Talk:Grammy Award

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
News This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details.

The citation is in: "All about the Grammys." (February 8, 2005). The Star Online. [1].

Contents

[edit] old topics

We need to include info about how people are nominated exactly. I.E: Can Joe Schmo just call up his local grammy office and nominate someone..?

Georg Solti is listed as having won both 31 and 38 Grammy awards - pick one. The Grammy Award search page [2] only returns 31 results now (May 9) when a search is done on Solti. It seems inappropriate to write he is "listed for 38 Grammys"


I'm not sure what links we should have on this page. Are we going to have articles for each of the awards? I think they work for the Album of the Year and so on, but I'm not so sure that we should have individual pages for Grammy Award for Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group With Vocal and so on. What do you think? -- sannse 20:38 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)


I think we should have one listing all the winners (and even nominees) in each category. The information, even for the dorky Grammy Awards, is encyclopedic and proper for inclusion into the Wikipedia, and the best way to do it (IMHO) is to have a separate page for each award, dorky or not. Tuf-Kat
Interestingly, immediately after writing this comment, I wrote an article at Synchronicity (album) and it turns out it won the Grammy for Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal. Tuf-Kat

OK, I'll add the links. Thanks -- sannse

Ugg, I'll add the links tomorrow, it's more work than I thought it was. -- sannse 22:12 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

What do people think about renaming the year pages to 1st Annual Grammy Awards and so on? The introduction for each year would still list the year awarded in and the year awarded for, so we wouldn't lose information. It would just clarify things a bit. -- sannse 14:39 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music standards

Is there a convention that would apply to the Grammy listings? For Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Performance and the year pages we have: Artist, Title but for Grammy Award for Record of the Year and some of the other awards we have: Title Artist. Which is best? -- sannse 22:42 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

I'd say it depends. For a Best Recording award, the title should go first. For a Best Performance/r or Best New Artist, the name should go first, IMO. Tuf-Kat
That would make the year pages quite confusing and difficult to do (presuming we would need the same format for the individual listing on the year page as for the corresponding overall page). I think it might be better to have the same format right the way down the page, and on similar pages.
There are also quite a few awards that don't go to the artist or the song, they go to the producer or writer or whatever. Maybe the format should be,
[[Award winner]] for ''Title'' performed by [[Artist]]
And if the artist is the award winner then just,
[[Award winner]] for ''Title''
It seems to make sense to have the award winner listed first. -- sannse 23:41 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)
Oh, I hadn't thought of that... Yeah, then I like your scheme. Tuf-Kat

That makes sense to me, Sannse -- I've been adding lists as I get the chance (Grammy Award for Best New Artist, for example), I'll look them over and switch to that format where necessary. (I'm not exactly a follower of the Grammies -- I was a bit confused to discover that Best Pop Vocal can go to either a song or an album, but I believe I've got them all straight now -- wouldn't hurt to have another pair of eyes look.)

I haven't looked at the year pages in depth, because they look like they've been built pretty haphazardly. I think we should agree on a template, probably based on the Grammy page as far as being broken up by category. Once we've agreed on one, I'll be happy to start filling them in. (and to think, I got sucked into this because one band I like won a Grammy once, and there was no place to mention it on the Grammy page....) Catherine 17:00 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

Heh! I got sucked into it too - trying to fix the entries that were as someone thought they should have been rather than as they actually were. I'm not a fan of the Grammys either.
I have started standardising the year pages using the Grammy page as a template. Grammy Awards of 1971 is in that format for example. I'll switch to the above arrangement for the individual listings, I think it should work well. -- sannse 16:42 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

Looks great, Sannse. Let me know if/where you need help. On another note, "Grammy Award" currently redirects to "Grammy" -- do you think it should be the other way around? People are more likely to type [[Grammy]], but "Grammy Award" sounds more complete.... Catherine 17:24 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

I think you are right. The main page would be better at [[Grammy Award]]. [[Grammy]] would still be a redirect so there would be no problem with links to that. I'll do the move now.
I've tried the new arrangement on Grammy Awards of 1971. Any thoughts anyone? -- sannse

Again, looks good. Just one question -- the Pop awards are titled "Best Contemporary [whatever]" -- is that the official name of the award? Did it get changed to "Best Pop [whatever]" at some point? Should one title redirect to the other?

