Courtesy Keertana Sastry of Bustle.com
You would think the Billboard Music Awards would want to applaud not only the biggest stars in the world but also those who are up and coming on the charts and provide us with some real musical merit. But that’s not the case.
According to their website, this is how Billboard defines their nominations and awards process:
Basically, the gist of the process is; the awards are chosen by album and singles sales and social media measurements that are tracked by Billboard, Nielsen Entertainment — who also measures TV ratings — and a company called Next Big Sound. The reporting period for this round of awards went from March 11, 2013 to March 9, 2014 - That's it!
At least with the Grammy’s, nominees are chosen by how many artists and groups get the most votes within each category by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, or the NARAS. So if NARAS members decide to vote for someone new, interesting, and lesser-known, they at least have a shot of making the nominations list and even later winning an award. Remember when Esperanza Spalding won Best New Artist over Justin Bieber? Remember how angry people got? Even though some fans still insist that she didn’t deserve the award (everyone’s entitled to their opinion), she provided an opportunity for the general public to listen to something new and different than what is constantly played on the radio.
If the Billboard Music Awards was in fact be chosen by voters who give a damn about music in general and not just popular artists, then maybe they’d give more recognition to lesser known artists and groups. Or well-known but still somehow not properly recognized talent. What about some Paul McCartney? He released an album this past year. Where is he? Seriously how do the “Harlem Shake” and Psy have nominations but Paul McCartney does not? Even though the Billboard nominations make sense statistically, I’ll never understand them.