Did Britney deserve the Grammy over Christina in 1999 for “Best New Artist”?

[GlitterRain]

I mean… over the success of BABY ONE MORE TIME?
 

Discuss

[rennen2.0]

I strongly believe that if Britney sang BOMT live she would have walked away with the Grammy.  

I bet Britney’s name was scribbled out and Xtina’s written over with a crayon. 

[GlitterRain]

3 minutes ago, rennen2.0 said:

I strongly believe that if Britney sang BOMT live she would have walked away with the Grammy.  

I bet Britney’s name was scribbled out and Xtina’s written over with a crayon. 

[Henry.]

Obviously.

Imagine reinventing pop, having the best-selling album by a teenage solo artist, having the greatest debut of all time, having one of the most impactful singles and music videos of all time only to lose to some 2000's has-been. No wonder that the Grammy Awards have lost credibility in the eyes of many.

[GlitterRain]

1 minute ago, Henry. said:

Obviously.

Imagine reinventing pop, having the best-selling album by a teenage solo artist, having the greatest debut of all time, having one of the most impactful singles and music videos of all time only to lose to some 2000's has-been. No wonder that the Grammy Awards have lost credibility in the eyes of many.

No lies detected 

[Groundbreaking]

Yes, she did. This case is already closed. Having one of best selling & at the same time one of the most impactful debut and losing to Xtina (who is only vocally better) is pure disrespect. Grammys fail.

[GlitterRain]

3 minutes ago, Groundbreaking said:

Yes, she did. This case is already closed. Having one of best selling & at the same time one of the most impactful debut and losing to Xtina (who is only vocally better) is pure disrespect. Grammys fail.

It was a disgrace that she never received the recognition that she deserved 

[doomphantom1]

I think they got it right.  Christina's voice blew everyone away, including me.  Grammy's at that time were not just about sales.  I think the vocal talent and quality has to be there and Christina's voice is just on another level.

[GlitterRain]

3 minutes ago, doomphantom1 said:

I think they got it right.  Christina's voice blew everyone away, including me.  Grammy's at that time were not just about sales.  I think the vocal talent and quality has to be there and Christina's voice is just on another level.

Britney could sing too though  

[fays1]

Based on Grammys standards, obviously Christina deserved it more

[GlitterRain]

2 minutes ago, fays1 said:

Based on Grammys standards, obviously Christina deserved it more

[Stefani]

No, that award is cursed. We should be thanking our Lucky.mp3 stars that Brit didn't win it, otherwise she'd end up like Xtina.

[Lex993]

Yes she did because Xtina debut single was released June ‘98 meaning she was eligible for ‘99 not ‘00. 

Edited May 28 by Lex993

[IsraeliMatt]

No, I don't think so. Britney has had a more commercially successful and influential career, and BOMT (the song) is fantastic, but it was also a teen love song. Britney wrote none of her debut album. While her vocal was good, it wasn't as technically impressive as what Christina did on her debut. People don't usually win that award for bubblegum teen pop music because it's somewhat less appealing to adults, which is the demographic that votes for the grammy's. I love Brit's discography, but let's be honest, some of the debut is very cheesy. Hello, 'E-mail My Heart.' At the time, no one even knew if Britney or Xtina would expand beyond teen pop and become widely respected artists, so I wouldn't have expected either to win. Christina won because of her vocal skill and I think that was fair enough. 

[IsraeliMatt]

41 minutes ago, Lex993 said:

Yes she did because Xtina debut single was released June ‘98 meaning she was eligible for ‘99 not ‘00. 

The Grammys apparently have somewhat loose rules about timeframe for this category. One of the criteria is that the artist has "achieved a breakthrough into the public consciousness and impacted the musical landscape during the eligibility period." 'Reflection' was recorded for Walt Disney Records before she even had a deal to record an album for RCA and it was not a hit on the Hot 100, so I can absolutely see how the Grammys would consider her period of eligibility for this category to start with her promotion of her debut album. 

[The Queen]

51 minutes ago, Stefani said:

No, that award is cursed. We should be thanking our Lucky.mp3 stars that Brit didn't win it, otherwise she'd end up like Xtina.

How did she end up then?

Please guys, make some sense...

Edited May 28 by The Queen

[Emil87]

1 hour ago, doomphantom1 said:

I think they got it right.  Christina's voice blew everyone away, including me.  Grammy's at that time were not just about sales.  I think the vocal talent and quality has to be there and Christina's voice is just on another level.

But Christina won with only 1 single out at the time (“Genie”) which wasn’t exactly vocally challenging.

Anyway, this was just the start of them ****ing Britney over. So many hits and so much impact on the industry yet she only has 1 Grammy for Best Dance Recording? Toxic deserved at least a Record of the Year nom and In The Zone and Blackout were both Grammy worthy albums. 

Meanwhile Beyonce has 20 something. Pfff. Ridiculous. And Christina can keep her Grammy, Britney actually has a legacy and a place in pop culture/music history. 

[IsraeliMatt]

6 minutes ago, Emil87 said:

But Christina won with only 1 single out at the time (“Genie”) which wasn’t exactly vocally challenging.

The album had been released. The voters were able to consider the whole album when voting. 

[Emil87]

1 hour ago, IsraeliMatt said:

No, I don't think so. Britney has had a more commercially successful and influential career, and BOMT (the song) is fantastic, but it was also a teen love song. Britney wrote none of her debut album. While her vocal was good, it wasn't as technically impressive as what Christina did on her debut. People don't usually win that award for bubblegum teen pop music because it's somewhat less appealing to adults, which is the demographic that votes for the grammy's. I love Brit's discography, but let's be honest, some of the debut is very cheesy. Hello, 'E-mail My Heart.' At the time, no one even knew if Britney or Xtina would expand beyond teen pop and become widely respected artists, so I wouldn't have expected either to win. Christina won because of her vocal skill and I think that was fair enough. 

Yes BOMT was a teen love song, but what do you think Genie was, a mature, self empowering anthem? Both debuts were filled with bubble gum pop, but BOMT (the song) sh!ts all over Genie in a Bottle imo.

i honestly think the Grammys made a mistake but who cares at this point? One went on to have a long and very successful career, and the other is Christina Aguilera. 

[Eternalhouse]

The grammys often snubbed the more successful song and gave awards to the seemingly lesser nominee. And I think it's all marketing. Gets people talking, stirs controversy, even makes competition. You can find so many times when a huge song was snubbed by a mildly big song and there was always a backlash afterwards.

And honestly, the world knew Britney and Xtina's rivalry (even though it was made by the media), and chose to 'value' Xtina's career better than Britney's when statistically Britney was better in almost every aspect of measurement possible. And yeah I guess awards shouldn't be just given based on numbers, but back then, numbers did in a way mean success, and if you lived through 98 99, Britney's impact was definitely incomparable with Xtina's, and I think an award for 'best new artist' should have been given to who was 'the best'.

Don't get me wrong, Xtina is extremely talented, her songs are good, great vocals. And the timing of her debut album also gave a better chance to win. But seriously who cares. Many many many artists that were named 'the best' had a spark of a career and disappeared.