Carrie's crossover

Many Grammy pundits express strong opinions about who they think will win best new artist this Sunday. But then, privately and quietly, even the huffiest one ultimately concedes that the category is really a broken record scattered all over the place.

"At this point I almost think it's a slam-dunk" for Carrie Underwood," asserts Edna Gundersen of USA Today, but that's exactly what she thought about another artist just a few months ago. "A little earlier in the game, it looked like James Blunt was a slam dunk."

"The smart money might be on Carrie Underwood, or possibly James Blunt, but I'm going to place my dumb money on Corinne Bailey Rae," says Chris Willman of Entertainment Weekly, who is often proven right when he backs longshots.

But Rae isn't really a longshot. Both Gundersen and Willman participate in the Envelope's Buzzmeter, which gives a slight edge to Corrine Bailey Rae, then Carrie Underwood and James Blunt. But that's according to the overall composite view. In actuality, three of the six Buzzmeter gurus put Rae out front (Willman and L.A. Times writers Ann Powers and Richard Cromelin) and three pick Underwood (Gundersen, Glenn Gamboa of Newsday, and me).

Giving Underwood the edge is a big surprise since there appears to be a bias against "American Idol" stars in this Grammy race that aims to achieve the same thing as "Idol" -- that is, herald the hottest, new emerging talent.

No "Idol" stars have ever been nominated for this award, not even notables Kelly Clarkson, Clay Aiken and Ruben Studdard. Clarkson has been embraced by Grammy voters since -- indeed, she won Grammys last year for best pop album ("Breakaway") and female pop vocal performance ("Since U Been Gone") -- but it took a while for her to get the mainstream pop music industry to recognize her as a serious artist.

Compared to Clarkson, Carrie Underwood "has broken through like a rocket" at this point, Gundersen says. "She's generated the third best selling album of the Grammy eligibility period as well as the second-best selling album of the year. She just got game right now."

Underwood demonstrated how much game she's got by pulling off a shockeroo at the last Country Music Association Awards: she beat Faith Hill for the female vocalist award, a category that usually goes to a beloved industry veteran. That means Underwood already has been accepted by the Nashville establishment, which ruthlessly spurned her at first.

Now the question is: will she cross over from country and be embraced by the mainstream pop industry? That's what the Grammys will tell. Although country artists are sometimes nominated in the top award slots, they rarely ever win.

And there's another strong factor in this race. Voters don't want to make a mistake like they've often done in the past. While the best new artist award has been bestowed to such enduring superstars as the Beatles and Bette Midler, there were many fiascos like Christopher Cross, A Starland Vocal Band and Milli Vanilli, the latter being the dreadlocked duo forced to give back their Grammy after it was revealed that they were made-for-MTV, lip-synching frauds.

"Voters are wary of ever again crowning somebody who turns out to be a one-hit wonder -- I think some Grammy people still have nightmares about the A Taste of Honey win of '78," says Willman. "So if they went just on the basis of who they think is most guaranteed to have a long and successful career and not go down in the history books as a forgotten blip, they'd go with Carrie."

"On the other hand, she does come off as a bit of an empty vessel--a fantastic singer who hasn't necessarily shown signs that she has what it takes to develop into a true artist. So, all to say... this is a tough one," he adds.

"Grammy voters are like kindly old men: They love to give young women on the way up an extra boost. There's a long history of the Grammys coronating young female artists as Grammy princesses, via key awards or at least multiple nominations, from Sheryl Crow to Alicia Keys and India.Arie to Norah Jones. This year, they can't really do a full-on coronation, but it's clear from the nominations that a lot of voters love Corinne. I don't think they're going to see fit to give her record or song, though, so new artist will be the biggest thing they can give her as a consolation prize. "

"I could see that happening," Gundersen concedes about a possible Rae win. "And she's had a recent bump. She went on Oprah and her record immediately went back up into the Top 10. And, of course, there's that mellowness about her. There is that exoticism but, but at the same time, the Norah Jones appeal. That has a much broader reach than some of these other artists. I just don't know how much awareness about her there is among Grammy voters."

James Blunt is certainly well known, mellow, even somewhat exotic (well, at least he's a Brit) and probably would be the favc to win if "You're Beautiful" was dominating the airwaves right now. "He had so much success early in the year, then faded away," Gundersen notes.

She also believes he has an additional disadvantage: "I think he's perceived as being only attached to that one song even though the whole album is really strong."

"James Blunt had a massive song, but it was also massively polarizing," says Willman. "It's a tune that people really, really love to hate. He has to spend every interview playing humble and agreeing that he's sick of the song, too. I don't know if it's possible for him to win, as much as some folks might like him, when he has at least as many people gunning for his demise. I think he's widely seen as the modern-day Kenny Loggins, not a new Elton John. Nobody here has stronger negatives than he does."

However, if Blunt loses, that may not be all bad considering what happened to Elton John in this Grammy race: He lost to the Carpenters.

Willman and Gundersen agree that the other two nominees don't have a prayer.

"I don't think Imogen Heap is in the race," says Gundersen. "Chris Brown is still a little too new, a little too young."