Talk:Grammy Award milestones/Archive 1

Grammy website shows the awards an artist has won
at grammy.com you can look up to see how many awards the artist has won. For anything on this section that shows how many awards an artist has won, it is all supported by what it says on the grammy website. Just because an artists album wins a technical award such as Recording package, engineered album etc, it doesn't mean that the artist won it. There are various awards that go to engineers, package designers, notes writers etc. If you make edits about who has won what make sure you type in the artists name at grammy.com. before you put in the edit.

User: Alextwa (10/4/09)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alextwa (talk • contribs) 04:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Lock page?
There are a lot of anonymous edits on this page that are just not factual. Every time I check this page a non member tends to make an edit with information that is not true. I keep reverting these edits and they keep coming back. I feel that this page should be locked from editing from those who are anonymous users. --Alextwa (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oldest Winner?
I think we should include the oldest person to win a grammy. I believe it is George Burns who won an award in 1991 at 94 years of age. --Alextwa (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nominations vs Wins (lifetime)
According the opening category, Solti seems to head to pack since he had more wins than Jones. Yet adding wins to unwon nominations (if Most Nominations is accurate): I have to ask, for accuracy - do either of Solti's or Jones's noms include their wins?
 * Georg Solti: 31 wins + 74 noms = 105
 * Quincy Jones: 27 wins + 79 noms = 111

It seems to me, on a purely opinionated basis, that the person with most nominations (win + lose, win - lose) should be acknowledged higher than a one-shot, one-year "Single ceremony" (the name of section 2). 71.234.215.133 (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominations include the nominations that did result in wins. Quincy Jones is the most nominated person and Solti has the most career grammy wins. Quincy Jones is in second place for grammy wins with 27. --Alextwa (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"I Am...Sasha Fierce" won 5 awards NOT 6
One of the 6 awards Beyonce won this year was traditional R&B vocal performance for "At Last". That song is NOT featured on the album. I continue to revert this edit. Please refrain from entering her album in the most honored albums section. --Alextwa (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thriller
Thriller did win 8. Michael won 7 for the album. The album was also awarded best engineered album. --Alextwa (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Re
I'm really tired of reverting edits. This is fact; Thriller was awarded 8 Grammys in 1984. Michael received 7 awards for the album. The album also won Best Engineered Album. Since Michael was not an engineer on the album he was not awarded that award. He did win Best recording for Children, so he did win 8 awards.

Thriller was awarded the following awards:

--Alextwa (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Record of the Year: Beat It
 * 2) Album of the Year
 * 3) Male Pop Vocal Performance: Thriller
 * 4) Male Rock Vocal Performance: Beat It
 * 5) Male R&B Vocal Performance: Billie Jean
 * 6) R&B Song: Billie Jean
 * 7) Best Engineered Album, Non Classical: Bruce Sweiden, engineer
 * 8) Producer of the Year, Non Classical: Quincy Jones & Michael Jackson

Most Nominations without winning
I can not find anything that confirms some previous edits. These edits said:


 * Martina McBride won 13 without winning
 * Nas and Busta Rymes were nominated 9 times without winning
 * Tanya Tucker had 10 nominations without winning

None on this can be included unless I see something that confirms it --Alextwa (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Horowitz?
I count Horowitz won 25 Grammy Awards...3 best classical performance, 2 best instrumental soloist (with orchestra), 14 best instrumental soloist (without orchestra), and 6 best classical album. That's 25 Grammys but he isn't listed...is there a reason why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.192.73 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Most Grammys won by a male artist
I have re-edited the most grammys won by a male artist section to reflect Vladimir Horowitz as the most winningest male artist. He has won 25 grammys vs. Stevie Wonder's 22. Jags86 (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, he has won those awards as an artist, that how he is credited in the grammy winners search. Perhaps more sections should be added to the page to better encompass wins by classical composers and/or classical artists. --Alextwa (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Youngest Winner
Luis did not win the New Artist Grammy in 1984. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.23.255.5 (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Metallica has 8 Grammys
In the section "Most Grammy Awards won by a group" says that Metallica is in the 4th place with Santana and Take 6 with 8 Grammy Awards each one when in fact Metallica has 9 of them, here you can see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallica#Awards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.8.242.37 (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

the award for best recording package is not presented to the recording artist (in this case Metallica) unless they are the art directors of the package. Its awarded to the package art directors. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Youngest Grammy Nominees
Deleon Richards is listed as the youngest Grammy nominee but Bobby Bare, Jr. was younger. Deleon, born on 9/18/1976 was nominated for Best Soul Gospel Performance - Female at the 28th Grammy Awards presented 2/25/1986, so she was 9 years 5 months of age. http://www.awardsandshows.com/features/grammy-awards-1986-234.html

