn't really played or sung perfectly. He wanted to make a raw-sounding rock album like the kind they made 20 years ago. That doesn't have anything to do with electronic music. I have a feeling the author of this article knows this, but just wants to get attention by stirring up internet controversy. Maybe you only like EDM and think rock is outdated, and it's actually you who has the agenda here?

omg u shouldn't of even wrote another article about dave dennis..you are pretty much taking everything he said the wrong way .. & you must be a hugee edm fan because i dont think anyone really cared too much about his speech except you asshole..  la weekly sucks .. just goes to show u why its free :) 

The opinion in this article is completely baseless/pointless when you read Grohl's full clarifying statement at the end.

Why do I see Grohl's statements as an attack on overproduction and not on M.O.T.M (meme of the moment) E.D.M.

He never said those bands, er, performers suck. He raised an issue I agree with (I'll fucking kill the next "artiste" with AutoTune myself. And it will hurt.)

The Foos don't do a lot for me and neither did Nirvana. But, dispite being a huge Stones, Meat Puppets, RNB, or 60's garage fan, there was a time you'd catch me listening to DJ music regularly, almost exclusively. I get it. I get Grohl too. What's your fucking problem, mate? 

I've been having a good time with these. So Dennis, when can we expect part three? Also, stop using the word retarded as an insult.

Agree with him or not, I really don't see why Dave Grohl needs to be a diplomat and avoid offending anyone, ever, with his own personal opinions. (That's probably the least rock and roll element of all of this -- apologizing for expressing a pretty harmless personal view.) So maybe he doesn't like "robotic" music. That's his aesthetic, his tastes, and its served him well in his rock career.

Look, some of my old rock heroes hated punk, which I love. Some of my punk heroes hated dance music and hip-hop, which I also love. None of this affects my appreciation for the music itself in the slightest. David Grohl can hate music I like all he wants, but the music still sounds the same. That there have been two long LA Weekly articles discussing this non-controversy is insane.

Dave Grohl is right and he should not have clarified anything. All that pro tools and its ilk have done is made it possible for the people in "bands" that CANT play together and CANT speed up and slow down to get on a grid and sound like they can. Recording budgets that soar because of record labels and producers having to employ an army of pro tools engineers ( excuse me, "editors") have been part of what the shill merchants have been pushing because the tradition of learning the craft for musicians has gone. Its also part of what has killed the industry because people have figured it out and stopped buying crap from people who cant either write a melody or play as a unit. And people wonder why then a band gets on stage and they cant pull it off? Its a sure bet that when Ray Charles moved his body faster in time to what he was feeling on stage or in the studio, the drummer noticed and followed suit and the band MOVED. Like it was supposed to!! No one tried to make it perfect because there is no such thing. What he was trying to say was: If you are in a band learn your instrument, learn how to sing, learn how to keep tempo, learn how to LISTEN to each other and play as a band!! You do this by playing as many shit gigs as you can and rehearsing, not by buying software and a macbook. In other words, by WORKING at it, ( yes there is some kind of effort involved in this) If you cant sing a whole chorus in a song, you dont get to call yourself a singer. If you cant play an entire drum track from start to finish without it being pulled together from one measure of a beat, you dont get to call yourself a drummer. If you dont KNOW what a measure is,then you dont know the language. LEARN IT!! If you have "it" you wont need the grid to be moved and the beat detective to be called in to nudge it. It will be there and everyone from the producer to the label boss will hear it and say " leave it alone". And the chances of that happening are about as good as you being able to afford 2 inch tape and a machine to to run it , as well a "garage" as big as Grohls to record in. HE WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT DANCE MUSIC. And anyone with half a brain that was in that audience knew it and those were the people standing up and applauding. Even if you dont like the Foo Fighters, what he was trying to say got through to the people who needed to hear it, or at least needed to be reminded. We had almost 60 years of amazing music from ALL genres, and a fair amount of crap as well. But at least it sounded like humans crapping and not an auto tuned turd.

good

Sounds to me like Dennis Romero is a struggling writer who will say anything to get a reaction and more comments on his article. Dennis Romero may have been a writer for some time but is losing his grasp and will soon find himself unemployed or wriring for rumor papers that no one buys. Dennis also has a hate for Dave Grohl, probably because he used to listen to a band that was eclipsed by the success of Nirvana or the Foos.

So is the sad life of Dennis Romero, the "writer".

Jesus. I thought the original story was bad, but...Jesus.

