December 3rd, 2009
01:57 PM ET

Do the Grammys need a fix?

testing captions
testing captions

Every year around Grammy nomination time the argument begins anew: Are the Grammys out of touch?

Often it seems that the artists rewarded for their talent are not in step with who is really popular among fans and music lovers. How many times have you watched the show only to groan “How in the world did (fill in the blank) beat out (fill in the blank)?” Remember the “what just happened” response last year two years ago to Herbie Hancock’s win for Album of the Year? (Editor's note: Last year Robert Plant and Alison Krauss won Album of the Year for "Raising Sand.")

Thanks to nods this year for popular artists like Beyonce, Taylor Swift and Kings of Leon, there may be less discussion about whether or not the nominating committee gets it, but that doesn’t mean everyone is still happy.

Now there’s a bit of discussion over the fact that singer Lady GaGa could not be nominated in the Best New Artist category because her single "Just Dance" was nominated last year in the Best Dance Recording category.

With so much buzz and all of the accolades surrounding the Lady (not to mention the more than 1.5 million copies of her album she has sold) her being left off the list even had People magazine questioning whether her exclusion might lead to a change in the rules.

Also not in the running this year is the late King of Pop, Michael Jackson, as his "This Is It" soundtrack missed the September 1 deadline for nominees.

So is it time for the Grammys to take a long hard look at themselves and revamp? Or are fans beyond caring?


soundoff (260 Responses)
  1. Fun things to do in dc

    Pretty component of content. I simply stumbled upon your site and in accession capital to say that I get actually loved account your weblog posts. Anyway I'll be subscribing for your feeds and even I fulfillment you get admission to persistently fast.

    April 11, 2012 at 6:56 pm | Report abuse |
  2. nicci

    I wonder if the person who penned this article has ever listened to Herbie Hancock. If they had, they would know that his talent surpasses all of the nominees from two years ago. I completely agree with Michael...it should be about artistic talent, wonderful music. Leave the teeny-bopping, a$$ shaking and gimics for the VMAs.

    December 17, 2009 at 12:48 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Michael

    I briefly worked in the recording industry (5 years) back in the early 90s. It was my understanding that the Grammys were meant to "reward artistic talent" (kinda lick the Oscars). The American Music Awards (and MTV Awards) were meant to appease the masses and give something to the "popular acts" (those artists who sold lots or records).

    At least that's the way I was "taught" to cast my vote.

    December 7, 2009 at 5:10 pm | Report abuse |
  4. gapeach

    The Grammys have become a joke just like all of the other award shows with the exception of The People's Choice awards. If I see Taylor Swift win one more award this year because everyone feels bad because Kanye West was rude to her I'm gonna puke!!!! Lady GaGA talented? It's a populartiy contest.

    December 7, 2009 at 1:52 pm | Report abuse |
  5. David, Elkton, MD.

    @Gilasevi: If you were talking about American music only, I might agree with you. However, artists like Wakeman, Oldfield and Jarre, all in Europe, are extremely popular and still some of the best musicians in the world today.

    In fact, European artists remain some of the best and most popular artists in the world, only ignored in the US because the recording companies think that US listeners want the junk that the Grammys only emphasize.

    Now, I'll grant that groups like the Black-Eyed Peas do some decent stuff - but are they even nominated? Is there even a single nominated artist in this year's Grammys that really deserves this so-called honor? As I said before, our greatest artists are the ones who go beyond the one-hit wonder type. You look at the American music scene, and all you see are kid groups who all sound essentially alike and tried-and-true masters who are dying of old age. The only thing that seems to make the current generation popular is how much skin they dare to show, either themselves or of their backup performers.

    Maybe sex sells, but it doesn't mean they're any good as singers.

    December 7, 2009 at 11:30 am | Report abuse |
  6. Caleb

    I totally DISAGREE:
    The grammy committee has been going for as long as i know, and they don't just choose the popular hits of today: they choose what music is best to them, by each category. Are they goign to pick miley cyrus or the jonas brothers? No! and it's not because they're popular, its because its not good music.

    December 7, 2009 at 7:03 am | Report abuse |
  7. Gilasevi

    Why are we even wanting great music anymore?

    Think about it, all thats great has been done. Here in the States and around the world. There is so much great music to discover thats been done in the last 40 and beyond.

    New music is conference room, marketing-team-presented, cubicle laptop produced ProTools-AutoTune-FruityLoops made, "artists" are chosen broad appeal – religious ingratiating (Swift, most Country Pop) and just fabricated and full of spectacle who's gatekeepers have become Apple computer! Dont blame The Grammy's, blame the system.

    Why would you want anymore of anything?! Do you know how long it will take for you to fully enjoy whats been done, and what you havent discovered yet thats been done?

    There will be a day when too much music will leave no room for enjoying great work of the past of all genre's.

    December 7, 2009 at 5:02 am | Report abuse |
  8. Brie

    I just wish any of these accolades being passed out had anything to do with talent! Clearly, Taylor Swift winning Female VOCALIST Of The Year at the CMAs is just a tiny taste of what the rest of the awards shows are going to consist of. Then we had the AMAs, which made me sick to my stomach! I am praying that although Taylor Swift is nominated 8 times, she will take home nothing. Compare Carrie Underwood's "Just A Dream" to any of Taylor's songs for Female Country Vocal Performance.....fingers crossed the award will go to the VOCALIST! Such a joke, as we all know who's going to win.

    December 7, 2009 at 2:03 am | Report abuse |
  9. Jeyna

    Everyone needs to chill out about these nominations. They've voted, they've nominated, people who got nominations CONGRATS. people who didn't, UNLUCKY. We all need to accept the fact that singers like Taylor Swift who recieved 8 nominations ARE talented, why would millions of people be listening to them daily otherwise? I mean come on, she was like the youngest songwriter ever signed at 14.
    Beyonce is majorly talented, singing-wise and entertainment-wise. Everbody nominated for a Grammy is deserving of it, the fact that you think that your favorite should have been nominated is your own issue; don't take it away from those who were nominated and have done nothing but perform to the best of their ability to entertain us everyday.

    December 7, 2009 at 1:37 am | Report abuse |
  10. Dinesh Sri Lanka

    The Grammy Awards like some one said are the Oscars of the Music Industry. Correction. 'WERE'! Sure Single ladies was a hit, its catch, its fun and the video was nice. But she as an artist deserves maybe one or two noms. at most! So does Taylor Swift. Whitney's Snub is ridiculous ( go listen to 'Call you tonight' & 'Salut'). What's worse is these nominations and resulting wins tarnish the value of the Grammy awards won by the greats in the past! Let the Grammies please be about quality and not who shakes a rump best!

    December 6, 2009 at 11:51 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Ken D

    Just because an artist is "popular" it doesn't mean they're Good! The Grammy's is supposed to be about artists nominating their peers. This has nothing to do about album sales or what the public likes. Save it for the Golden Globes or the People's choice awards. If an artists doesnt get the respect from their own peers, then too bad! There are plenty of socalled artists that suck, no matter how much they sell. It's about respect, not the flavor of the month.

    December 6, 2009 at 5:03 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Matt @ OU

    People who think real music is dead aren't looking hard enough.

    December 6, 2009 at 12:27 am | Report abuse |
  13. LESLI

    I agree that the Grammy's need to take a look at things, but not just them alot of award shiws do. There are alot of people that get looked over.

    I wish this whole taylor swift obsession would be over! Yes, what Kanye did was wrong, but enough with the sympathy votes.

    December 5, 2009 at 11:05 am | Report abuse |
  14. shannon

    I agree...the awards shows are not worth my time anymore...

    December 5, 2009 at 2:53 am | Report abuse |
  15. joules252

    Okay, I understand the feeling that Michael Jackson's new album should be included. But then, do you think the Beatles' remastered albums should be included? Neither have new material. If the Grammys gave out awards for every compilation and remaster album, new artists wouldn't even have a chance. As unusual as it may seem, Robert Plant and Allison Krauss absolutely 100% deserved their Grammy win. Robert Plant made a daring move, coming back 30 years after being with Led Zeppelin, a band with a cult-like following, and releasing an album with Allison Kruass in an absolutely completely different style from his previous work. And the album is absolutely fantastic. Though it may have not been as commercially successful as other albums released at the time, it was of a much higher quality. Also, the Grammys can't bend the rules for Lady GaGa. If they do it for her, they'd have to do it for everybody.

    For all of the people that say today's music is mediocre: You're absolutely wrong. You're just looking in the wrong place for your music. Check out stuff like the Strokes, Guster, Sufjan Stevens, Them Crooked Vultures, Sigur Ros, The Flaming Lips, The Avett Brothers, Of Montreal, The Raconteurs, The White Stripes, Fleet Foxes, Death Cab for Cutie, Neutral Milk Hotel... just to name a FEW.

    Note: Metallica and Linkin Park are not nominated because they are absolutely terrible bands.

    I'm not saying the Grammys are at all perfect. I think that much too often, they bow to the pressures of popular demand. And people often like what is popular, and not what is good music. But they get it right some of the time. And no, Metallica not winning for ...And Justice For All, was not a mistake. That album had some great songs, but many terrible ones. And the production or lack thereof was absolutely atrocious.

    December 4, 2009 at 9:57 pm | Report abuse |
  16. MLS

    Thank goodness for acts like Taylor swift. Otherwise what would young girls have, to listen to. Can you see them listening to Herbie Hancock. Also I don't want my 15 year old listening to gangster rap either. Still can't believe there is actually a "rap"category for the Grammy's. Because it takes so much talent to "talk" into a microphone.....NOT!

    December 4, 2009 at 7:20 pm | Report abuse |
  17. shirley

    I haven't watch the Grammy in years why because they are not worth
    my time i will not waste my eyes the same peoples win every year.
    Please let someone with talent win.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:20 pm | Report abuse |
  18. msgreen

    What about Whitney Houston, Ginuwine, Al B.Sure!, Linkin Park, and all the other really talented people who didn't get recognized? These people all are wonderful vocalists/musicians and were eligible so what happened? Lady Gaga? Taylor Swift? Please....

    December 4, 2009 at 5:36 pm | Report abuse |
  19. Will

    The academy is loosing it. How can you nominate Lady GaGa for being a new age Madonna and call it new? It's the same thing. Just a new decade.

    The whole album of the year thing is crap. You can't compare Beyonce to KOL to Taylor Swift. Different genres, different quality of musicianship, etc.

    Most of the mainstream music today is horrible. The quality of musicianship is poor as hell and it seems like it takes not talent to become the next big thing. If you listen to any album today, it is over produced and super compressed.

    The academy needs to get their head on straight and pick good music to be honored. All this electronica and rap that contains constant quarter note beats and is in one key and the whole album is in four-four time does not deserve to be recognized. I love the fact that Herbie Hancock won two years ago, but that was the only good part of the night.

    December 4, 2009 at 5:21 pm | Report abuse |
  20. Jeff

    We've blurred the lines so much with reality shows purporting to display "American Idols", etc. that awards shows are really kind of quaint.

    It may not be the judges who are out of touch. It might be the entire concept of award shows, themselves.

    Or, perhaps the judges really do "get it" and are trying to push back against the popular wave and say, "Hey, it's fine to like Lady Gaga, but there are other talented people in the pool, too".

    I haven't watched a Grammy Awards show in 7 years. And I'm a musician.

    December 4, 2009 at 5:21 pm | Report abuse |
  21. Troy

    Aren't the Grammy's, and all other award presentations in ENTERTAINMENT for that matter, just a opportunity for the industry to show off its "stars" and cash in on the publicity. Who cares if Taylor Swift out-scores Beyonce and racks up another trophy or two. Will it be a determining factor in whether or not you remain or become a fan of either one? No. Musical preference is a very personal choice. Just because music comes with a "Grammy Award Winning" seal of approval doesn't change its appeal or lack thereof to anyone. Forget the debate and simply appreciate the Grammy Awards Show for what it is–an evening of performances and appearances of select entertainers that may or may not be worth watching depending on whatever blows your hair back.

    December 4, 2009 at 5:18 pm | Report abuse |
  22. Thomas T.

    How can you argue that the Grammys got it right when the Black Eyed Peas are nominated for album of the year? Seriously? That album has at most 3 popular songs...the rest are junk. actually, the whole album is a piece of junk and a collection of auto-tuned filled songs but nevertheless, they have "hits." those hits shouldn't be correlating into grammys though. In my opinion, album of the year should be going to albums where all of the songs are GOOD. I personally would like to see the Dave Matthews Band or Taylor Swift to recieve the honor this year. Both of those albums from start to finish are musically amazing.

    December 4, 2009 at 5:18 pm | Report abuse |
  23. Seri

    It boils down to ratings. Of course the most popular singers are going to be nominated. This will ensure viewership for the show.

