Grammy Nominations

[Louis]

At the risk Of being unpopular, I have to say Adele is overrated.

I'm tempted to give you positive rep just for going against the grain when no one else will.

Adele is . The first time I heard "Rolling in the Deep" play on the cable music, I was putting away dishes and broke a plate because I swear my heart stopped (or least my brain did!). I couldn't speak for 5 minutes after hearing "Someone Like You." My heart was racing and my stomach was in knots. If there's another album this decade as good as 21, I'll consider myself lucky!

Adele. (But also VIETgrl for going against the grain!)

For me, Set Fire to the Rain and Rumour Has It are not as exceptionally once-in-a-lifetime great, but they give me hope that Adele can be more versatile.

[FiveRinger]

Ok--I just bought Live at Royal Albert Hall by Adele with the CD/DVD for 13.99 combined at Target. Best money I've spent on music in a long time. I was pissed that the DVD is protected and won't play in my laptop, but I have to say that I laughed all of the way thru it when I watched. She's hilarious. Makes me wish she'd get well so I can go see her live myself. And I now have a new favorite cover: If It Hadn't Been for Love

[kylet3]

I was in London the day of that concert but tickets were all sold out unless you wanted to pay out the nose for standing room only

[VIETgrlTerifa]

Don't get me wrong, Adele is an exceptional singer and I do enjoy her music. I just think the uber lovefest and above reproach attitude toward her mixed with the usual generational "music is so horrible nowadays but thank goodness Adele is saving it" that I've been hearing since 21 came out is a bit much. Thanks for the encouragement, Louis.

[Allskate]

Ok--I just bought Live at Royal Albert Hall by Adele with the CD/DVD for 13.99 combined at Target. Best money I've spent on music in a long time. I was pissed that the DVD is protected and won't play in my laptop, but I have to say that I laughed all of the way thru it when I watched. She's hilarious. Makes me wish she'd get well so I can go see her live myself. And I now have a new favorite cover: If It Hadn't Been for Love

She's reportedly said that she plans to sing at the Grammys. I saw her in concert this past summer and she was fabulous. Great singing and what a hoot. I have to get the DVD.

I love 21 (and 19), but no singer is going to be everyone's cup of tea. That said, I will be baffled if Katy Perry or Rhianna beat her out for the vocals award.

[BigB08822]

They shouldn't beat her out but don't forget, the use of the word "vocal" in the category title is misleading. The award isn't based on vocals. Or I should say, it isn't ONLY based on vocals. I am sure that weighs in on many voters decision.

[Allskate]

They shouldn't beat her out but don't forget, the use of the word "vocal" in the category title is misleading. The award isn't based on vocals. Or I should say, it isn't ONLY based on vocals. I am sure that weighs in on many voters decision.

But isn't there a category that is based on the quality of the singing, not the lyrics and music? If not, then that's just silly.

[cailuj365]

I for one love Rihanna's CD, and I hated her
stuff in the past and thought she was overrated. I think her songs are excellent in pop music standards.

I'm actually a huge fan of Rihanna. As much as I like artists for their singing ability, I also love good, catchy pop music. I like Katy Perry for the same reasons (dodges tomatoes). I don't need a stellar vocalist to knock me out every time when I turn on my iPod. As impressive as a great voice is, I think it's just as impressive for someone to craft a melody that gets the masses hooked immediately. So I don't really mind when I see Rihanna or Katy get nominated, because I think they do somewhat deserve to be there. As long as they don't win!

[Allskate]

I'm actually a huge fan of Rihanna. As much as I like artists for their singing ability, I also love good, catchy pop music. I like Katy Perry for the same reasons (dodges tomatoes). I don't need a stellar vocalist to knock me out every time when I turn on my iPod. As impressive as a great voice is, I think it's just as impressive for someone to craft a melody that gets the masses hooked immediately. So I don't really mind when I see Rihanna or Katy get nominated, because I think they do somewhat deserve to be there. As long as they don't win!

