2020 Grammy Awards

[magik]

Jan 24, 2020 18:24:17 GMT -5 ddlz said:

You just can't make this s**t up.

Grammy insiders reveal their secret ballots for the 2020 nominees

THE MAESTRO: I’m going to give that one to H.E.R. She’s like the female Prince and Lauryn Hill put together. The songs are strong. I love the emotional content. Musically, it’s at a whole other level.

money.yahoo.com/grammy-insiders-reveal-secret-ballots-211933078.html

Well, H.E.R.'s music definitely has a huge Lauryn Hill influence, and like Prince, she plays a bass guitar.  So, while H.E.R. hasn't made an album like The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill or has the extensive catalog that Prince has, that doesn't make the comparison far fetched. 

I don't get the hate for H.E.R., someone who actually plays a big role in the making of her music and is actually talented.  I didn't know you had to be a chart topping phenomenon to be taken seriously by your peers.

[14887fan]

H.E.R. is an outstanding talent. Keep the hate.

[shayonce]

Jan 24, 2020 17:20:21 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

In theory, it's possible Dugan knew a song was 18th of 20 but the voting members did not, right?

yeah. that's how they works. it's known thing for years.


Deloitte [the accounting firm] then informs The Recording Academy of the top 15-30 (depending on category) selections from the first ballot. We present these selections (in alphabetical order)to the Nominations Review Committees, who meet in person for 1-3 days to listen to all of the selections. The committee members then vote at the end of the meeting via secret ballot. The ballots are collected by Deloitte in the room.
from 2011

[Deleted]

Jan 24, 2020 13:50:05 GMT -5 Ivy Leegue™ said:

I guess I am the only person who doesn't really care about all of the politics involved behind the scenes. I just watch the Grammys to see the performances and to see who is going to win the big awards but I listen to so many artists who don't even come close to Grammy nominations and I don't feel they care or need the Grammys to validate them. Is it s**tty that this stuff is happening? Yes. But, at the end of the day, it's still the entertainment industry and there are MUCH bigger fish to fry.

The alleged rape and persistent sexual harassment are the bigger fish to fry. The organization that puts together the show full of performances you're going to watch is filled with people who (supposedly) create a hostile working environment, not just for people who work behind the scenes but even for the performers themselves. If the part about Neil Portnow raping an academy member is true for example, is it even safe for a female artist to be connected with this show? The academy board is doing nothing to protect its own members from disgusting power plays like this and even (supposedly) tried to reward Portnow by having Dugan hire him as a consultant. For better or for worse, the entertainment industry is a mirror of what is deemed acceptable in society, and by brushing that behavior under a rug it sends a message (among other troublesome ones) that it's completely acceptable to harass or even physically assault someone as long as everyone puts on a fake smile and a good show once a year.

Dugan's complaint is extremely important IMO, but unfortunately - and I realize I myself play a role in this with my own addition to the conversation - those important issues are being buried because the majority of people are more interested in the gossipy politics angle (and this isn't the first time a #metoo issue has eventually been cannibalized by sensationalized gossip). Dugan said she was still going to watch the show but personally I still am undecided because I feel that in a way that is basically saying no woman's well-being is really that important as long as we're still entertained. It's complex though so I understand and respect why not everyone will find the problems offstage inseparable from the actual show.

[shayonce]

one of funny thing on this committee discussion is that.. some are so against it because their big commercial hit/artist are ignored, they be like "this was #1 hit, grammy is shit for not giving me the award."
and this is why grammy is so fucked up, lots of people in the industry demanding grammy for making hit song/album.
trying to make Grammy another AMA/Billboard/VMA. it is legit agenda, like HDD.

[dwhite725]

This might have been said here, but who is behind H.E.R? I know of “her” but I don’t get the hype. Ella deserves more. It’s obviously not a draw for ratings based on sales. So what is it?

[dwhite725]

Jan 25, 2020 1:16:52 GMT -5 shayonce said:

one of funny thing on this committee discussion is that.. some are so against it because their big commercial hit/artist are ignored, they be like "this was #1 hit, grammy is s**t for not giving me the award."
and this is why grammy is so f**ked up, lots of people in the industry demanding grammy for making hit song/album.
trying to make Grammy another AMA/Billboard/VMA. it is legit agenda, like HDD.

