CMA question..?!
Question: Who believes that the "Entertainer of the year" award should not go to new combers? If "Entertainer of the year" is the most coveted prize of the awards. shouldnt an entertainer at least have a good 5 to 10 years under his/her belt before they can qualify for it. I see all these new groups that have just popped into the industry and within a year or two they get E.O.T.Y. whats your opinion on this?
Answers: Who believes that the "Entertainer of the year" award should not go to new combers? If "Entertainer of the year" is the most coveted prize of the awards. shouldnt an entertainer at least have a good 5 to 10 years under his/her belt before they can qualify for it. I see all these new groups that have just popped into the industry and within a year or two they get E.O.T.Y. whats your opinion on this?
I agree with you on this one Tex. I think that there are dues that have to be paid before one should even be considered for Entertainer Of The Year. Just because they happen to have a song that makes it to number one that in and of itself should not be the only criteria. They should also take a look at their live performances and stage presentation to get a look at what the fans see. I reckon one day they will have an award for the biggest and best cowboy hat for the year or the flashiest gown for the year for the female entertainers. I agree that an enetertainer should cover the entire spectrum before being selected as E. O. T. Y. A great question by the way.
I think so too. I hate it when someone who hasn't even been recording for a year wins this award.
It should definitely go to the newbie.
The only problem with that is that Garth Brooks or George Strait would always win, even if they don't come out with new music during that CMA year. Look at all the newcomers, (Rascal Flatts, Keith Urban, and Kenny Chesney) they have come out with new stuff all year long. They win because they are ENTERTAINING. Not because they have been out longer. That is what the award is about.
EDIT: I never said George Strait and Garth Brooks were both GOOD. I just meant that Garth or George has won the award more than any artist out today. George Strait is much better. I like his music more than anyone out now. Sorry if I offended you or anyone else on here.
FIRST OF ALL I LOVE THIS QUESTION
SECOND..WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS NO MATTER WHAT THESE BRAIN DEAD~"OOOOO HE'S SO CUTE" NEW COUNTRY FANS SAY...
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!
UNTIL THE NEXT PAIR OF "TIGHT" JEANS AND "INFLATED" BOOBS COME ALONG..THEN HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM!
I agree completley unless they take the music world by storm.
I agree for the most part but i don't think you should expect someone to wait 10 yrs for entertainer of the year...5 maybe, but 10 is pushing it. A lot should go by how much one is out there actually entertaining not on if the song hit #1 or what not.
I Agree entertainer of the year should not go to these newcomers, just because they look good they dont deserve to win, it should go to someone that has worked hard all year and keeps coming up with new things that keeps us entertained. Some of these new acts are terrific but what about George Strait, who never ceases to amaze me with his music, or Tim McGraw , who comes out with hit after hit? theses are the pople that should be winning
I agree completely-it should go to artists that are all around entertainers..