Track Listing
for May 24, 2012

I was looking for a store location on my phone today, and as I went to type the store name into Google, three recent searches came up:

What is witch hazel used for?
Where is Vanderbilt?
Difference between Record and Song of the Year?

These are the deep questions I have pondered on recent long bus rides.

But that third one is, of course, particularly timely. And at long last, I will head into this year’s Grammy Awards fully understanding the difference between Record and Song of the Year. Record of the Year celebrates the song’s performance/performer. Song of the Year celebrates its writer. Adele is up for both, of course, as is Bon Iver, Bruno Mars and Mumford & Sons. Everyone is pretty sure it’s gonna be Adele. Both times.

Except it might not be. Overall, the odds are not on her side. Or any of the other Record/Song noms, for that matter. But since the Grammys began, they’ve been getting better.

Let me explain. The first Grammy Awards were in 1959, and from then to last year, only 24 songs have won both Record and Song of the Year, which is less than half the number of Grammy Award ceremonies from then to now. But, within each decade, the number of times a song has won for both Record and Song have gone up (for the most part). So from 1959-1969, 2 songs won both; from 1970-1979, 4 songs won both; 1980-1989, 5 won both; 1990-1999, 7 won both, and from 2000-2010, 5 won both. And so far in the current decade, we have 1 that’s won both–thanks to last year’s win for Lady Antebellum’s “Need You Now.”

In the name of improvement with each decade, it’s looking good (but for a small dip in momentum from the 90s to the aughts) that at least someone on those two lists will win both awards for one song.

I’m Team Adele. Because, just, wow. “Rolling in the Deep” is a pretty garsh darn spectacular, both in the writing and performance.

That, and she has great hair. A known deciding factor.

Comments are closed.