I get what you’re saying, and it does make sense, but it’s a different conversation. The Grammys want to stay relevant. If they didn’t care, then that’s where the conversation happens

[deepston]

Taylor would get out of the show empty handed anyways. At least she's making a statement by not attending. Ruling pop with her middle finger, finally.

[Enigma.]

To not attend is not really a middle finger, to actually say something would be.

People might choose to not attend for various reasons.

[collegedropout]

Jan 25, 2020 9:09:58 GMT -5 Enigma. said:

To not attend is not really a middle finger, to actually say something would be.

People might choose to not attend for various reasons.

to pull out of a performance is Definitely a middle finger. She would have been the biggest name. They have to sort of rework the show a bit now.

[Deleted]

I don't think it was actually mentioned in this thread before that Taylor canceled her performance, only that she wasn't attending. An official statement from Taylor would be nice, sure, but her status is such that pulling out speaks loudly enough IMO.

[insen_13]

By the looks of it, Taylor won't get SOTY.

[Deleted]

Jan 25, 2020 3:48:34 GMT -5 dwhite725 said:

This might have been said here, but who is behind H.E.R? I know of “her” but I don’t get the hype. Ella deserves more. It’s obviously not a draw for ratings based on sales. So what is it?

H.E.R. is managed by MBK Entertainment and IIRC directly handled by the CEO, Jeff Robinson. Jeff was Alicia Keys' manager during Alicia's peak (Alicia is currently with MBK, but I think under a different manager). This is most likely where H.E.R.'s Grammy push is coming from. RCA (H.E.R.'s label) has also gotten a few of their r&b artists into the general field in the past two-three years (Khalid, Childish Gambino, SZA) so that could be helping too, but probably management is making the biggest difference for H.E.R.

[ddlz]

Wow, I didn't know so many people here supported nepotism and one of the most brazen examples of conflicts of interest. Good to know!

There are tons of talented artists out there who have actual buzz and whose talent actually translates to their music, but they get snubbed every year because they're not privileged enough to have Grammy executive producers on speed dial. That's obviously not the case with H.E.R., who already got 10 nominations handed to her on a silver platter. 10 nominations, including two big AOTY nominations, in the span of two years, based off of two mediocre EPs that have no reviews/acclaim, sales or anything going on for them. Now imagine trying to justify this.

[jenglisbe]

Jan 25, 2020 13:38:03 GMT -5 ddlz said:

Wow, I didn't know so many people here supported nepotism and one of the most brazen examples of conflicts of interest. Good to know!

There are tons of talented artists out there who have actual buzz and whose talent actually translates to their music, but they get snubbed every year because they're not privileged enough to have Grammy executive producers on speed dial. That's obviously not the case with H.E.R., who already got 10 nominations handed to her on a silver platter. 10 nominations, including two big AOTY nominations, in the span of two years, based off of two mediocre EPs that have no reviews/acclaim, sales or anything going on for them. Now imagine trying to justify this.

Yeah but would they be getting nominated regardless?

[jenglisbe]

Jan 25, 2020 9:49:17 GMT -5 collegedropout said:

Jan 25, 2020 9:09:58 GMT -5 Enigma. said:

To not attend is not really a middle finger, to actually say something would be.

People might choose to not attend for various reasons.

to pull out of a performance is Definitely a middle finger. She would have been the biggest name. They have to sort of rework the show a bit now.

Nah, people are assuming, but a definitive statement would get more news and make more of an impression/statement.

[magik]

Jan 25, 2020 13:38:03 GMT -5 ddlz said:

Wow, I didn't know so many people here supported nepotism and one of the most brazen examples of conflicts of interest. Good to know!

