It’s Grammy season again and what I need to survive them: A cheap bottle of wine, two packs of cigarettes, one box of condoms, and a small packet of tissues.

The bottle of wine gets me through what is sure to be another dreadful night in music history, while the pack of cigarettes are to help me cope with the terrible hosting ability this year’s emcee L.L. Cool J brings to the table.

The condoms are for the music industry, which will surely screw my dreams of receiving any enjoyment from the performances that night, and the tissues — if you haven’t figured it out already — are used to cry myself to sleep.

I wish I could say that the Grammy’s weren’t always this appalling.

In fact, I wish I could tell you that they steadily went downhill over the last few decades. But I can’t.

If truth be told, the Grammy’s have always sucked.

Don’t believe me? Check out these unforgivable mistakes:

1966 Best Rock n’ Roll Recording: The Beatles’ “Eleanor Rigby” was beaten by none other than the New Vaudeville Band’s song, “Winchester Cathedral.”

Who the hell are the New Vaudeville Band? My point exactly.

1992 Best Rock Song: Nirvana’s game-changing single, “Smell’s Like Teen Spirit,” was overtaken by Eric Clapton’s acoustic version of “Layla.”

One song changed music forever; the other just changed its instrumentation.

1988 Best Metal Performance: Metallica’s fourth effort “…And Justice for All” should have been a shoe-in for this award, yet Grammy voters had other plans.

In the most shocking and nonsensical upset in Grammy history, Jethro Tull took home the award instead. Come on now voters, Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull plays the least metal instrument in the history of music — the flute.

These are just a few of the many times that this particular award show has gone off the deep end. Unfortunately, this year seems to be no different.

For instance, how did notorious pop-punk band Sum 41 get a nomination for “Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance?”

Although Georgia metal group Mastodon will most likely win for their lackluster “The Hunter,” if Sum 41 somehow pull a Jethro Tull, those tissues I bought might come into play sooner than I thought.

Scrolling through the rest of the categories, I find myself stuck on the nominees for “Song of the Year.” This category includes artists such as like Bon Iver, Kanye West, Mumford and Sons, Adele and Bruno Mars.

A huge part of me wishes for anyone but Mars to win this award, while another part of me wonders if he would take a “Grenade” for a Grammy? If so, we should probably give him two to be safe.

The buzz around this year’s Grammys has largely been focused on the categories “Best New Artist” and “Album of the Year.”

Even though the line-up from “Best New Artist” seems like it should be from the 2010, this year it looks to be a real toss-up of terribleness.

But one of these artists takes the bad-tasting cake. That artist is Skrillex.

If history repeats itself, and the award for best new artist has the power to end careers, I can only hope Sonny Moore (Skrillex) receives this prize.

If the Grammys can do one thing right this year, it’s put an end this “bro-step” ad campaign before it gets out of hand.

Admittedly, my opinion is biased. But I prefer my Sonny Moore as the whiny and emotional lead singer of the band From First to Last.

To quote Moore himself — singing the FFTL song “Note to Self” — “We miss you terribly” and Skrillex is “what we call a tragedy/ Come back to me, back to me, to me.”

If I make it to the presentation for “Album of the Year,” I’m sure I’ll be feeling despondent. The wine and cigarettes will all be gone and there will be no reprisal from another disappointing year in music.

My only hope is that Dave Grohl and the Foo Fighters steal this one, even if it’s only to make up for the Grammy that he and Nirvana were deprived of in ’92.