Here's an interesting artice explaining what may have happened:

But one diva who was somewhat surprisingly shut out was onetime Grammy sweetheart Whitney Houston.

The Grammy committee usually loves comeback stories. Whether it's artists who left the spotlight for a while and then returned with a vengeance (Bonnie Raitt, Natalie Cole, Tina Turner), veterans who reinvented their careers by collaborating with other musicians (Carlos Santana, Herbie Hancock, Robert Plant), or artists who struggled with their demons and made great music as a result (Dixie Chicks, Amy Winehouse), such rising-from-ashes back stories usually strongly resonate with industry voters. In this regard, Whitney Houston's "comeback" album I Look To You--released after the singer's long hiatus, divorce from Bobby Brown, and infamous battles with drugs--seemed a shoo-in for multiple nominations.

Her record label Arista seemed so sure of Whitney's chances, in fact, that it moved her album release date up in order for it to qualify for this year's voting window. But Whitney was actually completely shut out, with NO nominations whatsoever--not only was she snubbed in the major categories like Album Of The Year, but even in the secondary Pop and R&B categories. This was a shock considering her Grammy history of 24 nominations and six wins, including winning Album Of The Year and Record Of The Year in 1994.

Many industry people and fans alike are wondering why Whitney was overlooked this time. Some say it might have been all the hype. From the moment it was announced that Whitney would be releasing her first original studio album in seven years, the Arista promo machine went into overdrive--with Whitney hosting a star-studded listening party with her longtime mentor, Arista honcho Clive Davis (at which Clive reminded everyone of Whitney's millions and millions of albums sold), and doing a headline-garnering Oprah interview about her struggles. And it seemed many were rooting for her, with I Look To You debuting at #1 with more than 300,000 units sold in its first week (it has sold about 800,000 as of this writing), but the hype was still a little overwhelming.

But then there was Whitney's series of disappointing, poorly received performances on Good Morning America, The X Factor, and Dancing With The Stars, on which her now-hoarse voice was a mere shadow of its former glory, and many started to doubt that this was much of a comeback at all. Perhaps the Grammy voters doubted it as well. Guess Whitney will just have to settle for the lifetime-achievement "International Artist" trophy she picked up at last month's American Music Awards.


http://new.music.yahoo.co...-rebounds/

I couldn't agree more.

Folks shouldn't put much emphasis on grammys anymore, they lost their credibility.

And as much as I love Nippy, that album was garbage.

What about this lady?




She had a #1 album this year that went a little unnoticed and that voice of hers is a winner. She worked with Ne-Yo for her new album, which was one of the best of this year. Plus, her song 'Blame It On Me' became something of a women's anthem of the year. Come on, how did she get snubbed? That just tells me the Grammys are a big joke.
[Edited 12/5/09 12:45pm]

Well, the truth of the matter is that someone has to be snubbed. And not just someone, many someones.If Whitney had received even one nomination, I would have been like, "And you didn't give Donna Summer one in 2008? What a crock! Donna Summer's voice and latest cd is much better than Whitney's voice and latest cd!" My humble opinion, of course.

Harlepolis said:

It was horrible.

leecappella said:

True.

silverchild said:

She doesn't look like Beyonce.

And the Grammys are a popularity contest anyway and have been for years.

leecappella said:

I'm still upset Donna got snubbed.

Timmy84 said:

The fact that Beyonce got 10 nominations for an album that was panned by most critics says a hell of a lot.

Vendetta1 said:

I still couldn't get over the fact that they only gave Marvin Gaye ONE grammy and it was for "Sexual Healing" This deserves a BIIIIG dose of "WTF" if nothing else.

Like most popular award shows, they're guilty of 'under the table deals' which is why I don't give a shit about them.

Harlepolis said:

I haven't watched a whole Grammys telecast in at least 10 years.

Harlepolis said:

I agree, its a popularity contest, and awards are paid for by the labels. The real artists get snubbed, but the award carries so much weight in the industry, you almost need one just to be validated, so its a catch 22. Stay true to yourself and get nothing, or sell out to possibly get a Grammy.