There are tons of talented artists out there who have actual buzz and whose talent actually translates to their music, but they get snubbed every year because they're not privileged enough to have Grammy executive producers on speed dial. That's obviously not the case with H.E.R., who already got 10 nominations handed to her on a silver platter. 10 nominations, including two big AOTY nominations, in the span of two years, based off of two mediocre EPs that have no reviews/acclaim, sales or anything going on for them. Now imagine trying to justify this.

You sound rather mad.

Anyway, nepotism and conflicts of interest have existed at the Grammys for years... long before H.E.R., and they exist in the real world in almost every situation. Imagine it not happening in a peer-voted institution or billion-dollar industry. Tough cookie. 

[seak05]

Y'all acting like H.E.R. has never sold anything. She has better sales then Bon Iver, Lana Del Ray, and Tanya Tucker (whose song of the year nominee has sold 5,000 copies).

[magik]

Jan 25, 2020 15:52:25 GMT -5 seak05 said:

Y'all acting like H.E.R. has never sold anything. She has better sales then Bon Iver, Lana Del Ray, and Tanya Tucker (whose song of the year nominee has sold 5,000 copies).

And she won two Grammys last year. I guess nepotism and conflict of interest played a part in thousands of votes for those two categories. Always question the black woman's integrity, though.

[kanimal]

This "HER hate" is honestly getting embarrassing. I'd say it's a case of people forgetting that we're supposed to be talking about the quality-minded Grammys and not the chart-driven Billboard Music Awards, but the comments here are actually going beyond commercial - as people are attempting to impugn her quality.

- Where is this "no buzz or acclaim" thing coming from? She's been a very highly regarded artist within the industry for quite some time, and she was actually the betting favorite to win BNA last year.

- As noted above, she HAS performed better commercially than several other major nominees, not that it should matter for the Grammys. Chart numbers are fine to consider when you're making PREDICTIONS about nominees and winners, because they surely WILL influence some voters, but they're not SUPPOSED to matter. So we should never get mad at the Recording Academy for choosing to recognize artists for quality.

It's just weird to see that coming up here of all places, when we've all spent years mocking Hits Daily Double for "The 20/20 Experience was robbed"-type nonsense.

That comment about "no reviews" makes absolutely no sense. For starters, there aren't many music critics who have any credibility today - most are random bloggers who sell their souls to get retweets from celebrities and update accounts. Second, most web music content is either driven by traffic or agendas. Even Pitchfork, which built its reputation on being indie-minded, capitalizes on some mainstream hype. Third, music is too broad for there to be a consistent model for reviews anyway.

- She also sealed her deal as a force (and a potential go-to performer) by delivering one of the strongest, most soulful, most engaging performances last year. I'm sure some people have their own, different favorites - but the only performance I feel most UNIVERSALLY agreed was better was Brandi Carlile's (someone else who, interestingly, is being somewhat underestimated here). Even Billboard, who notoriously favors click-baity performances in their reviews, put HER at #4 - above all "stan" names last year.

And I'd argue the Grammys performance was actually one of her worst TV gigs to date; she's crushed various talk show stages.

- What's with this weird Ella Mai comparison? Beyond the whole "why are we solely comparing her to another woman of color / why is there only room for one female R&B artist on the show" problem, it's such a reach of a comparison anyway. Whether in the studio or on stage, Ella Mai is generally presented as a R&B singer-songwriter. HER has similar-sounding records, but her "stage persona" is one of "full-on musician." She plays guitar, and she fuses old school soul and even some classic rock into her performances.

Whether it's fair or not, there's a massive difference in how the industry (and many music fans, for that matter) would perceive these two personas. It's why guys like Gary Clark Jr, John Mayer, John Legend, etc will always be able to land performance slots no matter how they're doing on the charts. They have that "musician" aura.

Plus, Ella Mai's Big Four nomination was for SONG, which is arguably least relevant for choosing a performer (though I wasn't necessarily opposed to her performing LAST YEAR anyway). HER is up for EVERY Big Four award for which she could be eligible this year, so she's a no-brainer performer.

- If we ARE going to get mad about featuring her as a performer, we should be focusing on the people who actually got screwed this year: the other Big Four nominees. Why are four of the BNA nominees absence from the main stage (including Maggie Rogers, who's a fairly big name and once performed on SNL)? Why are so many of the AOTY nominees absent from the main stage (including past Grammy winners like Bon Iver and Vampire Weekend)?

