Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2016 10:52:49 GMT -5
^ Then there's the whole tangent about how most big hits are big hits for a reason - because they appeal to the majority in a big way - which one could then say they are worthy of praise, no? Mind you, there are the gimmicky songs that are big hits mostly because of a dance associated with them, or a viral video... and those don't get nominated in ROTY - nor should they. It is still selective, obviously. And there are always exceptions and examples one could argue either way, etc. There are a lot of big hits that don't get nominations, too. A big hit doesn't make a grammy nominee, nor does a big movie at the box office make an Oscar nominee. There's obviously more to it than that and it's all subjective. And even political at times, etc.
You thinking the Martian is worthy even without the money it made at the box office is an opinion that many people just like yourself might disagree with (I personally loved it and agree with you)... there's no real way to say "this movie deserves it" other than to have it get nominated by votes and win by votes. And even then, there will be people who disagree and say it wasn't worthy and Movie B got robbed, etc etc. It's funny because there's a bit of a stigma when it comes to fun/silly subject matter or even acclaimed comedies in general not getting awards attention. The Oscars are notorious for awarding seriousness in the form of drama or biopics. I mention this because it seems like you and/or others may think that Fancy and AATB aren't award worthy type songs... comparing them to a movie like Minions. Is it because you think they aren't good, just silly pop songs, and/or do you think that something less cheeky was more deserving? This is rhetorical really, something to think about. I personally don't care for AATB, but its well-written and produced... and I can't deny Fancy's massive hook and production (or even Iggy's confident rap)... they both have redeeming qualities and I understand their appeal and the attention they got. Are there songs that I personally feel are better? YES. but what is "better" really? it's just a personal preference.
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,018
|
Post by felipe on Feb 21, 2016 12:10:42 GMT -5
^ Then there's the whole tangent about how most big hits are big hits for a reason - because they appeal to the majority in a big way - which one could then say they are worthy of praise, no? True, but the same case could be made for The Avengers, or Transformers, or Furious 7. Audiences really liked those movies. But then that would be the MTV movie awards and not the Oscars. We tend to follow the charts more closely and know that at lot of times success has little to do with quality, although both can sometimes converge. You thinking the Martian is worthy even without the money it made at the box office is an opinion that many people just like yourself might disagree with (I personally loved it and agree with you)... there's no real way to say "this movie deserves it" other than to have it get nominated by votes and win by votes. And even then, there will be people who disagree and say it wasn't worthy and Movie B got robbed, etc etc. It's funny because there's a bit of a stigma when it comes to fun/silly subject matter or even acclaimed comedies in general not getting awards attention. The Oscars are notorious for awarding seriousness in the form of drama or biopics. I mention this because it seems like you and/or others may think that Fancy and AATB aren't award worthy type songs... comparing them to a movie like Minions. Is it because you think they aren't good, just silly pop songs, and/or do you think that something less cheeky was more deserving? This is rhetorical really, something to think about. I personally don't care for AATB, but its well-written and produced... and I can't deny Fancy's massive hook and production (or even Iggy's confident rap)... they both have redeeming qualities and I understand their appeal and the attention they got. Are there songs that I personally feel are better? YES. but what is "better" really? it's just a personal preference. You have some interesting points there. When I mention AATB is not so much me thinking it's a silly song that didn't deserve a nomination as much as (I believe) the Grammys thinking it's a silly song that deserves a nomination as long as it's a hit. Again, I see no way on Earth that song would have been nominated without being a hit, simply because it would've been considered unworthy. How often do we see songs like that nominated when they're not hits? I love Fancy, and I do think it was one of the best records of 2014. My problem is not it being nominated, it's knowing that it wouldn't have been nominated if it hadn't made money. And next time Iggy puts out an album, her nominations will depend again on how successful it is. Of course there are some non-hits nominated, but that one spot is reserved for small acts/indies with huge critical support, that spot never goes for someone that simply flopped. Beyoncé always comes to mind when I think about that. Sasha Fierce was a huge hit and was nominated all over. Then she released 4, which most fans and critics agreed was a far superior album. But it underperformed (by her standards) so the Grammys simply couldn't nominate it for anything major. And then she released her fifth album, big seller... AOTY nominee. And if her sixth album is a strong seller she'll get nominated again, if it flops she won't. That's how simple it is.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,510
