This is the one true comment. Most artists who have brought awards to their labels have been given more freedoms to try new things and to be more adventurous with their sound. That being said, the Grammys themselves aren’t exactly a good metric on if an album or an artist is deserving of said accolade. The Grammys have a whole political structure that has snubbed many artists for a host of different, stupid reasons.

Though I agree with the sentiment, that Macklemore album was pretty significant that year simply because it was done without major label representation. That album slapps and no one can convince me otherwise

I never said it wasn’t better. I said it’s a matter of taste and opinion. And just because you like something more doesn’t automatically mean it deserves to win. As I said before, there are politics involved in the Grammys and the Macklemore album was huge within the culture. Who sold more albums that year? I’d argue Macklemore was at or maybe even above Kendrick that year…

“Better” is a term up for debate which comes down to personal preference. I don’t mean to be argumentative, and I do think Grammy politics play a part in the decision, but at the time it was hard to argue with the cultural shift created by The Heist. It paved the way for people like Olivia Rodrigo and Billie Eilish to do what they were able to. It showed that a project not backed by a major can be such a cultural phenomenon that it was impossible to ignore. That’s all I’m saying. And that’s not to say that Drake, Kanye and Kendrick didn’t all go on to kill it before and after that year.