smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | matty karas <mkaras@mindspring.com> |
| Subject | Re: puzzling grammatical rule, part 2 |
| Date | Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:51:56 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (1.7 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
> Cause the voting period isn't by calendar year...it's in 18 month
> increments...meaning that a record released in September of 2002 could
> potentially have been nominated depending on how well the record did over
> the course of those 18 months. It's to help acts and labels who release
> recordings at the end of a fiscal year get noticed in the year in which it
> would have had its strongest momentum -- in the case of both examples cited
> here, 2003.
not to nitpick, but while the grammy voting period isn't a calendar year, it's still a 12-month year. the period of eligibility for this year's grammys was albums or singles released between oct. 1, 2002 and sept.30, 2003. meaning a sept 2002 album would not be eligible this year, and nor would an oct 2003 album.
albums are eligible based on when they're released in stores or made available for sale online (except in occasional cases where the grammy folks stretch the calendar to sneak a particular album in, which they occasionally do), and singles and tracks are eligible based on when they're either released as commercial singles or
shipped to radio.
to further confuse the matter, songwriting awards are based on whenever the hell the song becomes popular, which means, for example, an eytan mirsky song originally released in 1999 could be eligible for the "song of the year" grammy in 2007 if it becomes the theme song to an oscar-winning movie released sometime between oct. 1,
2005 and sept. 30, 2006.
and, as everyone knows, artists can be named "best new artist" pretty much anytime between birth and death.
don't ask me how or why i know this crap, but, trust me, it's keeping slightly more important information out of my head.
matty
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.