I think the Grammys did a better-than-usual job at their nominations in the general fields this year. My two favourite songs of the time frame ("Viva La Vida" and "Paper Planes") both got nominated for Record of the Year, and my three favourite albums ("In Rainbows," "Viva la Vida," and "Raising Sand") got nominated for Album of the Year :D

RECORD OF THE YEAR

Adele - "Chasing Pavements"
Coldplay - "Viva La Vida"
Leona Lewis - "Bleeding Love"
M.I.A. - "Paper Planes"
Robert Plant & Alison Krauss - "Please Read The Letter"

ALBUM OF THE YEAR

Coldplay - Viva La Vida Or Death And All His Friends
Lil Wayne - Tha Carter III
Ne-Yo - Year Of The Gentleman
Robert Plant & Alison Krauss - Raising Sand
Radiohead - In Rainbows

Surprising to see Radiohead in for album of the year - they normally snub alternative music in the main categories. I'd almost bet everything I own that they won't win though,despite it being the best nominated.

I think you're right. But I think the reason they won't win is because a lot of their votes will get split with Coldplay. I think this is Robert Plant & Alison Krauss's award to lose.

And once again, the Grammy nominations are just one epic fail after another.

This is a better year than most, but a still a far cry from the best albums and songs of the year.

My Picks:

Albums:
Should win: In Rainbows (duh!)
Will win: Raising Sand

Songs:
Should win: Paper Planes
Will win: Bleeding Love

The performance of Paper Planes should be fun. They are gonna let her perform it, right? Knowing the Grammies, they'll probably make her be part of an eight-artist tribute to Odetta instead.

Radiohead has been nominated twice before or Kid A and OK Computer.

My mom has a ballot, I usually fill it out because she doesn't listen to new music. I'm voting for Coldplay for both of those categories.

People can personally disagree with these nominations, but many of these acts - M.I.A., Estelle, Plant/Krauss, Radiohead, Lil Wayne, even Coldplay - released some of the most acclaimed music of the year.

In other categories Kings Of Leon, Patty Loveless, Jamey Johnson, The Raconteurs, and more got nominations.

These nominations are probably the most in line with critics that we've seen. So, quit your griping!

but there's soooo much to make up for from the past, that it will never be enough.

Estelle wasn't nominated for New Artist or Record of the Year- id ya mean Adele?

Any awards association that doesn't recognize the likes of Elbow, TV On The Radio, Fleet Foxes, The Hold Steady, Silver Jews, Deerhunter, Portishead, and Nick Cave--among others--invites griping and can't be considered prestigious or in line with the critics.

(Maybe they have been recognized in other smaller categories, but I meant for the big ones in the opening post.)

Sean Pak - But all of those acts make similar music and most people want some diversity. Maybe it's you who needs to expand his horizons.

"American Boy" was nominated for Song of the Year.

The big categories usually won't go anywhere near an album by an act who isn't somewhat recognizable. Gotta get those ratings, after all. The Grammys hardly ever match up with what would be the most acclaimed works ofa given year, even if you went by the most recogniable names. It is getting better, though, so let's give them slight props.

But who ever said the Grammys need to match up with what is acclaimed by critics? The Grammys aren't a critics award.

Uh, Jess, the Silver Jews, TV On The Radio, and The Hold Steady sound nothing alike. At all. "Similar music"? hah!

You tell me to expand my horizons, yet it's the Grammys that nominated both Ne-yo and Lil Wayne, both Coldplay and Radiohead. There is more diversity among the artists I listed.

All five records are from British acts? Is this a bad year for American music?

not that it should bea critics' ward, but that it should highlight what the actual best albums are, or what are perceived to be the best albums. But like said, lot of times those are by little-known acts, and the Grammy voters may not have heard the music, or heard a lot in general (or maybe they weren;'t even submittd for consideration).

But, for instance, any organization that awards (even nominates!) Celine Dion Album of the Year, nominates Bacjstreet Boys for the same prize- rsther riduculous. I wrote aboiut it in my bklog, and highlighted 1990- Mariah Carey, Wilson Phillips, Phil Collins, M.C. Hammer and Quincy Jones were the nominees that year- what's wrong with that picture? Now, I enjoy the Carey, Collins and WP albums, but to highlight them as the best of a year? No way. And critics certainly agreeed. (Hammer's inclusion, won't even tough that- no pun intended). But they were all multi-million-selling albums, so...

