It's Time To Fix The Grammys' Best New Artist Category

Imagine you're at a car dealership and you ask the salesman to show you the best new models. You're checking them out, giddy to see this year's cream of the crop, and -- surprise! -- you realize he's trying to sell you on a pre-owned car from 2008.

"What gives? That's not new," you say. "Buddy," he says, putting a reassuring hand on your back, "you might know that, but lots of other people haven't even heard of that model before. That's new enough for us."

That, in essence, is the Grammys' stance on the Best New Artist award, an honor designed to catapult the winner to new heights of stardom.

Read the whole story

Comments

[ConcertQueen]

11:47 PM on 02/22/2012

Good article - - this brings up alot of great points. Thanks for taking the time to research topic.

http://concerts.cheap-tickets.me/Event.aspx?EventID=1715721

[playsindirt]

12:34 PM on 02/12/2012

It's a ticket to obscurity. But then how many Oscar winners' careers basically tank after they win?

[dennissinned]

12:13 PM on 02/12/2012

If the academy has to go back to the old way, then that old rule has to be tweaked, too. Whitney Houston was not nominated for Best New Artist at the time because of some recording she had done for a movie soundtrack. Richard Marx, too, if I remember correctly.

[donaldinks]

10:32 AM on 02/12/2012

The Grammy's is to Music,

what McDonald's is to Fine Food.

[repugnicansfearme]

10:03 AM on 02/12/2012

While we are at it, why don't we fix the corrupt system which conspires to play certain songs on certain radio stations by certain on-air personalities? How about that? That way, you can't tell me that Vanilla Ice is No.1 with a bullet?

[Daybot]

08:33 AM on 02/12/2012

People watch the Grammys?

[repugnicansfearme]

10:04 AM on 02/12/2012

Inmates and shutins, Oh, and pushers and bookies expecting to collect.

[AndyB62]

05:54 PM on 02/11/2012

If the award is supposed to launch the career of a new up and comer it has failed. I haven't heard of 90% of the winners before or since.

[BeanBoo]

02:59 PM on 02/10/2012

FOO FIGHTERS!!! Sorry, I didn't read the article. I just saw "Grammys" and got excited :) Can't wait to see my guys perform :-D

[lefty81]

02:54 PM on 02/10/2012

Why some acts don't deserve the award: maybe 'cause they don't last??

Except for artists like Bon Iver, and Lauryn Hill. These each in their own right deserve(d) to win.

[skatscan]

10:29 AM on 02/12/2012

And yet neither has lasted.

[lefty81]

03:16 PM on 02/12/2012

Um, what?

[MBGarcia]

02:31 PM on 02/10/2012

From the moment A Twist of Honey beat out Elvis Costello for this award, I stopped paying attention to it...it's a joke...

[NatTurner1]

02:46 PM on 02/10/2012

So you have not paid attention to the Grammys in 33 years but you took the time today to read an article about it on HuffPo and comment?

[MBGarcia]

03:26 PM on 02/10/2012

I haven't paid attention to that particular category...I believe I said "this award." I'm sorry if that was too general.

I read the story because I wanted to see what the general take on this category is; for example, I didn't know about the change in rules for qualification. Of course, this is not a valid reason to read or comment...I recuse myself from doing so in the future.

[moustasch1]

09:01 AM on 02/10/2012

The Grammys have never been about the best in music, just about the most popular. For years they snubbed rock artists simply because it didn't please "the masses". And, really, The Stones and Aerosmith shouldn't be in a category along with Britney Spears, Michael Jackson or Snoop Dog (just an example of how they like to mix artists together instead of keeping them in their own categories). Until they actually start handing out awards for ALL types of music this will always be just a popularity/best sales contest and not an actual music awards show.

[csitest01]

09:18 AM on 02/10/2012

If voting for the most popular is true, then how did a relatively unknown Spalding beat the uber-popular Bieber for Best New Artist last year? I don't the title of one Bieber song, yet I see him every single week on some TV show. I haven't seen or heard about Spalding before or since last year's grammy's. That alone disproves your theory.

[Cidne Wallace]

04:29 AM on 02/12/2012

Spalding continued her world tour after the awards. Beiber will have to change his style in order to stay relevant, he is a bubble gum pop star. Spalding will always have fans of jazz and classical/chamber music.

[LadyMellM]

12:58 PM on 02/10/2012

Britney Spears does not get Grammy awards.

The Grammy tries to mix the popular with the non-popular. They try.

[expanse]

08:03 AM on 02/10/2012

It's time to fix the Grammy's. This has long been the worst major award show. Though this year, they got it right with Adele!

[morris111]

04:44 AM on 02/10/2012

"The Fix"?? Verrrry fitting....

The Grammy's are never really about great musical artistry and substance, it's about marketing and promotion. Oh sure, there is talent represented at the Grammy's, but there is an infinite number of better, more talented artists out there.

There is soooooo much great music out there that very few people ever hear. Typical Top 40 radio is boring, monotonous, repetitive, overly commercialized, poorly programmed, and rife with annoying commercials.

I'm sorry, I'm spoiled. We have an awesome station here on the west sideof L.A. I listen to KCRW, both live and online. I get to listen to real music, talented artists, cutting edge programming, a wide variety of musical genres, etc,etc. There's too much good to list.

Give up Top 40 radio. Check out KCRW.com. You will be pleasantly suprised.

[expanse]

08:09 AM on 02/10/2012

The Grammys are always terrible but there is a bit of snobbish-ness in your post. Just because something is Top 40, popish and popular doesn't mean it isn't artistically good. Too many people think the more obscure something is, the better it must be especially in music. Making great, commercial pop music takes quite a bit of talent. It is very hard to churn out music the masses will like esp if you have been in the game a long time. Admittingly, the 80's and 90's had far superior and more varied Top 40 music than today. Today's Top 40 music is far less organic and more sounds the same.

[skatscan]

10:39 AM on 02/12/2012

These days Top 40 kinda sucks because of the lack of diversity. Back in the day The Top 40 would have rock, soul, pop and whatever genre was trendy at the time.

[peakarach]

12:49 AM on 02/10/2012

How come there is no Charice on the list?

[hislonv]

11:12 PM on 02/09/2012

The Grammy's are nominated by and voted for by the recording industry. I qualify and did belong over 25 years ago, but dropped out after a few years. It was becoming a popularity contest and a joke. Members were allowed to buy CD's at a discounted rate to listen to. The big names usually won and there was always a lquestion about what CD's were available and when they would come out.
There are a few awards that are voted on by committees and those are the craft awards. Best Engineering has a classical and non classical category. Some great albums won in the 70's. Then that category became a popularity contest for engineers and the little guy didn't stand a chance against the industry giants.
When rap and hip hop started to appear there wasn't a proper catagory for them. They got mixed in with other categories. They finally got their own categories and the ratings demand took over. Great performances by true artists made way for ratings grabbers, bling laden dancers and skanky gangsta shows. At that point I think the show jumped the shark.
Now we have Taylor Swift, queen of auto-tune giving us bad live performances, more (c)rap and hip hop and meaningless awards handed to each other as they pat themselves on each other's backs.
Look at the list of winners from the past 5 years. You will find some unbelievable names in there.
A Grammy isn't an Emmy or an OSCAR anymore.