Are the Rolling Stones really deserving winners of Best Rock Album at the Grammys?
Another year, another predictable outcome at the Grammy Awards. The Rolling Stones, a band that debuted when the Beatles were still together, just won Best Rock Album for Hackney Diamonds. While it’s impressive that Mick Jagger and Keith Richards can still churn out music in their 80s, this victory raises a crucial question: Why does the Grammys continue to favour legacy acts over contemporary artists? More importantly, what does this mean for the future of rock music?
Rolling Stones - Angry
The Rolling Stones’ win is just the latest example of the Grammys’ long-standing pattern of rewarding established rock icons over emerging talent. Whether it’s U2, Paul McCartney, or Bruce Springsteen, there’s an undeniable tendency to honour familiar names rather than acknowledge the artists currently pushing rock music forward. The problem isn’t that these legends don’t deserve recognition for their work, some of their recent albums are solid, but rather that the Grammys seem hesitant to take risks on fresh talent.
[quote] This preference for legacy artists sends a discouraging message: If you’re not already a rock giant from the ‘60s, ‘70s, or ‘80s, your chances of being properly recognized are slim. [\quote]
Take a look at the broader rock scene. Bands and artists like Sam Fender, Wet Leg, and The Linda Lindas are revitalizing the genre with innovative sounds and massive fan engagement. Artists like boygenius, Fontaines DC, and Idles are proving that rock is still relevant in today’s mainstream music landscape. Yet, time and time again, the Recording Academy overlooks these acts in favor of nostalgia-driven choices.
This preference for legacy artists sends a discouraging message: If you’re not already a rock giant from the ‘60s, ‘70s, or ‘80s, your chances of being properly recognized are slim. In a genre that has historically thrived on rebellion and reinvention, this obsession with the past stifles progress. Rock needs new blood, but if the biggest awards in music continue to ignore younger artists, they risk turning the genre into nothing more than a museum exhibit.
The irony is that rock music has always been about energy, innovation, and breaking the rules. Yet, the institutions that claim to celebrate the genre seem more invested in maintaining the status quo. The Grammys have long been criticized for being out of touch with modern music trends, and their approach to rock is a glaring example of that disconnect.
If rock is going to thrive, its awards and institutions need to evolve. That starts with the Grammys taking a serious look at today’s talent rather than continually handing trophies to artists who have been winning since before the internet was invented. Otherwise, the award for Best Rock Album will soon be less about celebrating the genre’s future and more about clinging to its past.
