McSaneWich⁷

Part-time ARMY during Run/I Need U. Full Time ARMY since Covid

[seeingbtsinamonth💜 @orul8ce]

Dammmm… 👀💀 Days later, @RecordingAcad is still under fire🔥🔥🔥👀💀Lfggggg!!!🔥🔥🔥👏

Hit British podcast The Rest Is Entertainment, known for its insider analysis of the entertainment industry, backed BTS’s decision not to submit their music to the Grammys👀👀👀

[ruon🌻 ⁷ ⊙⊝⊜ @miniekootrash]

"If it's the Album of the Year, then it is the Album of the Year; why put it in a category?" @RecordingAcad
#ArtHasNoAliens

[Bangtan Streamers⁷⊙⊝⊜ @Bangtan7_Stream]

Please keep using the #ArtHasNoAliens hashtag when posting about the 👵 issues. We need to keep the tag visible since world-wide media coverage is picking up on the tag.

We stand with BTS’ polite decision to choose self-respect over a paperweight.

[Tina | ⊙⊝⊜ @MinYoongiSwagg7]

This essay for @ELLEmagazine by Valorie Lee Schaefer had me in tears. A must read.

[B-612 @pilgrimnote]

그래미 내부 증언이 나왔네요(Inside Testimony from the Grammys)

프로듀서 슬립디즈는 그래미가 BTS가 아시안 팝 부문의 첫 번째 수상자가 되는 것을 최고의 시나리오로 여겼다고 밝혔습니다. BTS가 수상하게 되면 새로 만든 상의 권위가 단숨에 올라가고 다른 아시아 가수들도 앞다투어 출품할 것으로 기대했다는 것입니다.
결국 그래미는 BTS에게 새로운 기회를 주는 것이 아니라 BTS의 이름을 이용해 먹으려고 했습니다. 그런데 BTS가 빠져버리자 아시아 음악계를 위한 노력을 무너뜨렸다며 거꾸로 비난했습니다.
그래미에서는 BTS가 본상 부문 출품이 차단되는 것이 아니라고 말했지만 그래미에 레코드를 제출하면 어느 부문에서 심사받는지는 그래미가 결정합니다. BTS가 올해 앨범에 본상으로 출품하고 싶어도 BTS의 의도와 관계없이 아시안 팝 부문으로 결정해 버릴 수 있다고 증언했습니다. 애초부터 그래미는 BTS의 이름값만 이용하고, 미국에서 전통적으로 자행했던 분리와 차별을 또다시 반복하려 했던 것입니다.
또한 BTS가 그래미 불참 선언하면서 그래미 수상식 광고주들도 광고를 철회하고 있다는 소식도 나오고 있습니다.
#BTS #BTSARMY #Grammys

[⁷ @mygbebe]

Oh, BTS, look around you. You've started one of the most important conversation and movement, once again.

[colin @colin_goldmund]

ARMYs, this is one of the most interesting and trenchant takes on BTS's Grammys decision, even digging into America's history of "Separate but Equal."

Kim Ou-joon, one of Korea's most influential public figures and its most prominent progressive voice (I recently wrote a seven-part article about him in the Articles section), devoted a lengthy segment to the BTS-Grammys controversy on his program, Gyeomson News Factory. It is the most-watched live political and current affairs program on YouTube in Korea (and in the world), drawing more than 200,000 live viewers and averaging around 1.2 million views per day.

Kim was sick last Friday, so he wasn't there to host the show when three music critics appeared and made the most misguided arguments about BTS's decision:

1. This is just a Korean inferiority complex. It may feel emotionally satisfying, but it wasn't the right decision.
2. HYBE probably realized BTS had little chance of winning a major Grammy category anyway, so they made a calculated business move before the Grammys could reject them. This is basically a power game.
3. Now that the Grammys have created an Asian Pop category, future artists may dream of winning in that category. So we can't say BTS's decision was entirely the right one.
4. Didn't BTS work so hard to learn English and Japanese in order to break into the U.S. and Japanese markets? Now that there's an Asian Pop category, artists might not have to do that anymore. They could stay in their own language and still be nominated in the Asian Pop category. Isn't that actually a good thing?

Here is Kim Ou-joon's commentary from today's show. I translated them as faithfully as possible. Because of his short, conversational style of speaking, I added a few words here and there for context so that his intended meaning would come across accurately. And I omitted the exchanges between Kim and the announcer during Kim’s commentary.
—----------------------------
“I think the Grammys created the new Asian Pop Music category because they were planning to give that award to BTS. But then BTS refused to submit their music, and it became a global controversy.

Media outlets around the world started pouring out articles. From The New York Times onward, pretty much every major international media outlet we know covered it. And, for the most part, they viewed BTS's boycott positively.

They called it "a gentle but powerful criticism" (The Guardian). “Refusing was the right thing to do” (Cosmopolitan). "A declaration of independence" (Sportal Korea). “BTS had captured the spirit of the times" (The Economic Times)

Now, last Friday, the music critics who appeared on our program seemed to say that this new category could have become a stepping stone for Asian-language music to succeed in the global market, so they felt a little disappointed by BTS's decision.

Yes, I understand that point of view. There's some validity to it. But I think differently.

If I had been there, I probably would have argued against them pretty strongly. Since I wasn't, let me add my thoughts now, even if it's a little late.

Because I don't think this is something we should just let pass. I think this is a significant event, one that deserves to be recorded not only in Korean cultural history but also in the history of world culture.

Let me briefly explain why. To understand this, we have to look at it not from our perspective, but from the Western perspective. Using their way of thinking. Because it's a Western award show. It was their decision. We have to understand why they did it from their point of view. That's how you understand their intention.

Now, there's a precedent for this. I think it was 2019. MTV became the first major music award show to create a Best K-Pop category. It should have just been called Pop. Instead, they created a separate Best K-Pop category.

At the time, The Washington Post used a particular expression. They said this was America's "separate but equal" rule in music awards.

That phrase is extremely important in the history of the American civil rights movement. For Americans, just hearing those three words is enough. They immediately understand what's being implied.

This goes back to around 1890. Louisiana was one of the places where racial discrimination was especially severe. The state passed a law requiring separate railroad cars for white people and Black people. Black and white passengers had to ride in different train cars. Civil rights activists wanted to challenge that law as unconstitutional, as racial discrimination.

At that time, there was a man named Plessy. By appearance, he looked white. But he was one-eighth Black. His great-grandmother was Black.

At the time, America had what was called the one-drop rule. If you had even one drop of Black blood, no matter how white you looked, you were legally classified as Black.

So this man boarded a whites-only train car. Then he deliberately announced that he was Black. He wanted to be arrested.

That's how the lawsuit began. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Louisiana judge's name was Ferguson, so in America it's known as “Plessy v. Ferguson.”

It's a very famous case. One of the most famous rulings in American history came out of that case. That's where the phrase "separate but equal" comes from.

The Court ruled that separating railroad cars was constitutional because, although they were separated, they were supposedly equal. In the end, it was a ruling that justified racial discrimination. This was at the end of the nineteenth century.

After that decision, segregation spread far beyond railroad cars. Because racial segregation had now been accepted under the Constitution, separation spread into every part of society. Schools. Hospitals. Parks. Buses. Theaters. Restrooms. Eventually even cemeteries. People were separated from birth until death.

But the facilities for Black people received less than one-tenth of the funding that white facilities received. Because the people making those decisions were all white. So the facilities for Black people were in terrible condition.

That's why the phrase "separate but equal" really meant separation, inequality, and exclusion. But those words were used to hide racial discrimination. That system continued for nearly seventy years.

That's exactly what The Washington Post meant when it described MTV's decision as "separate but equal." By creating a K-pop category, it looked as though K-pop was being treated equally. But in reality, it excluded K-pop from competing in the main categories while hiding that exclusion.

At the time, there was another expression people in the West used to describe MTV's decision. Ghettoization. During Nazi Germany, Jews were confined to ghettos. So people said K-pop had been ghettoized. It had been placed in its own separate space.

That expression also has a precedent. When Black music began to rise in America, award shows grouped Black artists into R&B and Rap categories. Black artists would receive those awards, while the major awards continued to go to the mainstream. People called that the ghettoization of Black music.

So MTV received that criticism. After that, MTV nominated BTS in the regular Pop category. And BTS won.

At the time, Billboard wrote that BTS had entered through the side door, and that it had taken a long time before they were finally allowed to use the front door like everyone else. After MTV, the other award shows adapted to that criticism.

The Grammys were the last one left. The Grammys see themselves as the most prestigious music awards because, unlike other shows, there is no fan voting. Like the Academy Awards, only industry professionals vote.
So they created a side door, just like MTV. This was basically saying, "Asia, come in through the side door. Separate but equal."

When MTV did this, BTS still attended despite the controversy. But this time, BTS declared to the American mainstream music industry, "We're not using the side door anymore." And they refused.

That's why Western media, who understand this context exactly, praised BTS. They said, "Well done." They called it the spirit of the times.

That's how I see it too. I think this will remain a landmark in world cultural history for a long time.

An artist from outside the mainstream boycotted the most prestigious award in the mainstream and declared, "You are out of step with the times."

It's contextually similar to Black Americans demanding racial equality and human equality.

That's why western media call it the spirit of the times. Some in Korea don't immediately understand why it's being called that. They think, "Wouldn't this have been a good opportunity for Asian artists?"

That Friday's comment comes from not seeing how people in America think about this issue. That's all I wanted to add.”
—--------------------------
For those who understand Korean, you can watch the video of his commentary here. (I wish I knew how to add English subtitles, but unfortunately I don't.)

https://t.co/bsgO5X8KwA

[BIGHIT MUSIC @BIGHIT_MUSIC]

[기사] “월드컵, 그 이상”…‘#BTS 노믹스’ 美 경제 흔들었다
https://t.co/5un1VLXNAk

[Jan⁷ lost autumn leaves tonight goodbye @mrrchalhaeso]

Please stop asking us to stop speaking about Racism at the Grammys and Racism in this world. This is the best time to continue the conversation. We are the biggest fandom in the world and the world is listening. BTS has been fighting against this for so long.

[BTS Daily⁷ @btsdaily77]

RT + REPLY

ART HAS NO ALIENS @RecordingAcad

#ArtHasNoAliens

[dictator mbapbella @7adorablereps]

“Nobody created a “Best European Pop Music Performance” category for Dua Lipa or Ed Sheeran.”

- Forbes Magazine

#Grammys #BTS #ArtHasNoAliens

[ak ⁷ | #ArtHasNoAliens 🛑 @Bangtan_Caramel]

[CNN] 🛑

Matthew Pellegrino, a music teacher from NYU calls out the Grammys in support of BTS
#ArtHasNoAliens
https://t.co/LZoyMCUeBO

[BTS Charts & News @btschartsxdaily]

[NEWS] #BTS didn't need to 'tear down' the Grammys. They simply moved beyond them - India Today

“The Grammys have spent years trying to answer the question, “How do we become more global?” BTS responded with a different question: “What if being global means we no longer need to be introduced by where we’re from?”
https://t.co/ASivzvxrsp

[seeingbtsinamonth💜 @orul8ce]

Buzzfeed Australia’s post👀👀👀

bts' decision to boycott the 2027 grammys is only the start of a much bigger conversation. their withdrawal forces us to question whether the recording academy's new "best asian pop music performance" category is genuine representation, or just another way of sidelining non-western artists. an anonymous fan weighs in...👀👀👀

https://t.co/Znvhsox2Lq

[•・ @ameviil]

the grammys' highly controversial best asian pop category promo video, posted on may 23, 2026, and deleted as of august 1, 2026, was released 2 months after arirang's unmatched usa market success, yet completely ignored bts, proving the recording academy's institutional resentment toward them.

[•・ @ameviil]

proof that the controversial best asian pop category promotional video posted on the official grammy instagram channel featuring zeena koda who accused bts of a pr stunt and frankie yaptinchay head of amazon music was removed on august 1,2026 following a call out by bts: https://t.co/Oz5kU2lKcy

[McSaneWich⁷ @SaneWhich7]

@KingOfPop12341 @TheePopCore Unlike Dinklage, BTS did not denounce, condemn, criticize. Within 4 small lines on a post, all they said was they're not submitting because they wanted their music to be judged by its merit. They did not discourage anybody else from submitting.

[⁷ @Pk_bts_land]

Following BTS' decision about grammys, Nigerian media outlet YNaija urges artists of color to stand together:

"This is a time for solidarity among artists who are not from the U.S, to boycott the Grammys until their artistry is recognised beyond their continent."

[winyyy⁷ ⊙⊝⊜ @flowerworks__]

HYBE report portal has an AI abuse section. Use it.

[MELROSE @Melkenstock]

구기원, HYBE / BHM Performance Director Instagram

We are Aliens too 👽

#bts #btscrew #aliens