The Grammys have always been conservative, especially during Bowie's peak (1970's). They tend to award the safe records, not the groundbreaking ones. Bowie was always ahead of his time.
Besides, he's English.
We live in a time where number 1s and the number of awards you have equelivate talent which was not at all the case back then. Talented artists became successful regardless of the charts and awards. Their music went past all that. It's like getting an A on a test when a C student is more talented and beyond the restriction of an exam.
Technically they do hand out Grammys for legacy and impact. They're called Lifetime Achievement Awards. Bowie got his about a decade ago.
Still his music may have not resonated with those who would rather classify music which is what awards are about. Music gets classified and put against other songs. His music went passed all that.
Grammy's mean literally nothing when all is said and done.
David Bowie has 1 and he is a legend with some of the biggest classic's ever, yet there are some forgotten and unknown artists with 25 Grammys. Same with other awards such as Golden Globes, Oscars, and such
David holds 2 Grammy wins to his name not 1. The Lifetime Achievement Grammy he won's a physical Grammy award not just a title. Anyways he only had 2 since he wasn't that acclaimed, and he didn't reside in the US.
Quote:
Originally posted by Samuel
Grammys do not always equate talent or legacy. He is not the only legend to be snubbed by them either, for example Queen and Diana Ross don't even have one.
Diana won a Grammy a few years ago. Stop the lies.
The Grammys were harder to win back then. Plus, his music isnt really Blue Panel friendly like a Michael Jackson or Stevie Wonder. His legacy remains in his impact and impressive tour receipts.
They were only nominated ONCE while they were together and that was for "Best New Artist."