    December 4, 2009 at 5:08 pm | Report abuse |
  24. billbc

    The whole thing is "same old, same old". GaGa is a joke literally, Beyonce's shake is passe, etc, etc. Not watching for sure.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:58 pm | Report abuse |
  25. Nick G

    The Grammys lost ALL credibility with me with way back in the late 70's when Toto and The Cars were beat out by Taste of Honey ("Boogie Oogie Oogie") for best new artist!!!

    December 4, 2009 at 4:53 pm | Report abuse |
  26. flugel76

    Are the Grammys really supposed to be about which musician is the most popular rather than which musician is the best musician? I'm sorry if you've never heard of Herbie Hancock or his music, but without question his album was better than any of the other albums produced last year. Too many people take exception to that simply because they didn't (and won't) listen to the album themselves. You can't sit here and debate whose album was better if you haven't even listened to them all. And sorry, downloading one song apiece off ITunes doesn't count....

    December 4, 2009 at 4:52 pm | Report abuse |
  27. WhatTheHuh

    1. the grammys are an 'industry-only' award which means that those who vote for them must be in the music industry in some capacity. this includes people who are much, much older than mainstream fans and who are from a much different era, and whose involvement with music may be more technical or outside the mainstream. which leads to my second point:

    2. there are other awards for music which are not restricted to industry people per se–namely the people's choice awards where the fans can vote, and the AMA's which are based on sales and airplay. there are also other music awards which allow the fan's voices to be heard, including video awards.

    thus, the grammys are a bit more elite, maybe a bit more 'artistic', and i think we all know that its not always the great-or even good–artists who get the airplay and the popularity. which makes the grammys even more important.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:47 pm | Report abuse |
  28. doug mathias

    Best Album I heard this year was CHICKENFOOT, not even nominated. This should not be about sales but about NEW music.
    This award is getting less and less important as people will TUNE the winners out.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:38 pm | Report abuse |
  29. tracy

    The fact that Taylor Swift is nominated 8 times, enough said. They get it so wrong year after year. She cannot sing at all and everyone says OH but she writes her own Music ( I was sitting in home room feeling sad and full of gloom, I turned my head to see that he actually said hello to me, His eyes, his hair, his smile so dreamy, maybe he'll ask me out Oh my god will he) there I just wrote a Taylor Swift song, The Grammys maybe get it right 10% of the time but it seems to me year after year its just another popularity contest where actual music and talent take a back seat.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
  30. annabel

    I agree with Allyson with regards to the ridiculous number of nominations that beyonce receoved. Based was popularity, not talent.

    Now if Jennifer Hudson had released a new album to qualify for this year.........then there would have been some real talent to nominate and prissy mrs jz would have been shut out!!!

    December 4, 2009 at 4:36 pm | Report abuse |
  31. rw

    Like Lady GaGa recently said.... I dont need outside validation. My Fans are my validation. Who cares about the awards? Noone. We mostly watch it for the outfits and entertainment value. They mean absolutely nothing.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:36 pm | Report abuse |
  32. Zac

    Most new music now lacks anything that resembles real substance anyway. Over the past few years I have found if its new and on the radio its probably not worth listening to. To me and probably many more, the days of quality popular music died a long time ago. I feel bad for my 6 year old daughter because she will probably never get to experience what its like to hear something truly new and decent

    December 4, 2009 at 4:24 pm | Report abuse |
  33. Brinay

    The Grammys are a joke. Taylor Swift is no musical genious. She is the white bread unscathed innocent that the moral majority wants to see. The Grammys are just as politically motivated (and paid for) just like all of its other peer organizations. They hope that your taste and opinion will be molded by their purchased decisions. Whatever.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:01 pm | Report abuse |
  34. pat

    they get it wrong fundamentally. the Grammy's are diluting their own importance with consistent, obvious exclusions and acknowledgement of specific taste. i'm sure they may think thier apporoach is 'edgy' but really just exposes their ignorance about that which (they sold to us as what) they represent – the 'best' music within a given year.

    December 4, 2009 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |
  35. Natalia G.

    This year Depeche Mode got two Grammy nominations. I am extremely happy about that, their video is captivating. Now if only I could talk the organizers of the show not to let Beyonce sing more than two minutes...

    December 4, 2009 at 3:53 pm | Report abuse |
  36. Rob

    Music is art ,so to award someone with "Best Album of the Year" is ridiculous. This isn't a sports event where there is a clear winner. It's just a popularity contest just like the Oscars and everyone knows it. Now let's not spend so much time on this and get back to work.

    December 4, 2009 at 3:47 pm | Report abuse |
  37. Norma

    I don't think these awards are based on talent.
    Just look what is going on with Beyonce; I can't believe she is getting actually "awards".
    She is a lousy singer – even with all the help from her back-ups, and a bad copy of Jennifer Lopez's dancing moves.
    It's not personal, I actually liked her with the group Destiny's child, but she cannot sing alone. She has a good manager which knows the business very well and is creating spectacular shows with Beyonce shaking her parts.
    Pathetic

    December 4, 2009 at 3:47 pm | Report abuse |
  38. brett

    check out the band called Maps and Atlases. Confirms clearly how the Grammy's are out of touch.

    December 4, 2009 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
  39. Tee-Tee

    To the person who said that Michael Jackson's music was inspired by Europeans and Asians? Huh? I guess his rhythm and dance moves were too, huh? Please. Be real, MJ was raised on such extraordinary black acts such as Jackie Wilson, James Brown, the O'Jays and the Temptations, none of whom were inspired by any Europeans or Asians(??) AND even his pop music always remained rooted in R&B so let's get THAT straight first. As for the Grammy's I agree Beyonce doesn't deserve all of the accolades she's getting for this album-it was wack–and Taylor Swift? Please. I'll only watch to see Maxwell who is long overdue for a Grammy. I predict this award show will propel him into the stratosphere.

    December 4, 2009 at 3:25 pm | Report abuse |
  40. BTinMD

    I think most (please note I didn't say all) people who grew up with MTV are unable to distinguish quality MUSIC from flashy showmanship. I bet most of the people who've become popular during the MTV generation would not get a second LISTEN if it weren't for the shock value or the glitzy packaging of their videos. Take the visual part away and you aren't left with much musically. Most (again, not all) of the popular "musicians"/singers today could not stand on the basis of their music alone. The Grammy's are obviously more about popular "entertainers" than about the music itself. The name Grammy's should be changed as it refers to the original grammophone which only reproduced sound (music). Music is not what's being recognized/rewarded here. How about "The Most Popular Packaged Acts Pretending They're Musicians Awards?"

    December 4, 2009 at 3:24 pm | Report abuse |
  41. suzy

    Just because someone is popular, it doesn't mean they are the best musicians or the most worthy of the award. So many times the current trendy talents end up being forgotten and their songs are trivia questions.

    December 4, 2009 at 3:24 pm | Report abuse |
  42. Allyson

    The Grammys need a major overhaul and have for a long time it is all about popularity not about talent.

    December 4, 2009 at 3:00 pm | Report abuse |
  43. Eva

    Most of the popular music you hear is over done and many performers like Beyonce or Mariah are overdone. Like an earlier post, Susan Boyle is pure talent. Also some local musicians like Over the Rhine in the Ohio area have some great music.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse |
  44. helement

    The artists that sell the most records (create the most revenue) are the artists that win a Grammy.

    This is why I do not watch music award shows.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
  45. Laura

    The only one they got right is "Kings of Leon". They are talented unlike all the other nominees. Tayor Swift if extremely talented but can sing off key at times.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:24 pm | Report abuse |
  46. DK Murphy

    Sorry MJ fans, he shouldn't be included just because he died. Face it, that's not his best stuff and is only considered because he died. He had his time in the 80's. The Grammy's, and most award shows in general, are a joke. They do not actually take talent into consideration and it's merely a "flavor of the week" award.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:22 pm | Report abuse |
  47. Slowhand

    Talent? Lady Gaga? Beyonce? HA! If they define "talent" then that definition goes right along with everything else that's wrong with the world.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:17 pm | Report abuse |
  48. cj

    I am convinced that the majority of Americans are both tone deaf and musically challenged. Of all the talented musical acts (both well known and ameteur); we keep selecting the same over marketed, packaged, over hyped, wanna be, cant sing, celebs. I have boycotted buying any music until the record industry comes to its senses and develops some taste in music! p.s. support your local talented musicians

    December 4, 2009 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
  49. Eva G

    I kind of agree with almost everyone. Taylor Swift is nowhere near Kelly Clarkson in talent and vocals. Taylor is getting all this attention and it is all Kanye's fault. Let every new artist learn this rule- the easiest way to win multiple awards is to let Kanye West insult your work in public!!!
    Unfortunately most of the singers these days are more into shaking their privates in public rather than giving real talented performances. Whitney and MJ shd have been recognised, Kelly Carkson and Maxwell were robbed- I love Beyonce very much but I think they are trying to put her side by side with Taylor swift becos of Kanye. The fact is that you really cannot compare the two. Beyonce is for more talented than Taylor. Taylor Swift does not really deserve all those awards. She is just OK. Taylor was OVER- NOMINATED!

    December 4, 2009 at 2:12 pm | Report abuse |
  50. Erik

    I just want to address some of the negative comments made about Lady GaGa in this blog. Yes, she is definitely going for shock value with her fashion sense (or lack thereof some days). However, there is no denying her talent. No other artist in her genre can sit down at a piano and deliver such intimate performances like she can. This girl is a arena concert and carbaret venue artist rolled into one. Her vocal quality rivals and arguably surpasses many of her better known contemporaries (Christina Aguilera and Kelly Clarskon), not too mention that she co-writes all of her own material.

    It is a sin that she was not nominated for Best New Artist due to a silly technicality. Shame on the Grammy's for not fully supporting an artist of this caliber. After a myriad of lip-synching machines and others who can only deliver vocal performances through the miracle of technology, Lady GaGa is refreshing and will not be forgotten in 5 years. She is creative, provocative and will further test the limits of popular music and culture. Many of the criticisms I have read are similar to the same attacks thrown at a relatively "little known" artist named Madonna... you may have heard of her. However, unlike her predecessor, Lady GaGa possesses a great deal of raw musical talent and vocal ability.

    Yes, I am a big fan of Lady GaGa, but more importantly I am avid enthusiast of artistic quality in popular music and culture. A talent like this comes along only once or twice in a generation. Lady GaGa is that talent and whether we like her or not, she is the future of popular music.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:11 pm | Report abuse |
  51. mcai

    I stopped watching years ago. I might have come back if Michael Jackson had been nominated. But, it looks like the Grammys are going the way of the Oscars, in which the networks will cut down the amount of air time. And if they don't they should. The Grammys need crowd pleasers. Hopefully MJ will be nominated next year and then maybe I will watch.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:10 pm | Report abuse |
  52. San Jose

    I'm 60 years old. You can say that either I am out of touch with Billboard winners, or Billboard winners are out of touch with me. I loved rock and roll all of my life, and also enjoy Classical. Most of the music and performances these days are astoundingly untalented in my opinion. It is also such tasteless, trashly performance. Truly, I never cease to be amazed after watching someone like Kanye West at how talentless he is. I do not see the appeal in the least of GaGa. Tyler Swift is cute and I can see why the tweens like her - but outstanding music? I hear almost no hip hop that appeals to me. So the music that wins these awards is music that sells but I am as baffled by its popularity (lack of relatable lyrics and interesting arrangements) as I am by many of the movies that have been popular for many years. Our country is deeply divided in the arts.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:06 pm | Report abuse |
  53. Jason

    Where are the Rock Bands? Why not Metallica? the new Alice in Chains CD is very artsy

    December 4, 2009 at 1:48 pm | Report abuse |
  54. Mark J.

    Has anyone actually heard Taylor Swift sing? Not only is she not good, she is terrible. Ashley Simpson-esque even. Yes, she gets credit for being a 17 year old songwriter, but to be recognized by legit awards like the CMA's and now the Grammy's is just downright insulting to real singers.

    December 4, 2009 at 1:46 pm | Report abuse |
  55. BTinMD

    Hell, most popular music doesn't even seem to be about music anymore. It's all image and very little talent. Looking good on screen/camera and being able to shake your a$$ or dance has nothing to do with music itself. The Grammy's are all about popularity and image, not music. But then again, our society as a whole seems to be all about image these days and not substance. The Grammy's are just a reflection of our pitiful state of society.

    December 4, 2009 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
  56. Kristen

    This is going to be one dull show. I think I'll pass on watching Taylor Swift repeatedly run up to the stage and act surprised about winning awards. That girl has a lot of talent, but this show is going to be very predictable.

    December 4, 2009 at 1:37 pm | Report abuse |
  57. Patman

    These are the only "artists" that exist in the grammy world. No other CD is worth buying or listening to. Got it?

    December 4, 2009 at 1:36 pm | Report abuse |
  58. Joycelyn

    How on earth can Taylor Swift be nominated so many times? Her music is average...it it because of the FISCO with Kanye West?
    Well, Kanye thanks a lot...Taylor is sweet but does not deserve all these nominations.

