What was Grammy’s agenda with Billie Eilish?

[FfFfFfFF 54,014]

Just now, RAMROD said:

IdK, I won’t be too sure about that.

Adele can keep doing her things and won it 3 times over. But I also saw her old video where she said she just makes music that she wants to. So I guess Billie is not tying herself to particular genres.  So we will see.

Well.

Adele is timeless and not hype-driven and just has a different quality in her music. Billie on the other hand is the next Lorde (or could be, if she can get a Melodrama-leveled acclaim).

[derpmonster 22,412]

I think they were trying to show they were more open to new artists and electronic and pop music? This usually doesn't happen. Clearly there's a change that occurred and Billie benefitted most from it.

I think BNA and ROTY were well deserved. Album was a stretch. And SOTY... nope.

[RudraCNG 13,370]

I mean, talent doesn't mean sh!t to Grammys. They obviously want to stay relevant so of course they will give awards to an artist who gets lots of attention from kids.

I've nothing against Billie and I kinda enjoyed her album but this is how it works.

[Red Velvet 10,973]

First of all, Pop Vocal Album should have went to Lover. Miss Americana and the Heartbreak Prince alone is a masterpiece.

Second, we all know that ARUTW should've won SOTY.

Lastly, NFR should have won AOTY.

[GhettoFabulous 18,501]

She won fair and square get over it 

[RAMROD 96,169]

2 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

Well.

Adele is timeless and not hype-driven and just has a different quality in her music. Billie on the other hand is the next Lorde (or could be, if she can get a Melodrama-leveled acclaim).

She is young and definitely have a long way ahead of her. I am sure she definitely able to. From what I learn this debut album already rated 82 on Metacritic. And get nothing less than 4 stars on other media. She just need to elevate a little after this.

 

[Didymus 32,702]

I CAN'T at people here calling Billie an industry plant when Gaga received the biggest label push during her debut of any popular artist ever How do you think Gaga got so big and so acclaimed so fast? If you reply with "talent" then you should at least open the door for the possibility that Billie has done the same

(Obviously it's a combination of both, but then don't throw Billie under the bus if you're stanning for someone who is still benefiting of the same treatment...)

[derpmonster 22,412]

5 minutes ago, Didymus said:

I CAN'T at people here calling Billie an industry plant when Gaga received the biggest label push during her debut of any popular artist ever How do you think Gaga got so big and so acclaimed so fast? If you reply with "talent" then you should at least open the door for Billie to have done the same

I'm someone who likes Billie but this is not entirely true. Gaga always had a complicated relationship with the label. They didn't want to fund anything. There was a reason she was doing show after show in small clubs with $15 M&Gs throughout the country and beyond after her debut through 2008 and 2009 while other artists who are signed to labels simply don't (they either don't have the sheer stamina or they think it's beneath them or unnecessary). Just Dance was a sleeper hit (as evidenced by chart numbers that rose steadily) and they still didn't want to pay for a proper PF video. Likewise, they didn't want to fund TMB the way she wanted and Live Nation stepped in and made a deal with her. She wasn't making a whole lot because she was paying for a lot of it.

Gaga's debut was a mess and a half and Interscope only started cashing in on her towards the end of the Fame era when she had proved herself. With Billie, they've been supporting her since the beginning of this era (her first public hit era).

 

I agree that people in this fanbase need to be open to other talents because honestly, someone could've listened to The Fame and said Gaga wasn't vocally talented. It's not spectacular vocally. Billie just debuted. She has a lot to prove and will continue to do it. Strong opinions should probably be withheld until then.

[Guillaume Hamon 5,543]

Her music can be called "edgy for 13 yo girls" all you want but she's still making more interesting music than all these generic trap-pop tunes we hear...

She deserved it!  

[FfFfFfFF 54,014]

4 minutes ago, RAMROD said:

She is young and definitely have a long way ahead of her. I am sure she definitely able to. From what I learn this debut album already rated 82 on Metacritic. And get nothing less than 4 stars on other media. She just need to elevate a little after this.

 

It's possible that she'll craft better music in the future when she'll leave this teenage persona behind, however just doesn't mean that she'll get Grammys, Grammys most of the times do not reward merit or artistic quality. 

And she definitely has a lot of improvement to do to her music (vocally and compossitionally).

In terms of metacritic, Lizzo's Cuzz I Love you has a 84, Halsey's Manic has a 81, Ariana's tun has an 86. Pop albums are getting way better scores nowadays especially if they comes with a certain aesthetic or a presentation that is appealing. For instance judging Bjork's 80s scores from today's perspective would make them look less impressive than they were at their time, but it's just that the standard changed. Her score is high but not all that impressive. 

[RAMROD 96,169]

3 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

It's possible that she'll craft better music in the future when she'll leave this teenage persona behind, however just doesn't mean that she'll get Grammys, Grammys most of the times do not reward merit or artistic quality. 