Dave is absolutely right. Whoever wrote this article has a stick up their ass and is a little over defensive on the subject, why is that I wonder? Most of this shit on the radio today is so generic its ridiculous. Hes not just talking about electronic music but even bands like Disturbed who all sound the same. Modern music has just gone to shit, case and point...Lil Waynes garbage.

It wasn't a judgement of different music demographics, and I didn't hear it as such, and I don't even really know why Grohl has to make an apology for any point of view (theres not such thing as a correct 'point of view', anyway).

The point is, in rock music, if you use artificial programming to create your band sound and and auto tuner to flatten your voice to every note perfectly, what you get is uninspired, artificial music.

The technology can be used creatively, yes, but its obvious that the point I made above is what Dave Grohl meant.

Without rock this genre wouldn't exist. DJs wouldn't have any rhythm to rip from. He wasn't bullshitting either, he performed next to/with Deadmau5, he had to like the sound a LITTLE bit. And obviously the record went digital, last time I checked you can't put vinyl on an iPod. Stop crying and continue to enjoy music with no words, overbearing bass and euro-trash haircuts. I'll be listening to the stuff with substance and meaning. 

Dear L.A. Weekly, in the abundance of words there does not fail to be transgression.

Jesus Christ! He says openly "Thats NOT what I meant", yet you turn round and go "oh well by the sounds of it he's still..." no. Move on from this pathetic crusade on trying to be all high and mighty about challenging a big rockstar to give your life some sort of half decent purpose.

And don't pull out the "Well it's my opinion" card. Because in some people's opinion, they like scat porn, doesn't mean you're going to talk about it to the inlaws

It's ironic that such a washed up journalist is calling other people out on being washed up.

I get it though, Dennis is just trying to write controversial mindless rant to be relevant. It's not that he has a problem with true musicians defending real talent it's more that he can really sympathize with the talent-less musicians that have to rely on wearing weird ass shit to be known. And its not that Grohl is too old to understand, this comment was brought to you by a 17 year old. Viva Real Music! 

There's a huge difference from playing an instrument and WRITING lyrics to just pushing buttons from a software that makes sounds. Electric music doesn't suck, but jackasses like Dennis Romero do for trying to shove it down our throats. REAL music isn't going to die anytime soon. There's kids that still dream of being rockstars and master the great craft of music making. I think what Grohl was saying was that the creativity that goes into making a song "from the heart" doesn't seem real in electronic music because ANYONE can make songs using something like fruit loops studio and pass it off as art. (and i mean ANYONE including that dumb fucker Dennis Romero). I can't believe L.A. Weekly let this "journalist" (lol!)  write such hyperbolic, mindless rant about something L.A. truly loves and respects, REAL, LIVE music.  

"Now, what kind of self-respecting rocker would clarify a speech he claimed to have made from the heart?"

Um, one that was attacked by a "journalist" who had completely misconstrued Grohl's speech in the first place? He felt the need to clarify something he said because some self-righteous, uppity steam-blower felt compelled to completely misconstrue what he had said in a pathetic attempt to be angry at SOMETHING. Now, what kind of self-respecting rocker would just lay down and let the peanut gallery write a SCATHING article on him when that hack of a journalist obviously has no idea what he's talking about anyway? Don't attack someone's integrity or status as a self-respecting musician for clarifying something that you called him out on in the first place.

Dennis Romero, you sir are a troll.

Geez.   Couldn't he have just said "Thanks for the Grammy and, by the way, I don't like autotune"?  Then we could've avoided all this stupid overanalyzing.  I do, however, love the use of my grandpa's name Geezer and Dave's reference to their website at GetOffOfMyLawn.com.  Much appreciated.

Wow you totally missed the point and in doing so, managed to make a mountain out of a mole hill. jeez...

Do I like the record he accepted the award for? Not particularly. BUT.....as a studio professional....his speech hit the nail on the head. He was not at all knocking EDM .....that music wouldn't even be considered music to a guy like him......and he therefore wouldn't have been talking about it ANYWAY. Grohl was referring to any number of modern dehumanizing techniques used in hit records today....... Auto-tuning someone who can't sing, or play... reusing drum loops that producers often use on every project (to speed things along rather than recording anew.....check out the "Amen break" on youtube for example), recording using less than stellar equipment because its cheaper and easier (for example recording down direct to pro tools.....rather than...lets say tape....which this last Foo Fighters' record was cut on....despite the sonic qualities of tape being vastly superior....)