    December 4, 2009 at 1:34 pm | Report abuse |
  59. Portia

    I can't stand Taylor Swift. How can bubblegum county be considered Grammy-worthy? It's all a teeny bopper marketing ploy.

    Beyonce is ok, but I agree enough is enough. The Grammys used to be about TALENT. Not its all about HYPE.

    December 4, 2009 at 1:34 pm | Report abuse |
  60. Robby

    I think the most over-rated, mediocre talent in this country has to be Beyonce..shaking her behind and a shrill voice and small head on a huge body is kind of offensive to watch..there are much better performers out there...

    December 4, 2009 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse |
  61. jess

    the grammy's should be nominating artists based on their artistic merit. that's why they're called artists. instead the grammy's are essentially a popularity contest. everyone likes looking at beyonce or wants to see what lady gaga will wear next. but what is so special about their music? nothing. it's not original, it's boring and you rarely hear a single instrument that doesn't come from some kind of sound machine or a computer. how can you call it music if there aren't even any instruments?
    when actual instruments are used consistently and in a new or talented way, concerts are about the music and not the glitz and wow-factor and these artists stop lip-syncing, then they will deserve a grammy.

    or perhaps we should just have 2 award shows- the grammy's and the award show that awards real music.

    December 4, 2009 at 1:22 pm | Report abuse |
  62. Chuck E. Voorhees

    The Grammys suck because most of the artists getting acolades at the grammys suck. It's just that simple. Musicianship has been traded in for marketablity. So, I guess you get what you pay for.

    December 4, 2009 at 1:15 pm | Report abuse |
  63. Paul

    The only reason I watch the Grammys is for the live perfomances. You never know what you're going to get, but many have been fantastic. Some have been once in a lifetime kinds of gatherings of artists or simply the kinds of incredible perfomances you get when an artist knows he or she is performing infront of peers.

    Other than that it is industry and performer weirdness.

    December 4, 2009 at 1:15 pm | Report abuse |
  64. Grahame

    I'm glad Wilco is getting nominated for their new album. But unfortunately it's in the Americana category, and most people are probably going to think, "What the hecks is Americana?"

    Glad to see Silversun Pickups getting nominated for best new group, though! Good for them! They're a great band,

    December 4, 2009 at 1:10 pm | Report abuse |
  65. AC

    I think its because the Grammy's do listen to more music than most fans. Just cause Beyonce and Gaga are great and very very popular doesn't always mean they need to win over someone more obscure who maybe does have a better album in a genre we're not really exposed to. Etc.

    That being said I think it really sucks Lady Gaga can't be nominated for best new artist cause I like her a whole lot.

    December 4, 2009 at 1:00 pm | Report abuse |
  66. David, Elkton, MD.

    The American music groups are grossly out of touch! I don't care if you're talking about the Grammys or any other music service/committee, the best music in America isn't coming from these hackers.

    Don't get me wrong–Michael Jackson was one of America's best pop singers, but there is almost nobody in America today that even comes close to his talent. Even so, a fair portion of his work was at least inspired by the Europeans or Asians.

    Everyone remembers the British Invasion of pop–The Beatles, Herman's Hermits, the Who, etc...–even the UK was invaded by their own talent because of the record companies' own conservatism. You look at music today, and the best music still seems to come from the Continent, i.e. Europe.

    Pay attention to the world, you committees; pay attention to what people really want to hear, rather than trying to foist this generic noise on the populace. With the exception of the Monkees, who rarely wrote any of their own music, trying to manufacture a hit out of whole cloth is nearly impossible. Listen to what the people really want to hear and base your decisions on that; stop trying to tell us who we like.

    December 4, 2009 at 12:37 pm | Report abuse |
  67. Steven

    Hello? Award Ceremonies have never been about talent; they are all about popularity. The most talented artists usually never get nominated. The nominations and awards often go to the artists via some sort of promises and cash exchange–basically payment for nomination.

    December 4, 2009 at 12:29 pm | Report abuse |
  68. frncheska

    The Grammys are out of touch and I do not even bother to watch them anymore.

    December 4, 2009 at 12:18 pm | Report abuse |
  69. Nick Haynes

    Lady Gaga should've gotten a nod. Foolish rules that don't get applied universally. For instance, how in the world did Jimmy Sturr get nominated in the Folk Category? To me, Folk music is like that of Pete Seeger. Last I knew, Sturr's band played more of a polka/big band mix. If a polka band is going to get nominated in a Folk category, then why didn't an artist like Fritz's Polka Band get nominated? This band performed at Woodstock '99(saw them there myself) and they're sponsored by jagermeister. Speaking of best metal act, how can Jethro Tull (with all due respect) beat our Metallica? Grammys are overrated.

    December 4, 2009 at 12:12 pm | Report abuse |
  70. Tisha

    It's not just the Grammys. It's the AMAs as well. True artists who aren't just being paraded around to make cash for the record labels are being snubbed because of a cash bottom line. It's going to turn away viewers sooner or later.

    They need to stop parading around artists who have little talent outside of what comes out of their mouths (and even some who do have little talent coming out of their mouths, like Britney Spears and Taylor Swift) and actually embrace people who are more well-rounded artists.

    December 4, 2009 at 12:12 pm | Report abuse |
  71. Bob

    Music sucks today period! Listen to lyrics by Jay Z and it sounds like something a 7 year old wrote but everyone still buys his music. Watch the boy bands with their shirts off dance around the stage but none of them can sing or play an instrument. If you look good (Britney Spears) and you can lip sync your'e half way there. What ever happend to talent.

    December 4, 2009 at 12:07 pm | Report abuse |
  72. Nick

    The Grammy's aren't music awards, they are business awards. Awards are given out by the music industry to whomever made them the most money, rather than better ground-breaking artists that most of the public never gets the opportunity to hear. They've always sucked, and are completely irrelevant to what good music is, but rather hand out nominations based on singles. Why do you think Herbie Hancock won two years ago? You only need to record a half-decent album to compete with other nominees that are there based on a single crappy single.

    December 4, 2009 at 12:00 pm | Report abuse |
  73. J Evans

    I think people are confusing popularity with excellence. The Grammys are not a popularity contest (we have the Peoples Choice Awards for this). How many times have the Academy Awards brought forward talent by nominating and awarding unknown artists based on their performance, not on number of tickets sold. In fact many actors and movies have been unnoticed until they are nominated, and then they do well at the box office. I applaude Grammy's for rewarding talent, not popularity.

    December 4, 2009 at 11:50 am | Report abuse |
  74. Chuck D

    The fact that the Black Eyed Peas are nominated for Album of the Year baffles me to no end.

    December 4, 2009 at 11:44 am | Report abuse |
  75. Kath

    The Grammys mean nothing. Same with the Emmys and Oscars. These award shows do not celebrate talent, they celebrate the political views of the "artists" (and I use that word loosely). "All The Single Ladies" song of the year? Are you kidding? That is not a song – it is rhythmic repeating of words – it isn't sung at all. Beyonce is one of the most over-rated singers of all time. Sure she's talented, but 20-30 years ago, she never would have passed muster on the music scene.

    Music today is mediocre at best. There isn't one person I can think of on the rock scene who will be remembered in 2030 as a great band like the Beatles or U2. Singers today are digitally enhanced and have very little raw talent. Lady Gaga up for Grammys? Are you kidding? This woman can't sing and is nominated because she's weird – like Amy Winehouse a few years ago. Where is she now? In some gutter in London? She couldn't sing either.

    Award shows today are a waste of time. The recipients just spout off their liberal political views and make fun of traditional values and anyone who adheres to them. There was one bright spot last year when Jordin Sparks stood up to some idiot making fun of "good girls".

    I bet you can't even name the Song of the Year for the last 5 years because nothing is memorable.

    December 4, 2009 at 11:39 am | Report abuse |
  76. dennisk

    Part of the problem stems from the Grammy's overly ambitious agenda. They are honoring music in such a broad range of categories that they will never please everyone when it comes to the major awards (album, record and song of the year). It's best to view the Grammys as just a mildly interesting musical sideshow, and let the accountants determine popularity while history determines artistic merit.

    December 4, 2009 at 11:27 am | Report abuse |
  77. Mitch

    The Grammy's have become quite a joke. I listen to all types of music. I can enjoy a Top 40 song just as much as a breaking underground band. Music is supposed to be about the listeners interpretation. Back in the '80s, the older generation used to think Prince was a "hack". He (and Madonna) was what acts like Lady GaGa and so many others have modeled themselves after. Pop music with severe shock value! I loved Prince. I still do! He is an outstanding musician. But he lost his Top 40 teeth when he stopped singing about sex and moved in a more jazz infused direction. It was still excellent musicianship. It just didn't get the attention.

    With that said, posters like "Lori" do not know what they may be missing by avoiding "Grammy nominated" music. When an album drops, who really knows it will be a Grammy darling? Take the Kings of Leon. They have put out a well written, well produced rock album that speaks to millions and just happens to get a lot of Top 40 rotation. Therefore it gets a Grammy nod. That does not make it any less of an album. I bought it the second I heard "Use Somebody"...well before the accolades. It deserves the glory it should receive. Taylor Swift is nice. Her songs are nice. They have a nice sound. Kuddos! Beyonce makes songs that get people moving. They have grwat beats and she delivers them well. Neither one of them deserves a top Grammy though. Their music is not better than so many others. It just had a good market.

    December 4, 2009 at 11:25 am | Report abuse |
  78. Michael

    Hang on. The Grammys should not be about popularity with fans or records sales. That's what the People's Choice Awards and Gold and Platinum Record Awards are for. These awards should be about talent and artistry.....THAT'S why Hancock won two years ago.

    Personally, I don't get the whole Taylor Swift craze. I think her songs are trite and immature, and quite frankly, don't think her vocal talents are very strong. Her songwriting skills are good for someone her age, but that doesn't make her worthy of an Album of the Year award. Maybe a Kids Choice Award....but not a Grammy.

    I have lost faith in the Grammys over the last few years, because they do seem to bow to popularity pressures, so I am thrilled when I read that "out of the mainstream" folks win such as Hancock...or even Norah Jones' freshman CD. Once in a while the artistry level and the popularity combine to take a big prize....but not too often.

    Boo to the Grammys.

    December 4, 2009 at 11:16 am | Report abuse |
  79. tal180

    Beyonce ? What a joke – shake, shake, shake.....

    December 4, 2009 at 11:09 am | Report abuse |
  80. Bobby J

    The Grammy's will never be "fair" in my opinion... Underground music continues to be excluded by synthezsized pop music with incredibly dumb lyrics and catchy hooks and dances. The fact that "I'm On a Boat" is evenhnominated for best rap song of the year is despicable and disrespects artists eveywhere.

    December 4, 2009 at 11:04 am | Report abuse |
  81. Karen-San Antonio

    The Grammy's are ridiculous. There are so many talented people being over-looked because of sympathy and sex. Taylor Swift is not that great of a singer. I think people feel sorry for her because of what Kanye West did to her and they are throwing her a pity party now. Even though I agree with Kanye that Taylor should not have beat out Beyonce, I did not agree with what he did to Taylor. I also think that Beyonce should be a little more classy now. She is getting older and shaking her butt and selling sex is not lady like. I thought she was a Christian anyway! Oh, but christianity doesn't sell, my bad!

    December 4, 2009 at 11:03 am | Report abuse |
  82. Richard

    Cheap Trick had a good album this year.

    December 4, 2009 at 11:02 am | Report abuse |
  83. Tony

    Does this blogger even know what they're talking about?! Britney spears was popular that doesn't make her music good. That Herbie Hancock album was HANDS DOWN the best album that year, this coming from a 25 year old guy. I'm still "in touch" with what's going on in music. But come on, that's some of the best Jazz to come out in the past 30 years. Hands down it trumped all else, it was a spectacular achievement. For anyone who appreciates ALL kinds of music and not just pop, the grammys got it right. Album of the year to me is the BEST album musically to come out each year, not necessarily the most popular, and I see nothing wrong with that.

    December 4, 2009 at 10:57 am | Report abuse |
  84. Thomas

    The Grammys are awards voted by musicians. They aren't for the Most Popular, they're for the best musicianship. The Grammys are like the Oscars, it's not about the fans, its about who musicians think are the best among themselves and awarding each other this years title as best at what the award is for. If you don't care about that, don't watch it. If you want popularity awards watch the AMA's by Dick Clark.

    December 4, 2009 at 10:51 am | Report abuse |
  85. Jeff

    I think it used to be that most people listened to popular/top 40 music, but music tastes have splintered so much in the past 10 years – due to the Internet and listeners favoring iPods over the radio – that it's almost like there's no point to the Grammys anymore. Most pop music seems like it's targeted strictly to teens, and that's reflected in the nominations. I don't think the Grammys could be in touch due to the way the music industry and radio industry are set up.