Bobby Bare, Jr. born 6/28/1966 was nominated with his father for Best Country & Western Vocal Performance - Duo Or Group at the 17th Grammy Awards presented 3/1/1975, so he was 8 years 8 months of age. http://www.awardsandshows.com/features/grammy-awards-1975-240.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.102.173 (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding New Category
What about "Artist that won the most awards for winning every nomination?" That would be Bob Dylan with 11 wins and 11 nominations, I'm pretty sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.58.201 (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Bob Dylan has lost the following Grammy Awards:

2010 Best Americana Album for "Together Through Life" 2010 Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance for "Beyond Here Lies Nothin'" 2007 Best Rock Song for "Someday Baby" 2004 Best Pop Collaboration with Vocals for "Gonna Change My Way Of Thinking" shared with Mavis Staples 2004 Best Rock Vocal Performance - Male for "Down In The Flood" 2002 Best Rock Vocal Performance - Male for "Honest With Me" 2002 Album of the Year for "Love & Theft" 2001 Best Rock Vocal Performance - Male for "Things Have Changed" 2001 Best Song Written for a Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media for "Things Have Changed" 1999 Best Country Song for "To Make You Feel My Love" 1996 Best Contemporary Folk Album for "MTV Unplugged" 1996 Best Rock Vocal Performance - Male for "Knockin' On Heaven's Door" 1996 Best Rock Song for "Dignity" 1994 Best Contemporary Folk Album for "Good As I Been to You" 1994 Best Male Rock Vocal Performance for "All Along The Watchtower" 1994 Best Rock Vocal Performance by a Duo or Group for "My Back Pages" shared with Roger McGuinn; Tom Petty; Neil Young; Eric Clapton; George Harrison 1992 Best Music Video, Short Form for "Series Of Dreams" shared with Meirt Avis 1989 Best Traditional Folk Recording for "Pretty Boy Floyd" 1987 Best Historical Album for "Biograph" 1982 Best Inspirational Performance for "Shot of Love" 1981 Best Inspirational Performance for "Saved" 1970 Best Country Instrumental Performance for "Nashville Skyline Rag" 1969 Best Folk Performance for "John Wesley Harding" 1965 Best Folk Recording for "The Times, They Are A-Changin'" 1964 Best Documentary, Spoken Word or Drama Recording (Other than Comedy) for "We Shall Overcome (The March on Washington, August 28, 1963)" shared with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Marian Anderson, Rabbi Joachim Prinz 1963 Best Folk Recording for "Bob Dylan" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.102.173 (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Youngest winners/BEYONCE'/grammy nominations
When Beyoncé wons her first grammy, she was togheter Rowland (19 years old), Luckett (19) and Roberson (19). I have add her name because Beyoncé, Kelly, Toya and Tavia has won their first grammy at the same age!

Beyoncé was nominated 43 time for grammy, and not 44. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.75.223.76 (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Competitive Awards only
Again, this page deals with the competitive awards won by artists. Special awards (Lifetime Achievement, technical grammy, trustees awards etc) do not count towards the amount of Grammys someone has WON.

Michael Jackson
Michael Jackson has won 13 Grammys, not 16, again this page is for competitive wins only. His legend award does not go towards his Grammy count. --Alextwa (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Again I have to revert edits that are not true. Do the grammy.com winners search. Here is the link:

http://www2.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/Winners/

Type in "Michael Jackson" is the box that says "artist". You will find that he has won 13 Grammy Awards. this does not include his Lifetime achievement award, legend award and three hall of fame inductions. these awards are separate and are not added to the artist's grammy count. This page does not include those awards. Special awards do not count as "grammy wins". --Alextwa (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like various unregistered users keep changing the information about the awards Michael Jackson has won. The fact of the matter is that Michael Jackson has won a total of thirteen Grammy Awards throughout his career.