|
Post by jenglisbe on Feb 21, 2016 12:58:49 GMT -5
^ Then there's the whole tangent about how most big hits are big hits for a reason - because they appeal to the majority in a big way - which one could then say they are worthy of praise, no? True, but the same case could be made for The Avengers, or Transformers, or Furious 7. Audiences really liked those movies. But then that would be the MTV movie awards and not the Oscars. We tend to follow the charts more closely and know that at lot of times success has little to do with quality, although both can sometimes converge. Look at the reviews for Transformers and Furious 7 as compares to those for 1989 and Beyonce, though. The popular music that does well at the Grammys also tends to be pretty well-respected.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,510
|
Post by jenglisbe on Feb 21, 2016 12:59:56 GMT -5
|
|
kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,043
|
Post by kanimal on Feb 21, 2016 14:08:10 GMT -5
Just to note: there are MANY people who believe critically acclaimed, highly regarded smash hits like The Avengers and Dark Knight deserve to win Oscars. Same with a lot of the Pixar films. Those -- not the Transformers sequels -- are the 1989s of the movie world.
So, in addition to the fact that the music and movie landscapes are much different, I also think the comparison is flawed in the sense that we're assuming the Oscars model is perfect. Most don't think it is. The whole "I wish the Oscars would nominate movies people actually saw" joke is made every year.
But beyond the argument over whether commercial success should/does matter in the process, because that's an argument that will never be settled, I do want to question this idea that the Grammys are "becoming" more about commercial success.
We're a year removed from the under the radar alternative album beating two out huge hit albums from Beyonce and Sam Smith. We're a few years away from Arcade Fire's "The Suburbs" beating four smash mainstream albums from Lady Antebellum, Katy Perry, Eminem, and Lady Gaga. People thought Alabama Shakes had a chance this year *specifically because* they didn't expect voters to pick the "popular choice." So I don't think we're looking at a mirror of the Billboards.
Moreover, if you go back through historical ceremonies, you'll largely see popular albums and songs up for the key awards. Yes, there are some quirkier years than others, but it's never five completely off the map songs or albums competing against each others. There are always big hits from big names involved.
Some of these artists and albums are NOW viewed as "classics," but in their own eras, they were basically Taylor Swift's "1989" and Beyonce's "Beyonce." Strong, hit albums that were super successful, but perhaps not as good as a lot of the under the radar stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2016 16:53:36 GMT -5
I just think that ultimately there can be a marriage of art, quality and commerce. Just because something is really big doesn't mean it's not technically or artistically sound, or worthy or unworthy of recognition - and just because something doesn't hit it big doesn't mean it's good or not good. I personally can't get on board with this notion that these academies who hand out awards are moving in a direction to award more popular songs/albums/movies/tv shows/etc. It's unfounded and full of exceptions/holes when I look at the big picture.
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,018
|
Post by felipe on Feb 21, 2016 17:14:38 GMT -5
We're a year removed from the under the radar alternative album beating two out huge hit albums from Beyonce and Sam Smith. We're a few years away from Arcade Fire's "The Suburbs" beating four smash mainstream albums from Lady Antebellum, Katy Perry, Eminem, and Lady Gaga. People thought Alabama Shakes had a chance this year *specifically because* they didn't expect voters to pick the "popular choice." So I don't think we're looking at a mirror of the Billboards. Yeah, but as you said Arcade Fire four smash albums, out of the five nominees four of them were smash hits. As I wrote above it seems there's usually one single spot reserved for small critically-aclaimed acts (not big acts with an underperforming era, those can never be nominated), as sometimes that act even wins, so the winners tend to lean slightly less towards success than the nominations. But just that we're clear, what are you guys' opinions on this exactly? That Grammy nominations are not related to chart success? Do you guys think In the Lonely Hour would have been nominated even if it wasn't successful, despite the 62 Metacritic score and all the mixed reviews? Did Meghan Trainor win Best New Artist because of her success or because of her critically-aclaimed voice and songwriting skills?
