grammys.com

February 5, 2026

What grammys.com is for, in practical terms

grammys.com is the public-facing site for the GRAMMY Awards and the Recording Academy. If you’re trying to keep up with nominations, winners, rule changes, show timing, performances, and the bigger ecosystem around the awards (advocacy, membership, MusiCares), this is the hub where it’s all organized. It’s not just a marketing page for the televised ceremony. It’s closer to a living reference site plus a newsroom.

Two parts matter most for everyday use:

1. Current-cycle coverage: nominees, winners (once announced), show details, performance lineups, and official video clips or highlights.
2. Historical archive: a searchable database of awards history, with categories and credits that can help you verify who won what and when. The site explicitly positions the “rich history” of the GRAMMYs as something you can explore year by year and across artists and categories.

If you’ve ever been in the situation where people are arguing online about whether a record actually won, or what category it was in, grammys.com is designed to end that argument fast.

How the site is structured and why it matters

The site layout tends to orbit around a few consistent sections:

• Awards (nominations and winners, plus major moments from each ceremony)
• News and features (interviews, explainers, genre spotlights, industry topics)
• Watch / live content (depending on the year and distribution, there can be official live or highlight experiences tied to the show)
• Recording Academy ecosystem (advocacy work, MusiCares, membership pathways)

That structure is useful because it reflects how the GRAMMYs operate in real life: the awards show is the headline, but the Academy is an ongoing institution. For people who work in music, that “ongoing institution” part is often the bigger deal, even if it gets less attention from casual viewers.

Using grammys.com as an awards database (and not getting lost)

The awards archive is the most valuable utility feature. It’s where you can look up nominations and winners across many decades and categories, and it’s built for browsing by year or searching by artist/title.

A few ways people typically use it:

• Confirming eligibility-era facts: When a song was nominated, what it lost to, and whether it was nominated in multiple categories.
• Tracking category history: Some categories split, merge, get renamed, or have rule changes that shift what “counts.” When you’re comparing wins across eras, that context matters.
• Credit checking: Producers, engineers, featured artists, and collaborators can be part of the official story. If you’re doing serious music writing, you need accuracy here.

One honest warning: awards data is messy, because credits change, spelling corrections happen, and eligibility rules evolve. That’s not a grammys.com problem, it’s the nature of large-scale credits and submissions. The Recording Academy even maintains an “update center” style approach for corrections and adjustments for a given year.

Where grammys.com fits versus social media and streaming platforms

If you’re following the GRAMMYs through clips on social platforms, you’ll get the spectacle but not the context. grammys.com tends to provide the “official framing”: category definitions, official nominee lists, and recap storytelling that’s aligned with the institution’s perspective.

That matters because the GRAMMYs are constantly debated. People argue about genre boundaries, snubs, whether categories make sense, whether the voting body is representative, and so on. The site won’t settle those debates, but it does give you the baseline facts and the Academy’s own explanations of changes and priorities.

The same goes for performance content. Streaming services and broadcaster sites might have full-episode access, while grammys.com is usually where the official coverage, clips, and curated “what mattered” packaging lives.

The “Recording Academy” layer: advocacy, membership, and why it shows up on the site

A lot of visitors come for the awards and don’t realize how much the Recording Academy is trying to communicate beyond the telecast. grammys.com (and related Academy properties) routinely surfaces things like:

• Advocacy: policy and industry efforts that affect creators (royalties, AI issues, protections, labor conditions).
• Membership: pathways for professionals, including community, chapters, and peer-driven participation.
• MusiCares: support and assistance programs for music people in need, which is a major part of the Academy’s public mission.

Why does this show up on a site that casual fans read? Because legitimacy for an awards institution is partly about what it does the other 51 weeks of the year. That’s also why the Academy publicizes voting reforms, new member classes, and efforts to broaden representation in the electorate.

Category changes and rules: the stuff that quietly shapes outcomes

One of the most underestimated uses of grammys.com and Recording Academy updates is tracking how categories and criteria evolve. When a category is split (for example, a broad genre award becomes two different awards), or when eligibility rules shift, it changes who can realistically be nominated and what “winning” even means compared to earlier years.

Recent cycles have included structural changes like introducing a distinct category for album cover recognition and adjusting country-related category structures, among other updates.

If you’re a fan, this helps you understand why your favorite artist might land in a category that feels new, or why a comparison to a past year isn’t apples-to-apples. If you’re an industry professional, these details can affect how you submit work and how you plan release strategies.

How to get more value out of grammys.com without doom-scrolling it

A practical way to use the site is to treat it like a reference tool, not a feed.

• Use it to verify: nomination lists, winners, and category names.
• Use it to contextualize: rule updates and category definitions when debates pop up.
• Use it to research credits: who actually contributed to an awarded work.
• Use it to follow the institution: not because you need PR, but because policy and membership decisions ripple into the awards you watch.

And if you’re working in media or music, it’s worth bookmarking the awards archive pages and the Academy’s update pages, because corrections and clarifications do happen.

Key takeaways

• grammys.com is both a current-season GRAMMYs coverage site and a historical awards archive.
• The awards database is the most useful feature for fact-checking nominations, wins, and category history.
• The site reflects the Recording Academy’s broader work, including membership and MusiCares, not just the televised show.
• Category and criteria updates can meaningfully change how outcomes look year to year, so following updates helps comparisons stay fair.

FAQ

Is grammys.com the same thing as the Recording Academy’s main website?
Not exactly. grammys.com is the GRAMMYs-facing media and archive hub, while the Recording Academy also operates its own main organizational site with membership and institutional information.

Can I reliably cite grammys.com for who won a GRAMMY?
For official nominations and winners lists, it’s one of the most direct official references available, and it’s designed for that purpose.

Why do I sometimes see corrections or updates around nominee lists or credits?
Because credits and submissions can include errors, spelling issues, or later-confirmed details. The Academy tracks and publishes updates for accuracy.

Does the site explain category changes and eligibility rules?
It may surface them in coverage, and the Recording Academy also publishes formal update information about categories, fields, and criteria.

Is grammys.com only for U.S. music?
The GRAMMYs are U.S.-based and administered by the Recording Academy, but the awards and coverage involve global artists and international attention. The site reflects that reality through nominees, features, and industry coverage.