The window hasn’t completely shut on Lady Gaga’s chances for a Grammy nomination as Best New Artist, Grammy president Neil Portnow revealed to EW on Read the full post.
Nov 22
2009
07:59 PM ET
Grammy president on Lady Gaga: Rule change could make her eligible for Best New Artist
- Comments 92
- Add comment
I think if they change the rules in this eleventh hour then I would seriously consider boycotting the broadcast. Sorry, that’s just B.S. She could have nabbed a BNA nom last year while Just Dance was gaining speed. It didn’t happen. Too bad, so sad.
Thank goodness, she DESERVES that award.
But it shouldn’t be handed to her. >.<
HEY!!!!!!…dats gud news. Gaga is without a doubt the best new artist of 2009..4 consecutive number 1 hits..if dats not deserving of the grammy 4 best new artist..den dats just BS!!!. If gaga cn’t be nominated, it wud be so swak 4 da person dat win..coz obviously they won the award by default.
I’m sorry Lady Gaga fans (and fanatics) but I’m not on the Lady Gaga fan train. She is a poor role model for the under 21 crowd (which is her main demographic/age of most her fans. not to say she doesnt have fans over 21). She is way over hyped and all her music sounds the same. There is nothing unique about her music. How the grammys could want to change the rules just so she could be addeded to list of nominees for best new artist or whatnot and fix it so she be the winner is beyond me. There is so many more deserve artists out there who should win a grammy. But I’ve been told that the Best New Artist award is also known as the kiss of death award to the career of the artist who wins it and very few escape the kiss of death. So there is hope lol.
Honestly, I think that it should be handled the following way:
I think that if they see something wrong with the rule, they should change it, but have it take effect next year. To prevent the same thing from happening in the future. If they do it now, for this year’s awards, it will be too much like fixing the results, because “they want her to win”. That is the real issue.
That’s kinda what they did with Whitney Houston. She was inelligable because she had recorded some duet with Teddy Pendergrass before she hit big. That’s when they changed it.
I was hoping someone would bring up Whitney Houston not being eligible for Best New Artist. Regardless of how one feels about her now, at the time her not being up for this particular category was a mistake.
Lady Gaga is way over blown as a performer. If you take away the really “angry” performances given you can actually hear a voice but I have grown tired of Gaga performances. I don’t think Gaga should be considered a “new performer” at all. That is totally ridiculous.
They need to change the rules. Look at all that she’s achieved. She’s the first person to ever have FOUR #1 hit singles off of a debut album. AND her new album, The Fame Monster, is already at #2 on Itunes and it’s only been out for 7 hours!!
I think David Cook should win this award.
YES!
Lauryn Hill had been nominated as a member of a group. As a solo artist, it was her first recording. I don’t think thats a technicality either. Plenty of people try solo careers after being in a group. She was a new solo artist, and as a new artist should have been up for the award.
Totally disagree. Her music as a solo artist was not different from the music she made as a Fugee. It was a great album, but it’s not like she was brand spanking new and had no presence before. That’d be like Beyonce winning Best New Artist after Destiny’s Child.
Completely agree with Ben. Although I don’t think the Recording Academy should bend the rules for Gaga to make up for their past inconsistencies, but still I can’t stand how flip-floppy they are on the subject of what defines a “new artist”. According to them, a “new artist” is someone who just became huge in the US for the first time (Amy Winehouse won the award, despite the fact that it was her second album at the time, and Shelby Lynne released 5 lesser known albums before getting recognition on her sixth one) a “new artist” is someone who released their first solo album (Lauryn Hill the most famous and obvious example). Why don’t they just make a clear and simple rule: anyone (solo or in a band/group) on a record label who officially releases an album anywhere in the world for the first time ever, should not be eligible for the Best New Artist category after a year of that album’s release. That is far more fair, concrete and clear to follow. None of this “but they were huge in Europe for years until they broke through in the US this year!” or “but he/she already won a Grammy while they were in a band!” nonsense.
David Cook should win this award. He came closest to the Beatles and had 14 covers from the AI show hit the Top Billboard 200 all at one time right after the AI show, and he sold close to 1 million copies of just his covers from the show, not including TOML. He also went platinum on TOML and Light On, and Come Back To Me is doing very well. He’s had 2 of his new hit singles become #1 videos on VH1 Top Twenty Countdown. He’s participated in fund raising for cancer research. He will be performing with Carrie Underwood on 7 Dec on tv…can’t wait!
I think it’s fair to change the ruling. While she was nominated, it was for the Dance Category, a ghetto for artists who do not get love in most other categories. Her song was a dance hit when it was released, but it was this year that she established her public image and presence. If the award is for recognizing artists in the year they established themselves, this was the year of Gaga. What worries me about the show (and what made the AMAs totally less credible – is it possible – was the massive awards love for Michael. While he was a presence and he sold albums, they were not new material. If the Grammy’s do the same, they will lose all credibility. Next year, sure, This is It can be nominated for best soundtrack, but it’s a compliation of old material and inelligable for awards (based on their previous acts).
It might to be Gaga’s advantage not to be nominated. The award is the “kiss of death”.
That’s kinda true, but there have also been many acts who won the award and went on to achieve greater success. So I think it’s just a matter of luck. I don’t think winning any award of any category makes you more or less likely to succeed. It just depends on what’s in the cards for you. If you were meant to be a one-hit wonder, you will end up a one-hit wonder, no matter what awards you do or do not win. The same logic applies if you were meant to have a long-running career.
Hey, if Shelbie Lynn can win “best new artist” for her 6th album, why can’t Lady Gaga? Haters notwithstanding.
True. And Phoenix, which was aparently disqualified due to having released a 4th album.
what if she was nominated and still didn’t win?
that’d be interesting
I honestly do not get why people like her. It’s like the talent is buried under the spectacle. I find it too distracting.
because you don’t think outside the box, that’s why you don’t get her or why others like her.
Well that makes no sense; how is thinking outside the box supposed to make me get her? I think she’s obvious and calculating at trying to make people look at her and go “ooh and aahh” that it completely turns me off.
I know what it is that irritates me about her and I have you Ed to thank for it. She has this mime- trapped-in-a-box quality about her; that whole performance artist thing that’s supposed to be thought-provoking, but is instead more irritating and makes you want to commit violence to the mime. She wraps herself in all that crap to distract from the lame lyrics and so-so vocals.
She’s a lot like Madonna in that regard. But Madonna did get better as she got older. Maybe there’s hope for gaga.