Bomb Wins Grammy for Album of the Year?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Dr. Lemonseed said:
well, Kanye is media darling. He deserves it. I've heard nothing but positive reviews of his album.
HOWEVER: I THINK Outkast won last for 2003..., and Ray Charles last year. Will they continue the hiphop, blues, African-American trend? I doubt it.


Ray Charles won as a sympathy vote and for no other reason. OutKast won b/c they made a brilliant concept album.
 
I have a feeling this will be Kanye's year. My guess is U2 will only win one of the "song" awards.

Rock album category is interesting: U2 vs Stones vs Coldplay. Any one could win from those IMO.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Lemonseed said:
well, Kanye is media darling. He deserves it. I've heard nothing but positive reviews of his album.
HOWEVER: I THINK Outkast won last for 2003..., and Ray Charles last year. Will they continue the hiphop, blues, African-American trend? I doubt it.


Geez, just go ahead and lump all black artists into one group, why don't you?

:rolleyes:

...I think it's either Kanye West or U2. "Late Registration" is the better album but I always pull for U2.
 
Academy doesn't see the sells or the popularity in this period.... for example mariah carey in her career have a lot of nominations (i think at least 14-15 ) also for album of the year and with albums with much more quality than Emancipation of....and didn't win except 2 grammy....the year of K.west seemed to be the last...he was the new star of the us music...but won only 3 grammy...usher with the multi platinum "confessions" had 8 nominations last year including album of the year and if academy had seen the numbers of copies or popularity usher had to win easily....so, the academy's way to vote is particular....they vote the quality of an album and they try to give the grammy to the "storic" artists when there are a lot of possible winners...the favourit used to win when there aren't other great artists in nomination...for example Santana with Supernatural won easily...there weren't others alternatives....

and for who said tht "u2 didn't sold a lot in usa....ecc." go here....
http://forum.interference.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=3261694#post3261694
 
Last edited:
oh, I'M not lumping all Black artist together at all. I'm just curious how color blind the people giving the awards are, and how political... e.g. "3 Albums of the Year in a row to African-Americans" might not fly for whatever reason. I could see that as a variable AGAINST Kanye.
 
HelloAngel said:


Ray Charles won as a sympathy vote and for no other reason. OutKast won b/c they made a brilliant concept album.

Eh, Outkast won because of a hype machine. I love the band, but that album just was really underwhelming when compared to their earlier releases.
 
Last year Ray Charles did win because of a sympathy vote (Well put HelloAngel!)

And yeah the Grammy's don't look at popularity or album sales. Sometimes though I wish it did: Like last year's Record of the Year went to the god awful Norah Jones and Ray Charles song when I believe it should have gone to anyone but them.

Another sympathy win! Hahah.
 
Zoomerang96 said:
is it possible that they all loose? cause they should.

save for the grammy committee changing their lists, the best thing they could do at this point is announce that their nominees were for the most part - absolutely clueless.

kanye is the only one who remotely deserves to be mentioned.

agreed. i'm hoping nobody wins any awards all night long - like every time a presenter opens the envelope there's a cartoon of a middle finger or a stick figure drawing with curly hair and big tits. project mayhem. that would be worth watching.
by the way, i'm sure if you google it you can find the vegas line on who's gonna win.
but who cares, really? you could have the greatest thing ever recorded, to be nominated for anything alongside mariah carey and gwen stefani would make me seriously wonder whether or not the prize was actually a piece of day old dogshit in a little box.
now that i think about it...
 
U2 deserves to win, imo, though I haven't heard Macca's album. Kanye is good, but I don't think his album is as good as U2's. But of course I'm biased. U2 is my favourite band ever and thus far I've adored every record they've come out with, so of course I think they should win all the awards. Let's hope the Grammy people think the same way :wink:

as long as Gwen Stefani or Mariah don't win... and Coldplay better not win anything in a category U2 is nominated in. I love Coldplay, but that just wouldn't be right.
 
