http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/

Pretty disappointing, in my honest opinion...
Beyonce, Justin Timberlake and Amy Winehouse shouldn't be there >.>

They are clueless when it comes to albums. Songs are easy and all of those songs are deserving. But, does the Academy listen to current music that's not on the radio or is that too much work for them? Do they realize that those albums weren't at the top of anybody else's list and how stupid that selection looks. Oh yeah, they don't since they have no grasp on today's culture.

What a bollocks load of selections that was(as always). But it's always been mainstream-biased and American-biased. You didn't honestly think Arcade Fire were going to be up for Album Of the year did you?
This is the awards that voted Lionel Richie's Can't Slow Down for album of the year ahead of Purple Rain and Born In The USA. Christopher Cross swept the board in 1980 just casually ignoring Talking Heads,Joy Division and AC/DC.
Bloody American Idol finalists are littering these awards nowadays - now you know it's lost all credibility

It's not like they couldn't decide "Hey, let's actually put some thought into this and pick albums that are going to be acclaimed for all time" in a matter of seconds. But, it's all about the cash and the people picking the winners are the ones who are reaping the financial benefits. Now, if we could just get the casual music fan to stop paying attention to this crap.

Get over yourselves. I bet most of you haven't even heard the work you are criticizing. Have you heard Vince Gill's epic 4-CD set? It's terrific and has a high metacritic rating. Herbie Hancock's tribute to Joni Mitchell is also great. Kanye and Amy are receiving great reviews and great sales. What's to criticize here?

Oh, I'm sure you'd all nominate 5 white rock acts every year. What fun.

I agree with you Jason
Mainstream doesn't always mean bad.
Or Acclaimed Music will become Indie Music

I haven't seen you post much but I think if you took a look around you'd realize that last statement you made doesn't apply to most of us.

But, you are right I haven't heard the Vince Gill or Herbie Hancock albums. But, I wouldn't call 82 way up the Metacritic charts for the Vince Gill album. There were other country albums that were more acclaimed.

Mainstream doesn't always mean bad.

But, the Grammies always pick based on what's 'safe'. Some of their choices, by pure coincidence, also happen to be good.

How good an album is has nothing to do with how well known it is. There are great popular albums, there are great obscure albums. But the Grammies need to get people to tune in, so they're only allowed to nominate stuff casual listeners have heard and probably won't argue with too much.

(Also, the people who vote have probably only actually heard the popular ones, and I wouldn't be surprised if they got memos from Clear Channel telling them who they were allowed to vote for.)

there are mainstream acts who produce strong works, and those albums end up being acclaimed- the Grammys isn't a real barometer of that, though. Never mind Lioel Richie- Celine DIon being nominated for and WINNING Album of the Year is evidence enough. But she's what the orgznization has been about- safe, very popular *(at the time), nonthreatening, middle-of-the-road acts- the history of momninees (overall) support that.

No problems with the inclusion at AM, though, since it doesn't impact those nominees who don't get much acclaim outside of the Grammys.

I just think it's hypocritical to criticize the Grammys for being "safe" when they have shown a lot more diversity in their winners than the critics lists people post here do. I mean, this year's Album of the Year nominees cover country, jazz, hip-hop, rock, and pop/R&B. Show me a critics list that does that in its top 5-10. Hell, some of these lists don't even cover more than one genre!

that's cause 3 of the genres you named are crap, and country is barely better.

...a bit of morning cheer from the local curmudgeon.

jonmarck - under that misanthropic crust, are you really just hiding some vulnerability?

Is there anything you want to talk about? This is a safe place.

You are definitely right Jason but that doesn't change the fact that they constantly fail to recognize classic work. I don't think it's safe, I think it's financially motivated.

It's tough to narrow down thousands of albums to five, but it just seems that they aren't really listening to everything that is out there or just disregarding it.