    December 4, 2009 at 10:43 am | Report abuse |
  86. Therren Dunham

    critical_listener seems to be out of touch with his own music. All of the artists he/she mentioned (except the O'Jays–which is criminal in its own right) won Grammys.

    December 4, 2009 at 10:38 am | Report abuse |
  87. Beedee

    OK here my questions:

    Who put BON JOVI into the Best "POP" Performance Category?

    Something clearly wrong with that picture!!!
    Was not aware that ROCK is considered POP with the Grammys.

    As I read other comments, somehow this seems to be general problem sticking Musicians, Bands, Duos, etc. in the so obviously wrong categories.

    December 4, 2009 at 10:35 am | Report abuse |
  88. DRizz

    I was happy to hear that the Dave Matthews Band was nominated for best album. However, they are probably mortified to be in the same category as Beyonce, et al. I know DMB is not everyones favorite, but I think their music is outstanding.

    December 4, 2009 at 10:32 am | Report abuse |
  89. Bill

    I've learned over the past few years that as the quality of musicians had gown steadily down, the quantity of dancing, shaking and moving has gone up to compensate.

    December 4, 2009 at 10:25 am | Report abuse |
  90. Bruce R.

    I NEVER watch awards shows. Watching Millionaries get a pat on the back is a waste of time.

    December 4, 2009 at 10:15 am | Report abuse |
  91. Isaac

    The Grammys are my only hope as far as being the only award show all year that won't worship Taylor Swift. I'm tired of everyone adoring her just because she's some sort of "victim". Lady GaGa's the real victim...she was robbed at the AMAs...I mean seriously...she lost to Gloriana?! They're a Little Big Town ripoff band.

    Taylor Swift couldn't even stand in Michael Jackson's shadow. Hopefully the Grammys will send that message.

    December 4, 2009 at 10:12 am | Report abuse |
  92. R

    I buy what I like. I just watch the Grammys for the entertainment. I might even buy Polka Cola: Music That Refreshes because I like the title.

    December 4, 2009 at 10:07 am | Report abuse |
  93. Cibargar

    I agree with Jack (above). It's all about who is popular TODAY. I haven't bought music in years (classic rocker myself) but I did buy The End when it was first released. Other artists nominated are also good, but award shows are more of a lobby of who has the most political punch with their pocket.

    December 4, 2009 at 10:02 am | Report abuse |
  94. joeboo

    I'm completely fed up w/ the Grammy's. They are so close-minded when it comes to music. What I mean is, how can they not include the massive, world popularity of dance music?? They have what, 2 awards? There's so many genre's within dance music that having just a couple awards is laughable. I mean, they can give an "Album of the Year" award for a bluegrass album but not dance music?? They seriously need to open their minds to all types of music. And, believe me, dance music is way more popular on a global scale than bluegrass or a lot of the crap they give awards for.

    December 4, 2009 at 10:01 am | Report abuse |
  95. Jason

    Lady Gaga is nominated for an award that recognizes talent? Is there a "Most over-the-top costuming and stage show so you overlook the fact I can't sing" category that I missed? if so, look out, Gaga, here comes Adam Lambert to knock you off that chrome-plated perch.

    The Grammys used to recognize the best artists in their particular genre, now it's just celebrities patting themselves on the back and feeding the hype machine that brings us flash instead of substance. I just wish Lady Gaga hadn't been nominated last year so that she could be eligible for the "Kiss of Death"... I mean the "Best New Artist" Grammy.

    I guess the same clueless "industry experts" select the Grammys as select the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Madonna is in in the RRHOF, yet Kiss, a group that inspired millions of kids to take up an instrument and had an actual impact on what is "rock & roll" is not, despite being eligible for nearly a decade... that place is a joke as well.

    December 4, 2009 at 9:52 am | Report abuse |
  96. Steph

    The Grammy's are supposed to be about the most talent- not the most popular.

    December 4, 2009 at 9:50 am | Report abuse |
  97. William

    Any lip-syncing performer should NEVER be nominated...period.

    December 4, 2009 at 9:46 am | Report abuse |
  98. Chris

    How in the world is Mastodon not in the best metal album category? The rock category needs some serious looking at. Green Day ran its course back in the 90's. What they are putting out now is very formulated.

    December 4, 2009 at 9:46 am | Report abuse |
  99. Kim

    Why on earth do they need a big glitzy show JUST for the nominations? With so many people out of work, taking pay cuts, losing their homes, who really cares? Entertainers (including many sports players) in general and our own elected officials are out of touch. Wish I could vote myself a payraise! Or hold out for a few million dollars more a year.

    December 4, 2009 at 9:41 am | Report abuse |
  100. James

    None of this matters anyway. How many shows do celebrities need before they feel good about themselves? Are their many fans, many millions of dollars, and sycophantic assistants not enough to prop them up?

    December 4, 2009 at 9:26 am | Report abuse |
  101. dontlistentoradio

    The Grammy's are fine (other than thinking Jethro Tull is heavy metal)! They are awarded based on talent, not popularity and album sales. If you want to watch what gets regurgitated every day on the radio, then watch the AMAs!

    December 4, 2009 at 9:11 am | Report abuse |
  102. Jim

    "Joe" – I urge you to go to Ellen's website and click on "Lady Gaga performs Speechless" and then let me know if you think she can't sing. That performance alone was one of the best VOCAL performances of 2009!! Yes, she wore a crazy costume but close your eyes and listen to her voice...it's quite magical actually.

    December 4, 2009 at 9:07 am | Report abuse |
  103. Sam

    to be honest I believe that the grammys must be getting desperate. Rewarding sales rather then musical ability. Yes I know that Beyonce has the whole Diva thing going. She has talent but the nomination for that mindless song rather then one of the ones she had that actually required some sole was surprising. Other then that, Lady Gaga's mindless techo pop again...not that great. There are vetern musical acts who have put out better albums this year. They may not have sold to the rabid fanbases but make REAL music

    December 4, 2009 at 8:59 am | Report abuse |
  104. ckav

    I haven't watched the Grammy's in years. Has anyone ever actually listened to Beyonce? She's ok, but she oversings everything. Halo is filled with awful runs that make the song sound amateurish, when it really is a nice song, just overdone. Taylor Swift is nice, and she is talented, but if that's what's considered the best, I don't know anymore.

    December 4, 2009 at 8:59 am | Report abuse |
  105. Kevin

    Lady Gaga looks & sounds like a dozen other artists. How about seeking out truly "New" artists? New sound? Real talent? This planet is full of exciting artists, yet the same "look alike sound alike" artists get nominated. The awards are boring & predictable.

    December 4, 2009 at 8:52 am | Report abuse |
  106. Art

    Just rich folks giving other rich folks awards. More money is spent on the outfits than a lot of folks make in year. The whole thing is irrelevant.

    December 4, 2009 at 8:47 am | Report abuse |
  107. Randy

    Are the Grammys about what's "popular" or about what's "best?" There is a huge difference there that the majority of the masses have never and will never recognize. Popular is money. Best is quality. If the Grammys were not televised, quality just may enter the picture more often. Lady Gaga may be interesting, she may make money, she might even have a nice rear end... but is she really one of the BEST singing voices around right now? I don't really listen to country music but I have had respect for it... that is until recently when the country music INDUSTRY told me that Taylor Swift was the best thing it had to offer. Where are the Marvin Gayes and the Janis Joplins and the Aretha Franklins?? i.e.: the continuing story of the dumbing down of American pop culture!

    December 4, 2009 at 8:23 am | Report abuse |
  108. SMJ

    I am so glad to read that there are others out there who realize that Taylor Swift has NO talent! Her career has been funded by her father and the bubble-blowing teeny-boppers for the past few years. She CANNOT sing, people. Have you heard her live? Her first song on the AMA's almost made my ears bleed!! And she wins Entertainer of the Year over Chesney, Paisley, Strait and Urban? And she wins Female Vocalist over CARRIE UNDERWOOD, Reba, Martina, and Miranda? They are all popularity contests, my friends. Ms. Swift doesn't deserve ANYTHING she has "won" other than the accurate statement from Mr. West!!

    December 4, 2009 at 8:22 am | Report abuse |
  109. Sean MacNair

    Can the Metallica fans just give it a rest already? It's been 21 years. The award that year was Best Hard Rock/Metal performance. It wasn't just metal. Jethro Tull had every right to win the award. Enough already.

    December 4, 2009 at 7:47 am | Report abuse |
  110. Gary

    I don't understand all the accolades for Taylor Swift who, in my opinion, is merely an Autotuned karaoke singer. And I'm sorry, but I just can't put Beyonce in the same class of singer such as Aretha Franklin, Patti LaBelle, or Whitney Houston–yes, Beyonce looks good in a dress but her vocal talent is highly questionable. I'll give Lady Gaga this much, she doesn't take herself too seriously, and at least she writes her own material.

    The Grammys today are what they are–a popularity contest, but one that's decided by voters who are out of touch.

    December 4, 2009 at 7:40 am | Report abuse |
  111. Maimo

    The Grammys do not reflect true talent. Beyonce is a singer who spurns out the same rhythm year in year out. are there no more talents out there? i think it is ridiculous for her to be nominated 10 times! i mourn the days of Michael Jackson, whitney Houston,etc, this generation of artists sucks!

    December 4, 2009 at 7:08 am | Report abuse |
  112. Mitchell

    wait a second, you're saying herbie hancock, one of miles davis' backup musicians and one of the best jazz musicians ever shouldn't have won, and lady gaga should?

    what is wrong with whoever wrote this..

    December 4, 2009 at 7:03 am | Report abuse |
  113. Monica

    The grammys, the music industry, and hollywood in general is out of touch. It promotes and broadcast so much garbage that I have to listen to classic music from the 60s to the early 90s. Beyonce is overrated. All she does is shakes her booty, appears almost naked on stage everytime, weaves a mess, and hollers when singing. She is not the only one (many more) but hey shes "eye candy" and sex sells. Taylor Swift also overrated. And the list of entertainers (not singers nor artists) can go on and on. Any time a rapper can win a grammy from rapping about smoking weed and screwing and degrading women as sex objects rather than human beings, there is defintely a problem with our society.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:33 am | Report abuse |
  114. Kimmy

    Thank you Grammys for nominating a exceptional new class act like John Legend, I am a selective viewer that prefers vidoes, movies out,live theater and concert performances but rarely regular TV. Thus I continue to vote and support the enertainment industry with my personal economics – my way.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:19 am | Report abuse |
  115. evil diva 1973

    I loved it when Tobey Keith, Tanya Tucker and all the "Outlaws of Country Music" came out against the grammys....Why bother watching we already know the outcome

    December 4, 2009 at 6:11 am | Report abuse |
  116. sue

    The Grammys Beyonce 10 nominations for what she cannot sing or act. There are so many other talented singers that are overlooked. The definition of singing is Gladys Knight, Franklin, Whitney, Anita Baker, Faith Hill, Kelly Clarkson . Mary J., etc.

    December 4, 2009 at 5:25 am | Report abuse |
  117. J Campbell

    Lady GaGa has to wear outlandish costumes to get any attention. In my opinion she is very over rated. Wait until next year. The real talent will be found in one like Adam Lambert.

    December 4, 2009 at 5:25 am | Report abuse |
  118. Michelle

    The fact that the Blackeyed Peas and Kanye West were nominated at all shows that the Grammys are not about talent at all. I am not completely sure why exactly they consider Beyonce's contributions to music award-worthy, but frankly, I think it's tiresome. By nominating Kanye West, they're just inviting drama. He should have to accept his awards from home if he's lucky to get any. There is some hope: Kings of Leon, Green Day and Prince were nominated. Let's hope talent wins out over the annoying retread of sub-par AutoTune rap and repetitive R & B.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:54 am | Report abuse |
  119. Noella

    Well, I am like a few others who have commented here that they no longer watch the Grammy Awards. It ceased to be "worth" anything many years ago. Now, it is just a 'popularity contest' .. rather like the reality shows whereby the viewing audience vote decides who will 'win'. In the case of the Grammy Awards, it's the big business record companies and their monies deciding the 'wins'. No talent involved here anymore!

    December 4, 2009 at 4:48 am | Report abuse |
  120. Ffej

    I NEVER watch these types of shows. Why should anyone give a hoot in holler what the industry thinks of itself? Same thing with the Oscars. Oh, gee- look how wonderful we singers/actors are...aren't we great? Don't you love us?

    Having said that, WHERE'S RUSH? (The band, not the blowhard). True musical talent is always outvoted by the shamelessly self-promoting industry insiders.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:14 am | Report abuse |
  121. Don

    I love the "informed" people writing here ranting about the lack of nominations for Michael Jackson, when his album wasn't released in time for consideration. It's a rule, get over it. Same with Lady Gaga not being a "new artist" when she was nominated last year. It's the rules, folks. But the Grammys lost it when it started over-nominating rap. Rap should be like the spoken word categories. They are not music.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:04 am | Report abuse |
  122. kevin

    you have it all wrong. you're arguing that popularity outweighs talent. herbie hancock? talent. alison krauss and robert plant? talent. taylor swift? zero talent!