This is a list of the 13 awards he has won:

1980: Best Male R&B Vocal (1 award)

1984: Record of the Year, Album of the Year, Male Pop Vocal, Male rock Vocal, Male R&B Vocal, R&B song, Recording for Children, Producer of the Year (8 awards)

1985: Best video Album (1 Award)

1986: song of the Year (1 award)

1990: Best short form music video (1 award)

1996: best short form music video (1 award)

This is a total of 13 awards. Also, this page is for competitive wins. (aka awards you can win). You do not "Win" a lifetime achievement awards or a Grammy legend awards. This is for completive awards that Michael Jackson himself won. This means that he beat other artists to win the award(s). --MusicGeek101 (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In addition here is the Grammy winner seach that shows that it is 13 awards that Michael Jackson has won: http://www.grammy.com/nominees/search?artist=Michael+Jackson&title=&year=All&genre=All

--MusicGeek101 (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The Beatles
I can only find 10 Grammys won by the Beatles (or members Paul and John while with the Beatles). How did this number get to 13? 1964 	 Best New Artist 1964 	 Best Performance By A Vocal Group 	 A Hard Day's Night 1966 	 Best Contemporary (R&R) Solo Vocal Performance - Male Or Female 	 Eleanor Rigby 1966 	 Song Of The Year 	 Michelle 1967 	 Best Contemporary Album 	 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 1967 	 Album Of The Year 	 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 1970 	 Best Original Score Written For A Motion Picture Or A Television Special 	 Let It Be 1996 	 Best Music Video, Long Form 	 The Beatles Anthology 1996 	 Best Music Video, Short Form 	 Free As A Bird 1996 	 Best Pop Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal 	 Free As A Bird

2010's Helter Skelter win can't be considered a Beatles win because it was a live performance by ONLY PAUL. I'm still unsure where the other 2 might have come from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimpy80 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul McCartney
Has 15 according to grammy.com where did his other 3 come from???

Beatles Wiki page says they have 7 (I assume not counting the 3 padded Grammys in the 90's) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimpy80 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Re
I cleaned up this page, I find that several edits were made which included "Non-competitive awards" being added to "Competitive Award" wins. I have reverted those edits so that the page may only reflect competitive awards --MusicGeek101 (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Album, Record and Song of the Year in one Night
Why isn't the group Santana in this list, having won Album of the Year for 'Supernatural' and Record and Song of the Year for 'Smooth' (with Rob Thomas)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.45.155 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Rob Thomas got the award, not santana. Song of the years goes to the songwriter. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not?
Why not are include the nominations for Album of The Year by Featured Artist. Beyoncé had two with Missy Elliot's Under Construction and Lady Gaga's The Fame Monster = 45 nominations. Silencio faz bem (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Records By Songs
Include records by songs in this page. Silencio faz bem (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Norah Jones
Norah Jones did not win Record, Album and Song in one night back in 2003. She did not write "Don't Know Why". Jesse Harris did. The award goes to the songwriter. Therefor she did not win Record, Album and song in 2003. She won Record, Album, new Artist, Female Pop Vocal and Pop vocal Album. I noticed that I have had to correct this error several times. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Most nominations without winning (as of 2012)
The nominations for the 2013 awards were just announced. However let's not increase the total number of nominations an artist who has not won yet received. The new nominations may result in a win, they may not. If an artist loses a nomination in February then we can increase the number.

For example; Katy Peery has gotten nine nominations without a win. She just got a tenth nomination. If she loses that nomination then it is safe to say she has gotten ten nominations without winning. If she wins the nomination in february, then her name should be taken out of the table since she would have become a Grammy winner. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Formatting
I think that the "horizontally" set tables in this article look odd and are harder to read than if the same tables were formatted in a more vertically. In other words, instead of this ...

I would prefer to see the tables look like this:

Anybody have preferences either way about this? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I would rather have U2 and Stevie Wonder be tied for 6th not 5th as there are 5 artists ahead of them not 4 Geraldpringle (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The Black Keys
The Black Keys won two Grammy awards in 2011. Last night they won three more. They have won five awards so far. However, Dan Auerbach won Producer of the Year last night. He has won six Grammys. The black Keys as a band have won five.--MusicGeek101 (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Jay-Z
Jay-Z is a 18 time Grammy winner. Follow these links here:

http://www.grammy.com/nominees/search?artist=%22Shawn+Carter%22&field_nominee_work_value=&year=All&genre=All

(4 wins under the name "Shawn Carter")

http://www.grammy.com/nominees/search?artist=%22Jay-Z%22&field_nominee_work_value=&year=All&genre=All

