best new artist- the 80s

[jamesanthony]

I posted previously about the grammy's best new artist nominees for the 90s. Here are the nominees for the 80s. Which do you think were deserving of recognition? Anyone from those years that you thought they left out?

1980

Christopher Cross- WINNER
Irene Cara
Amy Holland- I don't know of any record she made, she is Michael McDonald's wife
Pretenders
Robbie Dupree

1981

Sheena Easton- WINNER, she won because she had a #1 single that year which no one else here did. Same reason why Chris Cross won the year before probably
Luther Vandross- in hindsight he should have won, he's lasted the longest
James Ingram- I like him
Adam and the Ants
Go-Gos

1982

Men at Work- WINNER, biggest seller of the 5, that's why they won
Jennifer Holliday
Asia
Stray Cats
(I forgot the 5th entry, if you remember type it in)

1983 (interesting that all 5 were British bands)

Culture Club- WINNER
Eurythmics
Big Country
Men Without Hats
Musical Youth

1984

Cyndi Lauper- WINNER, again sold more records that year than any of these others
The Judds
Corey Hart
Frankie Goes to Hollywood
Sheila E

1985

Sade- WINNER
Freddie Jackson
A-Ha
Julian Lennon
Katrina and the Waves- had 1 hit but it keeps turning up in movies etc

MISSING: Whitney Houston

1986

Bruce Hornsby and the Range- WINNER, I like them
Simply Red- I like them
Nu Shooz
(I forgot the other two if you remember type them in)

1987

Jody Watley- WINNER, she wasn't new though, she was in Shalamar from late 70s-mid80s
Terrence Trent D'Arby
(sorry, forgot the other entries if you remember type them in)

1988

Tracy Chapman- WINNER
Take-6
Rick Astley
Vanessa Williams
Toni Childs

1989

Milli Vanilli- WINNER (revoked), even if they had sung on the records they would have still been a poor choice IMO, won because they sold more records than any of the other nominees
Tone Loc
Neneh Cherry
Indigo Girls
Soul II Soul

[Dean Winchester]

in 1980, I think Pretenders should've won. I also liked Irene Cara, she had a good string of hits in the first half of the decade.

1981. Luther's had the longest career, but I think Sheena was also worthy of it. Go-Go's were decent too.

1982. Men At Work may as well have won it.

1983. Culture Club earned it, but I'd say Eurythmics/Annie Lennox wound up with the longer career. The other nominees were one hit wonders

1984. Cyndi Lauper deserved it

1985. Sade deserved it

1986. Simply Red probably should've won it

1987. Jody Watley deserved it

1988. Tracy Chapman deserved it

1989. Indigo Girls are the only ones who've had any sort of a career after 1990.

[Jrnygrl]

If I were a new artist, this is a Grammy that I would not want to be nominated for or win. It seems that the majority of those who have won this award are never heard from again. Its almost like the kiss of death for a career. Sade, Tracy Chapman, Cindy Lauper are the exceptions.

[Dean Winchester]

Originally posted by Jrnygrl
If I were a new artist, this is a Grammy that I would not want to be nominated for or win. It seems that the majority of those who have won this award are never heard from again. Its almost like the kiss of death for a career. Sade, Tracy Chapman, Cindy Lauper are the exceptions.

I never understand what exactly constitutes a "new artist". For example, Backstreet Boys were nominated for 1998, even tho their first big hit (Quit Playing Games) was a smash in the summer of 1997... and even before that, they had moderate (it made the top 100) success with We've Got It Going On in 1995.

Plus, I noticed that they've nominated the likes of Lauryn Hill and Jody Watley for best new artists when they went solo. Lauryn had one of the biggest hit singles of 1996 with Killing Me Softly with The Fugees, and Jody Watley also sang on a number of hits with Shalamar over five years before her solo debut. Does anyone know if the likes of Paul McCartney and John Lennon were nominated for Best New Artist when they were first eligable? IMO, success in a former band does not qualify you as new.

[vashti1999]

Two in particular from that decade I was upset with the results. As much as I loved Shalamar and Jody Watley, she wasn't a new artist, should have never been in that category. Plus, I was a huge Terence Trent D'arby fan, (still am). I don't remember who else was nominated in the category that year, just who won (Jody) and who I was rooting for (TTD).

