No, both Madonna and Aretha were acclaimed for their music as well as their performances and vocals respectively. Whitney, Mariah and Céline are examples of artists who were acclaimed for their vocals and never for their music (and two of them won AOTY with critically panned albums, funnily enough).

And you did mention Radiohead yourself (three AOTY noms, zero win yet it doesn't change anything to their acclaim). You could also mention Bowie who was yet again snubbed by the Grammys this year. So yeah, I think that you got my point. An AOTY doesn't indicate critical acclaim.

Taylors won 6 Grammys (including an additional AOTY) since ha first AOTY WIN

Well, it's not a competition, really. As long as the quality of her work is recognized and her songs achieve ''memorable'' status she is good, aside the critic's approval she needs to mess with GP' emotion, like 10 or 20 years from now people should thanks her for making the soundtrack of their lives. I dunno if she's getting that with songs like ''Drunk in Love'' or ''711" tho.

I did agree with your point, i just think that Madonna and Aretha are not appropriate example.

Madonna and Aretha were not that acclaimed for their music or their being the entertainer and vocalist of their generation (and maybe the best of all time in those field) overshadowed it.

Same thing go to Beyonce, i know she did involve in her music a lot (on the same level as Madonna). But still cannot compare to artist who write/co write most of their stuff or playing instruments, making their own beat. Those artists will always get the most acclaimed in the artistry, just look at Bob Dylan, The Beatles, Stevie Wonder, Elton John....

Beyonce will get her spot in the history book as a great great great performer but not as one of the most acclaimed musician for her music only cause simply she`s not the one that create at least 70% of her discography.