    December 4, 2009 at 2:56 am | Report abuse |
  123. Rock Steady

    LADY GAGA IS AWESOME! Finally we have something different and brilliant at the same time. She does have pipes and talent. I am excited to see what she will record next.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:56 am | Report abuse |
  124. Don Lehn

    1980.. Kim Carnes Bette Davis Eyes beats John Lennon's Starting OVer..the year before Christoher Cross for album beats out Pink Flpyd's The Wall....the Beatles only won a handful– the Who- none– the Rolling Stones– one.
    Nuff Said....and Bob Dylan recognized AFTER the rock catagory came in –1979.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:21 am | Report abuse |
  125. Neil

    The Grammys are for Pop stars, and for fans of pop. They are absolutely NOT an indication of who the best musicians are, as most of the best musicians playing today are almost completely unknown, and are in the industry not to sell millions of records, but to make an artistic statement. The Grammys are more or less a recognition of huge album sales, kind of a "Congratulations on getting rich, now be careful with your career". These awards haven't been taken seriously by real musicians in a long, long time. Wanna hear some real music? Turn off the TV and the radio, and find it. Pop music sucks, and always has.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:14 am | Report abuse |
  126. Josh

    I don't think so. There are a few problems they have, like grouping certain artists into an incorrect category, and various other tiny nuances. However, I think they are right on the money by not including what is "popular", especially because most music that is popular is just over-produced, studio-manufactured crap. Perfect example: Lady Gaga. I cannot stand that. it's not music, it's just poppy crap.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:12 am | Report abuse |
  127. Jasmine

    This year I thought it was going to be about:

    Alicia Keys
    Keri Hilson
    Chrisette Michele
    Jazmine Sullivan
    Daughtry
    Carrie Underwood
    Kelly Clarkson

    Just to name a few of course there are many more.

    Does anyone agree?

    December 4, 2009 at 2:08 am | Report abuse |
  128. keithmoore1

    At least the Oscars lean towards–arguably–quality films, regardless of their profits. If the Grammys were handing Oscars they'd be voting Transformers 2 as best picture and Megan Fox as best actress. Not much credibility there in the mainstream categories.

    I'm happy that Imogen Heap was at least nominated for a couple. She offers the complete package, a pretty face who consistently puts out cutting edge music.

    December 4, 2009 at 1:52 am | Report abuse |
  129. mlminnyc

    The Grammy organization is first and foremost interested in selling a CD of the winners that appeals the most to the general public. Just imagine how much money they stand to make with the nominee concert on TV. Recognizing and awarding true talent is secondary to them. We have all seen through the years that the best of the best rarely gets nominated let alone win a Grammy award. The Grammy organization is not really that interested in the talent, just the popularity of the performer. Hey, Grammys: YOU ARE WAY OUT OF TOUCH!

    December 4, 2009 at 1:29 am | Report abuse |
  130. Dean Berry Kuschell

    Award shows have become boring. I do not need anyone to tell me that it's a great album or must see motion picture. I mean should we have an award show for the best fruit? Or maybe best pair or shoes.
    It's really all subjective. They're are many more talented musicians who will never win awards, and too many Top 40 teenie boppers who walk home with a Grammy who are nothing more than flavor of the month. It's all politics. In closing let me just say that if Sarah Palin can get platinum sales for her book...it makes then, perfect sense why
    so many talentless boobs have Grammys gathering dust at home while they wait for MTV to call them for their next pathetic reality show.
    America's pop culture is as shallow as the minds who eat it up.

    December 4, 2009 at 1:23 am | Report abuse |
  131. AiQuoc

    Let me just say something about Beyonce. I am one of her biggest fans and I must say I was SHOCKED to find out that she got 10 Grammy nods. But to say that she is 'overrated' or 'talentless' is just cruel. Beyonce is one of the most hardest working woman in the business which is WHY she's still on TOP. Yes, Single Ladies is getting outplayed but the fact that it's still around shows how much impact not only the song had on the world, but the VIDEO! Beyonce has been asked to sing at such prestigious events as the Kennedy Honors for both Tina Turner AND Barbara Streisand. And then she is also invited to sing for President Obama and Michelle Obama during their first dance. Not to mention that she can shake her Booty and Belt LIVE like Nobody Else! While I almost feel as though she probably will only win ONE award out of the 10, I am so happy for Beyonce for the fact that she is being recognized for her hard work and not for a teeny bopper fan base who knows nothing about TRUE artistry and talent.

    December 4, 2009 at 1:22 am | Report abuse |
  132. Aaron

    The 2000's have been like the 80's. Crap. Good music ended with Pearl Jam in the 90's. At least we have bands like Pearl Jam, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers still around releasing good stuff. The Grammys have definitely lost all legitimacy this year. Example, Lady CrapCrap and Taylor Swift release an album in the same year as Bruce Springsteen and they good the nod for "Album of the Year" and he isn't even mentioned?? Credibility didn't just walk out of the door, it sprinted out. Go listen to "You Belong to Me" and then listen to "Outlaw Pete" and you tell me which song is better, not catchier. Or maybe the Grammys are now about what is catchiest. Meh, what do I know??

    December 4, 2009 at 12:50 am | Report abuse |
  133. Brandon

    What I'd like to know, is how Katy Perry and Taylor Swift got nominated for "Best Female Pop Vocal Performance", but artists like Kelly Clarkson (who did at least get nominated for best Pop Vocal Album), who can actually sing, get shut out? Doesn't make any sense. This isn't supposed to be a popularity contest, that's what the AMA's are for.

    December 3, 2009 at 11:54 pm | Report abuse |
  134. annabel

    This year they got it wrong by giving so many nominations to beyonce. She is boring, a snob and a waste of everyones time. She should have moved on long ago.

    They got it right by finally recognizing the Black Eyed Peas! This latest album is fantastic and I am rooting for them in every way!

    Can't wait to see them perform next month on the show!!!

    December 3, 2009 at 11:33 pm | Report abuse |
  135. SDTim

    I agree with Phyl - can't belive Kelly Clarkson wasn't nominated for best female vocalist! Taylor Swift is a talented songwriter, but she's not a great vocalist. Sigh... the Grammys always seem to be more about sales than actual talent.

    December 3, 2009 at 11:31 pm | Report abuse |
  136. Tom Joyce

    The problem with picking "good" music as opposed to commercially successful music is that commercially successful music is considered good by a lot of people and is therefore easy to measure because it has lots of sales, but "good" music is subjective as is evidenced by all the divergent opinions posted here.

    December 3, 2009 at 11:20 pm | Report abuse |
  137. Volcano Hawaii

    Out of touch? The Grammys? DEFINITELY! At least when it comes to Hawaiian music. a small niche, I know, but Tia Carrerre has NO music fans here and won last year. It seems that all voters know about Hawaii is slack key music which has won too. Vocals by very respected traditional Hawaiian music singers are ignored. Voters are ignorant (through no fault of their own), but shouldn't be voting for things they don't understand. Get educated, learn about the nominees, understand why they sing what they sing, THEN vote.

    December 3, 2009 at 11:19 pm | Report abuse |
  138. Mike

    Jay-Z should win for Death of Auto-Tune... and auto-tune should be banned from music production for at least the next century.

    December 3, 2009 at 11:13 pm | Report abuse |
  139. lynn

    I appreciate Talent but there are much too many so call singers today who only get by beacuse of electronic style music that changes their voice. When it comes time to do a live show they cannot perform and they lip sync beacuse they truly cannot sing. Many of them rely on backup singers to help them out and then you do not know if it's thier voice on stage.
    Now Susan Boyle can sing, that is talent not electronics changing or enhancing her voice.

    December 3, 2009 at 11:08 pm | Report abuse |
  140. gimmepink

    I gave up on the Grammys when Christopher Cross beat Pink Floyd The Wall for Album of the Year in 1980. Haven't paid attention since.

    December 3, 2009 at 11:04 pm | Report abuse |
  141. JXG

    LBW, you are so correct! I've been watching the Grammy awards for years, and seems that the same old artists are over-nominated every year! Now don't get me wrong, Beyonce is a can be a great entertainer at times, but where is the substance in her music? Also, It seems that our society is completely blind to everything her "alter ego" (Sasha Fierce) represents. She dances around on stage in leotards with her legs wide open, shaking her butt and bending over, and people still think she's this sweet and innocent woman. What's more startling is the fact that she believes she's empowering women!

    Last year, Mary J. Blige's "Growing Pains" was only nominated for two awards - she won for Best Contemporary R&B Album. The album is absolutely wonderful, and definitely deserved more than two nominations. Unlike beyonce's album, Mary's is filled with a truly inspirational message to women. With her poignant life story and passion for empowering women through her music and organization, it's hard for me to believe that the Grammys have just recently started to reward her work with accolades. She's been doing this for nearly twenty years!

    Gaga is an absolute treat - she's witty, creative, and performs more and more like Freddy Mercury with each performance. She most certainly deserves the nomination and award for best New Artist! And although she is scantily clad, at least she accepts being a "freak."

    December 3, 2009 at 10:57 pm | Report abuse |
  142. LittleMo

    Nothing against Nora Jones but when her debut album beat out Bruce Springsteens "The Rising" right after 09/11 that told me there were even more screws loose in tinsel town than I thought there were.

    December 3, 2009 at 10:56 pm | Report abuse |
  143. Dessi

    If shaking your junk trunk, prancing around as a hot hooker, using foul language and singing stupid ditties off key are where it's at, then the Grammy Awards nailed it. Artists are being rewarded for vulgarity and yes, payback for suffering embarassment... hush! Whatever happened to ethics, decency and talent. Guess those things are irrelevant at the Grammys. Just turn the show off. As far as American idols, well one person can vote a thousand times and create a star overnight. For that matter, it's all "mostly" crap, the tv, movies and Internet, all stealing time from real life.

    December 3, 2009 at 10:44 pm | Report abuse |
  144. Don

    The moment the Grammy's excluded the Polka category I knew they were nothing but a joke. If polkas do not qualify as recorded sound then what does?

    December 3, 2009 at 10:34 pm | Report abuse |
  145. Thorne

    Oh I forgot... AND... The Black Eyed Peas were nominated... seriously? The Black Eyed Peas? How many times can we hear the same song. Well, let's ask Beyonce...

    New Artist, I agree, Silversun Pickups are NOT new artists. Neither was Imogene Heap when she was nominated in 2008 or 2007? I don't remember which.

    December 3, 2009 at 10:18 pm | Report abuse |
  146. reece

    If outlandish and shock is criteria for a Grammy, then yes, it goes to Lady GaGa, but I struggle that throwing a chair through a glass window and breaking vodka bottles on a piano is creative and talented. Certainly, Taylor Swift is young and cute, but she is also very talented and appeals to all ages. People do not support her just because of the incident with Kanye West. I do agree that we have heard enough about that, however. To those of you who think that Taylor and Beyounce do not deserve these nominations, they are laughing all the way to the bank as you criticize them thinking.

    December 3, 2009 at 9:55 pm | Report abuse |
  147. Pennie

    After "It's Hard Out Here for Pimp" by Three 6 Mafia won best song at tha grammys, I gave up !

    December 3, 2009 at 9:54 pm | Report abuse |
  148. MarkF

    I agree with critical listener and b.

    I too think that Taylor Swift is sweet and nice, but come on! As far as comparing her and Beyonce', again, come on! Probably, at least 7 out of 10 people can at least name a Beyonce' hook. Perhaps 2 out of 10 people at best could come up with two words out of a Taylor Swift song. Kanye boosted her career like no other amount of publicity could possibly have done. Of course the Grammys became less about talent and content at least a decade ago. And I am still, for one, trying to figure out how some artists appear in so many categories together. At most, Beyonce', Lady GaGa, Black-eyed Peas and Taylor Swift should only be in two, three at tops, categories together .

    December 3, 2009 at 9:40 pm | Report abuse |
  149. WandaJ

    I've been out of touch with the music scene for the past 20-25 years so I sometimes watch the music shows out of curiosity. I will watch the Emmys and the Oscars because I still watch TV and still go to the movies.

    December 3, 2009 at 9:37 pm | Report abuse |
  150. Tracey

    I totally agree with Sam regarding Whitney Houston, she was completely SNUBBED!!!! How dare they snub "The Queen of Pop"
    especially since she can still outsing Beyonce and Taylor who in my
    opinion, have zero talent when it comes to real singing.

    December 3, 2009 at 9:09 pm | Report abuse |
  151. Lucy

    I hate to say this but..Beyonce's vocals on "halo" are awful. I know I can't sing half as bad as she does but..Grammy's should be based on perfomance not popularity. Kelly Clarkson's vocals are much better than Beyonce's.