(11 wins under the name "Jay-Z")

total of 15 wins, however, this search has not been updated for the 55th Grammys yet. So it is 18 wins. He won three on Sunday. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This total is incorrect, as there is one win ("Best Rap Song" in 2009 for "Run This Town") which is listed under "Shawn Carter" AND "Jay-Z". So that shouldn't count twice. Jay Z's total is therefore 17, not 18. I have corrected this. - Zighlveit (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Adele's album won 7
Please not one little thing that may throw people off. Adele's album (21) won seven awards. Adele herself won 6 awards for the album, Her producer, Paul Epworth won producer of the year. This makes it 7 wins. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A win in the Producer of the Year category is for the producer only and his/her general work during the eligibility year, and is not linked to any specific work the winner has produced. So it is incorrect to attribute the Producer of the Year award of Mr Epworth to "21". Zighlveit (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Producer of the Year
The Producer of the Year awards are for Producers and their general work during the eligibility year. They are not attributed towards one specific recording (a producer can be awarded for a specific record in the Record of the Year or Album of the Year categories). This means you cannot count a Producer of the Year award towards an album's total. Therefore an album like "How to dismantle an atomic bomb" by U2 has won 8 awards, not 9 as listed on this page (the ninth was producer Steve Lillywhite's Producer of the Year award in 2006). Zighlveit (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb won 9 awards
It does share the record with Supernatural for most honored album.

How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb won the following awards

In 2005 it won Rock Peroformance Duo/group, Rock song, short form music video: THAT IS THREE WINS IN 2005

In 2006 it won Album, Song, Rock Performance Duo/Group, Rock Song, Rock Album, Producer of the Year (Steve Lillywhite who PRODUCED THE ALBUM): THAT IS 6 AWARDS IN 2006

Three Awards (2005) + Six Awards (2006)= 9 Awards --Alextwa (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see my remarks above ("Producer of the Year") about why this album's total should be 8, not 9. Zighlveit (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Records & Tables
Some tables show the top 10, others the top 8, etc. Does a "Top X" listing need to be included for each record, or should only the current record holder be listed and then updated once the record is broken? 68.55.123.86 (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Re-addition of tables
Please stop re-adding the poorly-formatted horizontal table for the Most Album of the Year wins and Artists who have won Record, Album and Song of the Year in one night sections. This information is not in a ranked order and does not need to be presented in a table.

For Most Album of the Year wins, every artist in that category has won three. Listing the year the third award was won is sufficient. Same for Artists who have won Record, Album and Song of the Year in one night; listing the artist and year it happened is far easier to read than having that info in a table. 68.55.123.86 (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It is more consistent to have it in the format of a table. Having it in sentence format (given the fact that there are multiple people who won all three in one night) is un-constructive and not consistent with the format of the page. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are several sections that do not contain tables. This article as a whole is very difficult to read with the numerous tables and the WP:LISTCRUFT already contained within it. 68.55.123.86 (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Some sections do not have tables because six artists are not the subject of some of the sections.--MusicGeek101 (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Beyoncé/Destiny's Child
The article does not state enough that the Grammys collected by Beyoncé are not all because of just Beyoncé (three Grammys, to be exact, are won by Destony's Child). This should be noted, at least somewhat prominent. 「Robster1983」 ☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 00:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "It is understood" [that the Grammys Beyoncé won also include the ones from Destiny's Child). Understood by who? I've looked for that info rather a lot a few days ago, and this article helped me nothing further. More importantly: why is it SO d*mn important for you NOT to include this small text behind the name of Beyoncé? 「Robster1983」 ☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 18:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It is completely unnecessary and un-constructive. First of all, other artists have won awards as members of groups (such as alison Krauss). If you put in parenthesis that the artist won with this group and that group then it will create clutter on the page. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all: There's no need to erase things from the talkpage, we don't censure things. In fact, if everyone start removing things, wikipedia's talk pages would become utterly incomprehensive. So I have re-added my edit from 18.30, 24 Februari 2013 UCT. Second: wiki is about supplying the info, giving the facts. Not holding back on certain facts. Maybe YOU understand that the Grammys on Beyoncé's name include the ones won with Destiny's Child, but I, and I reckon many people with me, do not. To be honest, I would <3 to see if someone has won some Grammy's with a (former) band/group. Just to give the total picture, not just half of it. 「Robster1983」 ☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 18:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall deleting anything from here. I think two edits were made at the same time. I probably clicked on "Save page" and it accidentally removed what was here. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough about the deleting-stuff, but that still does not give me some answer. What on earth would be wrong with showing - in parentheses, using small letters - how these Grammy's are earned? 1) Not all the artists have joined a band/group which won Grammys, so the clutter/rubbish should not even be noteworthy. 2) That does nothing to the Grammys won by this certain artist, nor the meaning of it; it only might be more informative to people who truly want to know what sort Grammys this artist won. 「Robster1983」 ☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 19:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The category is "Most Grammy Awards won by a Female Artist". It is not called "Most grammy Awards won by a Female Solo Artist". The answer to this issue lies simply in the title of the section. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It would perhaps be a logical compromise to add a footnote that can be clicked on that will redirect the user to a statment at the bottom of the page that says that it includes three that she won with Destiny's Child. That would avoid clutter. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur; that would be logical and handy for those in search of that info, though excluding the 'clutter'. I'm with ya. 「Robster1983」 ☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 20:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I know I may be pushing some boundaries here, but IMHO I reckon this should be mentioned on all artists that have won a/some Grammy(s) with a band/group before they went solo. However, one step at a time, maybe? Many thanks, MusicGeek101: thank you for bringing this brill solution! It's not something I thought about, but it works out brilliantly. 「Robster1983」 ☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 20:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I would not worry about it. As for Alison Krauss, she holds the record for most Grammys won by a Female Artist. In that section it says that she has won 27 as a solo artist, collaborator and producer. In that case, it is already noted. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Toto won 5 in 1983
Just to clear up some confusion on how many Toto won back in 1983.