Also -- we should probably move this discussion to the Grammy talk page, no? Doesn't really belong in Music Standards anymore.... Catherine 19:58 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

end of moved text

Yep, I've moved it here.
It looks like they did change the award names. Grammy.com lists the awards as "Other Pop/Rock&Roll/ Contemporary Awards or Instrumental" and don't differentiate between the five different awards given out that year. So I looked at infoplease.com (warning: lots of pop-ups!) and got the more precise names from there. It looks like they used these award names for the 10th to the 13th. Possibly it would be better to list them on the same page as the equivalent current award. Maybe with a note on the page to explain the change? There is a similar problem with Academy Award for Best Picture etc. Personnally I find that page a bit confusing, so I'm not sure how similar the Grammy pages should be (in particular I think listing all the nominies makes the page too cluttered).
To be honest I sort of postponed thinking about this. I was going to do the year pages and then consider how to arrange the individual award pages and whether to change the links. There may be other similar complication with other awards changing names, I'm not sure. These things do get complicated ;) -- sannse 20:40 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be decided right away. I think the overall page for an award should be titled with whatever the current name is -- "Best Pop [whatever]". Then on that page, we can note that "from 19xx to 19xx this category was called "Best Contemporary [whatever]". Link text should reflect whatever is chronologically appropriate for the award being discussed -- i.e., older awards given the old title, which would redirect to the page with the newer title (or use a piped link to send it there).

I've been getting my info from http://www.rockonthenet.com/grammy/, which has it in fairly simple lists, but I'm not sure how accurate they are on award titles, so help me out if I err. Thanks! Catherine

That sounds good. OK, we'll give it a go! As time permits of course, I know you are busy with lots of other Wiki work too :) -- sannse

LOL -- actually, I just added Grammy Award for Best Male Rock Vocal Performance, and its adjunct Grammy Award for Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance -- apparently for three years, there weren't enough female contenders in the rock category! (Just a surmise on my part; if you find out for sure it might be worthwhile to add it to the text on the page.) Catherine

There is an orphan out there called Best Comedy Album...can someone save it? Kingturtle 06:43 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Done, moved appropriately (Grammy Award for Best Comedy Performance), and filled to the brim with chocolatey goodness. Catherine 23:47 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

The introduction does a good job of discussing the negativity aimed at the Grammys, but it needs some de-weaseling. Here: "Some feel that because Grammy voters tend to vote conservatively, and are marketed to by record companies, the most widely-recognized Grammys tend to go to either well-established artists or those being hyped by the recording industry. Hence, the Grammys are not taken seriously by some musicians and music fans" "Some music fans believe that the competition between these awards shows (and the controversies that come with it) only press the need for a unified awards system" These are valid topics, but if we can't figure out a better way of phrasing things (with examples and whatnot), I may be forced to delete these.

[edit] Beyonce

is she really a part of the voters?

[edit] The "Latin" Controversy

The Latin Grammys represent works of achievement in music of Spanish and Portuguese speaking artists. However, the term "latin" indicates the language that originated in ancient Rome. When speaking of latin peoples, it refers to people of countries who speak a language that is derived from the original latin. Therefore all Spanish, Italian, French and Portuguese speaking artists and countries should be included in the Latin Grammys. "Latin" refers to all people with origins to any of the romance languages listed above. The "Latin Grammy Awards" should come to include Italian and French artists because they too are "Latin" If Italian and French cannot be included, then it has been suggested that the name be changed to "Hispanic Grammy Awards". The misuse of the term "latin" is upsetting to some and has become a rising issue for debate.

Thank you for expressing your concerns. The term "Latin" in this case is used simply because the name of the organization that issues the awards is "The Latin Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, Inc. (see http://www.grammy.com/Latin/ for more information), and they are the ones who selected the name of the award. It is unfortunate if the term upsets some people, but it would not be appropriate to change an encyclopedia article to a more politically correct term simply to avoid upsetting some people, when that would no longer describe the topic of the article. If enough people are upset about the term, they should probably discuss the matter with the Academy directly. Even if the Academy changed the award's name at some future date, this article would likely remain, because this is the name under which the awards were originally issued. Please remember that Wikipedia is a record of information, not a commentary on society. --Willscrlt 00:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crunk

Is there really a "Best Crunk Album" category? Someone seems to be doing a little vandalism.