Two years after that, I was rooting for Neneh Cherry, though somehow I knew Milli Vanilli would take it, they did have a big year.

I was happy the Culture Club won, I was a fan since the first single, Cyndi, Sade and Tracy Chapman are deserved winners.

[SBTB Geek]

1980- Pretenders- since that's the only name I recognize. ( I was born in '85.)

1981- Luther Vandross, and the Go-Go's equally deserved the award.

1982- they all suck.

From 1983-1989, the people who received the award, deserved it. (Except in 1987- Terence Trent D'Arby should of got it.)

[jamesanthony]

Originally posted by BuffySlayer79
I never understand what exactly constitutes a "new artist". For example, Backstreet Boys were nominated for 1998, even tho their first big hit (Quit Playing Games) was a smash in the summer of 1997... and even before that, they had moderate (it made the top 100) success with We've Got It Going On in 1995.

Plus, I noticed that they've nominated the likes of Lauryn Hill and Jody Watley for best new artists when they went solo. Lauryn had one of the biggest hit singles of 1996 with Killing Me Softly with The Fugees, and Jody Watley also sang on a number of hits with Shalamar over five years before her solo debut. Does anyone know if the likes of Paul McCartney and John Lennon were nominated for Best New Artist when they were first eligable? IMO, success in a former band does not qualify you as new.

The grammies have a weird history with this category. Whitney Houston was ruled ineligible in 1985 because she recorded duets in 1984 with Jermaine Jackson and Teddy Pendegrass, and yet Jody Watley was not only nominated two years later, but she won. Luther Vandross, Cyndi Lauper and some others recorded with groups before their official "debuts". The Beatles members weren't nominated when they each went solo, but Crosby Stills and Nash won in 1969 even though they were each members of other groups before they got together.

By the mid90s they came up with a looser definition of "new". A new artist is now someone who had their first record of some type of significant popularity during the eligibility period. So you have "new" artists like Shelby Lynne who won for 2000 even though she'd been around for something like 7-10 years before that. Backstreet Boys hit big in 1997, so why were they nominated in 1998? The grammies have a kind of backdoor rule that allows individual songs released in the previous year's eligibility period to compete. This rule actually helps some acts because under the old system a lot of records got left out because they came out too late or took too long to become hits. Avril Lavigne's song I'm With You for example was a nominee for best song and best pop female performance this year, but it was on an album that came out in 2002. Under the old system it wouldn't have been eligible to be nominated in any category except the top prize for record of the year.

I don't know why Lauryn Hill was nominated because Killing Me Softly actually won a grammy for her group, the Fugees, in 1996. Sisqo was another act nominated for best new artist (in 2000) even though his group Dru Hill had been very popular before. On one hand I don't think either of them or Jody Watley should have been nominated as a new artist, but then again there are people who record in groups or bands but they are not that prominent in the group. These people should get a shot at being nominated. I can't think of anyone like this off the top of my head though.

[jamesanthony]

Originally posted by jamesanthony
1986

Bruce Hornsby and the Range- WINNER, I like them
Simply Red- I like them
Nu Shooz
(I forgot the other two if you remember type them in)

1987

Jody Watley- WINNER, she wasn't new though, she was in Shalamar from late 70s-mid80s
Terrence Trent D'Arby
(sorry, forgot the other entries if you remember type them in)

Glass Tiger was a nominee in 1986. I still can't think of the other one. I believe it was a pop/rock band.

Swing Out Sister, Cutting Crew and the Breakfast Club were the other nominees in 1987.

[Dean Winchester]

Originally posted by SBTB Geek
1980- Pretenders- since that's the only name I recognize. ( I was born in '85.)

you might know a few of Irene's songs. Fame and Flashdance...What A Feelin' are better known at this point than Irene Cara was herself. Even if you were born in 1985, both of those songs still get played to this day.

But I do think Pretenders were the better all-around act.