I don't know how much of a role Rhianna and Katy have in writing and arranging their songs. I have the impression that Katy does more than Rhianna does. I do think those talents should be rewarded, but not in a category that is supposed to be about vocals. They're different kinds of talents and both types should be rewarded in different categories. Katy Perry is on my ipod, but I'll be the first to admit that it's not because she has a great voice. And it would be a joke if she won a Grammy supposedly based on her voice.

[BlueRidge]

I am ecstatic that my favorite singer got two nominations in the Classical category :p
Best Solo Vocal and Best Opera recording. Now, if she were to win at least one...
/carry on

I've heard some of both of those recordings. Fabulous! It would be nice if she won, but even better if I could have the albums! (all about me... )

But I'm a bit torn because I also Natalie Dessay's Handel Cd.

/classical interruption over...

[SaSherka]

I've heard some of both of those recordings. Fabulous! It would be nice if she won, but even better if I could have the albums! (all about me... )

But I'm a bit torn because I also Natalie Dessay's Handel Cd.

/classical interruption over...

/classical interruption cont.
I have both of JDD's recordings and they're fab! Ercole is long (but omg what a cast!) and Diva/Divo is a fun concept.
I have Dessay's Delirio, but not Cleopatra. Any good? =) /how long 'til February...?/
/classical interruption over.

[cailuj365]

I don't know how much of a role Rhianna and Katy have in writing and arranging their songs. I have the impression that Katy does more than Rhianna does. I do think those talents should be rewarded, but not in a category that is supposed to be about vocals. They're different kinds of talents and both types should be rewarded in different categories. Katy Perry is on my ipod, but I'll be the first to admit that it's not because she has a great voice. And it would be a joke if she won a Grammy supposedly based on her voice.

Both Rihanna and Katy's songs or albums are nominated in other categories that are not strictly about vocals. Also, as Brian mentioned earlier, the vocal performance and pop vocal album categories are a bit of a misnomer. The last time I checked, it signifies any performance/single track or album that has pop vocals in it. However, I think that the Grammy voters consider excellent vocals as a major factor when choosing the winner. This year, Best Pop Male Vocal Performance, Best Pop Female Vocal Performance, and Best Pop Instrumental have been condensed to a single category called Best Pop Solo Performance. So technically, a track doesn't even need vocals to be nominated and win in that category now. That won't happen this year as all of the nominees feature vocals.


FYI, Katy Perry does have solo writing credits in her previous albums, so she is capable of writing by herself. Though, for all of her major singles, she has co-writing credit, which could be as little as an adding a single line/modifying lyrics. Also, I'm probably in the minority in this again, but I think that Katy and Rihanna do have some vocal talent. I've seen pretty good live performances from them occasionally (some great ones from Katy even). IMO, they have very distinctive voices too which add character to the melody.

[Ozzisk8tr]

I can't believe Jessie J was ignored. I thought "Pricetag" was a big hit in the USA.

[dramagrrl]

If there's another album this decade as good as 21, I'll consider myself lucky!

I think Adele's great and all, but at this hyperbole. Even if we're saying "this decade" started in 2010, there has already been at least one album (if not many more) as good (and IMO, much better)... it's called The Suburbs by the Arcade Fire, and when it won Album of the Year last year, it became one of the few things the Grammys ever got right.

[Allskate]

Also, as Brian mentioned earlier, the vocal performance and pop vocal album categories are a bit of a misnomer. The last time I checked, it signifies any performance/single track or album that has pop vocals in it. However, I think that the Grammy voters consider excellent vocals as a major factor when choosing the winner. This year, Best Pop Male Vocal Performance, Best Pop Female Vocal Performance, and Best Pop Instrumental have been condensed to a single category called Best Pop Solo Performance. So technically, a track doesn't even need vocals to be nominated and win in that category now.

