The Grammys update nomination requirements in the ‘Album of the Year’ category

[Economy 47,612]

1 hour ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Best decision, for sure, it was always a ridiculous rule. To see artists who contributed one teeny feature manage to get a Grammy nomination for being part of another artist's album has never made sense to me. Even Lana getting a nom for The Weeknd's Starboy because she did a brief feature on it didn't sit right with me, which is why I'm glad it never won as even if that meant she'd have a Grammy, it would be on a technicality in my mind, a Grammy on paper but ultimately meaningless. If she wins for a song that's a duet or a feature, I can just about deal with that, but not just a tiny part of the puzzle in the a big overall product of another artist's work. Surprised this was a rule for so long. I mean, this is totally allowing artists to feature all their friends on their album so they can at the very least say that they got nominated for a Grammy and it means a massive amount of unnecessary trophies have to be produced.

Tbh I feel something Simmilar should exist in hot 100 rules for singles

 

If an artist raps 2 lines and sings for 7 seconds on a song that went #1, they should not be credited with that song as a #1 or top 10 etc to their name

 

It never sat well with me either that Nicky Minaj was breaking records for most top 10s in a variety of categories just cuz she kept getting brief features in a bunch of songs.

 

[StrawberryBlond 14,215]

17 hours ago, Economy said:

Tbh I feel something Simmilar should exist in hot 100 rules for singles

 

If an artist raps 2 lines and sings for 7 seconds on a song that went #1, they should not be credited with that song as a #1 or top 10 etc to their name

 

It never sat well with me either that Nicky Minaj was breaking records for most top 10s in a variety of categories just cuz she kept getting brief features in a bunch of songs.

 

Absolutely. I hate how it's considered to be the featured artist's #1 as much as the lead artist's. In my mind, it must be an official duet (defined as equal amounts of singing from both parties involved) for them to lay equal claim to it. That's why I'm glad that Wikipedia separates singles as a lead artist from a featured artist. It's obviously much easier for rappers to build up their hit portfolio because the nature of their genre involves collabs but for the average artist, they will look like they don't have as many hits by comparison, so it isn't really fair to act like every song you're remotely a part of is yours. I've even seen artists who just provided instrument playing on the track be credited as a feature now, so it tells me that people are trying to take advantage of the very loose definition of track ownership in order to be credited as part of a hit and/or Grammy.

[Economy 47,612]

2 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Absolutely. I hate how it's considered to be the featured artist's #1 as much as the lead artist's. In my mind, it must be an official duet (defined as equal amounts of singing from both parties involved) for them to lay equal claim to it. That's why I'm glad that Wikipedia separates singles as a lead artist from a featured artist. It's obviously much easier for rappers to build up their hit portfolio because the nature of their genre involves collabs but for the average artist, they will look like they don't have as many hits by comparison, so it isn't really fair to act like every song you're remotely a part of is yours. I've even seen artists who just provided instrument playing on the track be credited as a feature now, so it tells me that people are trying to take advantage of the very loose definition of track ownership in order to be credited as part of a hit and/or Grammy.

Im also ok with a feature getting credited provided they are in a significant enough portion of the song that it feels like to was their song also and to be fair features can largely be responsible for a songs success not just the lead artist...

 

What I'm not ok with is them getting the credit achievement if their feature is extremely small like singing a brief couple lines for a few seconds. To me that's cheap and cheating

 

If they had some kind of minimum like a a featured artist must be in at least 40 seconds of a song or 25% of it (which ever is greater) to get that credit, I'd also be ok with it.

 

But an artist like Nicky Minaj doesn't deserve half the top 10s she has under her name

[monstertoronto 8,779]

This makes so much sense. It completely diluted the achievement of the actual artist and main producers/contributors to give literally everyone a Grammy for the highest honor. Taylor getting credits on Sour so that Olivia could avoid a lawsuit for the thinnest similarity on one or two lines to Taylor songs was already egregious.  But Taylor getting written up as being nominated for AOTY for Sour for her bullshit credits was horrifying. 

[Ziggy 10,774]

On 6/16/2023 at 9:00 AM, Lippoutou said:

Does anyone have an example of an album that contained less than 20% of playtime of credited artists and that was recently nominated??? Sounds to me like it doesn't change anything.

Grace jones on Renaissance and age of pleasure. She wouldn’t get a Grammy now bc of how brief her appearance is. Tbh that seems very fair lol

[edengowon 9,958]

19 minutes ago, monstertoronto said:

This makes so much sense. It completely diluted the achievement of the actual artist and main producers/contributors to give literally everyone a Grammy for the highest honor. Taylor getting credits on Sour so that Olivia could avoid a lawsuit for the thinnest similarity on one or two lines to Taylor songs was already egregious.  But Taylor getting written up as being nominated for AOTY for Sour for her bullshit credits was horrifying. 

to be fair taylor was always going to get a credit. the cruel summer/deja vu thing is debatable but 1 step forward, 2 steps back directly samples new year's day. like as far as i know this was even included in press releases for the album.