Which ‘Record of the Year’ winner at the Grammys flopped the most in the charts?
There are a lot of artists who might try and convince you that they’re “too cool” for the Grammys. Don’t believe them.
The truth is, no artist, at least not the self-respecting kind, does what they do for awards. The moment that people are making music with awards and accolades in mind is the minute that the concept of art dies. The point is supposed to be to make something personal, from an honest place, that other people may well be able to connect with.
Rick Rubin isn’t the centre of the creative universe, but the way he defines what art is, and what it means to be an artist, always feels pretty solid.
“Living life as an artist is a practice,” he said, “You are either engaging in the practice or you’re not. It makes no sense to say you’re not good at it. It’s like saying, ‘I’m not good at being a monk’. You are either living as a monk or you’re not. We tend to think of the artist’s work as the output. The real work of the artist is a way of being in the world.”
So long as artists continue to practice their art, they will create something of note. It might not be a best-seller, it might be heard by five people and then disappear into the ether, but so long as it comes from a genuine place, it’s worthy of people’s attention.
With this in mind, the Grammys really shouldn’t matter, but even the most humble of artists would admit that receiving recognition from such a prestigious organisation is a pretty nice feeling, no matter how “cool” they may be.
Do the Grammys consider record sales?
As a general rule, no, the Grammys aren’t supposed to consider record sales, but no one with more than two brain cells genuinely believes that.
When you consider the true nature of art, it feels a shame to watch the ceremony fall further into the pit of being a fashion show and a who’s who. The nominees become more and more predictable as the years roll on by, and it feels as though the awards hardly even listen to the music that they claim to celebrate anymore.
That being said, while a lot of Grammy winners and nominees seem to be predictable because of their record sales, there are a few exceptions. There are some records which have won awards over the years which didn’t chart successfully.
So, what ‘Record of the Year’ winner charted the lowest?
What are some of these exceptions, then?
Well, one winner of ‘Record of the Year’, which didn’t chart particularly well, was Paul Simon’s Graceland. Despite not selling incredibly well, the album was innovative enough with its embrace of African music that it was difficult for the Grammys not to acknowledge it.
However, Paul Simon’s offering wasn’t the lowest charting Grammy winner ever; that’s a title reserved for Robert Plant and Alison Krauss with their record ‘Please Read the Letter. It won ‘Record of the Year’ but only ever reached number 85 on the Billboard top 100.
While it’s commendable for the Grammys to acknowledge an album that didn’t chart too well, you get the impression that the record might not have received acclaim were it not for someone like Robert Plant behind it.
That’s a debate for another time, but until then, Plant and Krauss can enjoy their well-earned Grammy.
