Do the GRAMMYs still matter?
The GRAMMYs. An award show that, besides the week of nominations or the event, is almost exclusively quoted by people over the age of 40 or stans on Twitter as representative of quality. For the past ten years, fans of the industry have debated the validity of this award show and award shows in general. The Kendrick Lamar/Macklemore controversy pushed this discourse to a fever pitch, with millions of people across the country asking…
Do the GRAMMYs still matter?
First, we need to establish what that GRAMMYs represent. The GRAMMYs/The Recording Academy describe themselves as the “leading society of music professionals.” The Recording Academy itself is a prestigious establishment in the industry, with a storied history dating back to 1957. Throughout this time, they’ve witnessed the rise & fall of several popular music eras in the US and have built their reputation with relevance throughout each.
The GRAMMYs ceremony is ingenious (even if unoriginal) because it provides the audience with an occasion to review the past year’s releases. They encourage debate & discussion over the shortlist, the nominees, and the winners.
Simultaneously, almost every artist nomination in the major categories has a significant commercial presence, a double-edged sword. Sometimes, the nominees seem to be dependent on sales numbers rather than the quality of music. Of course, the typical response of mass consumption being indicative of quality is probably something we’ll unpack another week.
But in this case, I think the GRAMMYs does its job. Does anyone else remember receiving the GRAMMY compilation CDs as Christmas gifts growing up? It was one of the main ways my parents and myself found popular music back in the early 2000s. These albums consistently chart, with the 2020 compilation peaking at 59 on the Billboard 200 last year. They expose a mainstream consumer, such as the 92% of Americans that still listen to the radio every week, especially those between ages 35-49, to artists such as The Weeknd, Megan Thee Stallion, or Billie Eilish.
Also, by being this mecca of discovery for the mainstream consumer, the ceremony boosts streaming & album sales for artists who are nominated or won awards. Last year, “Higher” by DJ Khaled, Nipsey Hussle & John Legend saw a 9,000+% increase in sales on the day after the GRAMMYs, vs. the day before.
Without this event occurring, the “Best Of” lists would be limited to niche bloggers and content creators, leaving the mainstream out of the conversation (can you imagine a world where your parents reference Pitchfork’s 50 Best Albums of 2020 at the dinner table?). In today’s world, the two can coexist, but I doubt we’ll ever see another organization like the Recording Academy rise in popularity during our lifetime.
Plus, music as an art form, is something that continues to be devalued by distributing channels (digital stores, streaming services) and consumers alike. While consumers are still willing to shell out $20 to rent a movie or $60 to play a videogame (or even $10 for a skin in Fortnite), the cost of entry for music has been reduced to ad-filled streams or $5-$10 a month. Without a central place to support music and demonstrate why the achievement of “Album of the Year” is an impressive feat, this devaluation of music continues.
I also think it’s worth briefly mentioning the Academy’s philanthropic efforts. Organizations like Muiscares are great for artists and those working in the industry. They’ve done an excellent job raising awareness for relevant causes, as well as donating money to essential programs.
So, back to the question at hand.
Quantitatively, it’s a complex argument to sell. This year, the 2021 GRAMMYs, reported the lowest viewership of all time for the event at 8.8mm average viewers during the broadcast. At first, this indicates an apparent decline in the audience that views the GRAMMYs as a necessary part of their music fandom, but I’m not sure this is necessarily the case.
Cable TV, in general, has been on a decline, with streaming making up over 50% of TV viewing in US households in January 2021. Even if you are an avid music fan, if you no longer pay for cable and don’t sign up for Paramount Plus, HULU TV, etc., watching the live event may have been out of reach for you.
I think these metrics do a poor job of quantifying the cultural impact these awards have, the number of impressions the winner announcements, performances & speeches received on social media & the level of discourse that tends to occur 24-48 hours after the event.
The underlying issue the declining positive sentiment associated with the GRAMMY brand. I think this inability to quantify their impact at this point correctly poses a problem in the future - how much longer can they remain the leading US Awards shows for music? And if the credibility of their tentpole event continues to decline, how will that impact their philanthropic efforts? What will the awards be worth if the name no longer holds the relevance it had thirty years ago?