AtomicBono said:
U2 deserves to win, imo, though I haven't heard Macca's album. Kanye is good, but I don't think his album is as good as U2's. But of course I'm biased. U2 is my favourite band ever and thus far I've adored every record they've come out with, so of course I think they should win all the awards. Let's hope the Grammy people think the same way :wink:

as long as Gwen Stefani or Mariah don't win... and Coldplay better not win anything in a category U2 is nominated in. I love Coldplay, but that just wouldn't be right.

so what you're saying is that you hope that the grammy people are biased, right?
who cares if they win. clearly the awards are completely meaningless. do i need to remind you people - MARIAH FUCKING CAREY IS NOMINATED FOR ALBUM OF THE YEAR! there can be no value in any competition where she is nominated, so it doesn't matter who 'wins'. i think it's an embarrasment that she is nominated alongside the likes of paul mccartney, kanye, and u2. i don't want to get started on gwen stefani, either. suffice to say, what i heard from that album was awful. all production, no songs, no soul. just some jerkoff in a studio with a computer, more money spent on a stylist. crap, i tell ya.
they should scrap the whole grammy strokefest as it is. instead invite some of the most vital, daring and successful artists from the year from all genres to gather and perform, taking turns over 2 hours. just some recognition for the best compositions of the year. no winners, no losers. maybe i'd even let mariah sing, gwen can dance. they'd look silly after neil young or broken social scene or u2.
but they sell an awful lot of records, so somebody is buying. that's scary.
 
Gwen's album is the biggest joke in the world! It sucks and has some of the worst songs in the world i have ever heard in my entire life!! Here is the order of albums nominated:

1. How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb
2. Chaos and Creation in the Backyard
3. The Rest SUCK!!!
 
Dr. Lemonseed said:
No artist has won Album of the Year twice. U2 may be the first. For this reason, I'm really pulling for them. If they don't get it this year, they never will. Maybe that will be an influence.

This isn't true. There may be others, but I know for sure that Stevie Wonder is a multi-album of the year winner. As a matter of fact, he won THREE TIMES IN FOUR YEARS. Innervisions (1973), Fulfillingness' First Finale (1974), and Songs in the Key of Life (1976) He didn't release anything in 1975. Can you fucking believe that? It just shows how brilliant his stuff was at the time.

Off the top of my head, Paul Simon won for Graceland and also w/ Art Garfunkel for Bridge Over Troubled Water. I would also be surprised if Frank Sinatra hasn't won more than once.

One other thing is that I don't know if this is U2's last chance. The fact that Bono has been talking about doing something other than the back to basics we've seen on the last two albums means we could have a serious masterpiece coming our way in the next couple years. As always, the competition will determine the outcome.

I'd like to see The Bomb win, because although I think Kanye's album might be the best album for THIS year, U2 put out a more classic album with better songs which will stand the test of time.
 
U2 won for The Joshua Tree almost 20 years ago...and they have been huge since then - especially now.
Vertigo is all over the place, and now he is Time Magazine's Person of the Year, perhaps they will seek to recognise the band for Bomb.

I think Kanye West is a good artist and I like both of his albums, but perhaps the Grammies want something more traditional since Kanye has swept all before him this year (without a lot of humility may I add).

As long as Mariah doesn't win it...
 
yes hope God does guide this grammy people and does give them a second of brightness to give the bomb the award....
they must, they fucking must
im so desperate to see HTDAAB win the album of the year
it deserves it, it truly does, its a great, great album
:drool:
 
I've already posted in this thread, but just have to again to re-establish my disgust at these nominees. Honestly, as much as I love U2 and love the Kanye album, none of these 5 albums are in the top 10 of the last 12 months or so.
 
you people need to read dudeman's post about these awards meaning less than shit in a toilet when the album of the year award consists of nominees including mariah carey and gwen stefani.
 
dudeman said:
clearly the awards are completely meaningless. do i need to remind you people - MARIAH FUCKING CAREY IS NOMINATED FOR ALBUM OF THE YEAR! there can be no value in any competition where she is nominated,

instead invite some of the most vital, daring and successful artists from the year from all genres to gather and perform, taking turns over 2 hours. just some recognition for the best compositions of the year. no winners, no losers. maybe i'd even let mariah sing, gwen can dance. they'd look silly after neil young or broken social scene or u2.
:heart:
 
It's true. If I were Kanye or even a member of U2, I'd kindly accept the award on stage, then trade it backstage for a bottle of champagne. Far more value.
 
Here's my 2 cents on the Grammy's....

Album of the Year nominations are based, for the most part, on commercial success of the CD or artist and/or how many top 40 hits came off the CD, therefore, Mariah and Gwen got nominated because of this. So, it does not matter that their CD's are crappy, because people bought them and their songs got played on the radio.

All awards shows are purely subjective. Who's to say what song/CD/artist is the best? I think the winners are determined based on a combination of hype, hit songs, and which artist made the most $$ for their record companies.
 
They should probably do away with "album of the year" (though they never would) since its not really possible to compare U2 to Kanye...its just TOTALLY different.
 
no kidding.

don't forget about matchbox twenty, bon 7ovi, nickelback, etc. etc.

it's an industry pat on the back, nothing else.
 
Bono's shades said:
Can someone please explain to me why we should give a :censored: who wins?

I guess it depends on the individual, but I want them to win so they are credited for the good work they have been doing. I also think that HTDAAB could use the sales boost it would provide.
 
haha

yes.

htdaab could really use a sales boost couldn't it.

never mind all the smaller, BETTER bands that slave to making genuinely true and amazing music who don't get the time of the day from the grammys?

i guess they don't matter, because all bands sort of suck compared to u2, right?
 
No, I like a wide range of music, and that has nothing to do with the fact that HTDAAB is nominated along with other music giants. Only the nominated can win, and out of the nominees I would like either Kanye or U2 to win.

Let us not forget U2 have worked to get into the position they are in. If I'm not mistaken, they weren't nominated for a grammy till the Joshua Tree, some 8 years after their first album.

"better" isn't a word that actually means anything since its so subjective. These bands may make niche music and its unlikely that the Grammys will recognise that which is a shame. It all depends on what you think the academy should be voting for.
 
shopgirl144 said:
Here's my 2 cents on the Grammy's....

Album of the Year nominations are based, for the most part, on commercial success of the CD or artist and/or how many top 40 hits came off the CD, therefore, Mariah and Gwen got nominated because of this. So, it does not matter that their CD's are crappy, because people bought them and their songs got played on the radio.

All awards shows are purely subjective. Who's to say what song/CD/artist is the best? I think the winners are determined based on a combination of hype, hit songs, and which artist made the most $$ for their record companies.

The Grammy awards have nothing to do with album sales. If that were the case, then 50 Cent and Eminem would be among the nominations.

The Grammy's nominations and wins are voted on by the 12,000 member academy. To be a member of the academy, you have to be involved with the production of music, whether your an artist, producer, engineer, session musician, song writer, etc.

U2, Brian Eno, Daniel Lanois, Bruce Springsteen, Sting, Prince, are among several other stars and non-stars involved in the production of music who are members of the acadamy.

The top 5 voted albums, songs or artist in each catagory become the Grammy nominees for the awards show. There are only 3 catagories where some adjustments are sometimes done after the voting for nominees is complete, and that is in the Album, Song, and Record of the year awards. In these catagories, a "Blue Ribbon Panel", looks at the top 20 voted titles in each of the three catagories and makes adjustments for "quality" and possibly to insure that there is some diversity among the final 5 nominees. The rest of the over 100 catagories do NOT have this done and based strictly on the votes of the 12,000 member acadamy for the nominations.

Once the nomination process is complete, the 12,000 member academy then votes on the 5 nominees in each catagory and the album, song or artist receiving the most votes from the 12,000 member academy in each catagory wins.


So, its not a few suits sitting around a table deciding who does or does not get album of the year, based on some type of profit motive. I admit, the "Blue Ribbon Committee" that sometimes makes adjustments for the final nominations for the three big catagories seems a little like that, but for the most part, you have 12,000 people involved with the production of music voting for what they think was the best in music over the past year.

I certainly do not always agree with the nominations or the winners, but there is not another awards ceremony that has a better system for picking the best in music for the year. There is never going to be an awards ceremony or year end list that everyone is going to agree with. What one thinks is the best music of the year is a matter of opinion. But I find it interesting to see what the majority or at least the plurarlity of 12,000 people involved with the production of music, think is the best of the year in music.
 
What is with all this hype about Kayne West I thought his record was crap myself. U2 gets nominated every time and they should get nominated every time but they never win the big award because it would seem like the music industry is dead if they did...which in my opinion it is, the music industry is on a resperator right now.
 
Back
Top Bottom