McCartney III Grammy Awards - 2021

B J Conlee wrote:

Yankeefan2 wrote:

I think it is fair to say that "McCartney III" is a critical sucess 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.

I thought he was the sentimental choice in 2006 with CHAOS and he lost to U2 who had won many times before and he gave killer performance that night of "Fine Line" and "Helter Skelter". At this point, I would not expect a win against the likes of Taylor Swift and some hip hop artist, just hoping he gets some nominations.

PLEASE quit quoting the entire thread! The way this board formats all those quotes it ends up being too hard to read. 

I wasn't shouting at all. Just wanted to highlight please.

For the 63rd Annual GRAMMY Awards, recordings must be released between Sept. 1, 2019, and Aug. 31, 2020 - so, unfortunately "McCartney III" won't be eligible for a Grammy nomination until 2022.

B J Conlee wrote:

Yankeefan2 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

oobu24 wrote:

PLEASE quit quoting the entire thread! The way this board formats all those quotes it ends up being too hard to read. 

Hi Oobu, Why can’t you read it? I can read it on my phone (don’t have a computer) What I can’t do easily on my phone is cut and paste parts of the quotes on my phone. 

I wish I was as computer savvy as you and your fantastic memes and photos. However,  I’m not able to even post a photo on the phone. It just won’t post them on the phone.  Perhaps  we are all operating with different equipment and so the quotes work better for some here? If I can’t read something on my phone, I can screen shot it and then expand it with my fingers, would that work for you?

Yankeefan2 wrote:

Anthony B. wrote:

For the 63rd Annual GRAMMY Awards, recordings must be released between Sept. 1, 2019, and Aug. 31, 2020 - so, unfortunately "McCartney III" won't be eligible for a Grammy nomination until 2022.

The music that will be judged will mostly be from music released in 2021 and nominations will be announced in 2021 also which is why I used 2021 in the title. You are correct, the actual award ceremony will be in 2022.  No big deal, just trying to explain my twisted logic -lol.

Indeed, hopefully "McCartney III" will still be on the Grammy commitee's radar when voting comes around for 2022. As far as logic is concerned, can you explain to me how the New York Yankees haven't signed their best hitter, DJ LeMahieu yet? I know this is the wrong forum for this, but I just don't understand it, haha

Yankeefan2 wrote:

" 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 "

I agree with you totally that the Grammy winners many times makes you shake your head and you wonder what planet the voters are on. As for The Beatles, they did not need Grammy awards to further their claim to ginreatness   music history so not a big deal they got snubbed several times. Paul's solo career is a different case IMO because too many of the general public thinks his career after the Beatles was"trash" and Grammy nominations/wins is kind of a "push back" at that notion. I honestly think if "McCartney III" was out in time to get nominated this year it would have gotten nomination due to critical acclaim and hit the charts at #1 or #2.  I also think Grammy voters will get that this could be the last time they could honor him and that would help his chances. The problem will be will they remember this album many months from now when they vote. My guess is it will get nomination but lose to somebody like Taylor Swift with "Folklore".