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,018
|
Post by felipe on Feb 21, 2016 17:16:39 GMT -5
I just think that ultimately there can be a marriage of art, quality and commerce. Just because something is really big doesn't mean it's not technically or artistically sound, or worthy or unworthy of recognition - and just because something doesn't hit it big doesn't mean it's good or not good. I personally can't get on board with this notion that these academies who hand out awards are moving in a direction to award more popular songs/albums/movies/tv shows/etc. It's unfounded and full of exceptions/holes when I look at the big picture. But you do agree the Grammy nominees in mainstream categories are like 80% popular songs and big hits, or don't you?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2016 17:59:57 GMT -5
^ Major category nominees generally have a large percentage of artists and music that were/are popular and/or hits, yes. But to say that popularity alone is how nominees are determined is what I don't agree with. There are far too many hits (and in many cases BIGGER hits) that didn't/don't get nominated. And there are far too many left field nominations every year. There's something about the artists/albums/songs that do get nominated which got them those votes - popular or not. And we can all draw our own conclusions as to what those reasons are... as well as the reasons why songs that were also popular didn't, etc.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,510
|
Post by jenglisbe on Feb 21, 2016 20:06:48 GMT -5
Just to note: there are MANY people who believe critically acclaimed, highly regarded smash hits like The Avengers and Dark Knight deserve to win Oscars. Same with a lot of the Pixar films. Those -- not the Transformers sequels -- are the 1989s of the movie world. So, in addition to the fact that the music and movie landscapes are much different, I also think the comparison is flawed in the sense that we're assuming the Oscars model is perfect. Most don't think it is. The whole "I wish the Oscars would nominate movies people actually saw" joke is made every year. But beyond the argument over whether commercial success should/does matter in the process, because that's an argument that will never be settled, I do want to question this idea that the Grammys are "becoming" more about commercial success. We're a year removed from the under the radar alternative album beating two out huge hit albums from Beyonce and Sam Smith. We're a few years away from Arcade Fire's "The Suburbs" beating four smash mainstream albums from Lady Antebellum, Katy Perry, Eminem, and Lady Gaga. People thought Alabama Shakes had a chance this year *specifically because* they didn't expect voters to pick the "popular choice." So I don't think we're looking at a mirror of the Billboards. Moreover, if you go back through historical ceremonies, you'll largely see popular albums and songs up for the key awards. Yes, there are some quirkier years than others, but it's never five completely off the map songs or albums competing against each others. There are always big hits from big names involved. Some of these artists and albums are NOW viewed as "classics," but in their own eras, they were basically Taylor Swift's "1989" and Beyonce's "Beyonce." Strong, hit albums that were super successful, but perhaps not as good as a lot of the under the radar stuff. I think you make some really valid points in this post, but I also want to mention something I posted earlier in this thread; there are so many more music releases than movie releases each year. Out of that, it's just logical that the more popular music releases have a better chance of being known by voters. With movies it's easier for some smaller releases to get noticed because there are fewer movies to compete with, and also because smaller companies can put their focus on 1-2 films. With music there is just so much competition that of course smaller releases would all sort of cancel each other out.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Feb 21, 2016 21:07:15 GMT -5
I don't think any of you are really wrong. Basically, the voting panel is made up for people who probably think the way you guys all do - individually. So, where some would place critical acclaim and technical praise at the utmost top of the list of important qualities for an album, others might pick melodies, popularity and hit status. Once everything is filtered out, the titles with the most overall votes get in. It's the same thing as the Pulse 100 chart (when it used to be updated). It was a culmination of everyone's personal charts. Different people had different tastes but the same type of music always charted really well, with the occasional left-of-field song that didn't necessarily do well on the actual charts but resonated well here with Pulse members.