Harlepolis said:

Yeah, I never got that. A musician of Marvin's worth should've had 20 Grammys BEFORE "Sexual Healing". It's insane.

Maybe they snubbed her so they wouldn't have to hear her sing again.

The Grammy's stopped being a quality award shows years ago. Not much different than the AMAs now. Just another platform to see if one of your favorite artists is performing and chances are if you're over 30 or 35 they aren't and if by chance they are they'll be forced into cringe-worthy duet with someone half their age.

Vendetta1 said:

10 Nominations? For what?

Ottensen said:

Single Ladies mainly.

Timmy84 said:

One of the worst songs ever written. Meanwhile Chaka Khan has 10 Grammy for her whole career.

Timmy84 said:

Exactly! Stevie was killing them back in the day, but Marvin's stuff was just as imaginative, ambitious, and stunning as his and he just went unnoticed. We all know Marvin should've gotten something for his landmark album, What's Going On back in 1972 at the Grammys. Something always creeped me out about why he didn't get a single Grammy until 1983.

silverchild said:

Whats Going On was TOO militant to their standards at the time,,,,,I understand why they felt alarmed. I don't agree, but I understand.

Chrisette Michelle deserved a nomination. Heck, she deserves an award.

silverchild said:

Marvin was probably too raw, too unpolished, too unpredictable, too militant, too real for the Grammys at the time. Even when he was nominated, they gave it to either someone as great as him (Stevie) or someone safe (Lou).

can't stand the ballad one, but i like this cuz alicia keys did it . "if he makes you feel..."

JackieBlue said:

Isn't that what the Grammy's have always been?

Just because Beyonce or whoever has 10 or so nominations doesn't mean they're gonna win.

Whitney's "snubs" would maybe indicate that the Grammys aren't as much as a popularity contest as people say they've been.

Look who won Album of the year over the past 5 years.


2005: Ray Charles- Genius Loves Company
2006: U2- How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb
2007: Dixie Chicks- Taking the Long Way
2008- Herbie Hancock- The River: The Joni Letters
2009- Robert Plant & Alison Krauss- Rasing Sand


With the exception of U2 and the Dixie Chicks. None of the albums that won are "pop records". These are albums by veteran artists and not your Big Pop Star.

I doubt that Misery Loves Company would've even been nominated for Album of the Year, let alone won had Ray not passed away.

Well the list goes on and on of those who get snubbed for awards. I mean we all can come up with alot of different things for this years list. To me if you wanna shake the industry up, you dont nominate ANYTHING that sold. Remember a few years back when they started calling the show the GRANNIES instead of GRAMMIES when people like McCartny and Dylan and SPringsteen would win or get the bulk of nominations? Well the grammy's caved in and went to the "what sells" for the most part. It let in alot of people to the voting that didnt vote before, NOW we have people like THE DREAM complaining??? Yeah im feeling bad for THE DREAM not getting recognition, Led Zeppelin never got one thing, The Beatles got 4 in their career, and then got more when the Anthology came out as opposed to when they actually were a group and relevant to that time. The grammies were relevant not too long ago, they used to cause an average of a 150-200% rise in a winners or performers sales, now the average is well down to barley 20% some even fell off last year or werent affected. Like the industry thinks, it targets the YOUTH, but kids never watched this before, its not relevant to them anymore, and niether is music.

How the hell did Beyonce get 10 nominations for that whack "Single Ladies" garbage?! I don't even think that Prince has won 10 Grammys in his whole career.This is ridiculous.

Maybe she got all the nominations because they want to punish her for that garbage song by losing in each and every category? That would mean that they still have some taste though which by looking at only 1 category (Dance) I seriously doubt it.

SoulAlive said:

He doesn't. He's got 7. With 4, amazingly enough coming after 2004.

Anyway, there's a difference between getting nominated and winning.

The Grammys are just a snapshot of music for that particular year.

This year, Single Ladies was huge.

I wish people would stop saying how such & such artist only has this many Grammys. Or this person should have won a Grammy for this song.

Vendetta1 said:

Vendetta1 said:

The album was panned by a lot of her stans too.