I know that lauryn hill won a grammy for best new artist and she was with the fugees before that so why wasn't prince considered???

Don't you people know nothin'? Prince was forever an artist everyone knew. He changed his name to get from a wacky record label. The man was at the crossroads of his career.
[Edited 5/30/05 20:03pm]

silverchild said:

2nd time....WHY was Lauryn Hill considered a new artist when she sang with the fugees years before!!!

I know the reason why he did such a stupid thing, but if he wasn't going by the name Prince and something else, would that considered something new artist???

I feel the same way about Mimi.

thecableguy said:

i think its to award her Achievements AS a SOLO artist so She can take all the credit to her own.. IT was her first SOLO album so in that obvious sence that is why she was entered in new artist,,

i do agree it was silly, because she would have better advantage over other new artist in that category with more Fan base.

The reason is that he only changed his name and not his status as an artist. That would be like Puffy getting nominated after changing his name to P Diddy or O.D.B. getting nominated for changing his name to Dirt McGirt. It doesn't work that way. If it did, artists would be changing their name left and right every year just to get NEW ARTIST nominations.

it is interesting that he wasnt nominated though for his debut....

back then a new artist had to actually have released their initial album within the qualifying timeperiod...

thats sense changed.....now, it has to be "a work of note"....hence shelby lynn winning new artist upon her fourth or fifth release.....

and hill would fall under the jody watley rule.....

but, if you ask me....me thinks that a new artist should be a new artist....get rid of these stupid rules.....jody watley wasnt a new artist..neither was hill....and the album should be a new album, period.

but then the grammies suck and the new artist award is a kiss of death anyways (for the most part) so oh well..