I second all the complaints here about the Grammies. Personally, I don't understand what the criteria is for each award. They don't pick the best records or the most popular. 2 years ago, they could have gone with Gnarls Barkley and picked the best and most popular song of the ones they nominated, but instead they pick who? The Dixie Chicks. Perhaps after "Record of the Year" or "Album of the Year" they should add "Least Likely To Offend the 40-79 Year Old Viewing Audience." I watch for the performances, if there's anybody good, not the awards.

Yeah, Sean, "most people want some diversity".
The internet is the only place you can see a comment like that not written in crayon...
Grammy take me home.

These are actually the least objectionable grammy nominations in quite a while.

I bet Coldplay's going to win. They're the least risky choice.

Honestly, it would be awesome if the nominations to our French "victoire de la musique" were half as accurate as those... I don't say they are perfect, I say we get much more here !

am I the King of Typos or what?

Dixie Chicks' album was acclaimed, I think, but I do believe the choice ws a political one, no doubt.

I don't think the grammies should just reward what the critics like, but they should be determined by people who've at least heard the critical favorites and aren't afraid to take risks on things that not everybody may have heard of.

I doubt the grammy committee has even bothered to listen to anything that isn't well known.

How do you know what they have listened to? You say you don't care if they follow the critics but then turn around and say they should at least listen to the music. I assume you are assuming they haven't listened to it because it's not nominated as much as you'd like, thus meaning you do think they should nominate what critics like.

I can see there is no reasoning with you, Jess. If you truly think that Leona Lewis is better than Fleet Foxes and deserves the extra recognition by NARAS, that's your right. All we can do is feel sorry for you.

Coldplay is the least risky everything, BillAdama! They're the oatmeal and the wallpaper of the music industry!

I do like some of her music, but I acknowledge she in no way should be considered among the best of this year. But, that's the Grammys for you- surprised she wasn't up for Best New Artist.

I love her voice. With such natural talent, she actually has a lot of potential. But what she put out this year was generic. I think she has the decade's greatest soul/r&b album in her.

So yeah, I meant no ill will toward Leona!

Sean Pak - That's the exact kind of condescending, elitist bullsh*t I am so tired of. For one, there is no need to feel sorry for me. I like what I like just as you do, and that's that. No need for any of us to feel sorry for another.

And actually, I don't like Leona Lewis' music at all. But that doesn't mean I will look down on the Grammys for nominating her single (which was very popular and even acclaimed).

I just don't get why people think the Grammys should reflect the critics when the Grammys aren't helf for the critics, nor are they voted on by the critics. In other words, two separate bodies.

Sean Pak - I forgot about those bands you mention; to an extent they sound alike as they are all rock/alt bands. I know from experience here that you all like that sort of music and wouldn't blink if the Grammys only recognized rock and indie music. That's my point. You criticize the Grammys, but if they only rewarded what people here like, not only would no one watch them, but it would be a mundane sort of show.

And "they are all rock/alt bands" is the kind of ignorant comment I despise.

The "rock" of Portishead is nothing like the "rock" of Nick Cave is nothing like the "rock" of Elbow. They don't even belong in a generalization like the one you just made. They are each very distinctive. Portishead and Nick Cave aren't even "alt"! They're major label.

Stop with those ignorant generalizations and I'll repent for my condescending elitism. Practice what you preach. Or do you NOT think you're being condescending by the way you're treating the artists I like?

the grammys are getting better, so that'sa positive. But, Jess, come on- don't you think it's rather embarrassing for an organization that is *supposed* to select the best music in a given year (if that's the intention, who really know, though) to nominate (and.or award) albums from a Celine Dion or a Backstreet Boys as one of the albums of the year? There are many other examples, and a lot of times in the past, it came down to acts who had huge success, were middle-of-the-road musicmakers and played it very safe.

Sure, at times there was soemthing like a Thriller that was a massive commercial success, but also was influential, very acclaimed, etc. But then something like The Bodyguard wins Album of the Year- I love me some classic Whitney Houston, but the only thing that got that album nominated was its huge success.

But that again begs the question- what exactly is the Grammys supposed to represent? And whatever it is, has it changed somewhat from the past?