99% of the time you hear a drum track today.....for a rock band (including older foo fighters records.....) you aren't listening to the bass drum or snare drum that was played in the studio.....you are listening to a replaced sample. This is why that record they cut is so unique.......it is all live instrumentation.....(again while I dont like its songs....) It sounds fantastic and wasn't programmed......its a different league and just because something a DJ or Engineer can programmer a great sounding drum kit for a record.....dosent mean they can play it. Two completely different talents....

Dennis Romero....you sound really uneducated on this matter. But that is why you are here....and not accepting the Grammy.

"Grohl professes that he just wants purity in pop, but what he really wants is a rockist world free of unfamiliar technological advances."

Do you know that for sure or is that an assumption? Have you talked to Dave personally? Have you hung out and listened to records with him? Or, are you guessing?

Pretty sure he was aiming at "tools" like autotune and the like...that can make anyone sound like they can sing.  Unfortunately, too much music in the world is borne out of a formula, or rather, is popular because a certain formula proved successful and then said formula became the accepted norm.  I am a jazz musician.  In this "genre" of music (if you can even label it like that), if you can't play, well, you don't.  I don't know a single jazz musician on record that can't play their instrument well.  I think Chris Brown is a great dancer, but his songs lack depth and soul...and he is not a singer.  If you need a spectacle to accompany your MUSICAL performance...perhaps your music is not strong enough on it's own.  Now, I'm not talking about lights.  I'm talking about dance numbers.  Maybe this music should be on an awards show for musical dance.  And what's with that Ke$ha character?

Think you missed the point completely. Sounds like Grohl isn't railing against "EDM" at all. He's slamming the current pernicious use of Auto-Tune in all music genres.

You gotta love a low level journalist trying to make a name for himself by hoping for a Twitter explosion about his crappy article. If he actually took the time to read and comprehend Grohl's statements, he would realize he isn't anti-electronic anything. He is against talentless people like Brooke Hogan and Paris Hilton putting out albums that have their voices totally reworked. It is funny how Romero takes a cocky tone in this article as he still doesn't realize that no one agrees with him. Eat a bag of dicks, fuckface

You're a jerk Dennis.  I cant wait til you're fired

My two cents....

"Dave Grohl" picks up drum sticks, by moving arms and legs physically produces a drum beat...."DJ" pushes record button and "samples" the beat Dave Grohl just played.So you are saying the "DJ" should be defined as a true musician? Pushing buttons? I think the DJ should be defined as a sound engineer or computer programmer.... I fully agree with the initial comments made and do not feel he should have to "clarify" anything...This argument has been around since the inception of the "sampling" device. Quote from "Wikipedia" regarding sampling music. "The use of sampling is controversial legally and musically". Ton Loc's "Wild Thing" sold millions based on a sample of "Van Halens" Jamie's Crying... The musicians who created the musical hook received nothing close to what Ton Loc received in royalties....If a "DJ" can physically play each instrument he samples? Then yes, he should be classified as a musician... Until that day? Good luck....This is an age old argument. Stop trying to make it something bigger.....Maybe a separate EDM awards show? Just think!!!! This show is brought to you by "Microsoft" or "Apple"! 

i dont know what la weekly is, till this news. now i know... it just another yellow journalism.

LTJ Bukem to Skrillex?

My argument that DnB:Dubstep :: wolves:chihuahuas is solidified even more.

Yeah, I remember when journalism, like music, required actual talent, too.

The record company finds a person with a certain look or image they think they can promote.

1.The person cannot sing2.The person plays no instrument3.The person cannot write songs

The record company does the following

1.Hires s songwriter2.Hires studio musicians including uncredited singers to assist the new "talent"3.Brings the person into the studio and has them perform the songs using technology to enhance their voice since they can't carry a note.4.Promotes this incredible new artist.5.Makes a video of the new single6.Schedules a few tightly scripted "performances"where the new artist lip syncs.7.Releases the new CD that goes double platinum with throngs of new fans who are duped into thinking that this phenom is the most incredible musician to come along in ages.8.The performer wins a Grammy for best new artist.

How can anyone not have a problem with that scenario?

first you say, "If one could feed off a dying aesthetic -- long-haired white guys with guitars -- for the better part of two decades, Foo Fighters can show you how." and then you say,  "Lets not turn this into another racist, homophobic, "disco sucks" moment. Not this time, Dave."

sounds to me like youre the racist one, and the one turning this into a "rock now sucks" moment.