Why Do We Still Care About the Grammys?
This time every year, when the Grammys reveal their award nominees, an influx of chaotic internet activity ensues that only music can inspire. Some celebrate their favorite musicians receiving their first-ever nominations, others engage in ruthless debates over who was snubbed from each category, and of course, all collectively point out that the majority of artists in the inappropriately titled ‘Best New Artist’ category are not, in fact, “new artists.” These debates lead to a wider – and often forgotten – consideration: Why are we so invested in these awards?
The Grammys are no stranger to scandal. After deciding that his song “Blinding Lights” would only be nominated in the R&B categories in 2021, The Weeknd began boycotting the award ceremony indefinitely. Frank Ocean refused to submit his Blonde album for Grammy consideration in 2017 in what he describes to be his “Colin Kaepernick moment”, amidst accusations that the Grammys had a bias against Black musicians. From Jay-Z to Justin Bieber, many major musicians have had their opinions of the Grammys sour, whether because of genre misplacement or accusations of discrimination. Yet, the strong backlash towards the Grammys has barely splintered the show—the Grammys had their highest viewership of the decade this year—and there is no reason to believe that rise will slow down, considering just how many popular artists, from Chappell Roan to Charli XCX, are up for big awards.
But why? Why is it that these awards have such a monolithic standing in the music industry that squashes any criticisms it receives?
Many years have gone by with the Grammys being held on a higher pedestal than other music awards. The American Music Awards, a so-called competitor, has entirely fan-voted awards, which, to some, delegitimizes their standing: fan armies or bots could make room for one artist to sweep the ceremony. In contrast, the Billboard Music Awards is solely determined by streams and sales, a metric that is regularly dismissed as unimportant for how obsessed record labels are with making money. One could make the argument that ceremonies such as the American Music Awards and the Billboard Music Awards are more representative of society’s collective thoughts than any other ceremony, but it is perhaps for that reason that these awards do not hold a candle to the Grammys in the eyes of the public.
The Grammys are perceived as objective. Voters work in the music industry but remain largely unrecognizable, so their experience working alongside musicians lends itself to the idea that they somehow have more expertise on which music is “better”. Industry peers giving artists a seal of approval has become decidedly important in defining one’s career trajectory. However, continuing to value these select opinions as the overarching source of who makes the best music ignores something true of humanity: there is no such thing as objectivity in art. A song that one person enjoys may be completely insufferable for the next. No matter how niche, there is usually a following behind music of all genres, for the simple fact that different songs scratch different itches. The Grammys inherently ignore this truth. The Grammys only began truly diversifying their voter base in 2019, but no matter how diverse the pool of voters becomes, a glaring flaw will remain that these voters, like all humans, will not be able to listen to music objectively. There is no such thing as one “Album of the Year”—or “Song” or “Producer”—because everyone has a different one. Online discourse about Grammy “snubs” rages on because the Grammys search for objectivity in a world where the unique opinions of music listeners should be embraced and valued.
There’s no reason to believe that one day, should millions of viewers still flock to the Grammys each year, voters will suddenly understand the pulse of the public. It is an enormous task that cannot possibly depend on the inherent subjectivity of humanity. But will Grammy voters need to adapt if voters continue watching despite the Grammys’ intrinsic weaknesses, and if artists continue attending in the hopes of career advancement?