A BREAKDOWN OF THIS ARTICLE AND SOME OF THE REASONS GIVEN FOR ED'S SNUB- AND WHY THOSE REASONS DON'T WORK. "Headlines told the tale: “Experts agree that Ed Sheeran (‘Shape of You’) will win Record of the Year,” said a headline at Gold Derby, where entertainment journalists pick winners for all the major awards. Variety, too, flagged Sheeran as one of the year’s obvious contenders." --And I think we all agree that Divide in itself was/is absolutely a huge contender for Album of the Year. "And now, in a year when he had the year’s biggest single, with “Shape of You” — surpassing even the ginormous “Despacito” — as well as 2017’s biggest pre-Swift album, in “÷ (Divide)” (both stats per the sales and streaming data of BuzzAngle Music), he comes up with just two noms, for pop solo performance and pop vocal album." --Causing many fans and non-fans alike to be in utter disbelief.... "In a conversation with Variety about the nominations, Recording Academy president/CEO Neil Portnow cautions against reading too much into the so-called Sheeran snub. “I think it’s the challenge of trying to create objectivity out of something that’s inherently subjective,” he says. “It’s going to come down to five in each category, so hard choices have to be made. In terms of Ed and the recordings he made, certainly our voters thought highly of him and he is nominated [in two pop categories].” As for the big kahunas, “that’s subjective, that’s our members’ call, and I have to respect that.” --Okay. First of all, this is all about, fundamentally, ART, a legitimate art form, which is, and always will be, subjective; but okay...I understand that you have to narrow down all this art into categories to vote on for the final awards. But, for one thing, do the voters not, then, so as to not allow bias within their group, take into account the what we could call "popular vote," looking at what artists are legitimately receiving praise and a good reaction to their art via multiple plays/purchases etc of said art? However I have to say "legitimately" because as of late, Ed has fallen victim to another snub that's extremely unfair via the charts, where odd limits and rules have been put into place to limit what they literally have dubbed "the Ed Sheeran effect, " because of Ed dominating the charts so much with Divide..... but how, once again, is that in any way fair when again the charts are there to measure subjective art, and are supposed to measure and reflect popular consumption of said art, therefore giving an idea of what art has been deemed, let's say, most loved at the time by the general masses. How is it right to place limits or rules on something that's solely supposed to be a measuring device to take the temperature of what everyone's listening to at the moment? And if a mass amount of people have on their own chosen to listen to a specific artist most, therefore placing that artist's work at the top of the charts- no matter how long- what's wrong with that? I could go on for a long time on this subject alone, but I digress. Frankly, however, going just by how much Divide has topped the charts this year, including songs that weren't released as singles, it should be an absolute and easy shoo-in for Album of the Year. "A quick survey of some voting members of the Academy turned up shock even in their ranks that Sheeran didn’t make it through. Some wondered if this wasn’t a case of the Grammys’ famous blue ribbon committee subverting the will of the larger membership by voting in a more critically acclaimed artist like Childish Gambino in ahead of Sheeran’s blockbusters. The “big room” in the Grammy nominating process, where the top four categories are winnowed down, consists of 25 or more members who look at a list of the 20 top vote-getters from general members and cast their own weighted, secret votes after listening sessions and lively discussions. Clearly, those particular key members loved hip-hop this year, but apparently not as much pop (or the completely MIA country or rock)." --Is this really how it works? And if so, am I the only one seeing a LOT of flaws in that process? "“It’s interesting that all the white people are not going to have any white people to vote for,” laughs one voting member (who is himself white). But on a serious note, this Grammy insider figures that the committee members who wanted a classic pop performer in the mix probably just congregated around Bruno Mars instead of Sheeran. “Did you see Bruno’s show?” asked the voter. “Every member of that band was playing his ass off and the choreography was unbelievable. I don’t think it’s any wonder that Bruno’s the guy all the [non-hip-hop-leaning] people went for. If there was an entertainer of the year category for the Grammys, he would win it.” Okay, first, I don't want to be completely lambasted for this, so please try to be objective, but I'm sorry, but it kinda sounds a little like Ed is becoming the victim of a sort of reverse-discrimination, wherein the powers that be are dancing around the subject but are actually saying/thinking that for the sake of needing diversity, they can't have a white man sweep the Grammy noms/wins.... and if that's the case, then I'm sorry but again this is unfair when you consider again that this is supposed to be awarding ART. This seems like it's becoming a situation where in order to truly be unbiased and award the art for the art, maybe awards should be chosen in a setting like "the Voice," where the artists are not looked at and categorized by their features but rather, by their actual talents. Right? And then this comment about Bruno Mars, who also beat out Ed at the AMA'S, to which some of the people watching with me expressed genuine confusion, commenting that they feel like they've hardly heard anything from Mars this year, definitely nothing to match the gravity of Divide... and then, there's the comments about Mars' live performances- "Every member of that band was playing his ass off," "the choreography was unbelievable..." okay, so as they said, it was very entertaining. However, first of all, that sounds like it's