So far I think I've been the nice one here. At least I gave Leona her due. I don't think she deserves MORE recognition than the artists I mentioned, but I still think she's talented and I won't balk if a good Leona album ever wins Album Of The Year. Hell, I even acknowledge that the Leona record this year did deserve to be nominated. It's more other choices I have issues with, but even then, I'm not gonna squeeze them all into one "sound" or "style."

Sean - I am only returning what you dish out. There is a certain elitist attitude many of you here have that annoys me, so there was definitely an intent on my part to group things together. And while Portishead and TV On The Radio may not be exactly alike, people here still very often leave out entire genres of music. As I said, I bet when people here submit lists or rave about a list from a source, it's a list that includes little country, hip-hop, jazz, etc.

JR - What's wrong with Celine and Backstreet Boys? Again, there is an elitist attitude there. There is also more variety in that Celine CD you mention than in any Madonna CD I've heard, and Backstreet Boys have made some fine pop music.

Just so you know, Jess, I agree with the nominations for Lil Wayne (one of my favorite albums of the year) and Plant/Krauss (not exactly country but the closest thing there). I never was ignoring genres. If I were to change the nominations, those would stay.

And just 'cause I'd take out Neyo, Coldplay, and Adele doesn't mean I dislike or am ignoring R&B, mellow Brit-rock, and soul. Can't really see where that argument comes from.

more variety in a Celine Dion album? She's been putting out the same album, for the most part, since 1990. Madge's style usually changes from album to album (somewhat stalling with American Life, though that was more folk-electronic than the album that preceded it), so not sure why you'd think that.

Dion is a great example of that slick, safe, made-for-middle-of-the-road America I'm talking about with the Grammys. Similar acts had been nominated a lot before her. As far as Backstreet Boys, I don't mind some of the songs there, but, again, there's nothing great or challenging about the artistry there.

I have no problems with pop music- I am a pop music fan. But acts like Madonna are ones I have greater appreciation/respect for, because they *usually* don't follow the mold- that's partly why I think she's respected and appreciated by the rock press, and fares as well as she does on best-of lists and such (in addition to the music, of course).

Not everyone can be a revolutionary, push the boundaries- and I'm aware of that. it's just a matter of taste, I guess, becaue there are fans who are just as passionate about a Celine Dion as they are about a Madonna. The artistic/cultural/importance/performance differences are as obvious as there are seven days in a week, though.

I do have to give Celine Dion a prop in comparison to some other perceived bland acts, though- she has good energy on stage- she's not a dancer, or anything of the like, but she looks to be a decent performer, engages the audience and such.

Since when have the Grammys ever been about nominating artistry over generally public acclaim?

And who says artistry and public acclaim have to be two separate things?

JR - Madonna's music isn't as diverse as you like to say. It basically all first under the dance/pop umbrella. Maybe RAY OF LIGHT added an electronica touch, but it all falls within the same genre. It's not like she's done a true 180.

And Celine's FALLING INTO YOU covers a lot of group. What's similar about "Seduces Me," "Make You Happy," and "It's All Coming Back To Me Now?" These all fit under the same umbrella, too, but they are no less diverse than Madonna's dance/pop work. Madonna changes her image to get people to think she changes more than she does, but I haven't fallen for it.

Jess - What exactly do you think the Grammy's criteria is? What criteria do you use to justify giving the Backstreet Boys an award? I don't mean to sound condecending, I'm just curious.

To me they seem completely out of touch and I'm not really sure why people care about them. They've passed up some of the most acclaimed music (often times very commercially successful music at that) in the past couple of decades.

I kind of like It's All Coming Back to Me by Celine Dion. It sort of reminds me of Kate Bush.

of course Madonna is dance/pop, and heklped set the template for the genre (with Michael Jackson) for everything to come after in the last 25 years. But, surely you can see (and hear) that for themost part, each album is different- some acts don't mix things up much at all from one album to the next, but Madonna wouldn't be one of them.

The guy who did Meatloaf's stuff was responsible for that Dion song. Actually, he recorded a version of it years back.

JR - Madonna may add some new spin on stuff, but it's not drastically different. A lot of artists do that. Britney's new one has some new sounds for her but still falls under dance/pop, too.