Grammy Best New Artist

Since I find this category so confounding, here's a look at when they got it right, and when they didn't (with the wonderful benefit of hindsight).

Years they got it right:

1990. Mariah Carey, who is arguably the biggest new artist of the last 20 years, beat The Black Crowes, Kentucky Headhunters, Lisa Stansfield and Wilson Phillips, none of whom we've heard a peep since the mid-'90s (and that's being a little generous).

1986. Sade, who continues to make awesome albums, beats stuck-in-the-'80s acts a-ha and Katrina and the Waves, plus people I've never heard of: Freddie Jackson and Julian Lennon.

2002. A lot of big names in this slate, such as hitmakers Linkin Park and Nelly Furtado, and critical favorite India Aire, but Alicia Keys, who won the award, has proven that she earned it.

Years they didn't:

1991: Boyz II Men became one of the decade's biggest hitmakers, Seal had an enduring career (and married Heidi Klum), Color Me Badd and C&C Music Factory didn't have staying power, but delivered quintessential hits of the early '90s. Despite all that, the Grammy went to Marc Cohn.

1989. Milli Vanilli won. We all know why that wasn't right. Can we go back in time and give it to Neneh Cherry or the Indigo Girls?

1996: The year after losing best new artist to Hootie & the Blowfish (who petered out pretty quickly after this), Shania Twain recorded the biggest selling album of all time by a woman or a country artist. Alanis Morissette was also in this set.

Hard to call:

2003: Norah Jones was huge at the time, but I think it's safe to say that Avril Lavigne and John Mayer have since eclipsed her (can't say the same for Ashanti or Michelle Branch).

1999: Lauryn Hill was huge in 1998, and I still could see her making a comeback, but that she won over Backstreet Boys (who were perhaps more significant culturally) and the Dixie Chicks, who were more enduring, makes it a questionable call in hindsight.