A Grammy win can be life-changing – but only if audiences actually know about it.

At the 67th Annual Grammy Awards on Feb. 2, trophies were given out to artists and musicians across 94 categories and countless genres. But to millions of viewers watching from home, only nine awards seemed to exist, as less than one-tenth of the Grammys’ categories were presented during the televised broadcast on CBS. For the future vitality and success of the Grammys in a competitive television marketplace – and to honor and celebrate more of the music that deservedly earned recognition – the Recording Academy’s model for future broadcasts must shift to include the presentation of more awards live on television.

Admittedly, the pattern of limiting the number of awards presented during the main Grammys broadcast is far from new. The 2024 ceremony also featured only nine awards on air, and at best, it seems that about a dozen is the approximate upper limit for televised Grammys in recent years. Realistically, no viewer has the attention span or musical knowledge to justify placing 94 categories on television, so the Recording Academy’s practice of handing out most of the awards at a livestreamed pre-show makes logical sense. However, surely time can be made to squeeze more than just a measly nine awards into the prime-time slot for music’s biggest night.

On one level, the Grammys’ decision to not televise certain categories this year was completely inexplicable, especially when major artists who won were present in the audience. Charli xcx occupied the evening’s final performance slot and took home the first three Grammys of her career for her boisterous album “BRAT,” but was not deemed enough of a priority to receive one of those awards on air in what could have been another viral moment. Likewise, SZA was on hand to present the award for Best Pop Duo/Group Performance but deserved greater attention herself for winning Best R&B Song in back-to-back years, which she nabbed first with “Snooze” and again with “Saturn.” Similarly, Kacey Musgraves won her third Best Country Song statuette – beating out Beyoncé’s “TEXAS HOLD ‘EM” – but most viewers would not know otherwise.

[Related: Grammys 2025: 67th ceremony awards Beyoncé and Kendrick Lamar, encourages fire recovery in LA]

More importantly, presenting more awards would be a welcome shift to highlight and celebrate more genres of music that the general public might not be exposed to outside of the Grammys. It was baffling that none of the five R&B categories were presented, despite the enduring relevance and impact of the genre on mainstream music. Likewise, no Rock or Alternative categories made it to the broadcast, which would have been an appropriate time to honor the victory of The Beatles’ controversial “Now and Then” or St. Vincent, who collected three trophies. Even comparatively technical categories such as Producer of the Year, Nonclassical and Songwriter of the Year, Nonclassical – both of which are now considered part of the prestigious, all-genre General Field – deserve to be shown on television to celebrate the winners’ craftsmanship.

Showcasing more categories on television would yield a considerable benefit for artists as well. Of course, established artists like Charli xcx, SZA and Musgraves will continue to be successful without the televised recognition for their Grammy wins. For other artists without the same fanbase or fame, failing to receive a televised award can be a condemnation to remain relatively unknown to the public. For instance, few viewers probably realize that the ceremony’s second-biggest winner – behind Kendrick Lamar’s five-award haul for “Not Like Us” – was actually singer-songwriter Sierra Ferrell, who swept all four of the Americana and American Roots categories. Ferrell’s talent could have been launched higher if even one of her wins was shown on television, but she and many other first-time winners did not receive that opportunity.

Although the Grammys are not meant to merely be a promotional vehicle for artists trying to break through to a wider audience, the Feb. 2 ceremony only proved why artists receiving awards on television are so crucial. In particular, Doechii’s ecstatic and moving acceptance speech while accepting Best Rap Album immediately catapulted her into the consciousness of a wider audience while also providing one of the most memorable and thrilling moments of the broadcast. Chappell Roan’s Best New Artist win was always slated to be televised, but when artists have the freedom to deliver organic, heartfelt speeches – as Roan did when commenting on the shortcomings of record labels – it can prompt thought-provoking, impactful conversations.

The biggest benefactor, however, of more awards presented on television could be the Grammys themselves. The Grammys’ viewership ratings for this year reveal that audiences believe the ceremony needs to change. With 15.4 million viewers, the 2025 ceremony was the fourth-lowest-watched Grammys of the 21st century so far and marks a 9% decrease from last year’s television audience size. Think-pieces about Roan’s speech and memes about Beyoncé’s reaction to winning Best Country Album illustrate audiences’ innate interest in the delivery of accolades to both rising talents and beloved musicians.

[Related: Second Take: Despite overlooks, nominations for 2025 Grammy Awards capture vital music projects]

To naysayers who might wonder how the Grammys could squeeze more awards into a telecast that notoriously runs over its allotted time, the Feb. 2 ceremony exemplified that there are superfluous segments of the Grammys broadcast that can be easily edited out. Awkward prerecorded sections that preceded performances from Sabrina Carpenter to Shakira were unnecessary fluff, host Trevor Noah’s comedy riffs fell flat and most of the artists who performed multiple songs – including Carpenter, Shakira, Charli xcx and The Weeknd – could have kept their set to one track. The performances are certainly one of the most entertaining aspects of the Grammys – and are essential to hold viewers’ attention over an extended period – but there were clear lulls in the Feb. 2 show that could have been remedied by more trophies being given out instead.

Award shows honoring music are in jeopardy, as both the Billboard Music Awards and American Music Awards, which were each previously large draws for viewers, have either not aired or have been severely modified the last few years. The Grammys have always had the benefit of standing head and shoulders above these other programs in terms of the respect and authority that the Recording Academy possesses. It would be a waste of the Grammys’ respect and resources not to make the effort to celebrate more vital music, especially as other music-related programs decline.

For the Grammys to continue to evolve in a changing musical landscape and to adapt to audiences’ shorter attention spans, presenting more awards offers a welcome solution. Not only will the memorable moments from the acceptance speeches engage viewers and encourage them to keep watching, but it will also allow the Recording Academy to remember its core purpose – to celebrate as many different sounds of music as possible. Putting all 94 categories on air is not the answer, but if the Oscars can put 23 awards into a telecast, then 15 or 20 Grammys being presented in the main broadcast would definitely be more than doable.

Moving forward, the Grammy Awards would benefit from remembering the award element of their ceremony.