Photo: Wikimedia Commons
A lot of people tend to think that having chart topping singles and a boatload of Grammys is the end all, be all for a musician’s success and that if they don’t have any, it must mean their music is bad and they “aren’t working hard enough”. Well, I’m here to say that being #1 on Billboard and winning Grammys doesn’t mean anything.
How many songs have we heard throughout the years that were DOWNRIGHT TERRIBLE, yet they’re still the #1 songs on Billboard, and we can name a million other songs that are way better and deserve that #1 spot much more than those songs; or how many people were nominated for or won Grammys for terrible or mediocre songs when we can name a billion other people who deserve the award more than anybody nominated and they aren’t nominated at all?
Billboard only measures the popularity and sales of a song. And as we all should know, popularity and sales doesn’t always mean a song is good. And the main chart, the Hot 100 or Hot 200, only counts a few hundred songs and albums. There are WAY more songs and albums in the U.S. alone than just a couple hundred. And since the charts can’t fit more than 200 songs or albums, not every song and album can be featured on the charts and definitely not every song or album can be #1 or even in the Top 40. There are millions of songs out there. It’s ridiculous to only believe that the songs on Billboard are the only songs that are good and the only songs that people should listen to.
The Grammys are no different. There’s only so many artists that can be nominated in each category of the Grammys and only one out of all those people can win. As a matter of fact, about only 5 musicians can be nominated in a given category. There are currently 83 categories, and not every musician is qualified in these categories. And when you compare these numbers to exactly how many artists are out here making music, whether we know them or not, we can clearly see that these numbers are not only ridiculously miniscule, it’s unfair! Not everybody can win a Grammy and not everybody can be nominated.
Both the Grammys and the Billboard Hot 100 chart were created in the 1950’s. Both things have only been around for a few decades when music itself has been around for centuries, thousands and thousands of years, even. Why all of sudden does a song or musician need to have either of these before we consider them good?
These things are not given to these people due to their talent alone. I guarantee you that talent is the absolute LAST thing these people think about when it comes to Billboard charting and Grammys. Nobody wins Grammys or have chart topping singles due to their talent alone.
We can listen to songs and artists OURSELVES and form OUR OWN opinions about whether or not they are good. We don’t need Billboard, Grammys, or any other award show to tell us who’s good and who isn’t. They are not and SHOULD NOT be the only things that can measure how good an artist is. Considering the actual history of music, these things can’t even realistically measure it at all (This same rule applies to YouTube views as well because I see people using those to measure an artist’s success).
Having a Grammy or Billboard singles doesn’t mean one artist is better than another. It doesn’t mean one artist “isn’t working hard enough” because they don’t have one. It doesn’t mean an artist is good or bad. It doesn’t mean anything. I really wish people would stop acting like it does.