What Jason points out is true : the critics lists posted here generally represent one genre (pop/rock) and sometimes one subgenre (indie rock, which eliminates everything mainstream)
This is an economical problem : a problem of marketing positioning. The musical press (and to a lesser extent the record industry or what's left of it) is a niche market : They ahve to keep their readers, so they serve them what they want to hear;
It's the same everywhere. I remember that 10 or 15 years ago, in Rock'n Folk, a rap album could be the album of the year. Now they are not even reviewed, I mean none of them.
Thank God you still have in France at least magazines who cover all genres, like Les Inrockuptibles or Telerama but they are not music-only magazines.
I tried to look for hip hop, country jazz magazines but there are not so many of them.
And I think, at least in France, that hip-hop fans don't read that much, so that's why there are not so many hip hop magazines whereas urban music is the nb 1 seller here.

John - I am not saying the Grammys are perfect, I just don't see where they deserve more criticism than anything else. They may tend to recognize more "mainstream" stuff, but I don't see that as any different from magazines that only recognize "indie" stuff.

And it also deserves to be mention that the Grammy organization is made up of musicians, producers, singers, etc. Who are any of us to tell then what to like or vote for? I don't see why they should be expected to reward the same things critics do.

that's why the critics lists that encompass various genres is best (and there are plenty of those). Grammys are just way too interested in other things other than what the actual best music is of a given year.

So if there are plenty of multi-genre lists, where are they ?
we have to count them too !

I agree that the EOY choices from the indie magazines are just as financially motivated as the GRAMMY nominations.

How is a Herbie Hancock nomination financially motivated?

JR - But who is to say what the best music in a given year is? You?

Henrik - Good point!! And I hope this isn't coming across as me bashing critics (and by extension what this site is about). I don't mean to at all. To me, there are three factions/measurements in music - commercial (sales and so forth), critical, and industry (Grammys and influence). I don't see why any should be expected to follow the other because all represent a different group of people, and we all know people are different. To expect the Grammys to line up with critics (or sales to line up with critics, and so on) seems odd to me.

But the point of criticism is to choose what is best for all groups. Critics are not supposed to exist in their own separate category.

OK, this is just one guy talking here, but the Grammys are an absolute steaming pile of shite. Over here we have the Brits, which is exactly the same thing but, as our custom dictates, even more dismal, amateurish and parochial. Money talks and bullshit walks. Or wins...

The Brits used to be good though - remember back in the days of the Blur-Oasis fights - the Gallagher Brothers winning Album of The Year gleefully singing "All the people,so many people they all go hand in hand,hand in hand through their SHIIIITLIFE" - good times...

that the Grammys have used that as a barometer in its goals, as if that's what's supposed to reflect the best music. Noawdays, there are some pleasant left-field nominees (i.e. Herbie Hancock), and it's not as bad in categories like Album of the Year. But, the Grammys' history has a lot of middle-of-the-road, safe nominees in the major categories, really. That's my problem with it, moreso the past than recent years.

the Grammys have used that as a barometer in its goals, as if that's what's supposed to reflect the best music.

What should their barometer be?

Also, Album wins in the late 80s and early 90s by Bonnie Raitt, Quincy Jones, and Tony Bennett weren't exactly about popularity.

They're more like getting back to the legends they neglected when they were at their peak...and in the process missing more legends in the making.

^ I wouldn't disagree with you, but my point is that those wins weren't about popularity as some have been saying (though Bonnie Raitt wasn't a legend in the 80s).

but those are a few instances, too. Just look at all the nominees for Album of the Year through the history. The barometer should be albums that are generally regarded to be the best of the year- a lot of nominees that were popular, safe, middle-of-the-road acts/albums were not the best of a given year.

I know that if all the major nominees matched critics' lists (or were close to them), the show wouldn't be a ratings-getter- and I'm sure NARAS is aware of that, and that has influenced some of the nominees throughout the years, undoubtedly.

The barometer should be albums that are generally regarded to be the best of the year

That is the barometer, but NARAS is made up of musicians, not critics. I still don't get why NARAS should be expected to match up with critics. They are two different bodies of people.

