How the Grammys Actually Work (And Why They Don’t Always Reflect Public Taste)
For decades, the Grammy Awards have positioned themselves as music’s highest accolade. Yet every year, the same question resurfaces: How do these wins actually happen? Who is deciding them? And are they fair?
Despite their prestige, the Grammys operate very differently from chart-based awards. Understanding how voting works explains why critically acclaimed and commercially successful albums sometimes lose.
Who Votes?
The Recording Academy is made up of roughly 11,000 voting members, which include artists, producers, engineers, songwriters, and music industry professionals. To vote, members must be active in the industry and apply for membership.
Essentially, Grammy voters are not the general public: they are industry peers and are supposed to be knowledgeable about music. That (and the fact that they’ve been on for 60+ years) gives the Grammys their credibility.
The Submission Process
Artists and labels submit their work for Grammy consideration (you might have seen some For Your Consideration posters, if you haven’t, here’s an example). Submissions are then reviewed by expert screening committees, who then ensure entries are placed in the correct categories. These committees do not choose winners but are actively shaping what voters see.
This is where the behind-the-scenes politics quietly begin: campaigns, parties, networking, and visibility all matter. Not to mention that these campaigns all costs money, which is why we tend to see artists backed by big player labels receive the most nominations, as opposed to independent and smaller artists who do not have the budget to market their records and pander to the voting members with gifts and concert tickets.
Nomination Voting
After submissions are finalized, voting members choose nominees. Voters are asked to vote only in categories they feel qualified to judge (though this is self-policed and not enforced). This means a pop producer can vote in rap categories, and vice versa. Once nominations are announced, a final round of voting determines winners. The work with the most votes wins, not the most streams, sales, or cultural impact.
So why do the Grammys Often Feel “Out of Touch”?
For decades, the Grammy Awards have faced persistent criticism over racial bias, genre segregation (as recently as this year, splitting the "Best Country Album" category after Beyoncé won it for her "Cowboy Carter" album), and a voting body that many artists, fans, and industry insiders have described as out of touch.
Historically, the Recording Academy’s membership consisted of older, white, male industry titans and was rooted in traditional industry power structures, which many have arguably directly influenced who was nominated, who won, and which genres were taken seriously.
Black artists in particular have accused the Grammys of sidelining their work into genre-specific categories (such as R&B, Rap, or Urban) while reserving the so-called “Big Four” categories (Album, Record, Song of the Year, Best New Artist) for safer, more mainstream (often white) pop acts.
Before finally winning AOTY in 2025 for "Cowboy Carter", Beyoncé was nominated FOUR times without winning the award (I Am… Sasha Fierce (2010), Beyoncé (2014), Lemonade (2016), and Renaissance (2022)). These losses, often to white artists with less cultural impact in those years, fueled accusations that the Academy repeatedly overlooks Black women in the biggest categories. Other notable snubs include Prince’s 1999, Michael Jackson’s Off the Wall, and Frank Ocean’s Channel Orange, missing Album of the Year nominations, records widely hailed as classics.
The backlash intensified after The Weeknd’s "After Hours" was completely snubbed from the 2021 nominations despite massive commercial and critical success, which forced the Recording Academy into a public reckoning.
The scene becomes worse when revelations about how voting actually worked behind closed doors, particularly in an era dominated by streaming, TikTok, and algorithmic culture. Multiple reports from outlets such as The New York Times, Rolling Stone, and Billboard have cited anonymous Grammy voters admitting they had not listened to all (or even most) of the nominated albums in major categories. Some voters openly acknowledged relying on name they were familiar with, industry reputation, or cultural ubiquity rather than comprehensive engagement with the music itself. One frequently cited issue from voters has been that it is “impossible” to keep up with the sheer volume of eligible releases, leading them to vote for artists they already know or songs they have heard repeatedly, often through radio, playlists, or viral moments on social media.
This dynamic has only intensified in the TikTok and Instagram age, where virality acts as the quickest way to visibility. Songs that dominate our social feeds are more likely to be seen multiple times by voters, embedding themselves subconsciously and gaining an advantage over less algorithm-friendly work. As a result, Grammy races have resembled contests of cultural saturation rather than holistic artistic merit, privileging artists with strong label backing, playlist placement, or viral momentum. This system disproportionately disadvantages experimental, independent, or genre-specific projects, particularly from marginalized artists, whose work may require sustained listening to fully appreciate. Grammy wins, therefore, can reflect not who made the most compelling body of work, but whose music was most unavoidable at the moment ballots were cast.
Unfortunately, Grammy wins still affect industry credibility, touring power, and long-term legacy, which is why we see many artists attend and still submit works after being constantly snubbed. They still remain one of the few awards that carry weight, and so, sadly, they do matter. They matter because these patterns reflect how culture is institutionally valued and remembered. When groundbreaking albums and Black and Queer artists repeatedly miss out on being honored for their work and contribution, it signals something larger than a single night’s results; it reflects whose voices count and whose are marginalized.
While the Grammys have taken some steps toward inclusivity, accusations of bias haven’t disappeared. Many artists and fans see the changes as reactive rather than transformative, pointing out that recognition often arrives late (or only after overwhelming commercial success makes ignoring an artist impossible).
Understanding the process doesn’t make the results less controversial, but it does make them make sense.