And she definitely has a lot of improvement to do to her music (vocally and compossitionally).

In terms of metacritic, Lizzo's Cuzz I Love you has a 84, Halsey's Manic has a 81, Ariana's tun has an 86. Pop albums are getting way better scores nowadays especially if they comes with a certain aesthetic or a presentation that is appealing. For instance judging Bjork's 80s scores from today's perspective would make them look less impressive than they were at their time, but it's just that the standard changed. Her score is high but not all that impressive. 

Fine. It is interesting discussion anyway.  

[elijahfan 23,511]

She was without a doubt THE artist of 2019, it’s the least biased the Grammys have been in years

[Didymus 32,702]

Just now, derpmonster said:

I'm someone who likes Billie but this is not entirely true. Gaga always had a complicated relationship with the label. They didn't want to fund anything.

...

Gaga's debut was a mess and a half and Interscope only started cashing in on her towards the end of the Fame era when she had proved herself.

That is completely untrue. It's well-known among industry experts that Interscope changed up their strategy with Gaga and designed an intensive pre-release strategy so she could make a name for herself prior to any "official" debut. This mostly flew under the radar until a few years later but there was a huge strategy to catapult her into fame from the moment Gaga played Just Dance to Jimmy

Just one examples: Interscope hired Coalition and FlyLife to force-promote Gaga into the gay club scene. It was always the plan to have her build a grassroots reputation for a full year before Interscope launched her at large. She signed a 360 deal so Interscope knew they had to get it right, no matter how long it took. If you look back at where Interscope booked her and in what order, and how this relates to her eventual chart success in the US (which came right after she was booked on The View, Ellen and Kimmel), this strategy is clear as water, and you have plenty of execs who plainly admitted it in interviews.

[derpmonster 22,412]

2 minutes ago, Didymus said:

That is completely untrue. It's well-known among industry experts that Interscope changed up their strategy with Gaga and designed an intensive pre-release strategy so she could make a name for herself prior to any "official" debut. This mostly flew under the radar until a few years later but there was a huge strategy to catapult her into fame from the moment Gaga played Just Dance to Jimmy

Just one examples: Interscope hired Coalition and FlyLife to force-promote Gaga into the gay club scene. It was always the plan to have her build a grassroots reputation for a full year before Interscope launched her at large. She signed a 360 deal so Interscope knew they had to get it right, no matter how long it took. If you look back at where Interscope booked her and in what order, and how this relates to her eventual chart success in the US (which came right after she was booked on The View, Ellen and Kimmel), this strategy is clear as water, and you have plenty of execs who plainly admitted it in interviews.

This makes full sense - the fact is still that she had to build the grassroots reputation while most other label artists enjoy much more top-down promotion. What would be the benefit of promoting her specifically in that way and not the way that other artists tend to be? Why not just book her for The View, Ellen, Kimmel, and get radio to play her?

[Didymus 32,702]

12 minutes ago, derpmonster said:

This makes full sense - the fact is still that she had to build the grassroots reputation while most other label artists enjoy much more top-down promotion. What would be the benefit of promoting her specifically in that way and not the way that other artists tend to be? Why not just book her for The View, Ellen, Kimmel, and get radio to play her?

Because that strategy didn't work anymore. In the words of Octone Records CEO Diener:

The process of breaking a star has become very difficult. We used to have a very push-through relationship with the music consumer, where you got it on the radio and the radio pounded it one hundred times a day, and the kids said, 'It must be a hit,' and went out and bought it. The consumer now, kids thirteen to twenty-two years old, they're much more savvy. They have many more sources of information. They don't just listen to the radio and say, 'If Ryan Seacrest says it'sa hit, it's got to be a hit.' They're forming their own judgments. To break an artist today, there's got to be some grist for the presentation. Enter Lady Gaga. Lady Gaga is probably the greatest artist development story we've seen in memorable history.

As I said: the pre-release strategy was a strategy, to secure grassroots support from the gay community (which you have to get through performing in local clubs, Fire Island gigs, gay prides, all of which Gaga did), helped by the successful promotion of companies who specialize in that kind of thing (FlyLeaf and Coalition), who could then lift her to a next level once she's taking off musically.

I know most LMs don't like to hear it but anyone who thinks Gaga's success happened organically and solely through her own efforts (which doesn't mean I'm saying she didn't work hard—she worked harder than anyone else debuting) is just buying into a fantasy a lot of men in business suits have been trying to sell. Gaga's success, along with her image, has been designed in an office just like it has been for other pop stars who shot for fame. But, and this is my point, that does not make those pop stars untalented and/or inauthentic.

If we're shooting down Billie for being an "industry plant" then we have to fire that gun at Gaga too. And obviously no one on this forum is willing to do that.