Grammy Noms? Cue Obligatory Eye Roll

120707 reagan Grammy Noms? Cue Obligatory Eye RollEvery year, the music nerd community does a massive eye roll when the Grammy nominations are announced. Sitting on their high bar stools, they thumb their noses and whine that all of their favorite, totally obscure, “indie” artists will never get the recognition they deserve. Even if those artists do make the list, they complain, they’ll lose out to whichever act has the most radio play, the best PR people, or maybe the nicest ass.

This year is no different: How is Feist a "Best New Artist" when she released her debut solo album Monarch (Lay Your Jewelled Head Down) in 1999? What the hell does an "Best Urban/Alternative Performance" even mean? How did the Soulja Boy dance become a nomination for best rap song? And even though we adore her and her giant booty, there is no way Beyonce’s "Irreplaceable" belongs on the "Record of the Year" list.

Shrug. What can you do?

The Village Voice‘s Tom Breihan commiserates:

That nomination-day feeling isn’t outrage, exactly; every music dork in the world has an ideal Grammy-nomination list in mind, and the actual nominations never look anything like those fantasy lists. It’s more confusion. Are there really people out there who not only made it through Vince Gill’s massive four-disc album These Days but who actually consider it to be the Album of the Year? Is Amy Winehouse really the cultural juggernaut this list makes her look like? How have I never even heard of one of the Best New Artist nominees? For one day every December, it’s like I’ve stumbled into some alternate pop universe where everything is upside down and nothing makes sense. I’m not saying I necessarily know more about pop music than the industry insiders who pick the nominees; after all, I’ve never heard of Best New Artist nominee Ledisi, and they, evidently, have. But the logic behind so many of these choices just baffles me.

Article continues below
More from Business & Tech
People take part in a protest outside the New York Times on February 26, 2017 in New York. The White House denied access Frebuary 24. 2017 to an off-camera briefing to several major US media outlets, including CNN and The New York Times. Smaller outlets that have provided favorable coverage however were allowed to attend the briefing by spokesman Sean Spicer. The WHCA said it was "protesting strongly" against the decision to selectively deny media access. The New York Times said the decision was "an unmistakable insult to democratic ideals," CNN called it "an unacceptable development," and The Los Angeles Times warned the incident had "ratcheted up the White House's war on the free press" to a new level. / AFP / KENA BETANCUR (Photo credit should read KENA BETANCUR/AFP/Getty Images)
NYT Now Earns More From Readers Than Advertisers—Thanks, Trump