    December 3, 2009 at 9:01 pm | Report abuse |
  152. Tulioafracaluche

    The Grammys have become kind of ridiculous and out-dated. There are now millions of musicians and vocalists with just as many styles and music categories. How in the world can anyone attempt to classify these as "#1" or best. The Grammys are out of touch and out of date.

    December 3, 2009 at 8:59 pm | Report abuse |
  153. Sam

    The Grammy's are, and forever will be, a joke. All of their categories need a big, fat asterisk. Album of the Year *by an artist with enough commercial backing to have their music beaten into people's heads. Thanks for dumbing down music. The Simpsons has always had the right attitude concerning the award.

    December 3, 2009 at 8:52 pm | Report abuse |
  154. mjh

    dont care. go away. taylor swift is overrated, beyonce horrible, and michael is dead, stop giving and nominating him for awards.

    December 3, 2009 at 8:19 pm | Report abuse |
  155. margaret

    please , please give the award to people with real singing
    talent, not for people who act like freaks (Lady GaGa). People that sing
    with their heart and soul. Where are those people. The Grammy
    should not be a popularity contest. Christina Aguilera was not nominated when she sang a tribute to James Brown, but that was the
    best performance I have ever seen on TV, she sang with her heart
    and soul.

    December 3, 2009 at 8:16 pm | Report abuse |
  156. Jimmy

    All these comments are hypocritical. It is sad. The Grammys are just the opinion of 12000 voters. How many millions were left out of the voting process? Those 12000 voters have their personal favorite tastes and vote for them (we buy them instead) just like the rest of the people in the world.

    People like to point out how does Lady Gaga get nominations over Van Morrison or whatever. Are you kidding me? First of all, how can you compare the two performers? They are totally different. 2nd of all there is a level of talent in putting together Lady Gaga just as much as putting together the Van Morrison Songs.

    To the people who say Beyonce just does the same thing over and over again, you are all hypocritical too. If she put out a rock album would that be better for you? LoL

    My favorite musician is Prince and he had a great album this past year and it had huge variety and showed great musicianship. However, I am not going to say he should be in the best album category over those that got nominated.

    Its certainly not going to make me boycott the grammys because of it. I love watching people celebrate music. I'm sure most of the musicians are in my boat and not yours.

    December 3, 2009 at 8:10 pm | Report abuse |
  157. Brian L Hughes

    The grammys, each and everyone awarded, is voted upon by the musicians themselves. They vote for each other. It is a closed circle, you cannot just buy your way in.

    December 3, 2009 at 8:07 pm | Report abuse |
  158. Kiki

    Taylor Swift again? give me a break!!! is the whole nation at Kindergarden's level? Can't believe it!

    December 3, 2009 at 8:00 pm | Report abuse |
  159. scissorpie

    The Grammy Awards are voted on by musicians. Of course they're out of touch.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:58 pm | Report abuse |
  160. Bubba from Denver

    One – do any of you have spell check?
    Two – Real music died years ago.
    Three -Today's stuff is pretty much noise with garbage that passes for lyrics.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:49 pm | Report abuse |
  161. Doug

    I stopped watching the Grammy's the year Metallica got robbed by Jethro Tull. Don't get me started on Milli Vanilli!

    December 3, 2009 at 7:35 pm | Report abuse |
  162. Jack

    What about Whitney???? Not one nod!

    December 3, 2009 at 7:33 pm | Report abuse |
  163. Lounge Lizard

    The Grammys are irrelevant. The only music that matters is the stuff playing on my (your) iPod.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:30 pm | Report abuse |
  164. Lauren

    They could at least fix the system so that perhaps songs from an album would only be eligible in one year as opposed to several. Lady Gaga was nominated for a song last year, rendering her ineligible for Best New Artist this year (not that I'm saying she should have won that). Robert Plant and Allison Krauss won for songs off the same album two years in a row if I recall correctly. Perhaps an album's/artist's eligibility should be for the calendar year in which the album was released. I'm sure there's some good reason why that wouldn't work, but for now at least it sounds good.
    I was surprised that U2 weren't up for Best Album, although they surely would have won because the Grammy voters do vote for artists like them (and Bruce Springsteen, etc.) over anyone else by virtue of who they are I feel like.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:24 pm | Report abuse |
  165. Lori

    I've worked in the music industry for over 30 years and can no longer bring myself to watch the Grammy's. They are a farce and those choosing the nominations, dinosaurs with no ears.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:13 pm | Report abuse |
  166. carrie

    how much bootie shaking and crotch grabbing can one person take? that is not talent, anyone with a butt and hands can do the same thing. the winners should be chosen because they excel at their craft above the rest, not because of personality and politics. i am moved by watching someone sing from the deepest part of their core because the song has meaning for them, something life changing, motivating, challenging, making a difference. Yes, there is that music that is just fun to listen to, but can we have it performed by women with clothes on for a change? Every audience and person watching TV isn't a fan of hip hop and all that girating but it seems that those are who the producers are aiming to please.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:11 pm | Report abuse |
  167. Chris

    Kelly Clarkson is a great singer...but Carrie Underwood leaves her and every other artist of any genre in the dust by far.

    Taylor Swift can't even sing. Ever hear her live? Absolutely awful. William Hung blows her away!

    December 3, 2009 at 7:10 pm | Report abuse |
  168. dave

    I think it's the first time they've gotten it right in 10 or more years.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:08 pm | Report abuse |
  169. Chris

    If they missed the deadline, they MISSED THE DEADLINE. No reason to change the rules just bc Michael Jackson was insanely famous. He'll get it next year.

    The only people out of touch are the ones who want rules "changed" bc they don't approve of a decision.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:04 pm | Report abuse |
  170. Dave

    I really don't think we out to confuse what is "popular" with what is "good." I think we have the MTV Awards and a bunch of other self-congratulatory, less revered opportunities for that. The Grammies may be out of touch, but I'll never want to put it into the hands of "fans" who are merely victims of marketing and record label manipulation of 99% of the airwaves out there to decide what is worth of a Grammy.

    December 3, 2009 at 7:03 pm | Report abuse |
  171. RemiG

    All Awards shows are jokes. It's a popularity contest based on a lot of behind the scenes crap. Like the AMA's, ever wonder why most artists nominated on the AMA's are previous American Idol contestants and/or Clive Davis managed artists? Hmmmm, ask Ryan Seacrest and Clive Davis who just happened to be at the awards show... Hmmm...

    The Grammy's carry more clout, but they are nortorious for awarding "has been" legends over new artists, even if their album sucks, if your name is Garfunkel or McCartney or Springsteen then you are more likely to win a Grammy over some rapper or rock artist. The Grammy's worship old "has been" legends. Grammy voters are also old "has beens" who have to be told who Lady Gaga is, or who Maxwell is, or who Green Day is. Most of them vote for someone just because someone else told them who to vote for. It's all a popularity "who knows who" BS contest. So why watch the Grammys? Because the show is always class and elegance when it comes to performances, you watch for the live performances, you watch to see how artists raise their game and remix their art just for the Grammy audience... Who cares who wins, I just want to see the live performances..Enjoy the show...
    (BTW: Leave Herbie Hancock alone, that Join Mitchell album he did is genius, certainly not an album any average listener could begin to comprehend... pure jazz genuis ).

    December 3, 2009 at 6:54 pm | Report abuse |
  172. david kerr

    But, it is after all, about the "BEST" not the most popular.

    December 3, 2009 at 6:43 pm | Report abuse |
  173. Melissa

    These awards shows have been a joke for a long time. The people that deserve it never get it.

    December 3, 2009 at 6:43 pm | Report abuse |
  174. Lady GeeGee

    If people care more about who's "popular", then the Grammy's isn't for them. It's not about being "in touch".
    The Grammy's is an INDUSTRY award.
    It's not The People's Choice or the American Music Awards or the Nickelodeon Kid's Choice Awards.
    Me? I don't care if the "audience" likes Lady Gaga. The "audience" likes who's cute, who they're dating (or not), what they're wearing (or not).
    The 'audience' doesn't even really care if someone can sing. Most kids today are so used to listening to people who are modulated in production, that if they actually heard some of these people sing without "help" they'd....well...they probably wouldn't care if they were on key or not. Pitch isn't really important if you look "fierce".
    So stop with the "Are the Grammy's out of touch" silliness.
    It's an INDUSTRY award, not who the audience likes because the audience is all about American Idol style pop vapidity and shallowness.

    December 3, 2009 at 6:37 pm | Report abuse |
  175. Steven in L.A.

    Can we possibly come up with more categories to satisfy all the demographics? How about "Best Contemporay Country Rap by a New Arist out of rehap for LESS than a year?" When you have an organization where you can get nominated 10 times for a total of LESS than 10 songs – something's goofy.

    December 3, 2009 at 6:34 pm | Report abuse |
  176. Denise

    I believe for the most part the Grammys get it right. Singers with talent are rewarded – not who has the best cleavage or who has the best backside. I have practically given up on what passes for popular music these days. How is this for an awards show: give a microphone to each singer and, one by one, have them sing an a capella song of their choice. The best way these days to determine talent is listening to performances of the Star Spangled Banner before a game. How many of today's most popular singers have never performed before a ballgame? They don't have the pipes!

    December 3, 2009 at 6:32 pm | Report abuse |
  177. RJwhite

    Please...Lady Gag Me is a much better title...she needs the shock factor to hide the lack of talent

    December 3, 2009 at 6:30 pm | Report abuse |
  178. Jackie in Dallas

    The Grammies have tried to retain their relevance, but have failed. In this day and age of instant hits, and just as fast disappearances of "artists" it seems irrelevant. Do I care about Taylor Swift? Nope. I was sorry that Kanye spoiled her moment, but I didn't go buy her music. It doesn't appeal to me. (For that matter, neither does Lady GaGa, Kanye, any rapper, or Michael Jackson anymore.)

    I'm sick of Britney, Stephani, and most of the other so-called pop stars. I'm tired to death of music without harmony or a lyrical line, drums that drown out the regrettably vulgar lyrics, and music played too loud. I don't care how many iPod playlists a song gets downloaded to. So I haven't watched any of these shows for years. I do watch to see the so-called celebrities walk (or stumble) the red carpet so I know how NOT to dress. Other than that, I couldn't care less.

    December 3, 2009 at 6:30 pm | Report abuse |
  179. steve

    All moot to me.. been so long since I heard anyone on ANY of the music shows who I gave a damn about one way or the other that they are all one noise in my ears.. and the shows themselves are unwatchable.

    December 3, 2009 at 6:19 pm | Report abuse |
  180. S

    I gave up on the Grammy Awards when Metallica lost out to Jethro Tull for the Metal award. Garbage – there are a lot of talented people not even considered. Most are overrated kids whose fans are kids.

    December 3, 2009 at 6:19 pm | Report abuse |
  181. Nate

    Agree with most, NARAS is supposed to award the best in music not the best sellers. That's what the AMA's are for. I haven't watched it in years and once again don't plan to start now. This from someone who produces music.

    December 3, 2009 at 6:09 pm | Report abuse |
  182. Clinton

    Hmm. No relative unknowns in any of the top categories. It's hard to believe that there is not a single local/regional band or artist anywhere in the country that didn't have a great song all year. Always makes me wonder whether it's about "best" or just "best known."

    December 3, 2009 at 6:08 pm | Report abuse |
  183. James

    The grammys have had many just terrible calls over the years. Norah Jones beating Springsteen (The Rising) a few years back for album of the year comes to mind, as well as Tull winning for best Metal album. Something should change, but it never will. It's all so subjective.

    December 3, 2009 at 6:08 pm | Report abuse |
  184. side3

    Two of the Best New Artist winners in the past decade were anything but new. Maroon 5 had previously released music on a major label (minus one member) as Kara’s Flowers, and Shelby Lynne had multiple albums out before her breakthrough. I am no Lady Gaga fan, but she seems to be a newer face than either of those artists were.

    December 3, 2009 at 6:06 pm | Report abuse |
  185. J.Crobuzon

    I like Tull better than Metallica myself, and Steely Dan better than Eminem, and Herbie Hancock better than some rap guy named after bug spray or cough medicine. You kids today with your "goth emo indie" music just don't get it.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:59 pm | Report abuse |
  186. Miss Mo

    I haven't watched the Grammy's in years. And multiple Beyonce nominations again this year?? Why?? I'm tired of Beyonce already...why her silly catchy tunes get any attention is beyond me. She's okay, but not worth all the hype

    December 3, 2009 at 5:57 pm | Report abuse |
  187. MarkG

    I think Kanye put Swift on the map after the MTV flap, otherwise she would be back behind the counter at the Dairy Queen by now....Where is the talent here?

