Last year, fewer than 20 million viewers tuned in to the Grammys—the award show’s smallest audience since 2009. But no matter how many remotes end up flipping to this year’s ceremony on February 10, people will still buzz over who won, who got snubbed, who killed it onstage, who bombed, and who did that one thing that became a meme.
At a time when monocultural events are scant and streaming is rapidly reshaping the music industry, the question of what a Grammy means for an artist’s career still sparks a debate among artists, managers, booking agents, label executives, publicists, and industry observers. A few experts question the Grammys’ ability to cut through the clutter, both in terms of audience attention and as a source of prestige—particularly now that unheralded artists can simply point to their social followings and streaming play counts. But other insiders counter such skepticism, maintaining that a Grammy can be such a game changer, the award sounds almost priceless.
Although Richard James Burgess, CEO of indie-label trade group A2IM, takes note of the Grammy bump, he acknowledges that some independent artists “are not fans of the Grammys—to the point that they have declined to perform. Artists who occupy a specialized niche might feel that the gloss and glitz diminish their credibility with their fan bases.” One 20-plus-year veteran in the music industry, who has performed on Grammy-nominated albums, is a voting member of the Recording Academy, and currently works in an executive capacity at an indie label, puts it more bluntly: “A Grammy, more than ever, is worthless.”
The executive continues: “With the speed at which music is released and distributed these days, an awards show that tries to overview the past 12 months of music happenings is painfully reactive and out of touch. Absolutely no one who truly loves and cares about music is seeing artist X win and saying, ‘Oh, I should go check that out.’” Whereas the Grammys traditionally promoted music to people who might not have bought an album in a year or more, this person dismisses those late adopters: “They are the least important part of any musical equation.”
Maverick Management’s Scott Rodger, who manages Paul McCartney and Shania Twain, also doubts whether the award show matters as much to the most valuable audiences, particularly music fans in their teens and early 20s. “I’m still surprised that the Grammys and their broadcast partners don’t livestream the show for free online to try to capture another audience that otherwise probably wouldn’t tune in,” he says. “The format possibly needs to change in order to feel more relevant. It should be a celebration of all the new music released in the specific year, rather than just the five to seven awards being televised.”
Devon Powers, a Temple University professor studying contemporary culture, says that while a Grammy is still good publicity, the awards have their work cut out for them in today’s fragmented media landscape. “Lots of other things compete with the Grammys these days to attract attention and build opportunities—and even to communicate status,” Powers says. “Winning an award is a big deal, but the next day more people might be talking about some face that somebody made when they didn’t win an award.” Many people, she notes, might skip the televised program and watch only the most buzzed-about moments on YouTube after the fact.
Even among award shows, the Grammys have long stood out for the sales spikes enjoyed by the night’s major winners and standout performers. As sales have turned to streams, that pattern appears to have held steady, at least going by weekly Billboard chart data. Bruno Mars, who took home six Grammys last year, saw the sales and streams of his Album of the Year-winner 24K Magic jump 89 percent in the wake of the ceremony. Similarly, Adele’s 25—the 2017 Grammy Album of the Year, which also featured the Record of the Year—climbed 137 percent after the Grammys. Both albums were huge sellers to begin with; for the indie set, the benefits of a Grammy win can be even greater.
Just ask Daniel Glass, president and founder of Glassnote Records, where Grammy wins have included Phoenix for Best Alternative Music Album in 2010, Mumford & Sons for Album of the Year in 2013, and Childish Gambino for Best Traditional R&B Performance in 2018. “If Phoenix won now, my God, it would be so much better because their whole catalog would get a bump [on streaming],” Glass says, adding that Apple and Amazon do a good job of merchandising Grammy winners on their streaming platforms, similar to how chain stores used to. “Still, it had a huge impact on their life. All of a sudden, the venues changed. The perception changed. And that was a non-televised award!”
Booking agents echo the effects of any and all Grammy recognition. “A Grammy nom is still a huge boost of credibility, and the benefits last for the rest of the artist’s career,” says Paradigm Talent Agency’s Tom Windish, whose clients include Lorde and Billie Eilish. “The benefits are real.” David Galea of UTA, where nominated clients include Post Malone and Tierra Whack, agrees: “It’s an accolade from the creatives in our industry.”
Rodger, who also managed Arcade Fire at the time of their 2011 Album of the Year win, says asking what a Grammy means in 2019 is a bit like asking what a No. 1 album means. In his eyes, it’s a mark of respect that all artists appreciate (even if they wouldn’t admit it), but it doesn’t make a huge difference to listeners. “For a band like Arcade Fire, it got them taken seriously as being a major force in music,” Rodger says. “I don’t think it changed the band in any way, but it did change the industry’s attitude towards them.”
Ben Swank, a cofounder of Jack White’s Third Man Records, whose scrappy Nashville outsider Margo Price is up for Best New Artist this year, is loath to put too much credence in the Grammys. “Nobody wants to think of art as a measurable tool with a ranking system attached,” he says. But he also admits that, “For an artist like Margo, who swims very much in her own lane, it can only help promote longevity and flexibility for her career.”
As an artist, Imogen Heap knows the value of a Grammy firsthand. The UK singer-songwriter has taken home two of the awards, once in 2010 (Best Engineered Album, Non-Classical, for her own Ellipse) and again in 2016 (Album of the Year, for co-writing and producing a song on Taylor Swift’s 1989). Winning the engineering award “changed my life,” Heap says, because she gained recognition for the technical studio work she loves but that women are generally undercredited for. She adds that a Grammy can still be especially valuable internationally: “In places like China and India, just the recognition of having a Grammy means a seal of approval.” Winning a Grammy also makes it much easier for people from outside the United States to gain a U.S. work visa. “If nobody knows you from Adam, but you’ve got a Grammy, then it does definitely open doors,” Heap says.
From a spectator’s view, what a Grammy means may not be all that complicated. “It’s a way for the industry to remind people that music is still there, and to get a boost to their sales and streams,” says Brandon Clark, a music copyright lawyer and Recording Academy member who regularly attends the Grammys. “It’s something that most artists would like to have, but if they don’t, it’s not a big deal. It’s like homecoming court for high school kids: It’s cool but it doesn’t really matter in the whole scheme of things.”