[edit] Plural

Is the plural of "Grammy" really "Grammys"? Shouldn't it be "Grammies"? (Although that does engender visions of little blue-haired old ladies.) Al 19:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The "correct" plural of Grammys is the GRAMMY Awards. A GRAMMY Award is the correct singular. You may also state a person is a GRAMMY winner, or a person has won several GRAMMY Awards. I presume the reason for this is that GRAMMY is an adjective that describes the noun (the award, the winner, etc.). This is likely due to U.S. trademark issues, wherein adjectives can be trademarked, but not nouns. (Kleenex-brand facial tissues is correct, but referring to all facial tissues as Kleenex is not. It would be silly to ask for Kleenexes tissues, though people commonly and mistakenly ask for Kleenexes.) Note also that GRAMMY should be capitalized in full to be proper. See http://www.grammy.com/Recording_Academy/Awards/ for correct examples. --Willscrlt 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Searching deeper through www.grammy.com, I did find an example of the pluralized abbreviated form of GRAMMYs at http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/News/Default.aspx?newsID=1763&newsCategoryID=7 I think it would be safe to assume that the singular, lower-case s following the all-capital GRAMMY really is a proper way of refering to the awards show and probably also the award statues, too. --Willscrlt 02:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most awards for a female

How can both of these statements in the artical be true?

Legendary Opera Diva Leontyne Price has won 18 awards.

Alison Krauss has the most Grammy's for a female. Aretha Franklin also has 17 awards to her name (if one counts her Lifetime Achievement Award)

Yep, the second is wrong - Leontyne Price has more awards (checked with Grammy.com). I've removed the wrong bit -- sannse (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

hey can u list the nominations to all the genre fields like u did on the general field it looks right like that.

As of the 48th (2006) grammy award ceremony Alison Krauss has the most grammy's for a female. She won three this year bringing her total to 20.

[edit] Georg Solti

Georg Solti is listed twice in the records section. The first time it says he won 31 times and the second time it says he won 38 times. Chiok 23:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The lower number is right. If you look him up at the grammy site (winners search), there are 38 wins found, but of those, six are wins for the engineer and one is a win for a soloist. So he personally won 31 grammys.

[edit] title

you do realize that the purpose of not using the 's' at the end of an article title is to prevent the use of plurals. "Grammy Awards" is not a plural thing. it is a singular award show. sure, the physical statues would be plural, but this article is not about the statue.

[edit] significant artists

Are Motley Crue and Def Leappard really "significant" bands?

Hell yeah, what would strippers dance to if Motley Crue never existed?, also everyone remembers Def Lepard as the band with the drummer with one arm (cant remember any song by them though).

[edit] Category??

Is there a category for Grammy Award winners? If yes, where is it? It's not at Category:Grammy Award winners. AndyJones 12:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Sorry, forget I spoke, yes it is. Didn't come up in a search for some reason, but I've found it now I've typed a link on this page. Sorry to have bothered you. AndyJones 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norah Jones/Christopher Cross

Norah Jones and Christopher Cross are listed on Wikipedia as being the only two artists ever to have one the "big four" Grammys in one year (Album, Record, Song, and New Artist). But according to the page Grammy Award for Song of the Year the song for which Norah Jones "won" was written by someone else. Isn't Song of the Year awarded to the songwriter? If this is all true, then Norah Jones didn't win the big four.

[edit] Clarification -- Age Records

The article says the LeAnn Rhimes is the youngest person ever to win a Grammy at 14 years old, but then goes on to say that Joss Stone is the youngest person to be nominate at age 17. Considering that LeAnn Rhimes won two competitive awards, she had to have been nominated before actually winning, making her younger than Stone at the time. Additionally, I'm quite sure that there is a gospel artist by the name of DeLeon Richards who holds the record for being the youngest nominee in Grammy history (she was nine at the time).

[edit] GRAMMY or Grammy?

