But Who Will Be the Voicetrackers of Tomorrow?

Well, let's start this entry by recapping my Grammy picks, and to make it fun, I'll put my selections up against Philadelphia Inquirer music critic Dan DeLuca, who apparently decided to steal my "should win/will win" routine. However, he limited his picks to Album of the Year, Record of the Year, Song of the Year, and Best New Artist. I pick more than just the "top 4" awards, because obviously I think there are more categories that people care about... and because I have unlimited length for my entries. Anyhoo...

Best New Artist: I said Mumford & Sons should win, Drake would win. DeLuca said Florence & the Machine should win, Justin Bieber would win... which proves that DeLuca doesn't know the Grammy voters like I do. Anyone who thinks the aging Grammy voters would ever give a major award to a teen-idol-of-the-moment should not be paid to be a newspaper music critic. Anyway, we (and 99% of the world) were wrong... Esperanza Spaulding won. Yeah, the cellist. A genuine Grammy WTF Moment.

Record of the Year: I said Jay-Z and Alicia Keys should win, Eminem would win. DeLuca said Cee-Lo should and would win. Again, he doesn't know Grammy voters like I do, or else he would know (as I noted 2 weeks ago) that Grammy will not pick a song with a 4-letter bomb in the title. Again, we were both wrong, Lady Antebellum won.

Song of the Year: I said Cee-Lo should win, Eminem & Rihanna would win. DeLuca said Eminem & Rihanna should and would win. Hey, finally we agreed... but we were both wrong again. Lady Antebellum won. Again. Afterward, the Internet was abuzz with people slamming the band for being named after a term that translates to "the South before the slaves were freed", and also for stealing from Alan Parsons. Incidentally, has he sued yet? He really should. He could probably wind up with at least one of the 2 statues.

Album of the Year: I said Lady Gaga should and would win. DeLuca said she was only on the list for show, Arcade Fire should win, but Eminem would win. And this of course was the ultimate head-turner of the night, when Arcade Fire DID win, sending alt-rock fans like myself into a frenzy (if we hadn't previously gone into seizures from Arcade Fire's performance), and sending hardcore hipsters into frantic worrying over whether winning this major award meant that Arcade Fire had "sold out."

As for the other awards I picked, I was correct on the Black Keys for Best Group Rock Song, Them Crooked Vultures for Best Hard Rock Song, Lady Gaga for Best Female Pop Vocal and Best Pop Vocal Album, and there were a couple more "should wins" that I thought would not win, but did win. Grammy is more confusing to pick than ever. But all in all, neither of us got a single major selection right, and DeLuca was as clueless about how Grammy voters would vote as I was. If that's all it takes to get yourself a position as a music critic, I just want the Inquirer to know that I'm available... and I'll work cheaper than DeLuca. I'm just sayin'...

Anyway, the biggest non-award moment for me at the Grammy Awards happened when NARAS head honcho Neil Portnow attacked terrestrial radio over the failure to impose a performance royalty, and went so far as to imply that music fans should go elsewhere for their music. Now you know where I stand on the idea of a performance royalty; I'm all for it. I think it's ridiculous that we're the only major nation besides Iran who doesn't pay artists for playing their songs on the radio unless they wrote the songs themselves. However, I can't support the royalty in the form that it was most recently proposed. Maybe I'd be more inclined to support the royalty if I knew that the money was actually going TO THE ARTISTS. Unfortunately, the GAO found that most major artists would get a mere pittance for their songs getting on the radio... because 50 percent of the royalty would be going to the "copyright holder". Otherwise known as THE RECORD COMPANIES. This is why the NAB can get away with calling this a "bailout for foreign-owned record labels". I think a more fair and equitable proposal would be something like 75 percent for the featured performer, 10 percent to the background musicians, 10 percent to the background singers, and a "thanks for pushing the song" allowance of 5 percent to the label.

Yeah, it took me 2 weeks to reply to the whole Portnow thing, but I've been more concerned with my classes and my Orange (priorities, after all). And considering it took Jerry Del Colliano nearly this long to finally react, I guess I'm not so late on this one... of course, his solution is for the radio industry to hold the major labels over a barrel and threaten not to play their artists anymore. This, of course, would be suicidal for commercial music radio. But then again, this is the same guy who rails against the recording industry wanting money from terrestrial radio... while he charges his readers $100 to read what he has to say. Playing chicken because you think radio is so important for music promotion is not a smart strategy... especially when so many young people are turning off terrestrial radio because of the all the problems it has with content and how it is presented. They are getting their music in plenty of other ways. Take away the content that does keep them listening, and they're gone for good.

But this speaks to larger issues in the radio industry right now. Some ominous trends are happening in radio, and they're not very good ones. First of all, there is the sick irony that has come from our desire to be more civil in our political discourse. What has been good for America has been bad for radio... because people have been turning off right-wing talk radio, and because the conservative shows are the backbone of many talk stations, this means their ratings are sliding. And if their ratings slide, their revenues will slide, and the management will respond by... getting rid of the local talent. Yeah, that doesn't make much sense, but such is the business model of corporate radio these days. The ones who may be getting you your ratings may be the ones who cost too much to keep... like Reno's Cory Farley, who lost his job because he was simply a line on the balance sheet that cost more than the syndication fee for Hannity or Mark Levin. On a larger matter, if these now-former talk radio listeners only listened to radio for talk, then that's more listeners the medium is hemorrhaging.

And speaking of the bad radio business model causing talented local personalities to lose their jobs... there's the Citadel-Cumulus merger. These two companies are among the top 5 biggest radio station owners, but like everyone else, they're on shaky financial ground because they overleveraged when they grew fat on the merger-mania of the late 1990s and early 2000s, and were left holding an increasing bag of debt when the radio stock bubble burst. Citadel just emerged from bankruptcy, Cumulus is teetering on the verge... so why on earth would Cumulus perform what was first a hostile takeover attempt, then a too-good-to-refuse offer to acquire Citadel? Because they are operating on the belief that maybe, just maybe, this will pump life back into their flat-lining stock price and save them from Chapter 11. Never mind that they are merely repeating the same mistakes that got all the big companies INTO this mess.

And of course, the next step would be to slash local personalities en masse to further stave off the inevitable. This is not good news for people like the local hosts at Syracuse's The Score 1260, owned by Citadel, and providing one of the few local sports lineups remaining in radio, especially in a market their size. And many local DJs will likely find themselves replaced by out-of-market voicetrackers... because that has worked so well for holding listeners, hasn't it?

Meanwhile, if it wasn't bad enough that these few established local personalities may be losing their jobs, the feeder system that brings us the DJs of tomorrow continues to be dismantled. First, we had small-market stations having to cut their personalities loose in order to compete with their major-corporate competitors who had done the same. Now, college radio is becoming endangered. The University of San Francisco sent shockwaves across the media landscape when they sold their college station, KUSF, for $3.7 million. They did it because in these tough economic times, they needed the cash... thus proving they're no different than their corporate brethren. They also felt the station wasn't serving the university, which the students promptly showed was total BS by protesting the sale.

Is the demise of college radio at hand? Perry Simon of All Access stated that college radio isn't what it used to be, because a college kid who wants to get "on the air" will now just record a podcast and post it online. I disagree, and I can point you to the station at my current place of study, WHIP at Temple University. Despite being only an Internet radio station with no terrestrial signal, they pack the room when they hold staff meetings and have no trouble filling out a roster of air talent. College kids still want to have fun playing music and doing a radio show, and this is where we need to start to fix what is wrong with radio. We need to breed management types who understand that the content is what matters, and we need to do it now because the barbarians are at the gate and they are ready to completely destroy terrestrial radio.

For proof, look no further than Pandora. They have filed for an IPO, and their CEO, Tim Westergren in announcing the stock sale declared war on terrestrial radio, pointing out the problems that corporate music radio has today: fixed formats, no ability for listeners to directly impact what is played (particularly when there is no DJ in the studio to take requests), ridiculous levels of repetition. Critics note that Pandora is neither local nor free, but believe me, my friends who subscribe to Pandora DON'T CARE. That should tell you everything you need to know. The local content on terrestrial radio is so far from compelling that people will gladly plunk down money for Pandora. That's why we need to change. We need to remember that what is most important is the content. Next week, I'll point out examples of some of the few remaining outposts of people in the radio industry who get it, and why more stations should be like them... before it's too late.

I Can't Say I Blame Him

Recently a friend of mine posted an observation on Facebook about Syracuse basketball fans. This was during SU's embarrassing home loss to Seton Hall, arguably the low point of their recent 2-6 slide. He said it was amusing "watching an entire city jump off a cliff."

Because that's how SU fans are, but then again, it's hard not to live and die with basketball during those frozen, snowy Central New York winters. It's not like there's much else to do during the winter time, so you watch basketball and you become fully invested in your local team. But in recent weeks, it's gotten a little bit out of hand, especially with a certain segment of the fan base who exemplifies why I have said so many times that Syracuse fans are the WORST sports fans in the country. And yes, I realize I live in Philadelphia now... sorry, PhillyFan, you're not as bad as Syracuse fans.

For one thing, college sports don't get the big time treatment in Philly because they have a ton of pro teams here. Therefore, they prefer to attack the Andy Reids and Charlie Manuels of the world for coming up short, but they leave the college coaches alone. In Syracuse, you have the minor league baseball and hockey teams that nobody cares about because for the most part, they never win. And because college football and basketball are pretty much the minor leagues of the NFL and NBA because the best prospects have to go to college to get drafted, that makes Syracuse University the biggest game in town. Never mind that these are college kids, 19-22 years old, they are under the microscope in Syracuse, and their head coaches especially. The football program's struggles are well-chronicled both here and elsewhere, but the basketball team is a model of consistent winning. 41 consecutive winning seasons, 33 20-win seasons in coach Jim Boeheim's 35 years at the helm, 3 Final Fours, and a National Championship in 2003. Boeheim has 850 wins, 5th all time, and deservedly made the Hall of Fame a few years ago.

But that's not good enough for some SU fans. They see the last 35 years not as a model of consistent winning, but as a model of consistent disappointment. They've been spoiled by having a local hoops team to root for that is guaranteed to go to the postseason every year (and has with the exception of 1993, when they were on NCAA probation). They feel that Boeheim's failure to win a 2nd title is unacceptable. Only going to the NIT is a failed season. Not making it out of the 1st or 2nd round is a failed season. For many, not getting past the Sweet 16 is a failed season. As such, these people have wanted Boeheim gone for years now. In 2002, after a turmoil-laden campaign that ended in a NIT appearance, they were licking their chops, thinking that only one more season of failed expectations would be enough for them to run JB out of town on a rail. Instead, Syracuse won the national championship.

But now, 8 years later, this angry minority of fans thinks the only reason SU won the championship in 2003 was Carmelo Anthony... and when that argument doesn't work, they'll tell you we only won the title because Kansas couldn't make free throws. Yes, to them our national championship was won despite the coach, not because of it. These people have been labelled (correctly) "Internet trolls" because they hide behind their online pseudonyms, wouldn't actually say what they think in person (or god forbid, by going to a game), knowing they would get their asses kicked by the real fans. Or they call in to radio post game shows and attack the coaching. And they only seem to pop up when things aren't going well.

They want Syracuse to be up there with UNC and Duke with multiple national championships. Never mind that UNC and Duke have each had losing seasons in the last 20 years. They would have you think that they would gladly trade a 8-20 (UNC's record in 2002) or a 13-18 (Duke's record in 1995) for another national title or two. Bullshit. You know damn well that a season like that would not be tolerated by these trolls. They can't tolerate a trip to the NIT. In fact, UNC has had 3 NIT-or-worse years in the last 10, just as many as Syracuse. But Roy Williams has those 2 rings. One more than Jim Boeheim. Therefore, we still don't measure up in the eyes of these so-called "fans".

These trolls pretty much have the standard negative attitudes you'll find in Average Syracusan. Never mind all the great wins, these people define SU basketball by the losses, especially all the losses that occurred in years where SU should have made championship runs. They cannot forgive the Sweet 16 upset losses to Charlotte, Penn, and Iowa during the "Louie & Bouie" era of the late 70s. They really cannot forgive the early-round upset losses suffered by championship-caliber SU squads (1986 to Navy, 1988 to Rhode Island, 1991 to Richmond, 2005 to Vermont). And in the eyes of the trolls, Boeheim's cardinal sin is a 4-11 record in the Sweet 16 over the years and the fact that we have "only" been to the round-of-16 15 times in JB's 27 NCAA appearances. Never mind that those 15 appearances puts SU a very respectable 7th among all 300+ major college basketball programs in the last 35 years.

Well, the last 11 months have been heady times for the trolls. Syracuse was #1 in the nation nearly a year ago today, with a team many felt could go all the way and win a 2nd national championship. However, center Arinze Onuaku went down with a knee injury during an upset loss to rival Georgetown in the Big East Tournament, and was done for the season. Without that (literal) centerpiece, SU was good enough to make the Sweet 16 on talent alone, but not quite good enough to beat those Cinderellas from Butler. Butler went on to the championship game, where they were a last-second half-court heave that spun out of the basket away from shocking Duke and winning it all. A hard-luck ending for Syracuse, winning 30 games but being shorthanded and losing to such an underdog. However, the trolls found it to be just one more Jim Boeheim disappointment.

This year's team started 18-0, #3 in the nation, despite losing Onuaku, and NBA draft picks Wes Johnson and Andy Rautins. Boeheim warned us that his young Orange was playing over their heads and not to get our expectation sky-high. But alas we did, and when the team suddenly started losing, real SU fans started panicking and fretting, and trolls gleefully told us that the sky was falling and the coach was to blame. Back to that low-water mark against Seton Hall. It was an absolute embarrassment, losing to a then-8-12 team at home, and many believe that the team just flat-out quit, and that was unacceptable. In a rare instance, SU got booed off their home Carrier Dome floor. When the Orange lost their next game, making it 4 losses in a row, with freshman 6th man Dion Waiters on the bench for the whole game, the trolls started actively stating, "What do we need to do to turn the fan base against Boeheim for good and get him out of here?" Well, apparently their brainstorming session worked, because days later, one of them started an Internet rumor of a point-shaving scandal. The rumor went viral, and almost became a full-blown media investigation before the troll recanted. Then SU went out and stunned #5 UConn on their home floor.

But after 2 more losses in the next 3 games, the shit hit the fan. People were calling the post-game shows predicting a NIT finish, stating that there was 2002-like division on this team, and attacking Boeheim's recent record against rival coaches like Louisville's Rick Pitino (a former JB assistant), Pitt's Jamie Dixon, and Villanova's Jay Wright. Never mind that Dixon and Wright have combined for ONE Final 4 appearance, a record of postseason "failure" even worse than JB's. Well, the media picked it up and ran with it, and when the Orange snapped out of their funk and beat West Virginia on Monday night, Boeheim devoted his press conference to mostly ripping the local media for bringing these head-to-head records up. He had earlier dismissed the Internet rumors by saying that anyone who asks him about them is worse than the trolls posting them. For this, the national media mostly called him "thin-skinned", and the trolls saw it as a declaration of war against them, and now they REALLY want him put out to pasture. Even true SU fans were scratching their heads and saying Boeheim may have crossed a line. He may have been a little too rough on individual Post-Standard writers, but for the most part I understood what he was saying.

Well, the other point that Boeheim made in this press conference that really riled up the angry online crowd was that he couldn't understand how everyone freaks out when his team has a rough stretch. "It rains a lot here", he reminded us, and when there's a rough patch, it's not the end of the world. Well, that's a good reminder to all of us who bleed Orange that after all, it's just basketball, and for that I don't blame Boeheim for setting us straight... but I feel like when he said he takes criticism personally, he was talking specifically to the trolls, and the local media has kinda picked up on that in recent days, taking the microscope off of themselves and instead questioning why anyone would be disappointed with a 21-6 record right now.

The fact is NO FAN should ever be disappointed by a SU team only having 21 wins in mid-February. How many programs would love to have uninterrupted success like Syracuse has had for the last 4 decades? I am told by a colleague who hails from Florida that he would love for the Florida hoops program under Billy Donovan to be like the SU program in terms of its long-term winning tradition. The problem is that the Internet trolls would love for the Syracuse program to be like Florida's... because Donovan has 2 rings.

And all the more quizzically, they think that designated head-coach-in-waiting Mike Hopkins is the guy who can do that, not our Hall-of-Famer Boeheim. First of all, Hopkins, for all of his qualifications, has never been a head coach. Secondly, ask fans at Indiana and UNC how it goes when someone replaces a legend. Rarely is it a seamless transition, more likely the successor will be run out of town for (ironically enough) not living up to standards. Mike Davis got shown the door at IU essentially for not being Bob Knight... he had 3 good seasons, then 3 mediocre seasons and he was gone. Kelvin Sampson came in, committed NCAA violations, and now Indiana basketball LOSES 20 games a year under its 4th coach in 6 years. UNC replaced Dean Smith with a long time assistant, but he left after 3 years, then Matt Doherty came in and took the team to its 8-20 nadir, and he was gone in 3 years. Thankfully, they've bounced back under Roy Williams. So again, anyone who thinks that the performance of SU basketball is just not good enough should take a good hard look at just how good we have it here, because you are really ruining the fun of basketball season for all of us. I really don't want to dread losing games because of how the Internet or the radio phone lines will blow up when it happens. All I'm saying is let's take a deep breath before the next time we all go running off a cliff together.

