Grammy's!

So if you watched the Grammy's tonight like I did, you would have also been checking Twitter updates every 60 seconds. As the show played on, I found myself glancing at my phone to see what others were saying about the song or award that was just handed out. I wouldn't go as far to say that there were more tweets about the Grammy's than the Superbowl, but I can safely say that I was getting 15 tweets per minute and about 90% of the tweets were Grammy-related. I was then wondering to myself, what if the Grammy's were given out based on how much a band/musician was talked about on social media? What would the results look like and would it be skewed? Just because someone talks or makes a comment about someone on social media doesn't mean they actually like the person, right? Well one could look at it in another light. When someone searches a certain band or artist on Youtube or Facebook, one would assume they are interested in their music. But when it comes to talking about someone or making a comment via Twitter, then that could consist of positive (supporting) or negative remarks which would make it hard for people to really know who is liked (or disliked for that matter) by the people who are the voters anyway. In an article on Mashable, they found results for some of the most popular songs/artists based on presence on social media. Some of the results were Album of the Year being Mumford and Sons Babel with 3,650,951 followers on Facebook. This number blew out every other artist in the running for the award. And Song of the Year would have been "Gangnam Style"with 1,275,457,758 Youtube hits. That is more than Carly Rae Jepson and Justin Bieber's top hit song!! So as you can see that is a little taste of how the Grammy's would have been run if they were based on presence on social media. What do you think about it?