- Before we all lose our minds over who wins big at the 60th annual Grammy Awards on Sunday, it might be helpful to remember that the Grammys have always been lousy at celebrating the present and even worse at predicting the future.
Just look at who’s won the most-coveted Grammy, album of the year, over the past three-plus decades. Or really, look at who hasn’t: Beyoncé, the Rolling Stones, Madonna, Bruce Springsteen, Mariah Carey, Kanye West, Radiohead, Jay-Z.
What if the Grammy for album of the year — a prize whose responsibility to bottle the zeitgeist is right there in its name — regularly went to recordings that balanced innovation and timeliness in a way that made them widely resonant?
By that measure, I’d argue that album of the year has been handed to the most-deserving artist only three times since 1980. For the other 35 years, I’ve chosen which albums should have won instead, as well as which recordings should have been nominated. There’s some crossover here and there.
the nominating period is something like october of one year to september of the next, and the ceremony is held in january or february or whatever that means that albums can do things like that
The Grammy Awards always looked like an industry circle-jerk to me. The winners look like the people who paid for the better PR people, rather than the people who deserve to win. Someone on 4chan a decade or so ago called it the "Normie Music" award. Slayer did not win a Grammy until 2007. Anthrax never won a Grammy. The Rolling Stones never won? RADIOHEAD? I hate radiohead but even I think they deserve an award. Also the Grammy website is terrible.
That's the industry for you. Sturgill Simpson, arguably one of the best country artists out there right now, busked outside the CMAs because he wasn't invited because he's an industry outsider who holds social and political views that runs counter to stereotypical rural American values.