The president of the Recording Academy has expressed regret over two words he used when speaking about women in music, according to a report from ABC News.

The walk-back centers on phrasing, not policy. The Academy's chief said he regrets the specific wording — two words — that he deployed while discussing women in the music industry, a subject that has shadowed the Grammy organization for years.

ABC News, which broke the story, framed the admission around the number itself: two words the president now says he wishes he had chosen differently when addressing the topic of women in music.

Why does the wording matter?

The Recording Academy president occupies one of the most scrutinized positions in the awards world. Every public statement about representation, membership, and eligibility travels quickly through the industry press and through the voting body itself.

When the leader of the organization that administers the Grammy Awards speaks about women in music, the choice of even a couple of words carries weight. A regret voiced publicly — and quantified publicly, down to the exact word count — signals that the president recognizes the statement landed badly with at least part of his audience.

The Academy has spent recent years defending itself against criticism over how its voting members recognize women across the Grammy categories. In that environment, an offhand phrase from the top of the organization becomes a data point in a larger argument about who the awards serve.

What does the regret actually change?

Nothing procedural — yet. A president regretting two words does not amend eligibility rules, alter voting mechanics, or reshape the category structure of the Grammy Awards.

What it does change is the messaging posture of the Academy's leadership. By volunteering the regret rather than letting the phrasing pass, the president has effectively conceded that the original framing was a misstep. That concession invites scrutiny of future statements on the same subject.

For an organization that presents its awards as the industry's benchmark, the episode is a reminder that leadership rhetoric is read as closely as rule changes. The two words in question now function as shorthand for a broader tension between the Academy's stated values and its record on recognizing women.

How did the news emerge?

ABC News reported the president's regret in a story headlined simply: "Recording Academy president regrets 2 words about women in music." The headline's precision — two words, not a speech, not a policy — kept the focus tightly on the phrasing rather than on any structural announcement.

The report did not indicate that the regret came bundled with new initiatives, rule revisions, or category changes. It stands, at this stage, as a personal acknowledgment from the Academy's chief about language he used.

What comes next?

Watch the Academy's next set of public statements on representation. If the president follows the regret with concrete procedural steps — voting membership changes, category adjustments, or nomination-review tweaks — the two words become the preamble to reform.

If no such steps follow, the regret reads as damage control: an acknowledgment of awkward phrasing that leaves the underlying mechanics of the Grammy race untouched.

For now, the story is exactly as narrow as the headline suggests. The president of the Recording Academy regrets two words about women in music. Whether that regret rippled into anything larger remains, on the strength of the initial report, an open question — and one the awards press will keep asking.