Gold: 500,000 units
Platinum: 1,000,000 units
Diamond: 10,000,000 units
Platinum
|
|||
Gold
|
|||
Gold
|
|||
Gold
|
|||
Gold
|
|||
Gold
|
|||
Gold
|
|||
Gold
|
|||
Platinum
|
|||
11x
Platinum
|
|||
Platinum
|
|||
4x
Platinum
|
|||
8x Platinum
|
|||
10x Platinum
|
|||
George
Harrison & Friends
|
Gold
|
||
N/A
|
|||
N/A
|
|||
Gold
|
|||
10x
Platinum
|
|||
19x Platinum
|
|||
Bee Gees/Various
artists
|
15x Platinum
|
||
7x Platinum
|
|||
5x
Platinum
|
|||
3x Platinum
|
|||
3x Platinum
|
|||
29x Platinum
|
|||
Diamond
|
|||
12x Platinum
|
|||
5x Platinum
|
|||
Diamond
|
|||
Diamond
|
|||
Diamond
|
|||
Platinum
|
|||
7x Platinum
|
|||
Diamond
|
|||
17x Platinum
|
|||
Platinum
|
|||
16x Platinum
|
|||
11x Platinum
|
|||
Platinum
|
|||
8x Platinum
|
|||
15x Platinum
|
|||
2x Platinum
|
|||
8x Platinum
|
|||
Diamond
|
|||
11x Platinum
|
|||
Ray Charles and
Various Artists
|
3x Platinum
|
||
3x Platinum
|
|||
2x Platinum
|
|||
N/A
|
|||
Platinum
|
|||
6x Platinum
|
|||
Gold
|
|||
Diamond
|
Note: These statistics are units sold inside the United States
only; many of these albums were even more successful globally.
I don't plan to comment much on these statistics. I just want
to draw attention to the overwhelming majority of “Best Album of the Year”
Grammys which were awarded after huge commercial success. I can imagine two
possible explanations:
1. The
American people's taste in music is so good that we are naturally attracted to music worthy of awards and we buy it for the same reasons that it was nominated for the
Grammy.
-or-
2. An
underlying requirement of this award is that the artist and album be well-known
enough that the American public won’t be left scratching their heads asking “Who?”
I am more inclined to believe in the second explanation. For
one, the other nominations almost always fall into the same category of
household-name artists with a commercially successful album. Also, the Grammy awards
are perpetuated by the American public who, frankly, don't usually like to
try new things; were the Grammys overloaded with unknown indy artists foreign
to the mainstream ear, the award would likely lose popularity, rather than
spreading fame to the newcomers. Because many utilize music as an accompaniment in
the background of life, rather than an independent art form to be appreciated
in itself, we only have the capacity to opine on musics that are thrust upon us
through the radio, MTV, and Spotify ads.
There is a third possibility- only commercially successful
artists have the money necessary to create effective music, the sort that wins
Grammys, a hypothesis supported by the extremely low number of breakout albums
that are even nominated for this award. But this I refuse to believe.
So, if we assume that an album has to have enough renown to
have made some money (or vice versa) to win “Best Album of the Year,” then the prize because somewhat less impressive because the competition is much less steep. Back in 1959, judging between every album released that year would have meant choosing between a few hundred records; only looking at the certified Gold albums, on the other hand (which does include all of the 1959 nominations), drained the pool down to a mere 30 (a). This strainer effect is even more drastic nowadays. In 2009 an estimated 98,000 albums were released onto the market (b), yet only 1,200 sold more than 10,000 copies which, according to the hypothesis, doesn't even qualify them for the running.
I'm not honestly suggesting that the Grammy committee endeavor to listen to every single synthesized smooth-jazz arrangement of Christmas tunes that comes out every year, nor I am I trying to sap the fun out of the Grammys. I guess I just want everyone to remember that the term "Best Album of the Year" should be taken with a big cube of salt since music is one of the most subjective art forms on the planet.
So dang the man, don't let him tell you what's good! Pick your own best albums, whatever makes you feel alive.
a: TSort- Music
No comments:
Post a Comment