What is the difference between “Song of the Year” and “Record of the Year” at the Grammys?
I believe Song of the Year is for the songwriter, while Record of the Year is for the performer.
Song of the Year is an award for composers, while Record of the Year is an award for recording artists and their producers.
Interestingly, there is no “statute of limitations” on these awards. Meaning that if, say, Aerosmith did a remake of the Beatles’ “Help,” and it was a big hit, Lennon and McCartney could be nominated for Song of the Year, even though the song was written 36 years ago. A few years back, old fart Irving Gordon won Song of the Year for “Unforgettable,” a song written 40 years earlier, just because of Natalie Cole’s remake.
And Seal’s “Kiss From a Rose” was recorded several years before it won the Grammy. It didn’t become a hit until included on the “Batman Forever” soundtrack. The movie made it a hit, and it was nominated for GRammies long after it was first released.
TODAY, most recording artists write their own material, so it often seems as if Song/Record of the year are redundant. But before Dylan and the Beatles came along, very few recording artists wrote their own songs, so the dichotomy was logical and necessary.
Another question then… what is the difference between Record of the Year and Album of the Year? Last night U2 won one and Steely Dan the other.
I assume the diff there is the length of the piece. Record refers to a single while album is the entire, well, album.
Thanks to the others for informative replies to my original question.