An NYT Op-Ed Ignites the "BTS Grammy Boycott" Debate — Perspectives on the "Asian Pop Category"
An op-ed by a university professor in The New York Times, addressing BTS's Grammy boycott, is drawing attention. Over how to view the Grammys' newly created "Best Asian Pop Music Performance" category, the professor's critique, the Grammys' rebuttal, and fans' reactions diverge. Rather than reaching a one-sided conclusion, we've laid out the arguments that have been exchanged. The Trigger: An Op-Ed in The New York Times Dan Charnas, a professor at New York University's (NYU) Clive Davis Institute of Recorded Music, published an op-ed titled "Pop Music Is the Problem" in The New York Times on the 9th (local time). In it, he described the Grammys' newly created "Best Asian Pop Music Performance" category as "a mechanism designed to prevent K-pop's influence from encroaching on the major award categories." This is, above all, Charnas's own interpretation and argument. The creation of this category is also the matter that earlier led to BTS's Grammy boycott. In late July, BTS (Jungkook, Jimin, V, Jin, j-hope, RM, Suga) decided not to submit its new album "ARIRANG" for the 2027 Grammys, and each member posted a statement on their social media to the effect that "rather than music being divided by region or language, we hope music can be heard and loved for what it is." Charnas's Argument Charnas noted the trend of Grammy categories expanding from 28 in 1959 to around 100 today. He held that after Beyoncé recently became the first Black woman to win "Best Country Album," the Academy split that category into "Traditional" and "Contemporary," and that after songs from the animated film "K-Pop: Demon Hunters" became big hits, the Asian Pop category was created. He argued that such subdivision has repeated itself in ways that ultimately draw racial boundaries. He also posed the question of "what pop even is." His point is that while the dance category has concrete judging criteria such as "dynamic sense of rhythm," the only eligibility requirement for the pop category is simply that it "must be pop." He also holds that American pop music excluded Black artists in its early formation, citing the case of Michael Jackson—that Jackson was excluded from major Grammy categories in 1980 with "Off the Wall," and that even his follow-up "Thriller" was aired on MTV only after his label's president applied pressure. He also mentioned that, unlike white artists who were called "King of Swing" or "King of Rock and Roll" without much proof, Jackson had to call himself the "King of Pop." He then noted that K-pop, which absorbed R&B, dance, hip-hop, and rock, is likewise a genre rooted in Black music, and assessed that "BTS may be the biggest artist in the world since Michael Jackson—the only Korean group with the bargaining power to drive such change." As a solution, he proposed that the Academy stop creating new categories based on race, nationality, or language. The Grammys' Rebuttal The Grammys (the Recording Academy), on the other hand, took a different position. CEO Harvey Mason jr. said of BTS's decision that he was "saddened, but as a music creator, I understand and respect their decision." At the same time, he explained the intent of the Asian Pop category this way: "The Asian Pop category was created to celebrate the depth, diversity, and extraordinary growth of pop artistry coming out of Asia. It's to shine a dedicated spotlight on these important artists." Mason emphasized that "more categories mean more artists' work is recognized, and it's never to divide, but to expand who is recognized." In particular, he stated that "submitting in a genre category such as Asian Pop does not exclude an artist from also being considered for the general-field categories such as Record of the Year and Album of the Year." In other words, his explanation is that a genre category and the major awards aren't an either-or choice. This is precisely the point where his account collides head-on with Charnas's interpretation of "a mechanism to block access to the major awards." Fans' Reactions and a Note of Caution When the op-ed became known, fans spread the hashtag "#ArtHasNoAliens" on X, sharing related lines. Yet even among fans there was a note of caution. Some warned against the phrase "the biggest since Michael Jackson" being distorted into "BTS is bigger than Jackson," urging care with wording. Their point was that the professor's assessment was a reference to "a position with bargaining power," not an attempt to rank the two artists. The Lingering Question This matter is less one with a clear-cut answer than a point where differing viewpoints collide. At its core is the question: "Is creating a dedicated category an inclusion that spotlights a minority culture, or a boundary-drawing that separates it from the mainstream?" The Grammys call it "more recognition"; Charnas and some fans warn of "the risk of separation." Whether BTS's boycott will lead to similar moves by other Asian artists, and whether the Academy will re-examine its category structure, remains to be seen. What's clear is that K-pop's standing has grown large enough to spark such a debate. This controversy has once again brought to the surface a question the Grammys have long faced: how to recognize and classify global music.
Read more →