[jamesanthony]

My choices:

1980- Irene Cara was Ok, but even though people despise him, Chris Cross had one up on her because he snag, wrote and played instruments. His handful of hits are enjoyable IMO

1981- Luther was good and gets my vote. I like James Ingram too. He won in another category even though he didn't have his own album until two years later.

1982- I like Jennifer Holliday, who like Ingram won in another category even though she didn't have an album of her own until 1983

1983- Eurythmics

1984- I'm not wild about any of them, maybe Cyndi Lauper

1985- Whitney Houston would've made the most sense to have won, Sade is talented but I'm not into her music, still she'd win by default

1986- Simply Red

1987- I like Swing Out Sister. I never cared for Darby or Watley and the other two were one shot acts

1988- I like this competition. All very good. I like take-6 who are still about as well liked now as they were then

1989- the worst competition of the 80s, I guess Soul II Soul

[Dean Winchester]

Originally posted by jamesanthony
By the mid90s they came up with a looser definition of "new". A new artist is now someone who had their first record of some type of significant popularity during the eligibility period.

well, IMO, sometimes "significant" can be debatable. I remember that the American Music Awards received a lot of ridicule in 1993 when k.d. lang was nominated for "best new artist" even tho she had two gold critically acclaimed country albums (Shadowland and Absolute Torch And Twang) several years before Ingenue brought her pop success.

[jamesanthony]

Originally posted by BuffySlayer79
well, IMO, sometimes "significant" can be debatable. I remember that the American Music Awards received a lot of ridicule in 1993 when k.d. lang was nominated for "best new artist" even tho she had two gold critically acclaimed country albums (Shadowland and Absolute Torch And Twang) several years before Ingenue brought her pop success.

Significant is a loose term. Shelby Lynne won in 2000 after being around for a long time and she still hasn't had a record that hit the top 40 song list or an album make the top 100. If she, Jeffrey Daniels from Shalamar, Pras Maxwell from the Fugees and Susan Tedeschi team up, form a group and have a top 40 hit I guess they would be eligible for best new artist.

[Dean Winchester]

Originally posted by jamesanthony
Significant is a loose term. Shelby Lynne won in 2000 after being around for a long time and she still hasn't had a record that hit the top 40 song list or an album make the top 100. If she, Jeffrey Daniels from Shalamar, Pras Maxwell from the Fugees and Susan Tedeschi team up, form a group and have a top 40 hit I guess they would be eligible for best new artist.

IMO, regardless of first success or not, I think if you had a major label contract and did an album before the one that did well, you're ineligible. I guess I can see a case like Green Day, they had 2 albums to their name before Dookie made them superstars in 1994, but however both Kerplunk and 1039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours were released on a limited indie label, and 90% of the Dookie fans were unaware of these releases until after they took off with Dookie.

[Steve M.]

1980 - the Pretenders should have won. They gave the award to Christopher Cross? He sounds like Gary Burghoff on helium!

1981 - Luther Vandross should have won. Sheena Easton sucks!

1982 - Men at Work deserved it. Pity they didn't last.

1983 - Big Country should have gotten it. Culture Club wasn't a band, they were a fshion statement.

1984 - The Judds should've gotten it. Cyndi Lauper? Talk about helium vocals!

1985 - Sade deserved it. Without a doubt.

1986 - A boring year for pop in general. Who deserved the Beat New Artist Grammy, Simply Red or Bruce Hornsby? I'd have tossed a coin.

1987 - Swing Out Sister should have gotten this award on the basis of "Breakout" alone!

1988 - Tracy Chapman deserved it.

1989. NARAS gave the award to a duo, and they gave it to the wrong one. the Indigo Girls deserved it. They at least know how to sing!


P.S. One NARAS member said the award Milli Vanilli gave back should have been to the actual singers. Was this guy on drugs? The point about Milli Vanilli was that they didn't really suck - the real singers were sucking for them!

What did they do with that award, anyway?

[jamesanthony]

Originally posted by jamesanthony
Glass Tiger was a nominee in 1986. I still can't think of the other one. I believe it was a pop/rock band.

Swing Out Sister, Cutting Crew and the Breakfast Club were the other nominees in 1987.

Timbuk3 was the other nominee for 1986