Mitsguy2001, again, it's *Musgraves. It really doesn't look great on you when you presume to know so much about these artists and how bad they are, yet you can't even spell their names.
My point is that she is so obscure and I had no idea who she was until a few days ago when I heard she was opening for a few of Katy's concerts. I didn't care how to spell her name, since she's someone who would be booed and have eggs thrown at her, not someone who would win a Grammy when the main act still doesn't. If it weren't for Katy, Kacey Musgraves would probably be serving drinks in a bar.
Many people like both Kacey Musgraves and Lorde (I can't think of any reason to think why either of them aren't talented and shouldn't have won awards),
First of all, I said that I have nothing against Lorde, and I do like her song Royals.
Secondly, if you say that they both deserved 2 Grammys, then explain to me why you feel that Katy deserves 0 Grammys.
just because you don't see why they're good, it doesn't mean they aren't, your opinion is not the be all and end all of everything (and neither are the Grammys, so I don't see why you're so worked up over this). And the reason why contemporaries of Katy's like Beyoncé, Rihanna, Taylor Swift and others win Grammys more easily is because their music can often be put into more categories than just pop (in these instances, R&B, sometimes Hip-Hop, and country), whereas the only categories Katy can fit into are the pop ones, where the competition is the most fierce because 'pop music' means something far less specific, there are many different sub-genres of pop, so such a vast range of songs can be nominated for those awards.
Then maybe Katy needs to start writing music that can double dip into multiple categories.
No, because Pop Vocal and Song of the Year are two very different categories and they're probably not voted on by the same panel of people and they can't just say 'oh, Royals has enough now, let's just give one to Katy cause she doesn't have any yet', if Lorde is seen as the person who deserves to win in that category, she'll get the award. And she was deserving of both of those awards, she did some very nice, creative things with the vocals in Royals and whilst Roar was huge, Royals and Same Love were too and those songs really got people talking about the issues addressed in them (whereas people more just thought Roar was a good song), and that's why they were bigger contenders for SOTY.
Then explain to my why Rolling in the Deep deserved 7 Grammys split between 2 years, when neither Firework nor Wide Awake deserved any?
You can believe that about Adele all you want, but there are other people who believe the opposite. I'm not justifying it at all, I didn't say it was the right decision, everyone has their own opinion and I agree, the academy seems to move a lot towards anything Adele puts out but that's just the way it is. It's not the end of the world, no one is dying, it's not a huge deal. In my opinion, if people really believed in Katy's talent, they wouldn't feel the need to have validation from the Grammy academy in order to feel good about her.
But it's frustrating how everybody I know hates Katy, and they think she sucks because she hasn't won a Grammy.
Enjoy your Adele concert.
Being rude to people when they're only trying to answer your questions for you. Nice.
Since you seem to love Adele so much, and you seem to think she is objectively the best female singer in history, why don't you go to her concerts? If you do go, I hope you enjoy it.