Winning a Grammy can change an artist’s life, but only if people actually see it happen. At the 67th Annual Grammy Awards on February 2, a whopping 94 awards were handed out, but only nine were shown on TV. This made it feel like only a small fraction of the ceremony mattered to viewers at home. If the Grammys want to stay relevant and truly celebrate all the deserving artists, they need to rethink how they broadcast the awards.
This trend of limiting televised awards isn’t new. Even at the 2024 ceremony, only nine awards made it to the small screen. It seems like about a dozen is the maximum seen in recent years. The Recording Academy streams most awards in a pre-show, which makes practical sense. However, this approach misses out on many opportunities to highlight more talent during the main event.
This year, it was puzzling to see major winners in the audience not getting their moments in the spotlight. Charli XCX won three Grammys for her album “BRAT” and closed out the show, yet her awards were not shown. Similarly, SZA, who won Best R&B Song back-to-back years, didn’t receive airtime despite being at the event. Kacey Musgraves also took home her third Best Country Song, but most viewers were left unaware.
Needing more awards on air isn’t just about giving artists recognition; it’s also about showcasing a wider range of music genres. None of the five R&B categories were televised, and the absence of Rock and Alternative awards left a significant gap. Major artists like The Beatles and St. Vincent won awards, but those victories went uncelebrated on screen. Even important categories like Producer of the Year and Songwriter of the Year deserve their moment during the broadcast.
More televised awards can benefit artists as well. While established stars like Charli XCX and SZA will thrive regardless, newcomers often need that visibility. For instance, Sierra Ferrell swept the Americana categories but went largely unrecognized. A televised award could have boosted her career and introduced her talent to a broader audience.
The Grammys aren’t just a chance for artists to receive awards; they’re also a platform to share powerful stories. Acceptance speeches can make a lasting impact. Doechii’s emotional acceptance for Best Rap Album captured attention and created a memorable moment. Chappell Roan’s heartfelt speech about the challenges in the music industry sparked conversations that resonated beyond the ceremony.
Ultimately, the Grammys need this change. This year’s viewership was notably low, with only 15.4 million tuning in—the fourth lowest in recent history. If the Grammys want to remain relevant, they should listen to their audience’s desire for more award presentations. It’s clear that moments of genuine recognition resonate with viewers.
Some may argue that the show already runs too long, but there’s plenty of fluff that could be cut. Instead of awkward segments and unneeded comedy bits, the broadcast could easily include more award presentations. Many performances, while entertaining, could also be streamlined, allowing for more award moments during the show.
Award shows face tough competition for audiences. Others like the Billboard Music Awards are struggling, making the Grammys’ unique status even more important. The Grammys have the chance to highlight more music and artists, which could reinvigorate viewer interest. By remembering their core purpose of celebration, the Grammys could grow while adapting to changing tastes.
Going forward, the Grammys can thrive by focusing on what truly matters: the awards themselves. It’s not necessary to showcase every single category, but presenting more than just nine awards during the main show is certainly achievable. Just as the Oscars successfully broadcast multiple awards, the Grammys can do the same with 15 to 20 awards. More awards mean more recognition, more celebration, and a more vibrant show.