Almost as Fun as Picking the Super Bowl

Alright everyone, get out your Grammy scorecards, time to pick the winners and losers for tomorrow night. Now if you're not familiar with the way I do this, I'll list the nominees for the major awards (or just the ones I care about), and I'll tell you who should win and who will win. Why do I do this? Well, let's face it, we know the Grammys aren't always dependable for giving the awards to the most deserving people. They're good for at least one WTF moment a year, and some of them are more stunning than others... Herbie Hancock? Really? Still scratching my head over that one from a couple years back. Anyway, here goes...

Best Alternative Album: Arcade Fire, "The Suburbs"; Band of Horses, "Infinite Arms"; The Black Keys, "Brothers"; Broken Bells, "Broken Bells"; Vampire Weekend, "Contra"
Who Should Win: That's a tough one, because Arcade Fire and Black Keys are both excellent albums, but I'm going to lean toward The Black Keys.
Who Will Win: Vampire Weekend. I feel like when Grammy sees "Alternative", they go as far out there as they can and ignore the rock end of the genre.

Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance: Paul McCartney, "Helter Skelter"; John Mayer, "Crossroads"; Robert Plant, "Silver Rider"; Eric Clapton, "Run Back to Your Side"; Neil Young, "Angry World"... geez it seems like (with the exception of Mayer) a nice excuse to give an old-timer another Grammy.
Who Should Win: Honestly I don't know any of the songs except McCartney's, and it's a live version, so should that really count? I'll go with Robert Plant. Grammy likes Robert Plant.
Who Will Win: Robert Plant. Grammy likes Robert Plant.

Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group: Arcade Fire, "Ready to Start"; Jeff Beck & Joss Stone, "I Put a Spell on You"; The Black Keys, "Tighten Up"; Kings of Leon, "Radioactive"; Muse, "Resistance"
Who Should Win: Again, Arcade Fire or Black Keys, such a tough choice, but again I go with The Black Keys.
Who Will Win: I think in this case, they get it right. The Black Keys.

Best Hard Rock Performance: Alice In Chains, "A Looking in View"; Ozzy Osbourne, "Let Me Hear You Scream"; Soundgarden, "Black Rain"; Stone Temple Pilots, "Between the Lines"; Them Crooked Vultures, "New Fang"
Who Should Win: Well, Ozzy and Soundgarden are charity noms, those songs aren't that good, and I'm not familiar with the AIC song... if they nominated "Your Decision", I'd pick that one as the winner. So, instead I go with Them Crooked Vultures.
Who Will Win: Grammy likes ex-Led Zeppelin members. Them Crooked Vultures.

Best Rock Song: Neil Young, "Angry World"; Mumford & Sons, "Little Lion Man"; Kings of Leon, "Radioactive"; Muse, "Resistance"; The Black Keys, "Tighten Up"
Who Should Win: Tough choice again, between Mumford & Sons and Black Keys. I think both are such good songs, and I know who will win, so I'm willing to admit I'll be wrong here and express my preference for Mumford & Sons.
Who Will Win: The Black Keys... and they probably deserve it.

Best Rock Album: Jeff Beck, "Emotion & Commotion"; Muse, "The Resistance"; Pearl Jam, "Backspacer"; Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers, "Mojo"; Neil Young, "Le Noise"
Who Should Win: "Backspacer" is a good album, but not award-winning. Ditto for Petty. So I vote Muse. As annoying as I find a lot of the songs on this album, that comes from constant radio overplaying. Muse should win.
Who Will Win: Jeff Beck. This seems like the tailor-made WTF moment.

