mcfan wrote:
But India's point is clearly about the Grammys NOT being a popularity contest. What you're saying is that Justin's win is justifiable because he was the most popular nominee. So the Grammys are about popularity? Well they have been for some time, but that was not the point of the award in the first place.
About R&B not being popular, this shouldn't matter to them. Why not rotate the categories they display? If they didn't show the Pop Vocal category one year, nobody would die. If the Grammys wanted to be fair to everyone they'd find a way to be inclusive, regardless of the popularity of the genre.
Why should the Pop artists benefit from that exposure more than the R&B acts who are relegated to the pre-show? What makes them more special?
My point about popularity is just that it's natural; the more popular musicians are going to be more known in her general and are thus more likely to get votes. I am it saying voters vote directly based on popularity, I'm saying more voters know JT than know PJ Morton or even Tamar.
And the Grammys want good ratings so of course for the televised portion they will take popularity into account. What makes Pop more "special" is that the nominees for, say, Pop Solo are more interesting/known to the casual viewer than those in R&B Solo. And again, why aren't you and India.Arie mentioning the black Darius Rucker winning Country Solo? Should white people be upset a black man won that? And why only focus on black artists? Why not mention that Latin didn't get any performers or awards on air. Neither did jazz. You're being just as exclusive.