The Grammy Awards
  • Network: ABC , CBS
  • Series Premiere Date: Mar 16, 1971
Metascore
55

Mixed or average reviews - based on 4 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 4
  2. Mixed: 2 out of 4
  3. Negative: 1 out of 4

Critic Reviews

  1. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: Robert Lloyd
    70
    It was, on the whole, a very good show that emphasized performances.
  2. The Hollywood Reporter
    Reviewed by: Barry Garron
    60
    The sameness of the format detracted from the excitement inherent in any awards broadcast.
  3. Variety
    Reviewed by: David Sprague
    60
    Granted, the lack of punchless punchlines was a welcome change of pace, but the canned self-introductions that replaced them were jarring in terms of pacing -- not to mention the awkwardness of the blatant self-referencing involved.
  5. Boston Globe
    Reviewed by: Matthew Gilbert
    30
    The show strained to create oh-so-legendary moments. Alas, most of the efforts were as unsteady as Chris Martin's voice.

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
4.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 12 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 12
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 12
  3. Negative: 5 out of 12
  1. AndyH
    Feb 15, 2006
    10
    I enjoyed the show. The highlight for me was Christina Aguilera's performance with Herbie Hancock. This girl just keeps getting better. I enjoyed the show. The highlight for me was Christina Aguilera's performance with Herbie Hancock. This girl just keeps getting better. Kelly Clarkson was also on top form, as was Bruce Springstein. Macca was a big surprise, he actually put on a good show for once. But Joss Stone was completely wasted on the botched Sly tribute. Still, all in all, a superb show.… Full Review »
  2. MikeR
    Feb 14, 2006
    5
    First, as usual the awards were abysmal. I'm sorry, Mariah Carey is terrible and U2's latest was uninspired, arguably their worst. First, as usual the awards were abysmal. I'm sorry, Mariah Carey is terrible and U2's latest was uninspired, arguably their worst. Having said that, the show was okay, but the harder they tried, they bigger they flopped. Paul McCartney's set was surprisingly good, especially for "Helter Skelter," but Linkin Park doesn't deserve to share the same stage as Jay-Z or Paul, and "Yesterday" was the WORST possible choice for a hip-hop mash-up. Then there's Sly's tribute - except for John Legend and maybe Perry's guitar work, most of those artists butchered Sly's music, and when Sly came out, he was terrible. Couldn't hear him half the time, barely played anything worthy, and instead of the great return it was hyped to be, it was a mere oddity. The special fx with Gorillaz and Madonna walking around them was cool, but that was a fleeting moment since Gorillaz virtually disappeared ten seconds into Madonna's performance. Springsteen was good, Kanye West was very entertaining, intentionally and unintentionally so (why does he care about winning so much? The Grammy Award is a joke.) Coldplay was mediocre. U2 was mediocre, but at least Mary J. Blige blew the roof off the place. Clarkson and Carey did the usual histrionic goop that the Grammys kiss up too. Could've been much worse, could've been a lot better.… Full Review »
  3. grammy
    Feb 11, 2006
    6
    pros: the performances cons: mariah carey wasnt shown once getting an award, award selection was not that great
See all user reviews »