Kendrick Lamar deserves Grammy noms, but not as a Best New Artist. (hiphopclassicks/Tumblr)

One of the most notable is the category of Best New Artist. Usually, when the term “new” is used, the synonyms "current" or "recent" come to mind.

Not with the Grammys. Their Best New Artist category this year is anything but new. All of the artists have been around for years. Macklemore & Ryan Lewis first started coming out with music in 2006, Kendrick Lamar has been making mixtapes since 2003, and Ed Sheeran even had a Grammy nomination of his own last year.

So what exactly makes these artists new? According to the Recording Academy, the artist has to have just released an album or single in the eligibility year, that brings them to public notoriety. As long as they have not had a nomination in a performance category (Ed Sheeran’s was songwriting), they are eligible. 

This rule was created after the 2010 controversy in which Lady Gaga was not eligible for Best New Artist, a category she most likely would have won. She was ineligible because of a 2009 nomination for Best Dance Song, which she didn’t even win.

Seems as though the Recording Academy has had a hard time on buckling down on who to nominate. Perhaps they should actually search for new, upcoming artists rather than artists that we’ve been listening to for years. 

Even when artists are eligible, is it in their best interest to win? The “Best New Artist Curse” has been prevalent in the past few years which proves winning the award sure doesn’t make for a guaranteed successful career.

Esperanza Spalding, Evanescence, Shelby Lynne, and Lauryn Hill, while perhaps still producing music, aren’t exactly big industry names anymore. Winning Best New Artist has the potential to boost fame, but it clearly does not promise anything.

Reach Staff Reporter Zoe Willis here.