Why does K-pop stall at the Grammy threshold?
Overview
Numbers tell a story.
At the 66th Grammys in 2024, not a single K-pop artist received a nomination in the main categories — a fact that surprised many.
By contrast, BTS's nominations in 2021 offered an unusual sign of possibility for K-pop.
Meanwhile, Rosé and the group KATSEYE entering major-category contention in 2025 hints at a possible change in the Recording Academy's stance.
The Grammys' nomination process still needs to be understood in its institutional context.
History and trends
The history runs long.
BTS became the first K-pop act nominated in a major Grammy category in 2021 with "Dynamite."
Since then, many K-pop acts — including aespa, Seventeen, Stray Kids, TWICE, and NCT — submitted work, but repeated exclusion from top categories continued.
At the same time, chart results and fan sizes measured by Billboard and streaming platforms clearly demonstrate K-pop's global reach.
Global success and the mismatch
The achievements are undeniable.
Rosé's "APT." reached as high as number three on the Billboard Hot 100 and stayed on the chart for a long run.
Members like Jungkook and Jimin hit number one on the Hot 100 with solo singles, yet those tracks did not translate into Grammy nominations.
This gap is more than a difference in taste; it points to institutional and cultural distance.
Artistic achievement and institutional recognition do not always move in the same direction.
The Recording Academy's inertia
Institutional inertia is powerful.
The Grammys (the Recording Academy) are an old organization with established standards, and results are shaped by who its members are and how they vote.
After the secret committees were disbanded in 2021, the process opened up, but critics argue that understanding and acceptance of K-pop remain limited.
Therefore, the pace of institutional change lags behind rapid industry shifts.
Arguments for Grammy recognition
The need is clear.
K-pop is not a passing fad; it represents real investment in the global music market and sustained audience engagement.
Revenue from charts, streaming platforms, tours, and merchandise proves its industrial value.
So if the Grammys fail to reflect this reality, they open themselves to critiques about international representation.
Fairness and representation are core values for global awards.
The case for correcting historical unfairness is persuasive.
Claims that the Recording Academy has historically undervalued Korean music are not merely emotional reactions.
Repeated exclusion of certain regions or genres undermines an awards show's credibility and diversity.
Conversely, nominations and wins send positive signals that can encourage broader cultural investment.
There is also a demand for diversity and inclusion.
While the Grammys champion musical variety, genuine inclusion requires cultural understanding (explain: learning how different music is made and experienced).
Including music produced in different languages and systems strengthens an awards show's identity.
Ultimately, inclusion benefits not only fans and artists but also industry investment and job creation.
Arguments defending Grammy selection standards
Standards deserve respect.
The Grammys have long upheld particular musical traditions and evaluation frameworks meant to safeguard artistic expertise.
K-pop's production systems and genre identity sometimes diverge from those evaluation norms.
So using chart success alone to demand nominations could create its own imbalance.
Objective criteria help preserve the credibility of awards.
One compromise is a dedicated category.
Billboard created K-pop-specific recognition, which is one way to respect a genre's particular traits.
If the Grammys added an Asia or K-pop category, it could broaden inclusion while keeping existing standards intact.
However, this approach risks criticism for creating a separate, and potentially segregated, form of recognition.
There are also practical limits in the voting body.
An American-centered voting membership naturally leans toward U.S. music.
Changing that structure quickly is difficult; it requires both membership expansion and education.
So calls for immediate, full inclusion may clash with realistic constraints.
Deeper causes: structures and incentives
Structural factors matter.
Institutional inertia, cultural distance, and industry economics interact to create a complex problem.
The Recording Academy's decision-making framework, the makeup of its membership, and how music is judged all combine to produce outcomes.
Fandom pressure and commercial success influence results, but they alone cannot force systemic change.
Complex structures resist single, simple fixes.
The issue also ties to money.
K-pop's globalization depends on large investments and long-term planning.
Labels' funding models, artists' job stability, and flows of money into content all shape how institutions perceive and value music.
So institutional reform must go hand in hand with industry practices, education, and more transparent voting procedures.
Comparing Billboard and the Grammys
The contrast is stark.
Billboard, with chart-based measures, has tended to embrace K-pop and even created K-pop categories, producing winners and nominees from the scene.
The Grammys, however, stick to expert review and member voting.
What does that difference reveal? It shows a clash of values and methods.
Different criteria yield different outcomes.
Billboard's model shows how commercial performance and fan power can be built into award structures.
The Grammys prioritize tradition and professional assessment, which can slow the integration of new, culturally different music.
Rather than declaring one model right, it is more practical to look for ways the two can inform each other.
Policy proposals and practical steps
Action matters.
First, diversify and educate Academy membership.
Second, increase transparency in voting and nominee selection.
Third, expand artist- and label-level exchanges with Academy members.
Small institutional changes can lead to long-term shifts.
Industry-side measures also matter.
Recognize organized fandom while balancing professional evaluation (explain: keep expert standards alongside fan influence).
Invest with a long-term view toward building a sustainable artistic ecosystem.
At the same time, policies that improve musicians' job stability should be part of the reform agenda.
Conclusion
The point is clear.
K-pop's global success still shows a gap with Grammy recognition.
However, Rosé and KATSEYE's nominations are signs of change.
Institutional reform combined with cultural understanding can make real inclusion possible.
In short, Grammy change is more than trophies; it requires evolution in industry and institutions.
Fans, the industry, and award bodies must learn from one another.
The coming years will likely decide whether K-pop's global standing translates into consistent institutional recognition.
What do you think? Should the Grammys move faster to welcome K-pop?
