Anyone heard this CONFIRMED - U2 to open Grammys?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Wow, just got on and saw this news!! :hyper::applaud:

So excited to see them perform live in just a few days!!! Hope they can learn how to play Boots by then! :reject: :lol:
 
U2, Kid Rock, Plant & Krauss and Rihanna Added as Grammy Performers : Rolling Stone : Rock and Roll Daily

U2, Kid Rock, Plant & Krauss and Rihanna Added as Grammy Performers

U2 aren’t up for any awards, but they’re U2 and have a new album coming out and Bono has some special pass that lets him play anywhere, anytime he wants, so playing the Grammys on the biggest night in music makes perfect sense
Click to expand...

thats right and don't you forget it. :lol:

Trying to do this at work and the phones keep interrupting.

With the addition of U2, this year’s telecast will feature arguably the three biggest bands on the planet right now (U2, Radiohead, Coldplay) along with the three biggest rappers (Kanye West, Jay-Z, Lil Wayne) and a Beatle (McCartney.) Well done, Grammys.
Click to expand...
 
Isn't it kind of odd that they are performing and they aren't even nominated for anything? Or are they using awards shows as a sort of promotional tour? They're playing in Germany and Britain next month, too.

And I hate to say it, but GOYB is pretty much a made-for-Grammys song. :reject:
 
Here's one person who thinks U2 should give this year's Grammys a pass:

Pop and Hiss, The L.A. Times Music Blog

Grammy Countdown: Why U2 Shouldn't Be Performing

The pre-Grammy hype is reaching, perhaps, its highest level this week. After a string of announcements, parsing out new performers every couple days to maximize media headlines (we played along with the Grammy promo machine), the Recording Academy pulled out its biggest surprises: Radiohead and U2.

One act deserves to perform. One doesn't.

Persuading Radiohead to be on the award show was a mini-coup of sorts. This isn't a band that shills itself on television with regularity, and it especially isn't one that often does commercials. With "In Rainbows," Radiohead garnered its third album of the year nomination, and released an album that paired the adventurousness of its past works with a newfound warmness.

The cycle to promote the album has more or less been completed, and Radiohead deserves this victory lap on national television. But one must take the good with the bad.

It's not that Pop & Hiss is against U2, and the cross-generational charms of its frontman Bono. Earlier, we gave a fairly positive review to the band's latest single, "Get on Your Boots."

But that doesn't mean the Irish superstars deserve to be on the Grammys, especially when the act's "No Line on the Horizon," to be released -- conveniently -- shortly after the Feb. 8 awards on March 3, is already a lock for a bounty of nominations at the 2010 awards.

So save them. Put the lads on next year. Here's why:

• The Grammys have gone to great lengths this year to prove they're recognizing music beyond simply the mainstream. Check the huge pre-show campaign that features such artists as Stevie Wonder and Radiohead's Thom Yorke discussing the music that has influenced them. But the actual show isn't showing many (any?) signs of stepping beyond its comfort zone. There's Paul McCartney again, and there's Justin Timberlake again, and there's Kid Rock again and hey -- Dave Grohl -- there he is again. With 100-plus categories, it'd be nice to see more unfamiliar faces rather than a band that's already had its share of what the Recording Academy likes to call "Grammy moments."

• The Grammy Awards shouldn't be selling themselves out like the Super Bowl, opening up their performance slots to the biggest bands of the moment solely to promote upcoming works. If the Grammys are going to strut around telling us the awards are designed to recognize the past year in music, then make sure those artists performing are actually, you know, nominated. Leave the pure promotion to the American Music Awards.

• U2's time will come -- again. Grammy loves U2. The act last won album of the year in 2006 with "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb," and "No Line," as noted above, will get its share of voter recognition. And as much as the Grammys get knocked for not honoring lesser-known artists, there's plenty of good music sprinkled throughout the full nomination list. This is an opportunity to showcase some smaller, more exciting acts that could use a Grammy stage to boost them into stardom, and perhaps stop the industry from tapping the same artists again and again for these sorts of shows. Of course, if Grammy is planning to pair U2 with the spacey dance-rock of Brooklyn's Brazilian Girls, then all is forgiven.

• Yes, ratings are important, and U2 will come in handy in getting some people to tune in. But the respectability of the awards is important as well, especially when ratings are declining and the Grammys are selling themselves as the one true legit music awards program. You don't see the Oscars showing extended clips for movies coming out in the summer on its telecast. Grammy shouldn't be selling upcoming albums, either -- not when it still needs to do a better job at honoring the ones from the year it's celebrating. And besides, U2 will be everywhere in coming weeks (the case can be made that the band already is). The Grammys shouldn't just be one piece of their promo campaign. The awards should be bigger than that.

