Once a year, the music industry gathers for what can only be described as a talent show for the biggest names in music. Millions of people tune in from across the world to watch the over-the-top performances and root for their favorite artists to take home Grammy gold. But every year without fail, viewers walk away wondering, “How the heck did that win?”
Between the ambiguous voting committee and inherent biases, the Grammys seem to be falling more and more out of touch with the everyday listeners that they are supposed to represent. Major factors in this disconnect include the lack of diversity among the Academy’s voters, the innate politicization of the awards and their failure to recognize less-established artists.
As noted a frankly ridiculous amount of times during Sunday night’s ceremony, 13,000 music professionals make up the Recording Academy’s voting pool. These professionals can be anything from record label executives to publicists to audio technicians. The requirements to become a voting member of the Recording Academy include having two recommendations from peers in the industry, proof of a music-focused career and 12 verifiable credits on commercially-distributed tracks. Alternatively, voters are eligible if they have won a Grammy themselves.
The Recording Academy mostly keeps the details of the voting process under wraps, but there are rumors of a mysterious private committee that has the final say during the nomination round. Additionally, limits to the number of categories members can vote for skew the results toward choices that create higher viewership, incite more drama or bring good favor to the Academy.
The ambiguity of the voting system caused the Weeknd to boycott the Grammys back in 2020, and he called upon the Recording Academy to be more transparent about the voting process. At this year’s Grammys, the Academy’s CEO Harvey Mason Jr. announced that the Weeknd’s criticism inspired him to remake its membership, adding more than 3,000 women and seeing a 65% increase in voters who identify as People of Color. This certainly helped to unravel some of the Grammys’ deep-rooted biases, but is it really enough?
Historically, the higher-ups of the music industry and the members of the Recording Academy were old, white, straight men. Despite the efforts to diversify the voting pool, 66% of the Academy’s voters this year were over the age of 40. This older demographic unquestionably hurts artists whose primary audiences are younger, such as Chappell Roan and Charli xcx. Discrepancies like these fuel the growing feeling of disconnect between Grammys voters and fans who are consequently frustrated by the Academy’s choices.
Another source of discontent among Grammys watchers is the growing trend of Album of the Year to instead represent the Artist of the Year. Last Sunday, Beyoncé finally won her first Album of the Year for “Cowboy Carter.” It is an undoubtedly well-deserved title for her to receive, considering she is the most-awarded artist in Grammys history. “Cowboy Carter” also had huge cultural significance, with Beyoncé being a Black woman in the country genre paying tribute to those who came before her and were forgotten. However, the award feels more like a testament to Beyoncé’s entire career rather than just the album.
The trend appeared previously with Taylor Swift’s “Midnights” receiving the award last year. As a whole, “Midnights” was certainly not Swift’s best record, but the cultural significance of her at the time was massive, as she was in the middle of her record-breaking Eras Tour. Additionally, Harry Styles’s award in 2022 for “Harry’s House” is more of a nod to his relevance to pop music with the success of “Fine Line” and Love on Tour.
Charli xcx’s “Brat” could be considered the true album of 2024. It acted as a launching point for a presidential campaign and gave rise to the messy party girl, club music Gen-Z voice — a far cry from the radio mainstream. Between “Brat Summer” and her co-headlined Sweat Tour with Troye Sivan, “Brat” was everywhere and stands alone as the most culturally impactful record from this year.
“Brat” isn’t the only instance of music outside the genre norm being overlooked in a Big Four category (Record of the Year, Song of the Year, Album of the Year and Best New Artist). In part due to the Grammys’ U.S. roots, they often skip over genres like global music, Latin and K-pop in favor of mainstream pop.
Newer and less established artists also have a hard time getting recognized by the Grammys. In order to get a nomination, artists typically already have to be in the mainstream and signed to a major record label so that they can campaign for the Grammys (e.g., Charli xcx’s Times Square surprise performance). It often takes years and years to get Grammy recognition, even if an artist’s music was significant that year.
Niche artists who had a fantastic year in 2024 include MJ Lenderman, whose album “Manning Fireworks” made it to #3 on the Rolling Stone’s top 100 albums of the year (beating out Sabrina Carpenter and Billie Eilish). Mk.gee’s “Two Star & The Dream Police” and Magdalena Bay’s “Imaginal Disk” were also two records this year that made a huge impact on the music world, even though they went unrecognized at the Grammys.
The competitive and political nature of the Grammys can deter artists from being authentic and bold with their art. Zach Bryan refused to submit his latest record, “The Great American Bar Scene,” for Grammys consideration this year due to the pressure to succeed, and Billie Eilish was seen crying after losing Album of the Year. The combative nature of comparing art puts its value in the hands of subjective voters and can ultimately hurt those creating the music.
Despite everything that the Grammys does wrong, there are a few important things that it does right. At the end of the day, rewarding art is good. It promotes and motivates artists to record music and share it with the world. The Grammys also allows music artists to call attention to causes that are important to them like Chappell Roan’s “We got you, but do you got us?” line from her Best New Artist acceptance speech, targeting major record labels who fail to provide their artists with proper health insurance and compensation.
Even in their best moments, the Grammys still have a long way to go to represent the music that listeners care about, and they can start by uprooting the overt biases that have governed their system for so long. Transparency around the voting process, greater diversity in the Academy and recognition of “indie” artists could bolster the award’s credibility. If the Recording Academy fails to make changes and represent music’s everyday audience, maybe we should stop giving them the power to define what great music is.