That makes no sense to me. But, I guess that's the direction of the music industry, with quality vocals being less and less important. I have heard both Katy and Rhianna do live performances, and I definitely was not impressed. IMO, there is no way they deserve Grammys based on their vocals. Distinctive is not the same as good. I like Katy Perry. I do think she has artistic input in her music and performances and I think she is cute and fun and creative. But that's different from having a great voice and it would be nice if the Grammys recognized great vocal performances in at least one category.

I guess I don't understand any of the categories. How many of the "Best New Artist" nominees are really new?

[jenny12]

I think Adele's great and all, but at this hyperbole. Even if we're saying "this decade" started in 2010, there has already been at least one album (if not many more) as good (and IMO, much better)... it's called The Suburbs by the Arcade Fire, and when it won Album of the Year last year, it became one of the few things the Grammys ever got right.

FWIW, Florence and the Machine's new album scored about the same as Adele's on metacritic. Don't get me wrong, Adele is great, but I don't think she's all alone at the top of the mountain.

[VIETgrlTerifa]

And here I thought Rihanna had great vocals. She's not the belter Adele is, but she's no Katy Perry or Britney Spears in the singing department. Just listen to "Like the Way You Lie Part 2" or "Man Down". Hell, even "S&M" shows what pop singing is about. I think people need to understand vocal performances for pop music isn't the same for as it would be for a classical vocalist or blues one. I understand having standards but I think people should step back from being needlessly snobby. I mean didn't Norah Jones win a bunch of Grammys a decade ago and her style of singing is definitely distinctive but not necessarily powerful. Anyway, it's sort of moot because Adele is going to take home those trophies.

[Allskate]

My issue with Rhianna is not that she's not a belter and I haven't seen a single person in this thread make that argument about her singing or compare her to classical vocalists. Bruno Mars isn't a belter, either, but I think he's an excellent vocalist. (I also think Norah Jones is wonderful.) My favorite GaGa performances are the ones with the more restrained vocals, though I agree with Cailuj's assessment of her more recent work.

I just don't think that Rhianna sings very well --I mean not even on pitch -- without studio magic. BTW, believing this doesn't make one a snob, and saying that people are being "needlessly snobby" isn't a very convincing argument.

[Jenna]

To answer Allskate's question about the Best New Artist category: "Best New Artist" doesn't exactly mean you are "new" to the industry (Bon Iver). It's basically when the Grammy voters start to take notice of you for the first time. That could be years after you first hit the scene.

[cailuj365]

And here I thought Rihanna had great vocals. She's not the belter Adele is, but she's no Katy Perry or Britney Spears in the singing department. Just listen to "Like the Way You Lie Part 2" or "Man Down". Hell, even "S&M" shows what pop singing is about. I think people need to understand vocal performances for pop music isn't the same for as it would be for a classical vocalist or blues one. I understand having standards but I think people should step back from being needlessly snobby. I mean didn't Norah Jones win a bunch of Grammys a decade ago and her style of singing is definitely distinctive but not necessarily powerful. Anyway, it's sort of moot because Adele is going to take home those trophies.

Hey now, Katy Perry is a much better singer than Britney Spears, and I think she can do more with her voice than Rihanna actually. She's had a lot of bombs, but Katy's MTV Unplugged series and her recent performance on UK X-Factor are great IMO.

"California King Bed" probably shows off Rihanna's vocals the most from that album, but "Love The Way You Lie Part 2" is good too.

IMO, there is no way they deserve Grammys based on their vocals. Distinctive is not the same as good.

If it makes you feel better, Rihanna and Katy have never won a Grammy in a vocal category. Katy has yet to win a Grammy of any kind. Personally, I think having a distinctive vocal style is a good thing. A lot of the kids doing covers on Youtube have good voices, but they all sing in a kind of generic/pretty way.

I guess I don't understand any of the categories. How many of the "Best New Artist" nominees are really new?

"Best New Artist" nominees are those who "establish public identity" for the first time, making their way into broader, public consciousness for their music. It doesn't have to be the year that they released their first album.