    December 3, 2009 at 5:57 pm | Report abuse |
  188. Craig

    The Who, Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix never won a Grammy. 'Nuff said.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:54 pm | Report abuse |
  189. FactCheck

    The only thing you really need to know about the Grammy Awards:

    The Beatles have won as many awards as Coldplay and Christopher Cross.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:54 pm | Report abuse |
  190. Jodi

    I can't remember the last time I cared what happened on the Grammys. I discover music I like on my own. The "choices" on radio and mainstream outlets are manufactured schlock. I wouldn't give any of those "artists" a dime of my money or a second of my time. Singers who lip sync to songs they never even wrote and whose lives are constant tabloid fodder have no depth or talent.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:53 pm | Report abuse |
  191. Indifferent

    These awards shows are not about MUSIC, they are about POPULARITY. There was a time when it meant your music made a contribution towards the positive evolution of the art form. But these days, artistic and technical merit take a backseat to over-the-top flamboyance and shock value. Only once in a blue moon does an artist's talent and originality make them an undeniable candidate for nomination. GaGa can't sing, so she relies on visual spectacle and ProTools. Beyonce yammers on with mindless, vapid lyrics. Swift's voice is reed thin and whiny. It's all empty-calorie garbage with zero musical content.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:52 pm | Report abuse |
  192. DJay

    this is not a popularity contest for who was the most popular in the last year. this award is to recognize artists who put out good quality albums as a whole, not for who sells the most copies of thier work. it just seems that the grammy commitee has sold out to what the masses want so they can put on a big concert and get the ratings for when it is time to air the show. i listen to some of those nominated this year but are these really the best choices for all the thousands of albums released within the year? So, yes they got it wrong as they always do. What's wrong with giving credit to those artists who do oustanding work even if they may not be known by the entire public?

    December 3, 2009 at 5:51 pm | Report abuse |
  193. Sara

    I have long-standing issues with the Grammy's Best New Artist category. According to their definition, a new artist is someone who releases, during the eligibility year, their first recording which establishes the public identity of the artist. So how could Alanis Morissette be nominated when she previously had a successful recording career (albeit in Canada, but still...it's the Grammy's not the AMAs)? And how could Richard Marx be disqualified from his nomination because he recorded a B-movie soundtrack that no one had ever heard of? And how can Lauryn Hill and Jody Watley be nominated (and win) when they were both previously lead singers for widely-known bands?

    December 3, 2009 at 5:51 pm | Report abuse |
  194. shondam

    Nick is absolutely right. The other awards (VH1, BET, etc.) are popularity contests. The Grammys are about quality. It wouldn't matter if Herbie Hancock's album only sold to 10 people – it was judged on the quality.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:50 pm | Report abuse |
  195. Lola

    The Grammy's are like the Emmy's, most of those who win are not the most popular with the masses of music lovers out there who buy their albums, or those faithful, larger, TV viewing audiences. They are selected by their peers and that makes most of the winners this, "It's not what you do that pleases the masses most, but who you know best in your field or vocation that will vote for you." I haven't seen many win that I agreed with. The odd thing is though, sometimes the one's I liked best often will win years later, after they have become 'out' and 'so-over.' By then I have moved on to the more popular, newer and more original recording artist and TV shows. I prefer the latest fashions...Emmy and Grammy voters perfer a comfortable old robe.

    Go figure!

    December 3, 2009 at 5:47 pm | Report abuse |
  196. FactCheck

    Really, the Grammies are about as relevant as Huey Lewis. So the industry wants to pat themselves on the back in between doing huge stashes of blow and kicking money under the table for radio pay-for-play... why should the rest of us even care? The industry killed itself decades ago when they started promoting singles-based faux "performers" like JoJo, Britney Spears and the boy bands. I am quite content listening to the new releases by Passion Pit, Phoenix, Maxwell and Neko Case.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:46 pm | Report abuse |
  197. Jessica

    BORING!!! The grammys are an absolute waste of time... and Angie is so right, popular music does not mean good music. I mean really... Lady Gaga.. she is a pig.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:45 pm | Report abuse |
  198. sotxbudd

    I am stunned by these nominations. One name that was left out that should have never been was...Van Morrison. This is talent that should have been at least given a nod. Are you kidding with this lady gaga? I am so disappointed by it all. This will be one award show that I will be glad to miss.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:44 pm | Report abuse |
  199. Faatimah

    The true measure of this topic should be weighed by lowering their ratings. Don't watch it. Start a campaign to boycott watching this crap and crap like it by watching something else. Vote for everyone to watch whatever else is on and ban the grammy's from YOUR television. I agree, it's all about popularity. Beyonce is seriously overrated, monotonous and predicatable with her work but it's not her fault she keeps winning. I guess money talks. Maybe their buying their way in to those votes. Who know's? P.S. I love lady Gaga. She's something new, creative and a talented artist. No Britney lip-synching going on there. Beyonce needs to reinvent herself! Taylor Swift is good but I think getting involved in the personal stuff with Kayne West and supporting her based on that instead of the quality of her music is biased. Those crappy shows know what their doing. And we know who the winner is....boring!

    December 3, 2009 at 5:42 pm | Report abuse |
  200. Jack

    Simply because musical taste is subjective, the Grammys can never be a yardstick for the BEST music. Simply because the music industry needs them as a form of self-promotion, they will ALWAYS be about commercial success and current popularity.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:37 pm | Report abuse |
  201. Laura

    The Grammies are definitely not making the best choices from a musical standpoint. Beyonce's Single Ladies is just a gimmicky song, not best song of the year by any stretch of the imagination. Hero is better.
    Taylor Swift songs are fun and flirty but not the best songs out there on the radio. What about bands like 3 Doors Down and Fallout Boy who had very good albums. Pink and Kelly Clarkson had several very good songs. At least Lady Gaga can sing.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:36 pm | Report abuse |
  202. Jon

    @ Charles – 100% agree. That's when it was clear it was an ol' boys club.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:36 pm | Report abuse |
  203. Joe

    What Herbie Hancock forgot about music most of today's artists will never know. Whoever chooses the winners SHOULD vote with their ears and not their eyes. Lady Gaga? Please.....

    December 3, 2009 at 5:35 pm | Report abuse |
  204. David Rhind

    The purported intent of the Grammys is to recognize and celebrate musical quality based on artistic merit. It is not supposed to be a broad popularity contest – we have plenty of MTV and People's Choice awards for that. I am not at all defending the Grammys' abysmal track record of recognizing the most deserving musical talent. The fact is that in most years it is only a popularity contest that rewards what is hot at the moment. Milli Vanilli is but one of hundreds of such examples. How ironic then that you criticize the Grammys for giving its highest award to Herbie Hancock, one of the most important and accomplished musicians of the last century across all musical genres. And by the way, the big winner last year was the duo of Robert Plant and Allison Krause. It surprised a lot of people like you who were looking for their popular favorite, but the Plant/Krause album was a significant and sublimly beautiful musical statement worthy of artistic praise.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:32 pm | Report abuse |
  205. Michelle

    How many awards should one entertainer get? I mean we have the Grammys, American, Country, Soul Train, MTV, music awards, the same for movie/television. Must they honor themselves so much? How about one awards show for music and one for movies? Make them really home in on their craft. Maybe we would not mind paying the money for CD’s and Movies if we really had the talent out worth paying for. Yeah we have some talent but for the most part it’s just the SAME thing over and over………………..Just a thought

    December 3, 2009 at 5:31 pm | Report abuse |
  206. Jezmund

    I agree with all the comments that mention the fact that award shows SHOULD be about quality rather than popularity.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:30 pm | Report abuse |
  207. A

    I agree with everyone...it's a popularity thing obviously. I watched the Grammy Nominations show last night and if you listen to all the screaming kids for Taylor Swift, ugh! I mean come on now! They have to nominate those artists so people will watch. What they really need to recognize is that if they keep doing that, LESS people will watch the Grammys. Sad....and personally I am tired of seeing the same artists when you have someone like Adele, talented, a real singer who hardly gets any of the recognition the others do. I hope she wins!

    December 3, 2009 at 5:27 pm | Report abuse |
  208. ryan

    Grammys? They still award those?

    December 3, 2009 at 5:26 pm | Report abuse |
  209. Kim

    Almost 90% of the music I listen to is never mentioned on the Grammy's. It's all "popular" music which is just a bunch of pretty (or shocking) people who can sort of sing. I've stop paying attention to the Grammy's a long time ago.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:25 pm | Report abuse |
  210. stephanie

    KELLY CLARKSON got ROBBED of grammy nominations. I am happy she received one for pop vocal album but Already Gone should have been nominated for pop vocal performance, record of year, song of year etc. Kelly can actually sing and her music is amazing.
    Grammy's overlooked her and many other.

    Taylor swift deserves all 8 of her nominations. shes had an aamzing 3 years and has been overlooked in past year but now is getting hte recognition she deseves. her talent in soung writing, singing etc make her a perfect candidate for grammy awards. i hope she wins a ton of them.

    Beyonce was given WAY to many nominations. Rediculous.
    Black Eyed Peas, altough they have had great single successes, the album isnt even singing its all electronic garbage.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:23 pm | Report abuse |
  211. Michael

    Grammys are too in touch with the mainstream. That is the problem.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:20 pm | Report abuse |
  212. Bozo

    This article is ridiculous. The Grammys weigh techical and creative levels in the recording business. That's what they are there for. It's the Oscars for music. Popularity has nothing to do with it. Thats what the People's Choice Awards are for. The same applys to the Billboard Music awards. Those are given out strictly based on album sales. You want your favorite arrtist to win? Go buy their album. Please don't start hollowing out the Grammys.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:17 pm | Report abuse |
  213. Spornk

    The awards should be given to artists who have done 'quality' work. Just because someone can move 8 million copies of a record does not entitle them to a Grammy.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:14 pm | Report abuse |
  214. Leo

    Beyonce really deserves to nods, she's a great artist. Little Taylor does not, the girl can't sing. Sing live Taylor.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:14 pm | Report abuse |
  215. Rod from Indy

    Exactly, Angie. What is popular at the moment is usually trash. Most of these pop tarts don't even have voices that exist in reality. Everything is totally processed, ala Britney. They should split the Grammy's into the serious music Grammys and the teeny bopper Grammys.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:11 pm | Report abuse |
  216. Tony

    I don't believe that record sales are any indication of an artist's worth and I would hope that popular appeal doesn't factor in the decision-making process. That said, fans of traditional American music (i.e., roots and blues) know that the academy is severly out of touch and has been for a long, long time. They simply do not do their homework and are misguided at best.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:09 pm | Report abuse |
  217. Sarah

    "Most popular" does not equal "best artist." There is a lot of GOOD music out there that has not caught on in mainstream music, but this does not render them unworthy of an award. It's kind of like your high school's class president... were they not always the "popular" kids, rather than the best student for the position? I think it applies to music here.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:08 pm | Report abuse |
  218. Jeff Brown

    The Grammy's have been nothing but a joke for decades. If you are a heritage artist all you have to do is put an album out with fart noises and you're nominated. The "Pop" & "Rock" categories alone should tell you that. Sure they put on a good show for TV but I try not to have eaten before the telecast. If I did I have a good supply of barf bags at the ready.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:06 pm | Report abuse |
  219. Patrick

    The person writing this piece doesn't "get it" either. Thanks to nods to Beyonce, Taylor Swift and Kings of Leons it proves the Grammy's are indeed out of touch. If they are to award artistic excellence then why aren't the best reviewed albums honored? Where is Animal Collective who has the best reviewed album of the year?

    I wish the Grammy's were more like the Oscars who honor indie films that are actually good as opposed to big budget spectacles (Lady Gaga).

    December 3, 2009 at 5:06 pm | Report abuse |
  220. Elizabeth Ashwood

    I strongly agree with Nick.. Herbie Hancock winning last year for Album of the Year was a return to a classic approach: awarding accolades for the most talented, a nominem most awards shows have long since forgotten.

    And I'm also quite sure that in the back of his mind, Eminem didn't mind losing to Steely Dan. SD has long since been a hallmark of what good music and talent really is.

    While Lady Gaga isn't particularly my favorite new artist, she does certainly seem to be America's and she is quite talented (and Juilliard School trained) and should be included in the Best New Artist nominations despite her nomination last year for Just Dance.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:06 pm | Report abuse |
  221. Jo

    They completely got it wrong with the Best Album/Record last year with the Robert Plant & Alison Krauss.
    FIRST, Radiohead's In Rainbows was the best album i've heard in awhile and that seemed like a no brainer.
    SECOND (and this seems like a big one) Plant & Krauss won the Best Pop Collaboration With Vocals in 2007...

    i think the guidelines need to be rewritten.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:04 pm | Report abuse |
  222. Bill

    Although people constantly complain about Jethro Tull beating out Metallica for an award that placed JT in the wrong category, Jethro Tull is so far superior musically to Metallica, it's not funny.

    Lady Gagme talented? Yeah, on a sliding scale of mediocrity.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:03 pm | Report abuse |
  223. Shae

    I love Beyonce, however I agree with LBW. Her songs are the same and do not reflect true artistry. They should have a seperate category for "hook of the year". It would be Beyonce or Lady Gaga for sure. I think Maxwell totally deserves recognition this year. Adele HAS to win in the BEST POP PERFORMANCE CAT!!! Can JayZ please stop being nominated every year out of obligation. Thanks!

