Why do you think Britney Spears has only received one Grammy out of all her iconic hits?

[GlitterRain]

Just now, leviathan said:

honestly it was hard to watch 

What do you mean? 

[super.nova]

9 minutes ago, GlitterRain said:

What do you mean? 

the way Beyoncé won in a category that was extremely stupid - it literally reminded me of those little exam questions when you were in kindergarten that said “one of these don’t belong”

like she was together with Odessa? Rufus du sol? DIPLO? WTF? she’s a pop artist… stop over glorifying her ****.

and then the best R&B song she won was included inside the BEST dance electrónica album? how does that make sense?

it was beyond ridiculous and a total disrespect to the other artists in that category / nomination.

I mean whatever give her as many Grammys as you want but that was beyond stupid.

Edited February 6, 2023 by leviathan

[nakedsoldier]

Because they hate her. The fact that In The Zone and Blackout didn't get nominated for album of the year speaks volumes. Also Britney doesn't care about awards, therefore she is not going to pay the comité to get a nomination or a win.

[super.nova]

she should gotten best new artist with BOMT

and maybe best album with blackout

and that’s it I guess 

[Nina Dobrev]

1 hour ago, Toxic.Latin said:

cause trashys are so 2000 and diplo just spilled the tea saying beyonka bought her award.

i quacked

[G-unit]

Because back when she was being nominated, artists like her weren’t taken seriously by the Academy.  Nowadays, the people who are winning, wouldn’t have been winning in the late 90’s-early 00’s.

[BlackoutITZ]

3 hours ago, Blackout2006 said:

Britney's contemporaries (1997-2002): Beyonce, Jlo, Pink, Xtina, Mandy Moore, Avril Lavigne

Katy's contemporaries (2005-2010): Rihanna, Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, Kesha, Nicki Minaj, Jessie J

Britney's contemporaries include artists who debuted in the late 2000's, seeing as Britney was still having hit records right through the first half of the 2010's.

"Contemporaries" doesn't just mean who debuted around the same time.

[itsxrichiexbish]

because the grammys don’t matter any more… she wasn’t respected enough when they kinda did still matter. and about the time of her conservatorship, when u bought your grammys… her team was cheap

[BlackoutITZ]

2 hours ago, leviathan said:

the way Beyoncé won in a category that was extremely stupid - it literally reminded me of those little exam questions when you were in kindergarten that said “one of these don’t belong”

like she was together with Odessa? Rufus du sol? DIPLO? WTF? she’s a pop artist… stop over glorifying her ****.

and then the best R&B song she won was included inside the BEST dance electrónica album? how does that make sense?

it was beyond ridiculous and a total disrespect to the other artists in that category / nomination.

I mean whatever give her as many Grammys as you want but that was beyond stupid.

In all fairness, Renaissance is a dance/electronic album, there's no two ways about it. So it didn't belong in the pop category, there are some R&B songs on it but not enough for it to be classed as an R&B album. Just because Beyonce is a mainstream artist doesn't mean that she can't be nominated alongside dance artists when she releases.... dance music.

And it makes total sense to include Renaissance in Dance/Electronic album even though some songs were included in R&B. There are a few R&B songs on her album (Cuff It, Virgo's Groove, Plastic Off the Sofa) so of course they will be included in the R&B categories. This is not uncommon at all, it's not something they just came up with for Beyonce. Brandi Carlile was also nominated in both the Rock and Americana categories because her album includes both genres.

[Crabo Lavender Turmeric]

Because Britney was never taken seriously as a vocalist... and Grammys wanted to be ''prestigious'' 

[Cheshire-B]

5 hours ago, Joshyworld said:

Well maybe if Britney released better music from 2008-current when poptimism became a trend, she would have gotten more

but she did !!

[Isla]

It's a hard question to answer. During her prime she got more nominations and post-breakdown she only got one (best dance recording for Womanizer in 2010, which she didn't win). I kinda get the idea the Recording Academy never took her seriously (and especially compared to Christina which explains why she won best new artist over her). At least Toxic got one. So many iconic/legendary musicians barely have any Grammys. I mean Queen have none and they're considered one of the most successful rock bands of all time.

[Onyxgirl17]

5 hours ago, leviathan said:

the way Beyoncé won in a category that was extremely stupid - it literally reminded me of those little exam questions when you were in kindergarten that said “one of these don’t belong”

like she was together with Odessa? Rufus du sol? DIPLO? WTF? she’s a pop artist… stop over glorifying her ****.

and then the best R&B song she won was included inside the BEST dance electrónica album? how does that make sense?

it was beyond ridiculous and a total disrespect to the other artists in that category / nomination.

I mean whatever give her as many Grammys as you want but that was beyond stupid.

I agree that putting her album in the dance category was an “easy win” this year because the pop albums were stacked. 

[Onyxgirl17]

11 minutes ago, Isla said:

It's a hard question to answer. During her prime she got more nominations and post-breakdown she only got one (best dance recording for Womanizer in 2010, which she didn't win). I kinda get the idea the Recording Academy never took her seriously (and especially compared to Christina which explains why she won best new artist over her). At least Toxic got one. So many iconic/legendary musicians barely have any Grammys. I mean Queen have none and they're considered one of the most successful rock bands of all time.

Damn. It’s important that you bring up Queen. That band is the definition of influential, as is Britney. 

[Stefani]

Honestly I think it's because she has little input on her own songs. Maybe she should pull a Beyonce and buy writing credits, then she'd have 30 Grammys. 

Edited February 6, 2023 by Stefani

[fays1]

I think its because no matter how good Britneys music was, she was never taken seriously as an artist, and the Grammys didnt give pop acts many awards at that time.

People started taking Britney a bit more seriously as an artist after In The Zone, but her career changed considering everything she was going through.

I dont think she deserves a Grammy for anything post conservatorship. But She deserves a Grammys for In The Zone, Blackout, and Slave 4 U.

Edited February 6, 2023 by fays1

[fays1]

6 hours ago, Stefani said:

Honestly I think it's because she has little input on her own songs. Maybe she should pull a Beyonce and buy writing credits, then she'd have 30 Grammys. 

Mariah writes her songs and almost never gets nominated or wins

[Isla]

25 minutes ago, Onyxgirl17 said:

Damn. It’s important that you bring up Queen. That band is the definition of influential, as is Britney. 

Yeah I found that out recently and it really surprised me. Diana Ross has also never won a proper Grammy, but she did get the Lifetime Achivement.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Isla

[super.nova]

Britney basically never won a moon man (team con bought those from 2008) yet she received the vanguard award… having won nothing before

these award shows are a bit of a joke

[bbbsss]

Mariah fuсking Carey, one of the best selling female artists of all time, singer, songwriter and producer has 5 Grammy’s. Nuff said.