Despite all of this, the brand recognition of the GRAMMYs has remained strong, powered by the artists & the production supporting the ceremony.
The ceremony is one of the only opportunities that artists get to perform for a somewhat captive audience, which may not be fans or familiar with the artists’ work. Want to gain a new fan? Pulling off an excellent performance, like the Black Pumas, Billie Eilish, or Bad Bunny this year is a surefire way to earn incremental exposure.
Plus, if you’re still a teenager or unable to afford a stadium concert ticket, maybe this is one of the first times you get to see your favorite artist perform live.
Simultaneously, all of the controversy stirred up by some of these performances or speeches gives the ceremony several weeks of continued impressions after the event. I don’t think I’ve been able to scroll for more than 30 seconds on Twitter or TikTok without hearing hot takes about Megan Thee Stallion’s wins, Billie Eilish’s awkward acceptance speech, or Lil Baby’s performance.
This night is the ultimate intersection of the music industry and the mainstream consumer. It’s your once-a-year chance to make an impact and become a household name overnight.
There are certainly times that the drama or attempts at virality overtake the well-intentioned artists’ work, such as the Macklemore text message situation or perhaps the aforementioned Lil Baby performance. As long as those examples remain in the minority, though, I think the GRAMMYs will continue to benefit the artists featured.
I want to be clear, though - not everything is peachy with the Recording Academy. Last year, USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative discovered that, despite being over “38% of all artists” on major Billboard charts between 2012 & 2020, Black performers received “only 26.7% of top Grammy nominations” during the same period.
In 2019, the first women CEO of the Recording Academy, Deborah Dugan, was ousted after accusations of verbally abusing her assistant came to light. Her legal team is still contesting these accusations. Soon after, it turns out that Dugan had sent an extensive memo to the Recording Academy’s HR department three weeks before her exit from the company. After this came to light, Dugan’s legal team proceeded to publish this memo accusing several senior executives of the Academy of rape & sexual assault.
In addition, Dugan leveled accusations of:
”egregious conflicts of interest, improper self-dealing by Board members and voting irregularities with respect to nominations for Grammy Awards, all made possible by the ‘boys’ club’ mentality and approach to governance at the Academy”;
That some board members on the “secret committees,” which choose the Grammy nominees, represent or have relationships with nominated artists;
That the Board uses these committees as an opportunity to push forward artists with whom they have relationships;
That the Board also manipulates the nominations process to ensure that certain songs or albums are nominated when the producer of the Grammys (Ken Ehrlich) wants a particular song performed during the show;
That the Board is permitted to simply add in artists for nominations who did not even make the initial 20-artist list.
That the Board has selected artists who are under consideration for a nomination to sit on the committee that is voting for the category for which that have been nominated. As a result, one artist who initially ranked 18 out of 20 in the 2019 “Song of the Year” category ended up with a nomination — over Ed Sheeran and Ariana Grande.
I’m sure most employees at the Academy are deeply passionate about music and the artists they represent & are helping. Nonetheless, these accusations cause some concern for the relevancy of the voting process the Academy allegedly honors.
This ‘Board’ appears to lack diversity & awareness, which ultimately harms Black performers the most. The rest of the Academy is working to include more diversity & additional categories & time to highlight these past deficiencies. I just hope the Leadership catches up in time.
So is continued relevancy for the GRAMMYs a good thing? As long as there’s equity in recognition of artists - sure. But there is a potential long-term issue with prioritizing white artists that will continue to push Black performers into the niche box of “underground” talent.
The Academy wields a healthy amount of power over the industry & the mainstream audience, and I just want to see that same influence used for positive purposes.
And there are ways to tweak the Ceremony to help accelerate this process. Brad Watson, found of Spinach Gang, recommended letting artists be nominated for multiple genres, potentially removing the stiff labels that we apply to music and its creators.
Were you one of the 8.8mm who sat down and watched the GRAMMYs on Sunday night? Are you one of the billion impressions that the Academy’s content received since they aired? If so, I’d say the GRAMMYs are still relevant for the time being.
But sooner or later, the change will need to happen.