    December 3, 2009 at 5:02 pm | Report abuse |
  224. Nick Marino

    Actually, I think their noms are pretty balanced this year. It's not perfect, but it's decent. I mean Booker T Jones and "I'm On A Boat" both made it, so obviously the Grammys are pulling from a wide range of music. if you want "what's hot" nominations, then watch the MTV music awards or something of the sort. the Grammy noms this year are a decent mix of what would be considered the best productions (not always the most popular) and the most popular (not always the best music). though i often disagree with the winners, at least the noms recognize a really wide range of music (though i think a few artists were over-nominated). AND c'mon at least the Grammys are about 500% better than the Oscars.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:01 pm | Report abuse |
  225. Stephanie

    Beyonce does a tad more than shaking her backside, which is why she has gone ten times farther than most female R&B artists. To say she has no talent, is a little ridiculous. I must say her and Taylor Swift received way more nominations than probably deserved, but thats the Grammys. It's been this way for quite some time and for those that are really sick of it, complain to someone that might actually be able to do something.

    December 3, 2009 at 5:00 pm | Report abuse |
  226. Sam

    Jody Watley and Lauryn Hill were nominated for Best New artist(both ladies respectively won)and they were both with groups before their solo efforts, so Lady Gaga should've been nominated!.

    ...Maxwell and U2 should've gotten more nods!..Whitney Houston was snubbed completely!

    December 3, 2009 at 4:55 pm | Report abuse |
  227. Adam

    The Grammys are fine for what they are. Anyone who has any sense of music history knows who is really pushing the major changes within the industry today. They also know that the Grammys can't possibly cover music in its totality. Let the masses ooh and ahh over the dresses and pretty people. In half a decade everyone will have forgotten Lady GaGa. The hottest hooks are unheard samples from indie/experimental/dubstep acts of today. Grammys...Whatcha say?

    December 3, 2009 at 4:53 pm | Report abuse |
  228. pmo

    the most overrated singer of all time is beyonce. I cannot figure out who her fan base is. she is not r&b, she sings the same sing songish staccato song since day one. she certainly is pretty and can carry a tune, but her choice of material has always been horrendous. she does the exact same video every time, showing off her pelvic thrusts and fat legs. like chelsea handler said, her legs are not that great, put some pants on!!!!!

    December 3, 2009 at 4:52 pm | Report abuse |
  229. Tim

    Silversun Pickups in the Best New Artist category . . . those guys have been a band for going on 10 years now . . . the album that was released this year was their second full length and it was only as successful as it was because their first album was so strong . . . I love them . . . but they are not a "New Artist."

    December 3, 2009 at 4:52 pm | Report abuse |
  230. Laura

    People -
    If you'd like your comments to be taken seriously, reread them before you post. If you can't write, no one will take you seriously.

    December 3, 2009 at 4:51 pm | Report abuse |
  231. Lori

    I don't watch the Grammys anymore and I have not owned Grammy awarded music in years. It all seems very political and I have a feeling some nominations are bought$$$$$. Sometimes you hear that an artist sold millions so of course they get a nomination but sometimes an artist can sell millions and get snubbed, and then articles are written validating the snub. I am beyond caring. I don't watch and I don't buy. I have my favorite artists and I stick with them. I enjoy their music and go to their concerts whether they have Grammy's or not.

    December 3, 2009 at 4:50 pm | Report abuse |
  232. Wesley

    The Simpsons got it exactly right:

    Homer Simpson: Oh why won't anyone give me an award?
    Lisa Simpson: You won a Grammy.
    Homer Simpson: I mean an award that's worth something.

    [announcement on the bottom of the screen- Legal Disclaimer: Mr. Simpson's opinions do not reflect those of the producers, who don't consider the Grammy an award at all]

    December 3, 2009 at 4:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • M. Harwell

      Yes. For extra credit, I will add that it came in their 238th episode, "The Mansion Family," on January 23, 2000.

      August 25, 2010 at 10:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • F/F/F/F

      Sorry to nitpick here, but Homer said he "meant an award that's worth winning", not "something".

      August 25, 2010 at 10:41 pm | Report abuse |
  233. b

    I do feel that taylor swift is nominated way to much. She is a good singer but to be honest with you Kanye did her a favor when he did what he did. He put her on the map. Now she wins so many awards. Some that she does not deserve just yet.

    December 3, 2009 at 4:48 pm | Report abuse |
  234. Ric

    This once great award has lost most of its meaning. It is more about who is popular and who has the correct political view. Talent and innovation has been replaced by buzz and image. It should be given the same weight as the People' Choice Award or whatever those Nick at Night awards are called.

    December 3, 2009 at 4:46 pm | Report abuse |
  235. Cree

    I always thought the Grammys are the "Oscar"s of music. I've never thought that popularity was a factor in judging/voting...that is why you often find artists other than the top 40 winning the awards. I've never scratched my head over the winners...just always been prepared for the unexpected winners. Goes to show not everyone is a musician and I for one appreciate the fact that the Grammys are not a popularity contest. Get over it.

    December 3, 2009 at 4:43 pm | Report abuse |
  236. cat

    Wow, are the Grammy's still on?

    December 3, 2009 at 4:43 pm | Report abuse |
  237. stephanie

    anyone thats heard the song "just dance" will be able to judge whether it was in the top 5 songs written in the last year or two. its not even in my top 100.

    December 3, 2009 at 4:36 pm | Report abuse |
  238. Phyl

    Kelly Clarkson not nominated for Female Vocalist when she has the most powerful voice in any type of music today is absolutely unbelievable.

    December 3, 2009 at 4:35 pm | Report abuse |
  239. Laura

    If Michelle Malone is not nominated then I'm not watching......should have been best Americana.....

    December 3, 2009 at 4:35 pm | Report abuse |
  240. Chris

    It might have something to do with the fact most of the eventual winners are no-talent hacks anyhow. Who really cares about the Grammys anymore? Well, other than wanting to see the latest Kanye meltdown that is...

    December 3, 2009 at 4:34 pm | Report abuse |
  241. wayne

    The Grammys have ALWAYS been out of touch.

    December 3, 2009 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
  242. critical_listener

    The Grammy's have had wrong for the last twenty years or so, but no different from radio. Granted, some credence must be given to the commerical success of an album/cd, but over recent years true artistry has gone missing. Not to say that the Beyonce's, John Legend's, Taylor Swifts of the world are not talented, but the field is so narrowed from that which I refer to as real artists. Most of the real artist of the day never won Grammy's but it's who you heard on the radio daily... O'Jays, Isley Brother, Arethat Franklin, Gladys Knight, Shalamar, etc (yes I'm time wharping) lol. But these were artist that had long standing careers, quality lyrics whereas you didn't have send your child from the room while listening or shield their eyes during a performance... I mean really, talented but not that talented as listeners today would be led to think... Grammy's have been rubber-stamped for years.... and it saddens the art as a whole... just my thoughts...

    December 3, 2009 at 4:31 pm | Report abuse |
  243. Thorne

    Wait... The Grammy's should not be a popularily contest? Yet Taylor Swift gets all those nominations? Wow irony. Now I have nothing against the girl and if you're into her pop/country thing more power to you but her album is no where near some of the better albums that were put out this year by the likes of DMB, Silversun Pickups, Imogene Heap, Deathcab (which all recieved nods to a smaller extent) etc.

    Her stuff is just oh so much ear candy created by an adorable and sweet, yet only moderately talented (when compared to the rest of the music field not to the public at large) media darling.

    December 3, 2009 at 4:26 pm | Report abuse |
  244. mddiva

    I remember growing up in the 80s and 90s loving the award shows. Watching Michael Jackson, Police, Madonna, Prince, Whitney, just to name a few win the awards and thinking they deserved it. I like Beyonce but 'I Am...Sasha Fierce' was not, I repeat not Beyonce's best album. I still think her first 'Dangerously in Love' was her best. And Sasha Fierce only had one #1 hit "Single Ladies". I have to say I haven't listened to Taylor Swift but I'm assuming since she has been racking them up this year she is a strong contender to win all if not most of her awards. Lady GaGa is a great performer, but I don't understand with her popularity why she has only sold just over a million copies of her album. I was expecting close to 10 million. So maybe only us who bought the album thinks she should have been eligible for best artist. So far not impressed with the nominations.

    December 3, 2009 at 4:26 pm | Report abuse |
  245. Tammy

    I mean where is Daughtry?

    December 3, 2009 at 4:24 pm | Report abuse |
  246. Angie

    No one cares. Popular music does not mean "good" music. Grammy's proves that.

    December 3, 2009 at 4:21 pm | Report abuse |
  247. Charles

    The Grammys lost all relevance when they awarded Jethro Tull the first Metal Grammy.

    December 3, 2009 at 4:21 pm | Report abuse |
  248. Chad

    Taylor Swift is over-rated and already old news... the poor girl is going to need a major reality check when the time comes to live up to all of the credit she is receiving – tragic reality.

    Lady Gaga trumps Taylor Swift, any day.

    December 3, 2009 at 4:19 pm | Report abuse |
  249. DJOL

    This entire 'story' is premised on the assumption that the Grammys have any fans in the first place...

    December 3, 2009 at 4:18 pm | Report abuse |
  250. Missouri

    Are you kidding? The Grammy's are supposed to be about the best music – not the most popular!

    December 3, 2009 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |
  251. Kate

    We need to remember that not all 'popular' music acts are the most talented or inventive musicians. Just because someone can carry a tune and shake their behind doesn't mean they deserve a grammy.

    December 3, 2009 at 4:10 pm | Report abuse |
  252. Jason

    The grammy's vote on commercial success, rather than quality of album. Taylor Swift received way too many nominations, as did Beyonce. There are many, many other great albums out there that are eligible for nominations, but didn't receive any. Then there are some "just OK" albums that are being tauted as the "greatest ever"- really? Did the Grammy Council actually listen to Maxwell's album? 1 decent song, and the rest is filler. I guess with Taylor Swift, and Lady Gaga nominated, this must be the "Auto-tune Grammy's- vocal quality not considered when nominating". The "best new artist" has Zac Brown Band, and 4 artists/groups I've never even heard of. Yes, the Grammy's are out of touch, and they need to spend a bit more time listening to these albums, instead of nominating based on Cover-Art.

    December 3, 2009 at 4:06 pm | Report abuse |
  253. Moviefan

    I stopped watching the Grammys years ago. I think its great for the people that win but it just isnt interesting anymore.

    December 3, 2009 at 4:03 pm | Report abuse |
  254. Nicole39

    Yes, the Grammy Nomination Committee (supposely comprise of 12, 000 voting members) need to revamp their rules. Michael Jackson should have been nominated for his This Is It album! I was very happy to see the AMA award him for the sales he had this year. Michael Jackson was very instrumental in saving the music industry in the 80s and 90s. He has save news papers, magizines, and the music industry again in 2009. Millions of fans wanted to buy, not download his music, so to keep the covers for souvenirs. Michael Jackson should be received some award this year; I vote for the GREATEST ENTERTAINER OF ALL TIME!

    Lady GaGa is just as good an Taylor Swift! I am all for the musical award shows supporting Taylor Swift (a wonderful talented lady) after how Kenye West treated her, but please do not overlook Lady GaGa. She is a great singer and performer in her all right.

    December 3, 2009 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |
  255. Nick

    Herbie Hancock winning Album of the Year was a sign that the grammy's still stand on the platform for which they were founded: To award the best musicians. I felt the same way when Steely Dan beat out Eminem a number of years back.

    The Grammy's should not be a popularity contest – that's what viewers choice awards are for.

    December 3, 2009 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
  256. G. Stone

    It's the Grammy's, they have got it wrong for a long time, it is something I have grown to accept. When Jethro Tull beta Metallica in 88' for best "Hard Rock/Metal" album I gave up. And that Herbie record is amazing! Enjoy all music not just the kind your friends and media tell you to like. The best music has always been under ground lets not forget that, even the Beatles started in a small pub in Liverpool.

    December 3, 2009 at 3:42 pm | Report abuse |
  257. Rich

    It's never really about talent more about record label politics. With regards to certain music categories they completely gotten it wrong, for Example I don't know any true hip-hop or Metal Head that takes the grammys seriously.

    December 3, 2009 at 3:21 pm | Report abuse |
  258. LBW

    Yes they do. Where is the talent? How many more times can Beyonce shake her backside and repeat the same thing over and over? Taylor is a cute little girl who sings about high school love. How much longer can that go on? Lady Gaga is eventually going to run out of shock clothes. her voice is nice, but not very powerful. Music award shows aren't worth my time anymore.

    December 3, 2009 at 2:40 pm | Report abuse |

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement
About this blog

Our daily cheat-sheet for breaking celebrity news, Hollywood buzz and your pop-culture obsessions.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,052 other followers