Best New Artist (a.k.a. "The Kiss of Death"): Justin Bieber (yes, seriously, he was nominated); Drake; Florence & the Machine; Mumford & Sons; Esperanza Spalding (uh, who?)
Who Should Win: Another tough choice, because I appreciate Drake's talent but the heart says Mumford & Sons... although if I really wanted to wish "Kiss of Death" status on someone, I'd root for Bieber to win... but that would just be silly. If Bieber wins a Grammy, well first the Internet will explode, and second people will take the Grammys even less seriously than they did after Herbie Hancock. That's why they have the American Music Awards and the MTV Awards. Enough blather... the winner should be Mumford & Sons.
Who Will Win: Drake. And again, I'd be cool with that.

Best Female Pop Vocal Performance: Sara Bareilles, "King of Anything"; Beyonce, "Halo" (Live); Norah Jones, "Chasing Pirates"; Lady Gaga, "Bad Romance"; Katy Perry, "Teenage Dream"
Who Should Win: Norah already had her clean sweep year, live versions should not count, and it's not Bareilles' best work. I mean could they have made it a clearer path for Gaga to win? Lady Gaga, easily.
Who Will Win: Lady Gaga, easily.

Best Male Pop Vocal Performance: Michael Buble, "Haven't Met You Yet"; Michael Jackson, "This Is It"; Adam Lambert, "Whadaya Want From Me"; Bruno Mars, "Just the Way You Are"; John Mayer, "Half of My Heart"
Who Should Win: People do love that Bruno Mars song, the lyrics work for a lot of people... hard to pick against this one...
Who Will Win: ...but Grammy will, because people also love that Michael Buble song, and it's more "traditional", so the older Grammy voters will lean this way.

Best Pop Performance By Duo or Group: The Friggin' Cast of Glee... Seriously, "Don't Stop Believin"; Maroon 5, "Misery"; Paramore, "The Only Exception"; Sade, "Babyfather"; Train, "Hey Soul Sister" (Live)
Who Should Win: Uh... isn't Sade one person? And as I said before, live versions should not count... nor do karaoke versions. So it's between Maroon 5 and Paramore. Maroon 5 wins.
Who Will Win: Maroon 5. If "Glee" wins, I'm done predicting these things.

Best Pop Vocal Album: Justin Bieber, "My World 2.0"; Susan Boyle, "I Dreamed a Dream"; Lady Gaga, "The Fame Monster"; John Mayer, "Battle Studies"; Katy Perry, "Teenage Dream"
Who Should Win: First of all, Bieber actually got TWO nominations? Sorry, I just threw up in my mouth a little. So once again, this isn't even fair. Lady Gaga wins.
Who Will Win: Lady Gaga.

Song of the Year: Ray LaMontaigne, "Beg, Steal, or Borrow"; Cee-Lo Green, "F--k You"; Miranda Lambert, "The House That Built Me"; Eminem & Rihanna, "Love the Way You Lie"; Lady Antebellum, "Need You Now"
Who Should Win: Well, first of all, Lady Antebellum did not credit Alan Parsons, so they're eliminated. I don't even know who the first artist is (which means he'll probably win). I'd love to go with Eminem, but there's no way I don't pick "F--k You".
Who Will Win: Yeah, like Grammy's really gonna pick a song that's peppered with the F-bomb. Eminem wins.

Album of the Year: Arcade Fire, "The Suburbs"; Lady Gaga, "The Fame Monster"; Eminem, "Recovery"; Lady Antebellum, "Need You Now"; Katy Perry, "Teenage Dream"
Who Should Win: Hey, actual competition for Gaga. Arcade Fire may be just as deserving, but by the time we get to this point in the show, we'll see the wave of victories for Gaga cresting and therefore it's inevitable that she gets this one too. Geez, does Arcade Fire get even one Grammy for this album? They really should... but not this one. Gaga wins.
Who Will Win: Lady Gaga.

Record of the Year: B.O.B. & Bruno Mars, "Nothin' on You"; Eminem & Rihanna, "Love the Way You Lie"; Cee-Lo Green, "F--k You"; Jay-Z & Alicia Keys, "Empire State of Mind"; Lady Antebellum, "Need You Now"
Who Should Win: We got to the final award, and NOW you throw "Empire" into the mix? Geez. Gotta go with that one. Jay-Z and Alicia should take this one. If Gaga had been nominated, she'd complete a clean sweep.
Who Will Win: I never get this one right, so I'll say Eminem will win. No potential for a WTF moment this year... and don't even tell me Lady Antebellum will win this or any of the major awards, because if they do, Alan Parsons will sue THE NEXT DAY, if he hasn't already.

Enjoy!