http://www.spinner.ca/2012/02/09/grammys-best-new-artist/

Imagine you're at a car dealership and you ask the salesman to show you the best new models. You're checking them out, giddy to see this year's cream of the crop, and -- surprise! -- you realize he's trying to sell you on a pre-owned car from 2008.

"What gives? That's not new," you say. "Buddy," he says, putting a reassuring hand on your back, "you might know that, but lots of other people haven't even heard of that model before. That's new enough for us."

That, in essence, is the Grammys' stance on the Best New Artist award, an honor designed to catapult the winner to new heights of stardom.

There's been some scrutiny over previous years' selections -- Evanescence over 50 Cent, Milli Vanilli over real singers, Starland Vocal Band over anything that makes sounds -- but our biggest issue is how talented nominees like Bon Iver, Esperanza Spalding, Shelby Lynne and Lauryn Hill can be called "new" when they're precisely the opposite, a betrayal of the award's reason for existing.

To clarify, here's how the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences describes the category: "A new artist is defined as any performing artist who releases, during the eligibility year, the recording that first establishes the public identity of that artist as a performer."

This is where things get murky. Bon Iver, the indie-rock band nominated this year, independently put out their debut, 'For Emma, Forever Ago,' in 2007. Though it wasn't a runaway commercial success, it received great reviews from outlets like Pitchfork and the New York Times, hit No. 1 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart, had several of its songs placed in television shows and ended up on a slew of critic lists of best albums of the year and, later, the decade. That acclaim led to frontman Justin Vernon collaborating with Kanye West on 'My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy,' which in turn played some immeasurable part in Bon Iver's self-titled second album debuting at No. 2 on the Billboard album charts.

Previous year's nominees and winners have been worse than that not-quite-sensation. Esperanza Spalding, the 2011 victor who surprisingly beat out Florence and the Machine, Mumford and Sons, Drake and Justin Bieber, was five years removed from her debut album -- and was personally selected by President Obama to perform at the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ceremony. But hey, nobody pays attention to that little event, especially not the Bieber fans who threatened to kill her.

Other great examples of this farce include veteran country musician Shelby Lynne, power-pop group Fountains of Wayne and indie rockers Silversun Pickups. Lynne, the 2001 victor, acknowledged the absurdity of the honor in her speech, saying, "Thirteen years and six albums to get here." Fountains were nominated in 2004 after 'Stacy's Mom' became a hit, but the band toured the world in the '90s, partly as the opener for Smashing Pumpkins' 'Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness' tour. Silversun Pickups had a single, 'Lazy Eye,' hit No. 5 on the Billboard rock charts in 2007, but the band wasn't nominated for a Grammy until 2010.

But before them came one of the biggest head-scratchers, when Lauryn Hill won the 1999 trophy on the strength of her standout solo LP, 'The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill.' The issue? She had already earned two Grammys as one-third of the Fugees, who took home Best Rap Album for 'The Score' and Best R&B Performance for 'Killing Me Softly' in 1996.

What helped Hill and fellow nominee Lucinda Williams out was the fact that the eligibility rules were expanded a year earlier to include the "public identity" clause and eliminate the requirement that it had to be the artist's first album. Under the older way, artists like Nirvana weren't eligible -- their debut, 'Bleach,' received no Grammy attention -- so NARAS decided to change the rules.

"There was a lot of discussion [by the committee] about Lucinda and Lauryn," NARAS' then-president Mike Greene told the L.A. Times. "With Lucinda, obviously, it was because she's been around for a while. And with Lauryn, the question concerned whether her name and identity was out there with enough of a profile as a member of the Fugees. The votes on both were pretty resounding that if we're going to err, let's err on the side of the artist."

Current Grammy rules stipulate that "any previous Grammy nomination for the artist as a performer precludes eligibility in the Best New Artist category (including a nomination as an "established performing member of a nominated group)," which obviously would disqualify her, so something changed between then and now. Unfortunately, we could not obtain clarification on that amendment.

While it's apparent the Grammys are about celebrating music and culture, they're also about TV ratings and boosting record sales, hence the bending of rules -- erring "on the side of the artist" -- to ensure some variety and buzz in their categories. (It's also why you'll get artists like Carrie Underwood winning Best New Artist on the strength of a debut album that was released well after she won 'American Idol,' but that's another issue.)

So how do we propose they fix it? Stop treating passionate music fans like bandwagon jumpers who buy the jersey of whatever team won the Super Bowl. Nominate the artists who knocked it out of the park with their first record and leave the rest -- the acclaimed acts who are just finding mainstream/chart success -- to earn something at a later Grammy ceremony. We're suprised to say this about anything in the music business, but it's how we feel: Go back to the old way!

But here we are again, with Bon Iver taking the spot of a deserving new artist who could really benefit from all the buzz a nomination brings. Until then, all we can do is hope they finally get it right (and that the ceremony doesn't top the four-hour mark).

interesting article I remember when Starland Vocal Band won the 1976 Best New Artist award.They never had another hit single while some of the other nominees (such as the Brothers Johnson) continued to thrive.