If one wants to position their hate as SOLELY based on the allegation of committee shenanigans, fine. But the hate seemed to precede those allegations. Plus, even if true, they wouldn't prove that she's not DESERVING from a quality standpoint.

[Deleted]

I haven't finished going through the entire trustees list yet, but there are definitely other GF-nominated artists with a bigger direct plug than H.E.R. I'm not even saying whether she should be questioned for being in there, but yeah, don't single her out when there are multiple other people waving much larger red flags.

(Also, fwiw, there has been good critical word of mouth for her within r&b circles - she was pulling in Soul Train award nominations, Pitchfork reviews, and Rolling Stone 'artist you need to know' mentions as early as 2017. Not sure why Metacritic didn't find enough reviews to warrant giving her a score for anything, but it's not like no one was talking about her.)

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

This whole discussion is odd really. People upset about HER being nominated as if she’s a nobody. Have any of you seen any of the past year’s lists of nominees in the main categories?

[Deleted]

Unfortunately the H.E.R. bashing based on this situation was inevitable. People love to bash someone they think didn't rightfully earn certain accomplishments. Reminds me of Mariah in the 90's (although H.E.R. is obviously not anywhere near as successful).. there were rampant accusations that her success was paid for because she was married to the head of Sony Music. Once people get that in their head, it doesn't really matter how good the music is or how hard they worked.. people don't think it's deserved and want the person taken down.

[magik]

We wouldn't even be having this debate if it weren't for people complaining about the year Bruno swept being so male-dominated.

Now that it's tilted in the favor of female artists, people argue this nepotism/conflicts of interest foolery. How ironic.

You can never get it right in an opinion-based sport.

I also don't think Dugan's hands are all clean either.

[kimberly]

Paul Grein at Billboard "analyzed" the whole mess (it's 1,400 words be warned)
www.billboard.com/articles/news/awards/8548909/analysis-grammys-conflict-transparency-diversity?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

SPOILER: Click to show

{Analysis: The Grammys Main Conflict Is Transparency vs. Diversity & Progressivity}
For every artist who is elevated by the committee, somebody else is knocked out.

Deborah Dugan, the exiled president and CEO of the Recording Academy, is right about at least one thing: There is an inherent conflict between the Academy's stated goals of being transparent, diverse and progressive.

Starting in 1995, the final nominations in the "Big Four" categories -- album, record and song of the year plus best new artist -- have been decided by a select committee that reviews lists of the top vote-getters by rank-and-file members and selects the ones that it deems most worthy. The idea behind that in the beginning was to make the final nominations more progressive; more musically adventurous. In recent years, the committee's main focus has appeared to be striking a better racial and gender balance.

In the committee's first year, Pearl Jam's Vitalogy and Joan Osborne's Relish were nominated for album of the year. While it's impossible to know for sure, it seems likely that neither album would been nominated if it had been up to rank-and-file voters. In the case of Pearl Jam, the voters of that era weren't especially plugged in to the Seattle rock scene. Nirvana was never nominated in a Big Four category and didn't win a Grammy in any category until nearly two years after Kurt Cobain's death in 1994. In the case of Osborne, her album and its lead single "One of Us" were just breaking at the point the nominations were announced. "One of Us" first entered the Hot 100 in the second week of December 1995. By the end of the year, Relish was only up to No. 46 on the Billboard 200. (Both album and single went on to make the top 10.) Also, Relish was passed over for a nomination for best rock album.
The committee was established after there was controversy in the industry over the 1994 nominations. Tony Bennett's MTV Unplugged and the Three Tenors' The 3 Tenors in Concert 1994 were nominated for album of the year -- while such more contemporary albums as Boyz II Men's II, Pearl Jam's Vs., Pink Floyd's The Division Bell, R.E.M.'s Monster, Snoop Dogg's Doggystyle and Common Thread: The Songs of the Eagles were not nominated in that category.