Record of the Year, Album of the Year and Producer of the Year went to each member of the band. Best Instrumental Arrangement Accompanying Vocal(s) went to David Paich and Jeff Porcaro (both as members of the band). Best Vocal Arrangement For Two Or More Voices went to David Paich (a member of the band)

Their album also won for Best Engineered album. The award went to the engineers and none of the band members were engineers of the album.

Take a look at these results on the Grammy winners search:

http://www.grammy.com/nominees/search?artist=%22Toto%22&field_nominee_work_value=&year=All&genre=All

http://www.grammy.com/nominees/search?artist=%22David+Paich%22&field_nominee_work_value=&year=All&genre=All

http://www.grammy.com/nominees/search?artist=&field_nominee_work_value=%22Toto+IV%22&year=All&genre=All

The album itself won six awards. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Tied placements
The records page is for most wins and nominations by an artist, group, producer etc. Only ranking by totals and failing to acknowledge ties is misleading and incorrect. As I've said before, when two things are tied for 2nd, next is 4th. In the case of ties, numbers do skip. On any list, if four artists or groups are ahead of you, you are 5th, even if those four things are tied, you are still 5th, you don't suddenly jump up to 2nd. To use yet another example, there are 16 acts with 10 or more nominations without winning, if they all had a different total, the next three acts (Jamey Johnson, Katy Perry and Tanya Tucker) would be (correctly) ranked =17th, but because some ahead are tied they rank 8th. Surely for this page to be truly encyclopedic and accurate, ties need to be acknowledged and ranked correctly. L1975p (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This page deals with award show wins and this does not rank items as if it were a race in a sporting event. That format is acceptable when it comes to a race and it used by sport governing bodies. This is for Grammy Award wins and is a completely different subject matter. The format this is in now has always been this way. It is logical, coherent and easy to understand to the average viewer. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. Regardless of subject matter, any list that ranks things 1st 2nd 3rd etc.. should do it correctly, which means acknowledging ties. This is not about a "format that is acceptable", this is about being factually correct. A possible alternative is to just present the information without using placements (in other words, use ranking placements properly or not at all). It is fine to try and make things easy to understand for people, as long as the information you're showing them is presented correctly, even if that means changing a long standing page format. Just because the format of a page has "always been this way", doesn't mean it always has to stay that way, especially if it could be improved and made more accurate. As for being logical, in a list of most wins by an artist, if there are four artists ahead of you, then you are 5th, that's logical. L1975p (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You would need to give some kind of reference to back up your claim, otherwise it's just your opinion that it is "logical." I have not seen a list as you are proposing (at least not on WP). To me, it doesn't make much sense. When there is a tie, all those tied are equal and are ranked at the same placement. The lists on this article are not official lists and the rank columns are not really necessary but are there as a helpful guide. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * With respect, how does it not make much sense that when four are ahead of you, you are 5th? That statement is not just my opinion, it is a fact. You're right that when there is a tie, all those tied are equal and are ranked at the same place, I never suggested otherwise, but when two things (or artists) are tied for 4th, next is 6th. If the rankings are not official, not really necessary (and are inaccurate), then they should not be used. To back up what I have said you can go to the wiki page List of tallest buildings in the world. On that page's list for the tallest skyscrapers, you will see that two buildings are tied for 7th, so the next building is correctly ranked as 9th, two are tied for 32nd, next is 34th, two are tied for 40th next is 42nd, three are tied for 50th, next is 53rd etc... L1975p (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I was asking for an external source. Just as for an article, a WP article isn't a reliable source, because (as you know) anyone can edit an article. However, the example you give is different from what you were wanting to do. It has 2 or 3 rows consecutively listed with the same number in the Rank column -- and not skipping sequential numbers, as you tried to do here. That's very different. And even though I think it's fine the way it is now, if you wanted to change it to the way it is on the List of Tallest Buildings, I would not be opposed to it. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Formatting it that way is overly repetitive and the numbers skip. When it is formatted that way, it looks like it is ranking the place athletes come in in a race when they tie. The Grammy Awards is not a sport. Ranking Grammy winners is not like ranking buildings by height or cruise ships by length. These are awards for the arts we are dealing with. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I know what we are dealing with but as I have said before, regardless of subject matter, if you are going to use ranking placements, then they should be used correctly, that doesn't change just because it's to do with awards. If you do not want the Grammy's to be ranked like a sport or like buildings, then placements should not be used at all. Being repetitive is what happens when things are ranked accurately. When using the placements 1st, 2nd, 3rd and two or more things are tied, numbers will (and should) skip. The lists are for most awards by artist, group, producer etc.. and so should be ranked by artist, group and producer. If someone is the fourth most honored person at the Grammy's (as Pierre Boulez is) then that person should rank 4th, not 3rd. L1975p (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * MusicGeek, it doesn't skip that way, and if you want to avoid the repetitiveness, you could add rowspans. Like I said, either way is okay with me. I hope another editor will give an opinion, one way or another. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As Musdan said, rowspans would avoid repetitiveness, I would have used them on my previous edit but was concerned that they would be the reason for the revert. Also, information from the Grammy records page is used on the artists own awards pages and causes numerous mistakes. On Bjork's awards page at the Grammy section (which had a link to the Grammy records page) it wrongly said that she was the fourth most nominated person (artist) not to win, when of course she isn't, she is the 5th most nominated person not to win (tied with Nas). A list for most Grammy wins received by an artist being ranked by artist, does make sense. L1975p (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"22 years, 383 days"
Apparently, Barbera Streisand was 22 years, 383 days when she won her best album Grammy... Is that not the same as 23 years, 18 days? den dodge 12:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Teammm $talk email$ 13:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

75.157.16.70 (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Thank you to all who work on this page. I don't know how to edit with any confidence so I'll just make my two contributions. Under females with most wins, it says that Reba McEntire has 8 wins; she, in fact, has 2. Emmylou Harris has 44 nominations and so should be listed under artists with most nominations. Update on the previous contribution. As of 2015, Emmylou Harris has 47 nominations. 64.180.172.159 (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Age of youngest nominee
Should we use a person's age at announcement of nomination or age at the ceremony? Since this is strictly a nomination section, as compared to the youngest winner which is clearly a Grammy day age, it could be at nomination date as long as we have an accurate date for that event.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  14:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Supernatural - Santana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammy_Award_records#Most_Grammys_won_by_an_album_in_one_night claims that it won Record of the Year, Album of the Year, Song of the Year and so does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42nd_Annual_Grammy_Awards but in the list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammy_Award_records#Artists_who_have_won_Record.2C_Album_and_Song_of_the_Year_in_one_night he doesn't show up. Is there a reason for it? 87.143.217.43 (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Satana (band) is not credited with Song of the Year, having been written by Itaal Shur and Rob Thomas.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  14:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Morten Lindberg
Norwegian engineer Morten Lindberg has been nominated 28 times without win. Progenie (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Alison Krauss
In the footnote about Alison Krauss it says she won 17 as part of Union Station. In the entry for Union Station it says that Alison Krauss and Union Station won 14 awards. Is this inconsistent, or is there something else I'm missing which could be explained by another footnote? I Hate Banner adds (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It might have been a typo. She has 14 with Union Station, and an addition 13 either on her own or in collaboration with others. Thanks for pointing it out.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  01:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