And let's be real, if the Grammys rewarded the most critically hailed acts each year, they would still be criticized. For one, white rock bands tend to get the best album reviews each year, so we'd see the same kind of winner each year. For another, critically hailed acts are rarely popular, and then people would criticize the Grammys for being out of touch. We live in a world where you can't win.

I don't think your assessment that white artists are favored is completely true. Yeah, they tend to have more albums represented but when you look at the AM lists it's somewhat diverse. I think the Grammys would be able to be diverse and current at the same time. But, at the same time being diverse just to be diverse doesn't make sense.

I do agree that critics and music insiders are two different entities. Those in the industry whether they be musicians or execs have agendas and there has to be a "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" philosophy. That's why the Grammys are flawed; it all revolves around making more money. For the most part, critics only goal is to spread the word about good music. Those who don't have that goal are viewed in the same regard as the Grammys.

"white rock bands"

As opposed to black rock bands?

If the Grammy's followed critics they wouldn't be any more out of touch than critics are, and I don't know many people who consider critics to be out of touch. In fact most complain that they're too IN touch, and not very tolerant of less committed fans.

John - Critics have their own agenda, too. Many are failed rock musicians and love that style of music, and they champion indie bands to get them more attention. They also tend to view music from an academic/intellectual perspective as opposed to an emotional one.

In the end, all bodies - industry, critics, and the public - are made up of humans, and to that end all three will be "flawed" and have some sort of agenda or bias. It's just human nature. To act like one should be like another seems odd to me because all three are coming from different places and have different intents. That's why it's cool that we have three different measures of what they like (i.e. Grammys, critics lists, and sales).

those mainstream acts who garner a decent amount of acclaim? Or course there's going to be a nice amount of critical smashes that aren't that popular, but there also are plenty of popular acts that do garner acclaim.

^ Yep, there are. I never said otherwise. My point is just that I don't get why some of you think the Grammys need to reflect what critics think.

have to reflect what critics think, all the way- but surely you can't overlook a bunch of the nominees throughout the years as being safe, formulaic, non-threatening, middle-of-the-road, popular acts/material, that certainly wasn't the best music of a given year. Just makes NARAS look like it's catering to mainstream- which, in a way, I can understand- again, because of the desire to attract the largest possible viewership.

That's why through the years, the Grammys earned those couple unflattering nicknames.

They should reflect what critics think because they ARE critics! Judging the best album of the year is an exercise in criticism!

The fact that they diverge so wildly, so much towards mainstream, forgettable pop trash, and the fact that their track record is so laughable all confirm the Grammy's as entirely useless.

JR - Again, it defines on how you define "best." A lot of people like that music you are criticizing.

jonmarck said:
They should reflect what critics think because they ARE critics! Judging the best album of the year is an exercise in criticism!
The public also does this, so are they critics, too?

I think so. Everyone who judges something is a critic. The critics whose lists we use here are the more experienced kind (usually), but a 5-year-old kid who says a sculpture is ugly is a critic as well.

Well not ALL of the public picks best albums/criticizes music/etc. In fact a small portion does, and of that small portion I'm sure there's a significant number who would agree to a large extent with the critics. Remember, we're talking about the BEST music, not the most preferable.

Still, we can't consider a 5-year-old an art critic the same way that we consider a 50-year-old because the former lacks the knowledge and experience to judge art to any degree of accuracy. Simply put, they're too ignorant...cause they're only 5 years old.

I wasn't implying we should take the 5-year-old's opinion into account, but fact remains that he is a sort of critic.

that mysuic I'm talkin' about- commercial success. :) And that in part has dictated much of Grammy history (along with the safe, middle-of-the-road, non-threatening factors for the major categories.

"I wasn't implying we should take the 5-year-old's opinion into account, but fact remains that he is a sort of critic."

Yes but everyone who ever opened a box of Kraft Dinner is a chef. That doesn't mean I'll let them cook for me.