Mars' band and choreographers who should be rewarded and honored for their work, not Mars himself.... and yet we have Ed Sheeran, with his one-man-band, blowing up the charts and captivating millions with his shows wherein, as we all know, HE does the work. It's him, his talent- no band, no elaborate dancers and choreography (which I'm not saying don't have their place and deserve to be recognized, they absolutely do), but Ed stands out and deserves massive recognition for this. He entertains in a way so different from all the other "big kahunas" as they put it; which should make him extremely critically noteworthy and overwhelmingly deserving of recognition for that, especially from the Grammys. "Sheeran may also have been a victim of the “almost as good” factor, with many believing the “Divide” album was just a step below the “Multiply” collection that came out three years earlier. But that factor didn’t hurt Adele, who prevailed with “25,” the bestseller of its year, despite a nearly universal feeling that it wasn’t on a level with “21.” And it wouldn’t explain the exclusion of “Shape of You” for record of the year, which often has more to do with rewarding ubiquitous earworms than artistic peaks." --Really? Just...really? "Another Recording Academy member wondered if “Shape of You” was the right song at the wrong time, with its “I’m in love with your body” lyrical hook being considered in a moment where the conversation is about women rebelling against objectification. “Shape of You” has hardly been held up as objectionable by many feminists, but still, the member asks, “Something must have resonated wrongly with the committee with Sheeran. Is it possible they see that song as a cavalier approach to women in a world that is looking to be a little less cavalier?” --Wow. This is so incredibly ignorant of this song and it's true meanings and how in truth, it's perfect for the climate we're in as it celebrates, not any specific body type but just....well, honestly, the best argument/explanation of the actual brilliance of "Shape Of You" that I've seen was written on here, by @littlebitofbass ... I'll try to find it and post it, unless, Jen, you happen to see this and can link to it- she explained it perfectly and how this song is SO far from what it's being reduced to by these voters/critics/whoever they are (honestly, what are their qualifications? I'm starting to wonder if this is kind of like an MPAA situation). Bottom line, the members who obviously listened without actually paying attention to this song also did not do any research about its origins or meaning, and have jumped to odd conclusions about it, even within a situation where it's admitted that feminists do not view it as objectionable. So, they're just...wrong. "Some other voters are just perplexed. Sheeran is widely seen as one of the good guys for his versatility and creativity, with many in the industry marveling at his ability to sell out arena tours as a one-man band. And in this case, at least, the love he shows for hip-hop has been echoed back by a lot of rappers and urban music pros, who would have been unlikely to complain if he showed up in their company as at least a nominee." --Point made earlier. "“Ed’s talent and work ethic are so amazing,” says a baffled admirer in the Recording Academy who has no professional connections to Sheeran. “Almost after every show he performs, he’ll most likely be writing a new song in his hotel room. With the body of work he’s released over the last five years and the sales and the overall past Grammy love, I would have bet like everyone else that this was his time to nail the top three award nominations. What is wild about the voting process is that he could have missed a tie by one vote out of however many people are in that room, and we’ll never know. The Jay-Z and Kendrick albums are awesome records, and so is Bruno’s. I would have thought Ed’s ultra-successful pop record would have been right up there in the bunch.” --SO WHY ISN'T HE? There truly is no LEGITIMATE reason.... "What’s clear is that, purposely or inadvertently, the Grammys have dodged a bullet in late January with this late November exclusion. A year ago, it was seen as a Beyoncé-versus-Adele contest, with Beyoncé prevailing. But Adele had the sweep… and so favorite Beyoncé herself, she felt compelled to apologize for winning. The result was a #GrammysSoWhite hashtag to echo the charge that’d earlier been lobbed at the Oscars. This year, some Recording Academy members feared a rerun, in which Sheeran would best Lamar in the popular vote — but Tuesday morning’s nominations render that point moot." --Hmmm, I'm sorry, but previous point proven, right there. They wanted to avoid having a white person sweep the Grammys again, despite who actually deserves it due to talent and hard work. #notcool . So make no mistake, this is absolutely about the Recording Academy trying to be "politically correct" and absolutely trying to "dodge a bullet," versus just simply honoring art, true talent, and so on. I don't know what else to say about this, I'm so disappointed in this and so many things like this lately yet have that feeling of utterly no control. My hope is maybe if enough people speak up, perhaps maybe, just maybe, we COULD make a difference.... Sheerios unite? And I mean, this affects more than just Ed. What DOES this mean for the next time Adele puts out an amazing album, but this time they're too afraid to give her the noms she deserves? What happens to Taylor Swift in 2019? We need to do something about this. Perhaps a massive campaign to the Recording Academy president/CEO; Neil Portnow? I love music. I love almost every form and genre of music, with a very deep love. And I believe that artists who put their all into it and produce these amazing, almost magical pieces deserve to be recognized and honored for it- and fairly, based on the art itself and not biases for all kinds of other reasons that have nothing to do with what this is all supposed to be about at its core. Maybe I'm being too harsh? Leave your comments, let me know what you think.