The committee was also established to counter a tendency of rank-and-file voters to nominate their favorite artists year after year. Billy Joel received album of the year nominations with four consecutive studio albums from 1979-83. Bonnie Raitt was nominated with three consecutive studio albums from 1989-94. Sting was up for that award with three of his first solo albums.

But is the committee still necessary all these years later? The membership of the Academy has changed a lot since 1995. Many people who were voting members then have died or let their membership lapse or otherwise stopped voting. Many people who are voting now were too young then to be involved in the industry or the Academy. (A few young voters probably weren't even born in 1995.)

Also the Academy has made some smart moves in recent years which have likely improved voting. They have cut down on the maximum number of categories that members may vote in on the final ballot. That number is currently 15, in addition to the Big Four categories. The thinking there was to limit voters to those categories they are most knowledgeable about.
If the Academy revealed the list of top vote-getters from rank-and-file voters, we could compare it to the final nominations and see for ourselves if the committee is improving the list, making substitutions but not really making it better or worse, or maybe even hurting matters. They don't reveal the lists, so there's no way to know.

But any time the committee elevates an artist who would otherwise not be nominated, it is, by definition, denying a nomination to someone who Academy members wanted to see nominated. There are only so many nominations slots in the Big Four categories: five, from 1958, the first year of the Grammys, through 2017, and now eight, starting last year.

This year, rank-and-file voters may well have chosen Lewis Capaldi as one of their top eight choices for best new artist. His "Someone Like You" was a No. 1 hit on the Billboard Hot 100 for three weeks, an impressive achievement for a traditional ballad in an era dominated by hip-hop and more uptempo pop music. The dramatic ballad is similar in style to Adele and Sam Smith, both of whom were crowned best new artist. But Capaldi failed to receive a best new artist nomination. So did Megan Thee Stallion, Summer Walker and Juice WRLD (who, sadly, died less than three weeks after the nominations were announced on Nov. 20).
Several of the nominees in that category, including Black Pumas and Tank and the Bangas, are considerably less well-known.

The committee might point out that Capaldi is represented with a song of the year nomination. And they might say that were it not for their intervention, Black Pumas and Tank and the Bangas wouldn't have received any nominations this year. That's true. Their best new artist nods were their only nominations. The same is true of Maggie Rogers, though her best new artist nod wasn't nearly as much of a surprise.

But for every artist who is elevated by the committee, somebody else is knocked out.

Ed Sheeran hasn't been nominated in a "Big Four" category in four years. Two years ago, his smash hit "Shape of You" was passed over for record and song of the year nominations; his album ÷ (divide) was passed over for an album of the year nomination. Given Sheeran's massive commerical success, these snubs suggest that the committee advanced other contenders instead.
While the committee determines the nominations, the winners are determined by the voters. Sheeran won in both down-ballot categories in which he was nominated: best pop solo performance for "Shape of You" and best pop vocal album for ÷ (divide).

You can't have it both ways. You can't be transparent on the one hand and diverse and progressive on the other -- unless the membership is diverse and progressive. The Academy has aggressively recruited new members in the past two years, with a clear focus on bringing in more women, racial minorities and younger voters. By their count, 200 new voting members joined in 2018, followed by 590 more new voting members in 2019.

The Academy doesn't reveal much about the nominations review committee process. But they have said that the committee reviews lists of the voters' top 20 choices in the Big Four categories. And they have said those lists are presented to committee members in alphabetical order. So even the members of the committee don't know if the broad membership ranked something first or 20th.
The Academy presents the list to the committee that way because it wants the committee members to judge the entries strictly on their own merits, and not be swayed by how the voters saw it. The policy is well-intentioned, but perhaps short-sighted. The members of that committee need to know if something was the voters' first choice, or fifth, or 10th or 20th. Some members of that committee might want to honor the members' wishes as much as possible, overriding them only when absolutely necessary. But they can't know how the members voters if they're not told.

