Thank you! This is insightful and thought provoking! The USC studies in conjunction with the academy showed that historically, one woman was nominated for every nine men who were nominated for a GRAMMY — I think it was from 2013-2018– across all categories. Not sure what their methodology was.
But it lends to your last comment about women getting nominated being an obstacle. Anyhoo, thanks again for the deep dive. Sharing!!!
Yes, I think you’ve gone at this the right way, looking at wins. If we look at nominations, a statistician would immediately begin asking questions about the underlying pool of eligible songwriters and musicians. For example, if one of those populations skews male, say, in the 60s, then we would probably expect more nominations of men, right? And that would be an industry question, not a Grammy question.
That’s my logical take. My unlogical take includes questions about the larger meaning of the Grammys and the many anomalies. For example, Bob Dylan didn’t win his first solo Grammy until 1980. This is the guy the Beatles referred to as The Man, who has 8 albums and songs from the 60s and 70s that are in the Grammy Hall of Fame. He didn’t win a Grammy for any of those?
And was the P.O. awesome in 1957 or what? Who sends a letter to somebody in NYC without a street address?
The idea that the Grammys, or for that matter just about anything in the music industry, is biased against women is...not true.
In addition to the two all- male bands i work in, i've worked for women as band-bosses, I work as the only man in a band with 4 women (including my wife, on drums). I'm exposed to every level of the live-music industry save the very top one, and I can categorically say that women, whether at the helm of their musical projects (they frequently are) or as members of all women or even otherwise all-dude band lineups, are very well-advantaged in the present landscape; + have been for at least a decade and a half.
Part of it is management; they have access to much better, more professional management (often by other women) than all-dude bands do; bc they have more choices on who to sign with right out of the gate. They'll get 10 solicitations from management/labels/etc., where a roughly equivalent band of dudes has to knock doors for even one.
Another part is that, for media, covering women's musical projects are image-enhancing to the outlets that do it.
More readers, more clicks, more comments, more views. It makes them look "cooler", internally and within their culture, to have Khruangbin or Thundermother in their pages than Moon Tooth or Visigoth.
These advantages of placement accrue up the scale, to the Tiny Desks and other career-making exposure opportunities that can lead to Grammy nomination-ready works.
The assumption is, that "somebody else" will give the (sufficiently meritorious) all-dude bands some space and exposure; and "its not a zero-sum game!".
But "somebody else" is not, and it is a zero-sum game; particularly now when so much space is eaten up by Industrial-Grade Nostalgia, and there's less space for newer music at all.
Again, I've worked for women in music; I work with women in music now, and I regularly deal with woman-led and all-women musical projects on a regular basis. They are far from being suppressed by sexism (at least in rock music); and far more in control of their destinies than ever.
Thank you! This is insightful and thought provoking! The USC studies in conjunction with the academy showed that historically, one woman was nominated for every nine men who were nominated for a GRAMMY — I think it was from 2013-2018– across all categories. Not sure what their methodology was.
But it lends to your last comment about women getting nominated being an obstacle. Anyhoo, thanks again for the deep dive. Sharing!!!
Yes, I think you’ve gone at this the right way, looking at wins. If we look at nominations, a statistician would immediately begin asking questions about the underlying pool of eligible songwriters and musicians. For example, if one of those populations skews male, say, in the 60s, then we would probably expect more nominations of men, right? And that would be an industry question, not a Grammy question.
That’s my logical take. My unlogical take includes questions about the larger meaning of the Grammys and the many anomalies. For example, Bob Dylan didn’t win his first solo Grammy until 1980. This is the guy the Beatles referred to as The Man, who has 8 albums and songs from the 60s and 70s that are in the Grammy Hall of Fame. He didn’t win a Grammy for any of those?
And was the P.O. awesome in 1957 or what? Who sends a letter to somebody in NYC without a street address?
The idea that the Grammys, or for that matter just about anything in the music industry, is biased against women is...not true.
In addition to the two all- male bands i work in, i've worked for women as band-bosses, I work as the only man in a band with 4 women (including my wife, on drums). I'm exposed to every level of the live-music industry save the very top one, and I can categorically say that women, whether at the helm of their musical projects (they frequently are) or as members of all women or even otherwise all-dude band lineups, are very well-advantaged in the present landscape; + have been for at least a decade and a half.
Part of it is management; they have access to much better, more professional management (often by other women) than all-dude bands do; bc they have more choices on who to sign with right out of the gate. They'll get 10 solicitations from management/labels/etc., where a roughly equivalent band of dudes has to knock doors for even one.
Another part is that, for media, covering women's musical projects are image-enhancing to the outlets that do it.
More readers, more clicks, more comments, more views. It makes them look "cooler", internally and within their culture, to have Khruangbin or Thundermother in their pages than Moon Tooth or Visigoth.
These advantages of placement accrue up the scale, to the Tiny Desks and other career-making exposure opportunities that can lead to Grammy nomination-ready works.
The assumption is, that "somebody else" will give the (sufficiently meritorious) all-dude bands some space and exposure; and "its not a zero-sum game!".
But "somebody else" is not, and it is a zero-sum game; particularly now when so much space is eaten up by Industrial-Grade Nostalgia, and there's less space for newer music at all.
Again, I've worked for women in music; I work with women in music now, and I regularly deal with woman-led and all-women musical projects on a regular basis. They are far from being suppressed by sexism (at least in rock music); and far more in control of their destinies than ever.