B J Conlee wrote:
I think it is fair to say that "McCartney III" is a critical success and so far commercially it is a hit also, will see how long it lasts on the charts. That being said, will "McCartney III" be forgotten by Grammy voters many months from now? While people may dismiss the Grammy awards, it does help album sales if you get nomination and win due to publicity. It would also give McCartney's solo career another boost if he has another album (Tug Of War, Flaming Pie, CHAOS) nominated for "Album Of The Year".
Good questions Yankeefan.
I think the Grammy's for this year will be a "nothing" event. Right now, the pandemic is still very much with us in both the US and the UK so I think there will be little interest given to the Grammy's now through the next 3 months or so.
I think the answer is mostly in the hands of Capitol (Paul's record company). If they can keep McCartney 3 alive through much of 2021 then I believe Paul has a good chance. By keeping it alive I mean if Capitol is successful in marketing the album's potential singles through most of 2021. I also think the album has plenty of good to great "single" potential for this to happen. I detailed which songs they need to promote in my earlier McCartney 3 Single's Thread. If they are successful, I think Paul has a good chance because:
Paul McCartney will be 79 years old in the middle of 2021. He would be the everyone's favorite sentimental choice because of how long he has been around and since he was a Beatle. I think the Grammy voters would be crazy not to make them their favorite choice. The album itself is one of the best album's that Paul has ever crreated and how many chances does he and the Grammy's have left. I think that the Grammy Organization has been pretty unfair to the Beatles in general so now is their time to make up for their bad choices in the 60's. Just my opinion.
Pretty unfair doesn't begin to describe the Grammy's and The Beatles "relationship". They had 20 #1 singles, more than any single person or group EVER....none of them apparently deemed worthy of being Record of The Year....or even nominated. I mean Yesterday not a Record of The Year???? I Want To Hold Your Hand??? (I think Hey Jude was nominated,and by all standards of measurement, Hey Jude WAS the Record of The Year,....1968....but not to Grammy voters. The winner: Little Green Apples!!! Maybe the Grammy voters thought the Green Apple part was enough acknowledgment for them since their new record label was a green apple. ) They have at least five of the greatest albums ever.....Rubber Soul in '65, Revolver in '66, Sgt. Pepper in '67, the White Album in '68 and Abbey Road in '69. Only Sgt. Pepper was deemed worthy enough to be Album of The Year. If Stevie Wonder stubbed his toe and recorded it, it and he won!!! Same with Grammy darlings, Simon and Garfunkel. Grammy voters were resentful and jealous of the Beatles massive commercial and critical success. Some of their things....later on....such as LOVE were somewhat honored, but by and large, while The Beatles WERE the 60's, judging by the Grammy organization they were nobody. Never heard of them!! Didn't exist! I never pay the least bit of attention to the Grammy's anymore. Meaningless. (If they wanted Paul to win....it would have been with Chaos and Creation. It was at least nominated in more than one category. It didn't win Album of the Year, nor even Best Pop Vocal Album. The winner of that? Kelly Clarkson. Now she's a good singer, but an American Idol Winner beating the legendary Paul McCartney ? You can't be slapped harder than by that. Snub doesn't begin to describe it. (Well, maybe being nominated so you could lose is a bigger snub.) Paul will not be nominated for McCartney III, and even if he were, he wouldn't stand a chance. IMO