Let's say a mediocre record, album, song or new artist is No. 5 on the voting members' list, and something really terrific is No. 6. I would be more inclined to support the committee making that substitution than I would if the committee was swapping out the voters' No. 1 pick in favor of something they liked that was way down at No. 20. Where the contenders rank with the voters matters -- or should.
As someone who has followed and reported on the Grammys for decades, I would like to see the day that the Academy disbands all its committees and allows the membership to have the final say.

But if the Academy wants to keep the committees, they should make sure their committee members have all the facts. How can the committee members do their job otherwise?

[kanimal]

Jan 25, 2020 18:06:40 GMT -5 kimberly said:

Paul Grein at Billboard "analyzed" the whole mess (it's 1,400 words be warned)
www.billboard.com/articles/news/awards/8548909/analysis-grammys-conflict-transparency-diversity?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

SPOILER: Click to show

Starting in 1995, the final nominations in the "Big Four" categories -- album, record and song of the year plus best new artist -- have been decided by a select committee that reviews lists of the top vote-getters by rank-and-file members and selects the ones that it deems most worthy. The idea behind that in the beginning was to make the final nominations more progressive; more musically adventurous. In recent years, the committee's main focus has appeared to be striking a better racial and gender balance.

The problem with this thesis - that saying the committee is focusing on racial/gender diversity rather than musical diversity - is that he isn't backing it from a musical standpoint.

The biggest "screwjob" examples he provides are Ed Sheeran and Lewis Capaldi, yet he doesn't make a case for why they would have passed a "musically adventurous" test that didn't account for race and gender. His main argument is that they were commercially successful, which A) shouldn't impact the Grammy voting and B) leads to the exact "familiarity bias" that the committee is supposed to be eliminating.

In the case of Capaldi, he also compares him to Adele and Sam Smith. It's admittedly a bad comparison, but let's say you agree. If he's basically just doing the same thing as two other well-established artists, then does he really deserve a Best New Artist nomination?

Ironically, three of the other artists he casually mentions - Summer Walker, Megan Thee Stallion and and Juice WRLD - WOULD have benefited from the affirmative action model he seems to think is in place.

In essence, he's not making any salient points. He's not proving that deserving artists were screwed by the committee because they're not in position to benefit from affirmative action. And he's, in fact, proving that talented women and minorities are being overlooked despite the boost they should have received from affirmative action.

His points about diversifying the voting body are similarly worthless, because the voting body still seems inclined to vote for "safe" choices. Why should we assume that the voting body that gravitated toward Tony Bennett was safe and homogenized yet the one who voted for Ed Sheeran was edgy and diverse?

A more effective commentary would discuss why he thinks someone like Yola received a nomination over someone like Summer Walker ... and why he thinks that's dismissive of musical quality.

[14887fan]

Oh, wow — Paul Grein wrote a thinkpiece on the GRAMMY issues, with a portion of the publication rooted in his ever-festering pissiness that Ed Sheeran didn’t get as many nominations as he thinks he should have for his Divide era? *Shocked.* Not like he hasn’t brought that up in every other piece he’s written in relation to the Awards. My only real shock is that he didn’t touch on his equal frustrations from when Timberlake hardly got any love for 20/20.

That entire piece reeks of dismissiveness. He also mentions that most GRAMMY voters from the 1970s/80s/90s have since died, lapsed their memberships, or stopped voting, which altogether isn’t entirely true at all. It’s part of what’s created such a frustrating ordeal out of all of this: the status quo has yet to shift. On the voting side, on the committee side, on the administrative side, etc. Hence why all of this is exploding.

[collegedropout]

Jan 25, 2020 15:23:40 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Jan 25, 2020 9:49:17 GMT -5 collegedropout said:

to pull out of a performance is Definitely a middle finger. She would have been the biggest name. They have to sort of rework the show a bit now.

Nah, people are assuming, but a definitive statement would get more news and make more of an impression/statement.

Well yes a statement is the biggest middle finger but pulling out of a schedule performance this screwing up their plans is also a middle finger.

[when the pawn...]

I certainly don't hate H.E.R. and don't think she's unworthy of any Grammy attention but five general field nominations in two years as a new artist without substantial commercial success or major critical acclaim feels like a stretch.

[Deleted]

Why r they so early this year