21
Adele's 21 won 6 awards: Best album, song, record, video, pop album and pop performance. Progenie (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also 25 won 5 awards. Neither album gets any credit for Producer of the Year since that is an award unrelated to the album. It just happens that the producer was involved with the album, among many other projects.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  21:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Grammys won by a producer
Kayne West won only 14 Grammys as a producer, the other 7 he won was as a songwriter. Progenie (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Most honored albums
This list is wrong: How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb won 8, Come Away with Me won 7, All That You Can't Leave Behind won 6, Back on the Block won 6, Back To Black won 5, Taking the Long Way won 5, To Pimp a Butterfly won 5, Toto IV won 5 and Thriller won 7.

Producer of the year is not an award for the album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progenie (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Craft & Production Fields
If an artist is awarded anything in the craft and production fields then it should be included on this page. Often artists win these awards and it is a "career grammy win" for that respective artist. Often artists are involved with other aspects of the recording process other than performance & songwriting. They should be credited on this page. The Grammy winners search is reliable but there are often small errors with some searches since its very sensitive.

The Craft & Production fields include:


 * Composition/Arranging Field: Instrumental Composition, Instrumental arrangement, Instrumental Arrangement accompanying vocalist(s)
 * Package Field: Recording Package, Boxed Special Limited Edition Package
 * Note Field: Album Notes
 * Historical Field: Historical Album
 * Production, Non Classical Field: Engineered Album, Producer of the Year, Remixed Recording
 * Surround Sound Field: Surround Sound Album

See here for more info: http://www2.grammy.com/PDFs/Recording_Academy/52categories.pdf --Alextwa (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Red Hot Chili Peppers won 6
The grammy website is kind of weird with them because for the award for Best Boxed/Limited Edition Package it only lists the names of the band members, however all four of them won that award. They won 4 awards in 07 (Rock Album, Rock Song, Rock Performance duo/group, best boxed/limited edition package). They got an award in 2000 and another one in the early 90s. They have won six awards. --Alextwa (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks CallMeTzuyu (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Grammy Nominations in the most fields
Is there a list of the "Fields" that are counted in this record? Are we simply using the Grammy Award Categories listed here: List of Grammy Award categories? Under the 2018 Grammy Awards, "Folk" is not a category, but it is listed as a category under "No Longer Awarded" with the single award "Best Ethnic or Traditional Folk Recording". The two awards that was split into, Traditional Folk Album and Contemporary Folk Album, are also no longer awarded, but they were both part of the "American Roots" field. This leads me to believe that "Folk" is not a field separate from American Roots, meaning we should remove it from both Bob Dylan's and Béla Fleck's records. "Traditional" also does not appear to be a distinct field, meaning we should remove it from Paul McCartney, David Foster, and Bob Dylan.

One of Bob Dylan's fields is listed as "folk pop" - I believe this is a typo, and should read, "folk, pop" leaving him with 8 fields if we remove folk and traditional. Béla Fleck's list is currently at 10, which is likely confused by the lack of an Oxford comma - "Arranging" and "Composition" are two separate fields, so once we remove Folk and split those two, he'll remain at 9 (David Foster and Stevie Wonder also have awards in both the fields of Arranging and Composition).

While we're editing this list, Paul McCartney won an R&B Grammy for BEST CONTEMPORARY (R&R) SOLO VOCAL PERFORMANCE - MALE OR FEMALE in 1966 so his rank also shouldn't change - we just need to add R&B and remove traditional.

Herbie Hancock is listed at 8 categories, but he's missing Arranging, for which he won in 1998 (BEST INSTRUMENTAL ARRANGEMENT ACCOMPANYING VOCAL(S) for St. Louis Blues) and was nominated in 2010 (BEST INSTRUMENTAL ARRANGEMENT ACCOMPANYING VOCALIST(S) for Imagine). That will bump him up to 9, tied for 3rd.

This places the ranking at 1, Quincy Jones (15); 2, Paul McCartney (11); 3, Béla Fleck (9), David Foster (9), Herbie Hancock (9), Jack White (9), Janet Jackson (9). Bob Dylan moves to tied for 8th.

Finally, I'd like to organize the lists and add Oxford commas to avoid confusion.

Jelleecat (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)