People here thinking people can count Mariah's each #1 single without looking them up in the Wikipedia.

In what way do the Grammys represent the opinion of your average music snob?

TAYLOR SWIFT won album of the year in 2010. Beyonce has 17 Grammys.

#1 singles are more important of course.

The GP's opinion is the most important.

If grammy's were not so political then I would say that but for now I'd say that are equally as impressive when I should be saying that the grammy's should hold more weight.

The fact that you just made his point without trying...

Examples of politics from the average music snob...
I mean Kanye had a point in that he doesn't win in big categories outside of rap...why Politics.
Amy whinehouse should have swept and been the first to win 6 grammys as a female in one night why not politics?
Things like that take away from the credibility of the grammys.
My opinion changed on the grammy's after the Amy whinehouse snub. critical and commercial success and you gave it to herbie hancock from the 80s so that an known drug user wouldn't hold the record. Shady.

It depends on whether the artist wants commercial success or critical acclaim. In the long run I would say that 18 #1 hits is a more memorable achievement and a testament to the artist's selling power.

There are all kinds of different music snobs. The NARAS members are just one group.

18 #1's
who cares if its crappy music, i got them coins

The voters are somewhat 5.000 peers and people in the music biz, do you realy think they think ok i vote for Amy with 5 votes but I don't give her the 6th vote because she is a crackhead?


And by the way Herbie Hancock rocks

If you wrote them yes....

To answer the original OP, I'm going to say Grammys from a longevity perspective. U2 has 22 Grammys but only 2 #1 singles, yet they have the highest grossing tour of all time. #1 singles don't mean much in the latter part of your career, particularly when radio stops playing your music. I'm going to assume that most people would rather have a career and a reputation that allows them to gross $300 - $700 million from touring than have to resort to reality TV.

They kind of represent two different spectrum. The singles would represent the success and Grammy's would represent acclaim. I'd say the singles

18 Grammys. Although it is even better to be able to get #1's and Grammys. My faves have no problem in either area.

I don't object your post at all, but most of the multi Grammy winners are multi millionaires (success), too.

18 #1 singles. The radios keep playing the songs 20 years later and your kids will still hear the songs.

I see the judgement of the Grammy organisation as how a school comité would do things (Not much contact with the outside world and conservatism.). Awarding "random" nobody's, awarding who let the dogs out (it's on the worst or most annoying songs lists.) and snubbing Queen, The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix,...

Once you keep getting good tour grosses like Madonna, U2,..., you don't need the awards or the number 1s anyway.

What are you talking about? She performed Ray of Light at the COADF and S&S tour.

I think acclaim >>>>> success.

1D, JB, Rihanna, Britney. They are successful but no one knows them as a respected artist.

TALENT >>>>> fame. So my answer is Grammy.