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,018
|
Post by felipe on Feb 22, 2016 4:16:49 GMT -5
Just to note: there are MANY people who believe critically acclaimed, highly regarded smash hits like The Avengers and Dark Knight deserve to win Oscars. Same with a lot of the Pixar films. Those -- not the Transformers sequels -- are the 1989s of the movie world. So, in addition to the fact that the music and movie landscapes are much different, I also think the comparison is flawed in the sense that we're assuming the Oscars model is perfect. Most don't think it is. The whole "I wish the Oscars would nominate movies people actually saw" joke is made every year. But beyond the argument over whether commercial success should/does matter in the process, because that's an argument that will never be settled, I do want to question this idea that the Grammys are "becoming" more about commercial success. We're a year removed from the under the radar alternative album beating two out huge hit albums from Beyonce and Sam Smith. We're a few years away from Arcade Fire's "The Suburbs" beating four smash mainstream albums from Lady Antebellum, Katy Perry, Eminem, and Lady Gaga. People thought Alabama Shakes had a chance this year *specifically because* they didn't expect voters to pick the "popular choice." So I don't think we're looking at a mirror of the Billboards. Moreover, if you go back through historical ceremonies, you'll largely see popular albums and songs up for the key awards. Yes, there are some quirkier years than others, but it's never five completely off the map songs or albums competing against each others. There are always big hits from big names involved. Some of these artists and albums are NOW viewed as "classics," but in their own eras, they were basically Taylor Swift's "1989" and Beyonce's "Beyonce." Strong, hit albums that were super successful, but perhaps not as good as a lot of the under the radar stuff. I think you make some really valid points in this post, but I also want to mention something I posted earlier in this thread; there are so many more music releases than movie releases each year. Out of that, it's just logical that the more popular music releases have a better chance of being known by voters. With movies it's easier for some smaller releases to get noticed because there are fewer movies to compete with, and also because smaller companies can put their focus on 1-2 films. With music there is just so much competition that of course smaller releases would all sort of cancel each other out. While I do think that's true, this is an award voted by professionals so you'd expect them to know more songs than simply the ones everybody knows. And then again, Beyoncé's 4 was a solid album that was basically ignored by the Grammys. Most likely because it underperformed. Can you say it was too small a release for Grammy voters to notice? Kanye's Dark Fantasy might be the most acclaimed album of this decade, and I still believe it would've gotten an AOTY nomination if it had sold as much as his previous efforts.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,510
|
Post by jenglisbe on Feb 22, 2016 8:37:35 GMT -5
I think you make some really valid points in this post, but I also want to mention something I posted earlier in this thread; there are so many more music releases than movie releases each year. Out of that, it's just logical that the more popular music releases have a better chance of being known by voters. With movies it's easier for some smaller releases to get noticed because there are fewer movies to compete with, and also because smaller companies can put their focus on 1-2 films. With music there is just so much competition that of course smaller releases would all sort of cancel each other out. While I do think that's true, this is an award voted by professionals so you'd expect them to know more songs than simply the ones everybody knows. And then again, Beyoncé's 4 was a solid album that was basically ignored by the Grammys. Most likely because it underperformed. Can you say it was too small a release for Grammy voters to notice? Kanye's Dark Fantasy might be the most acclaimed album of this decade, and I still believe it would've gotten an AOTY nomination if it had sold as much as his previous efforts. Maybe 4 under performed because it didn't appeal to as many people as previous albums, and those people include Grammy voters? It works that way with movies, too, though. Steve Jobs got good reviews this year and was an early Oscar front runner, but once it flopped at the box office its Oscar momentum was killed. I think in the end commercial success can add or detract from the momentum an album or movie has.