While the awaard foundation spells the name "GRAMMY", neither the L.A. Times[3] nor N.Y. Times[4] do so. They use the normal spelling of "Grammy". Since the name is not an acronym (it's short for "gramophone"), why should we capitalize it? -Will Beback · † · 05:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless there's an objection, I'll move it back to "Grammy Award". -Will Beback · † · 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not impartial because I was the one who moved it. :-) However, the reason why I moved it and made the other changes is because the Recording Academy is extremely consistent throughout its Website, its press releases, and all other public facing materials that I could find, to always capitalize the word GRAMMY, even within the term GRAMMYs. As I explained above, the GRAMMY is a registered trademark in the United States. Companies often choose unusual capitalization in trademarks to make the trademark easily distinguishable and also to make it clear that the trademark is not a word, per se, but rather intellectual property owned by the company. It could be compared to writing IKEA as Ikea, GM as Gm, or eBay as Ebay. I wish that the Recording Academy had an official style guide available on their Website, because that would clearly explain the proper way to type it. Short of that, I can only suggest we follow the established styles they use consistently throughout their Website, press releases, and marketing materials. I will continue to change the rest of the pages and references over to all capital letters if the consensus is to proceed that direction. If it is to revert back to lower case letters, then I will be willing to make the reversions back myself, unless Will Beback would rather do it. Either way, I'm just trying to help improve the accuracy of the provided information--not cause conflicts. --Willscrlt 01:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't see an explanation for the unusual spelling in any of their materials. If it was logical it'd be different. "GM" is an abbreviaiton, the full name is "General Motors". "IKEA" is an acronym. On a related issue, we always try to keep our article titles in the sungular. See Emmy Award, Nobel Prize, etc. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 02:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I admit that GM was a fairly poor example. Additionally, I did not know that IKEA was an abbreviation. It would be difficult to argue that eBay should be capitalized as Ebay. I have checked the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) database (see http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm and click "search" in the right-hand column, then do a "Basic" search if anyone else wishes to confirm this) and GRAMMY, GRAMMY AWARDS (only the plural, not the singular), and several other GRAMMY terms are all registered trademarks. That really does not help our discussion, however, because all the text (including AWARDS) is capitalized in most of the registrations. If you look at GRAMMY SALUTE TO JAZZ, you will notice that only GRAMMY is in all-caps, and the rest of the words are capitalized as normal English. Another example on www.grammy.com that clearly shows how The Recording Academy always capitalizes each letter of the word can be found in this press release or the other releases on the site. In each case, GRAMMY is always all-caps, and The Recording Academy has the "The" capitalized as well. I'm really not trying to be petty here. I think it is important to refer to the awards, the show, and its winners by the properly spelled and capitalized name of the award as the awarding organization refers to it. Maybe the L.A. and N.Y. Times do not capitalize each letter. They probably have artistic reasons for choosing not to (they probably think it would confuse people and make them think they are looking at a subheadline or an abbreviation), but which source is more accurate: the originator or someone else discussing something second-hand? I know that WP seems to view third-party reports sometimes more authoritatively than first-parties, but when it comes to the name of a product being presented, I think the originator should be considered the authority. If desired, I will happily contact The Recording Academy and request that they post a clarification to their Website. If they say it's not important enough to them to bother doing that, then I also will care less at that point. If they do feel it worthwhile to do so, then I think it only right to follow their standards.
Honestly, do you think am I taking this too seriously? My only motivation here is to be as responsible as possible in helping WP provide accurate information to the public--especially on a page used as a source by the media. If style (meaning matching WP's established styles and formatting) is more important than substance (and there is something I can read documenting that philosophy, rather than askimg me to blindly trust it is so), then by all means, feel free to change it back, and I will find other windmills in need of tipping. :-) --Willscrlt 14:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not just the Timeses that use mixed case. I checked Google news [5] and out of the first 100 responses only one, a press release, uses the upper case. Actually, it appears that the title the Recording Academy would really prefer is "GRAMMY (R)", but we sure aren't going to use that unless there's a major change in how we name articles. The general rule for naming articles is to use the most common variation, not the formal name. So we don't have an article named "McDonald's Corporation"; we do have "McDonald's". If we do go back to mixed case, we should probably include a note indicating the Academy's preference. See WP:NC. Also, there's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks)#All capitalized trademarks on this exact topic and the editors seem to prefer using mixed case for non-acronyms. -Will Beback · † · 21:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for finding those articles. I looked (to avoid appearing like an idiot), but did not come across those. Given those guidelines, I'm all for reverting back to the mixed case. My only remaining question is if the term should be all-caps within the article, or mixed case throughout. I agree about noting the article with The Recording Academy's apparent preference in capitalization and pluralization.
I'd say that we should use mixed case, except where we explain the RA's usage. -Will Beback · † · 19:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've now changed everything back to "Grammy", and adjusted redirects appropriately. -- The Anome 19:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, -Will Beback · † · 22:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Ditto on the thanks. :-) --Willscrlt 01:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominees

Shouldn't the nominees for each award be listed on the appropriate pages? Butterboy 16:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Beatles

The Beatles won 29 grammys (i think, oh, well you look [[6]]) did anyone else win more (in rock)?--Kingforaday1620 22:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect years

From the article: "Years reflect the year in which the awards were presented, for music released in the previous year." This really should be changed, because it means that Wikipedia doesn't match with its sources—if someone is looking for a 2005 Grammy winner, those winners shouldn't be listed under Grammy Awards of 2006. -- Rynne 15:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/a/Talk%7EGrammy_Award_39cc.html"