I don't get why the Grammy's hate her

Mariah is second most nominated female ever behind only Arertha, yet only five wins.

The industry and critics pretty much held a grunge against her because she was married to the biggest music mogul at the time. And because of Tommy she had huge commercial success. She was the top priority act in Columbia Records, and she received more attention and promo too. She was smooth sailing through her career, so critics hated that.

They even went to say her voice was computer generated and we all know that's false.


The same thing is happening now with Lana due to her supposed "rich dad".

Mariah has always been more acclaimed than Madonna according to the grammys.(more nominations)

Rihanna got five in 7 years

Award shows are ********. I only watch for the performances.

There were alot of competition back then than now. That's the only reason I can think of.

Let's not.

One could make the case that the extreme love shown to today's generation:

Beyoncé - 16
Alicia - 13
Norah - 9
Adele - 8
Amy - 6
Taylor - 6
Gaga - 5

is a DIRECT RESPONSE to the undervaluing of divas in the 80s/90s.

You want to know the real reasons? Take off your STAN GLASSES for a bit.

Madonna and Janet are not strictly singers. (Being very diplomatic here.) Their voices are a part of the entire package, thus they would NEVER win a VOCAL performance in those days (or now) - in fact, they would struggle to get nominated.

They also, unlike today's singers, did not make a big deal about how much they were actually involved in their music. Some in the industry probably didn't even know they co-wrote most of their material, ergo limited respect.


********.

Mariah was snubbed not because of label jealousies, or Mottola. Those are scapegoats that Lambs use to hide the real issues.

Mariah was snubbed precisely because of the music she released. She was decidedly uncool at a time when The Grammys were getting major criticism for how lame they were in their choices. Mariah released tripe like Hero and Without You as singles - do you really expect them to be appreciated?

There was always someone cooler and more credible going against Mariah, so she lost. A lot.

BULLSH*T!!!
People made a bid deal out of it back then as they do now. All they had to do was look at the album booklet and ASCAP.
They didnt win like that back then because there were less categories and there were more artist to spread nominations around to. Today there are only a few big artist who are out there and receive all of the nominations. Why do you think Bey has 16 but sooo many other legends have less. It DAMN sure aint because she is better than them. There were less categories and WAAAYYYYYY more competition.

You just completely misread what I said.

What I said wasn't an insult at all.

How did I get attacked? What did I say that made you react that way? I can assure you you misunderstood.

Janet has way more than 20 Grammy nominations. I swear you Janet stans on here and your misinformation....

In any event, there were less categories back then and more competition. Back then, artists then were actually awarded for their talent and quality of music, rather sticking names in a hat and picking the lesser of the evils.

Well...I realize that, but I thought it was the Grammy Awards, and not the Voice Awards? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think categories like Best Pop Vocal only measured vocal strength.

You'd be surprised at how ill-informed most voters are.

Do not get this thread Beyonce is a Diva And She Has 16 , and miss Franklin is the most ionic diva outta almost all the ladies and belive she has 28

First, im not attacking you just replying to your assertion. I also dont think you were insulting anyone, you just made an assertion in err.

You said that back then "they didnt place the same emphasis on song writing" and that "they were not good vocalist" when that has nothing to do with it.

The ladies that were vocalist like Toni, Whitney, Celine and Mariah have the same number of Grammys they do, so that is invalid. Back then it was less categories and more competition.

I highly doubt those voters didnt know anything when they work in the same industry also.

It does but it doesnt. Im pretty sure you have to sing to win one of those.

Please dont put Bey and Aretha in the same sentence. Aretha has been getting hers sine the 60s-70s and Bey just started. There are waaayyyyy more categories and less competition than it was back then.

No, what I typed was that Madonna and Janet did not let it be KNOWN that they co-wrote/wrote all their stuff, so misinformed industry "insiders" assumed they didn't.

Today, a girl/boy can write three syllables and tell all the media outlets they're a songwriter. To their credit, those ladies didn't do that back in the day - which led to them not being taken as seriously as they should have.

I understand what you are saying but it doesnt make sense. Back in the day they did say that they created their music, or where they got their inspiration from.

Also the voters for the Grammys are THEIR peers. They know who writes and who doesnt. They have awards specifically for those things.

I'm sure U2 is more credible than Mariah back in 05 when she lost and the fact Emotions lost best pop vocal female is unbelievable.

I don't know how some artists can get a song nominated twice in a span of two years, one being studio and another live. When legends like Mariah barely get nominated. If that's not bias and corruption...I don't know what is.

And you she said she lost becoz of the music she released...bye hoe.

Then how come her albums and songs that didn't win anything becomes classics while her "competitor's songs" are nowhere to be seen.