-- Todd Martens
Click to expand...
 
What is good for the Police after being gone for 21 years is good for U2 coming off 2 albums this decade that cleaned up at the Grammys I would say!

Someone tell the LA Times music blog that!
 
I can't say I disagree with that.

Actually, I think I completely agree with that.
 
I dont disgree with that either....they should wait till next year if the album is good enough to be nominated.
 
I don't get it. It's not like they're playing on the friggin' Wiggles. I'd like to see them on any and every possible music-related program out there. Releasing a 3D movie, an autobiography, several remasters, a couple of dvds, a greatest hits album--all that in a couple of years--yeah, that's oversaturation. Playing live at any opportunity when you're building up to a major new album? That just makes sense. I still can't fathom why people aren't chomping at the bit for this. This place usually teems with posts knocking the Grammys for being a shitty program. Now people are talking about it as if it's some sacred being that has rules and must be respected.


3 words:

NEW

U2

LIVE
 
Utoo said:
This place usually teems with posts knocking the Grammys for being a shitty program. Now people are talking about it as if it's some sacred being that has rules and must be respected.
Click to expand...

:lol:

That's awesome. And completely true.
 
I dont mind them wanting to play live but as I said before I just think it will get them a lot of negative attention, however any attention is better then none at all I suppose :)

On a personal level I am looking forward to it :)
 
Bottom Line: The Grammies usually suck and U2 is coming to the rescue to save the show.


Who gives a shit if they're not nominated for anything? This is U2 we're talking about here! I mean, how long is their performance going to be anyway? 7 minutes, tops? Yeah, they're really gonna steal the spotlight from all those younger acts. NOT!!

All I can say is that everyone better strap themselves in and get ready for some U2 oversaturation in 2009! Careful what you wish for, you just may get it! :hyper:
 
Yahweh said:
I dont mind them wanting to play live but as I said before I just think it will get them a lot of negative attention

On a personal level I am looking forward to it :)
Click to expand...

agreed... personaly i'm excited to see them perform and am looking forward to it, i can just don't think the grammy's are the right place. it's supposed to be a celebration of the previous year's music... not a place to sell your new album.

:shrug: i'll watch and certainly put the performance on my iPod and listen to it over and over again and all that good shit... i would have just prefered it to have been a different outlet. that's all.

and for one i've always looked forward to the grammys and don't bash it for being a bunch of crap, even if i don't agree with the selections and performers often.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
agreed... personaly i'm excited to see them perform and am looking forward to it, i can just don't think the grammy's are the right place. it's supposed to be a celebration of the previous year's music... not a place to sell your new album.

:shrug: i'll watch and certainly put the performance on my iPod and listen to it over and over again and all that good shit... i would have just prefered it to have been a different outlet. that's all.

and for one i've always looked forward to the grammys and don't bash it for being a bunch of crap, even if i don't agree with the selections and performers often.
Click to expand...


Headache, I totally agree with you, and that's why I didn't really believe the rumors in the beginning, because I find it a bit odd that U2 would do this - that being said, I think they probably thought its an opportunity they couldn't pass up, with so many music lovers watching, to be able to perform live in the US to such a huge audience (are the Grammys shown outside the US, I'm not sure, but if they are, even more of an audience) 3 weeks before the new album comes out - they really would be fools to pass up such an opportunity. Plus, if they nail it, the buzz about the new album will be priceless in terms of promotion. Let's just hope they can learn Boots by then! :lol:

So, I'm feeling a little torn about being excited to see them live - a little bit of me wishes it was another venue, but the bigger part of me is just too damn happy to see them perform new music live!!:hyper:
 
MrPryck2U said:
Bottom Line: The Grammies usually suck and U2 is coming to the rescue to save the show.


Who gives a shit if they're not nominated for anything? This is U2 we're talking about here! I mean, how long is their performance going to be anyway? 7 minutes, tops? Yeah, they're really gonna steal the spotlight from all those younger acts. NOT!!

All I can say is that everyone better strap themselves in and get ready for some U2 oversaturation in 2009! Careful what you wish for, you just may get it! :hyper:
Click to expand...

:up:

I totally agree. I don't know why some are complaining that U2 should not perform since they are not nominated. Who cares-- I'm just happy to see some live U2. The Grammy's is a crappy show and I wasn't planning on watching the show. Now that U2 are performing, I will definitely watch :drool: It's a win/win for everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
Billie Eilish Thought U2 Was From Scranton
Replies
1
Views
727
lazarus
lazarus
MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
872
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
Scorpionac
Songs that would fit better on SOI vs. SOE?
Replies
1
Views
405
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
10 11 12
Replies
332
Views
10K
gump
gump

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom