Complete List of U2's Grammy Victories - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-10-2006, 08:46 PM   #16
War Child
 
Clawgrabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Los Angeles, California (There Is No End To Love)
Posts: 992
Local Time: 03:35 AM
pop was up for best rock album, but it lost to john fogerty (which was a terrible disappointment, in my opinion)
__________________

Clawgrabber is offline  
Old 02-10-2006, 09:21 PM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 38,779
Local Time: 01:35 AM
POP was nominated? I didn't even realize that.

One question, was there no "Rock Album" category back in '91? I'm a bit confused that Achtung & JT both won "Rock Performance by Duo or Group with Vocal" for those two albums, yet later won the same award multiple times in the future for single songs. I'd also find it hard to believe that U2 wouldn't have won the Rock Album award since AB was nominated for Album of the Year.
__________________

lazarus is offline  
Old 02-10-2006, 10:14 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in San Leandro, CA
Posts: 6,359
Local Time: 01:35 AM
I have to confess that I don't know all the categories and what comes and goes. But things are added and subtracted as needed. Essentially, JT and HTDAAB won "Best Rock Album" and "Best Album". AB won "Best Rock Album" as did ATYCLB. "Zooropa" won "Best Alternative Album". That's quite a few album awards.

Song wise, while the singles from ATYCLB and HTDAAB did very well, I'm still stunned that no song from JT or AB won any individual awards. I'm amazed that "One" didn't sweep all the categories as "Beautiful Day" did in 2001. In fact, part of me suspects that U2's recent Grammy success is based on the fact that they are continuing to produce great albums that are commercial hits (and I realize not everyone likes ATYCLB or HTDAAB, but then, I'm not a fan of JT, so it all evens out) AND because U2 didn't get enough awards in the past. I think now voters realize how great not only the current work is, but how great past work is too - so they are leaning towards U2. Add in the fact that in some years the competition was a bit light and U2 wins. That said, I'm still surprised U2 swept this year. I felt winning the Album of the Year for ATYCLB in 2002 was a sure thing and was a bit irate when it didn't happen. So winning this year is a treat.
__________________
http://u2.interference.com/attachments/forums/signaturepics/sigpic11661_2.gifI always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.
doctorwho is offline  
Old 02-10-2006, 10:51 PM   #19
War Child
 
Clawgrabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Los Angeles, California (There Is No End To Love)
Posts: 992
Local Time: 03:35 AM
another thing one must realize is the voting base has changed...

in order to vote on the grammys, you must be working in the music industry with at least 6 albums or song credits (in the case of say a producer who has produced 6 tracks for 6 artists for 6 different albums)

think about the difference in the voting base of people who had 6 albums to their credit back in 1987 as opposed to those that have the same credentials in 2006...

the fact is that the current generation of grammy voters are younger and more savvy as far as the rock music is concerned. if you look at winners from before that era, you can see that voters were far more conservative (Toto won in 1982, Christopher Cross in 1980) there are some exceptions (sgt pepper and double fantasy) but those were few and far between.

plus U2 was still a relatively young band at the time. few bands achieve that level of notoriety after only 6 years recording music. (not to mention that JT was only their 5th studio album, so they couldn't even vote for themselves yet!)
Clawgrabber is offline  
Old 02-10-2006, 11:01 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Pink Floyd's "The Wall" was nominated for album of the year, but it lost to "Christopher Cross" by Christopher Cross.
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-11-2006, 02:21 AM   #21
War Child
 
bort269's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Boston, WA, USA
Posts: 878
Local Time: 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The artist receives the Grammy for the video. If it was for the producer or director then they would be listed. Steve Lillywhite won the Grammy for best producer of the year and the award went to Steve, not U2.
that should still count as a half a Grammy, so U2 has 22.5
bort269 is offline  
Old 02-11-2006, 03:32 AM   #22
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Lila64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ♥Set List Lane♥
Posts: 52,894
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Wow - interesting list there, thanks for posting
Lila64 is offline  
Old 02-11-2006, 03:45 AM   #23
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Milano outskirts...
Posts: 266
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Shit that's incredible! U2 never won so many grammies with a single album!

Hut dab ever better than Joshua tree or AB?
tommyvill is offline  
Old 02-11-2006, 04:25 AM   #24
Acrobat
 
Arcadion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Local Time: 04:35 PM
OOTS next year.
Arcadion is offline  
Old 02-11-2006, 04:46 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in San Leandro, CA
Posts: 6,359
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by tommyvill
Shit that's incredible! U2 never won so many grammies with a single album!

Hut dab ever better than Joshua tree or AB?
Personal taste aside (for example, I do feel AB is better than HTDAAB, but I feel HTDAAB is better than JT), I will readily agree that it is very surprising that JT and especially AB didn't win more awards.

One could call '87 through '92 U2's ultimate "hey day". In those five years, they had thirteen "Hot 100" hits in the U.S. (9 of which made it into the Top 40), with five Top 10 hits (including two #1 songs). JT, R&H and AB have been RIAA certified as selling an incredible 23M copies in the U.S.! All tours supporting the albums were sold out (in the U.S. and abroad). The ZOO tour was heavily praised and U2's transition from JT to AB in such a short time was viewed as monumental and brilliant.

Yet in terms of Grammy awards, U2 picked up a scant six Grammy awards for work from this era, two of which were for videos!

Move forward to ATYCLB and HTDAAB. In an era of illegal downloading, these albums have been "monster" sellers. When the top album of the year sells 4 or 5M copies, for U2 to sell 3-4M copies is very impressive and makes them one of the top selling acts today. Still, these sales lag well behind those they achieved earlier. The two albums produced just four Hot 100 hits, two of which made it into the Top 40. The tours have been just as successful for these albums as in the past. Yet, U2 received an incredible 15 Grammy awards for these albums, including prestigious back-to-back "Record of the Year" awards and an "Album of the Year" award!

So what gives? IMO, it's clear that the voters are recognizing U2 now for both their current work as well as their past, under-recognized work. There's no way AB should have won just one scant Grammy for "Rock Album of the Year" - with no wins for any songs. U2's current work, IMO, is definitely strong enough to win awards - especially when compared to much of the competition. However, I think U2 is winning a lot more awards because not only do they keep producing brilliant work 25 years into their career, but because they are well loved and recognized, Bono is famed for his humanitarian efforts and U2 did not receive enough awards for past work. I think these "outside" factors play a role in U2's recent Grammy domination. It may not be completely fair, but then, did Mariah really deserve eight Grammy nods just for making a "comeback"? Kanye's album was solid, but it sounds a lot like his prior work - did this deserve all the praise? So I guess it all evens out in the end.
__________________
http://u2.interference.com/attachments/forums/signaturepics/sigpic11661_2.gifI always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.
doctorwho is offline  
Old 02-11-2006, 07:25 AM   #26
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Manila, Philippines
Posts: 101
Local Time: 08:35 AM
yep thats right OOTS next year which may win Best Rock Song, Best Rock Performance, SOng of the Year and Record of the year. Although I doubt they'll get nominated in all of these categoties, as far as U2 and the Grammys are concerned, anything's possible!!!
bakedpony is offline  
Old 02-11-2006, 11:04 AM   #27
Refugee
 
bcrt2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,271
Local Time: 04:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Chizip
So now the question is, did U2 win 15 grammys for their past 2 albums just based on the quality of the albums, or more because of their reputation.

i mean, are ATYCLB and HTDAAB so freaking good that they have won more than twice the number of awards than the rest of their work combined?

are ATYCLB and HTDAAB that much better than all their other records, or are they just getting recognition now because of their amazing back catalogue?
For AB, the early 90's were an absolute high point in rock history, there was so much creative and just flat out good rock albums out there. I believe AB lost album of the year to Eric Clapton's "Unplugged".

Also, Beautiful Day and Vertigo were both huge hits for the years they came out in. I'm not even sure if everyone would have "One" in their top 5 list for the year it came out in.
bcrt2000 is offline  
Old 02-11-2006, 12:21 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,174
Local Time: 08:35 PM
Thank you for posting that doctorwho!!
SunBloc is offline  
Old 02-11-2006, 05:18 PM   #29
Refugee
 
Lemonfix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Jammin' to "The 2"
Posts: 1,075
Local Time: 01:35 AM
With Grammys it pays to have two things:

Reputation/Legacy/Previous Grammy Wins...The Rolling Stones won no Grammys until 1994. Bob Dylan and Steely Dan recently won album of the Year for the first time. The year that Pop lost best rock album to John Fogerty the other nominees were The Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, and the Foo Fighters--U2 was easily the second youngest group. Once the Grammy commitee takes a liking to you you tend to be in their graces for life--see Bonnie Raitt, Sheryl Crowe, and ugh, Lenny Kravitz.

Popularity--What critics say are the best albums and what the Grammy voters decide are the best albums are generally different with a bit of overlap.

These days U2 has both of these things.
Lemonfix is offline  
Old 02-11-2006, 06:26 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
tuwie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: staring at the sun//o.c.
Posts: 4,128
Local Time: 12:35 AM
thanks for the list! =)

has U2 ever presented an award?
__________________

tuwie is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com