|
|
musicfan134
Platinum Member
Joined: July 2012
Posts: 1,327
|
Post by musicfan134 on Feb 22, 2016 11:32:12 GMT -5
Commercial success absolutely plays a role in the Grammy categories, as it should. Should it be the sole factor? No, and it's not. But a successful album should have a greater representation at the Grammy awards. 1989 has been so successful because it resonated with a lot of people, and Taylor as an artist knows what she's doing arguably more than any other artist in the world right now. Her album and era as a whole have definitely been worthy of a Grammy nomination if you ask me. She had the critical acclaim and the commercial success came with it.
To put it another way, you're basically saying if an album is successful and sells millions it's not worthy of a Grammy. How is that fair? The album obviously resonated with people...shouldn't that be awarded?
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,018
|
Post by felipe on Feb 22, 2016 16:14:42 GMT -5
To put it another way, you're basically saying if an album is successful and sells millions it's not worthy of a Grammy. How is that fair? The album obviously resonated with people...shouldn't that be awarded? That's not what I meant, I'm sorry if it came out wrong. A good album should not be dismissed because of its success. But something should not be nominated - or win - just because of its success. And sometimes that seems to be the case.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,510
|
Post by jenglisbe on Feb 22, 2016 17:29:48 GMT -5
To put it another way, you're basically saying if an album is successful and sells millions it's not worthy of a Grammy. How is that fair? The album obviously resonated with people...shouldn't that be awarded? That's not what I meant, I'm sorry if it came out wrong. A good album should not be dismissed because of its success. But something should not be nominated - or win - just because of its success. And sometimes that seems to be the case. I don't know what evidence there is that things are nominated purely because of commercial success. I don't even know how you'd prove something like that, actually. What I do know is that hugely popular artists like Madonna and Mariah Carey have very few wins and have never won Album, Record, or Song. Eminem has only won in the Rap categories.
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,018
|
Post by felipe on Feb 22, 2016 19:22:28 GMT -5
That's not what I meant, I'm sorry if it came out wrong. A good album should not be dismissed because of its success. But something should not be nominated - or win - just because of its success. And sometimes that seems to be the case. I don't know what evidence there is that things are nominated purely because of commercial success. I don't even know how you'd prove something like that, actually. What I do know is that hugely popular artists like Madonna and Mariah Carey have very few wins and have never won Album, Record, or Song. Eminem has only won in the Rap categories. Of course there's no way to prove that or to know for sure something that could've happened in a different scenario. All we can do is analyze the patterns. Broccoli mentioned the idea that All about that Bass or Fancy could be considered by some "silly pop songs". I can name several similar "silly pop songs" that have been nominated for song or record of the year, all of them smash hits. How often does a "silly pop song" that was not a hit get nominated for those categories? Then judging from those numbers, what would it be odds of AATB getting a nod if it weren't a hit? Again, the only non-smash songs to score these big nominations without being big hits are songs that received universal critical acclaim (Really Love, Alright), AATB does not fall under that category either, so judging from Grammy's history, it wouldn't have been nominated if it weren't a hit. No way to be 100% sure though, I'm just basing it on the patterns established by previous years.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,510
|
Post by jenglisbe on Feb 22, 2016 21:34:18 GMT -5
I don't know what evidence there is that things are nominated purely because of commercial success. I don't even know how you'd prove something like that, actually. What I do know is that hugely popular artists like Madonna and Mariah Carey have very few wins and have never won Album, Record, or Song. Eminem has only won in the Rap categories. Of course there's no way to prove that or to know for sure something that could've happened in a different scenario. All we can do is analyze the patterns. Broccoli mentioned the idea that All about that Bass or Fancy could be considered by some "silly pop songs". I can name several similar "silly pop songs" that have been nominated for song or record of the year, all of them smash hits. How often does a "silly pop song" that was not a hit get nominated for those categories? Then judging from those numbers, what would it be odds of AATB getting a nod if it weren't a hit? Again, the only non-smash songs to score these big nominations without being big hits are songs that received universal critical acclaim (Really Love, Alright), AATB does not fall under that category either, so judging from Grammy's history, it wouldn't have been nominated if it weren't a hit. No way to be 100% sure though, I'm just basing it on the patterns established by previous years. For what it's worth "AATB" and "Fancy" both finished in the top 30 of the Village Voice Pazz & Jop poll of critics, so it's not like either was trashed by critics. And again, of course something that is a hit is going to have a better chance of being nominated since more people are going to know it. I do think it's interesting the Grammys lean a bit more commercial than the Oscars, but I wouldn't say popularity is a requirement for the Grammys either. As we've already discussed plenty of non-commercials nominees have won in the big categories. Part of it could be the voting process each uses. The Grammys use those panels, so maybe that's part of it. They may consciously choose some popular nominees to ensure ratings. In contrast the Oscars go by 1st place votes, so things that inspire passion in voters have a better chance (i.e. something like Room which may not have across the board support but was probably #1 among its supports and thus got in Best Picture). If the Grammys went by #1 placements, the nominees might be totally different. And you can also look at the Grammys pre-panels to see how things went. In the late 80s and early 90s the Grammys were trashed because "old" acts like Natalie Cole, Tony Bennett, Bobby McFerrin, Better Midler, etc were winning the big awards. The Grammys wanted more "relevant" acts in contention, and thus the panels. And we've gotten more mainstream acts as nominees.
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,018
|
Post by felipe on Feb 24, 2016 7:51:30 GMT -5
For what it's worth "AATB" and "Fancy" both finished in the top 30 of the Village Voice Pazz & Jop poll of critics, so it's not like either was trashed by critics. And again, of course something that is a hit is going to have a better chance of being nominated since more people are going to know it. I do think it's interesting the Grammys lean a bit more commercial than the Oscars, but I wouldn't say popularity is a requirement for the Grammys either. As we've already discussed plenty of non-commercials nominees have won in the big categories. Part of it could be the voting process each uses. The Grammys use those panels, so maybe that's part of it. They may consciously choose some popular nominees to ensure ratings. In contrast the Oscars go by 1st place votes, so things that inspire passion in voters have a better chance (i.e. something like Room which may not have across the board support but was probably #1 among its supports and thus got in Best Picture). If the Grammys went by #1 placements, the nominees might be totally different. And you can also look at the Grammys pre-panels to see how things went. In the late 80s and early 90s the Grammys were trashed because "old" acts like Natalie Cole, Tony Bennett, Bobby McFerrin, Better Midler, etc were winning the big awards. The Grammys wanted more "relevant" acts in contention, and thus the panels. And we've gotten more mainstream acts as nominees. That makes a lot of sense. I was unaware of that. What exactly are those panels and how does it work? I guess that probably makes a huge difference. In a different voting system, such as the Oscars, I could totally see Thinking out Loud or Stay with Me getting a lot of #1 votes, but I can't really imagine a lot of voters placing AATB or We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together as #1 on their lists, so the nominees would probably be way different.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,510
|
Post by jenglisbe on Feb 24, 2016 8:51:46 GMT -5
For what it's worth "AATB" and "Fancy" both finished in the top 30 of the Village Voice Pazz & Jop poll of critics, so it's not like either was trashed by critics. And again, of course something that is a hit is going to have a better chance of being nominated since more people are going to know it. I do think it's interesting the Grammys lean a bit more commercial than the Oscars, but I wouldn't say popularity is a requirement for the Grammys either. As we've already discussed plenty of non-commercials nominees have won in the big categories. Part of it could be the voting process each uses. The Grammys use those panels, so maybe that's part of it. They may consciously choose some popular nominees to ensure ratings. In contrast the Oscars go by 1st place votes, so things that inspire passion in voters have a better chance (i.e. something like Room which may not have across the board support but was probably #1 among its supports and thus got in Best Picture). If the Grammys went by #1 placements, the nominees might be totally different. And you can also look at the Grammys pre-panels to see how things went. In the late 80s and early 90s the Grammys were trashed because "old" acts like Natalie Cole, Tony Bennett, Bobby McFerrin, Better Midler, etc were winning the big awards. The Grammys wanted more "relevant" acts in contention, and thus the panels. And we've gotten more mainstream acts as nominees. That makes a lot of sense. I was unaware of that. What exactly are those panels and how does it work? I guess that probably makes a huge difference. In a different voting system, such as the Oscars, I could totally see Thinking out Loud or Stay with Me getting a lot of #1 votes, but I can't really imagine a lot of voters placing AATB or We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together as #1 on their lists, so the nominees would probably be way different. All the Grammys site says about the panels (they call them "committee" but in the media I often see it referred to as "blue ribbon panel") is this: "In craft and other specialized categories, final nominations are determined by national nomination review committees comprised of voting members from all of The Academy's Chapter cities." That's pretty vague. I know at one point the 'blue ribbon panel' chose the final 5 nominees in the big 4 categories from a group of the top 20 vote getters. I don't know if that's still true or not, but in theory that means "Girl Crush" could have had the most votes for ROTY this past year and "Thinking Out Loud" was #20, but the panel chose "TOL." This is a cool graphic that explains some of the process: www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/road-to-grammy-goldAs you can see there is a difference for some of of the genre categories (like Pop and Rap) as compared the big 4 categories and some of the other genre categories. That can help explain why someone like Meghan Trainor or Ed Sheeran have gotten in the big 4 categories in a year but didn't get in Pop (or how Kelly Clarkson didn't get in the big 4 ten years ago but won Pop Solo and Pop Album). I don't know how they decide which genre categories have a Review Committee; why R&B but not Rap, for instance?
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,018
|
Post by felipe on Feb 24, 2016 16:15:38 GMT -5
Thanks, jenglisbe! I had no idea about any of this, and it certainly sheds some light on the topic.
Would you say this commitee that decides the nominees deliberatly goes for more popular songs in the big categories for outerior motives (ratings, for example), or do you think it might have more to do with the actual selection of the commitee members?
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,510
|
Post by jenglisbe on Feb 24, 2016 16:26:09 GMT -5
Thanks, jenglisbe! I had no idea about any of this, and it certainly sheds some light on the topic. Would you say this commitee that decides the nominees deliberatly goes for more popular songs in the big categories for outerior motives (ratings, for example), or do you think it might have more to do with the actual selection of the commitee members? It's probably both. My understanding is the panel/committee changes each year, so the motives could also change year to year. I know the panel was formed to prevent acts like the 3 Tenors, Tony Bennett, etc (i.e. older, irrelevant acts) from getting major nominations and wins and to increase the diversity of the nominees. To an extent it worked in that once the panel was formed we immediately had more diverse and commercial/relevant acts nominated in the big categories; the first year the panel was instituted was the year Album of the Year included Alanis, Pearl Jam, Mariah, Joan, and Michael and Record of the Year included Coolio, TLC, Joan, Mariah/Boyz, and Seal. Those were a nice contrast to the previous year which had all nominees that appealed to an older demo. Having said that we've still had major winners like Steely Dan, Robert Plant/Norah Jones, and a posthumous Ray Charles so... I think the panel is why we often get a "rock nominee" in Record (Kings of Leon, Coldplay, Foo Fighters, Green Day, etc) and a "country nominee" in Song (a couple Carrie Underwood songs, "Live Like You Were Dying," "Girl Crush," etc). There is then often a "rap nominee" in Album (Eminem and Kanye several times each, Kendrick twice, Outkast, etc). Clearly they try to represent several genres throughout the major categories.
|
|