Complete List of U2's Grammy Victories

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

doctorwho

Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Joined
Jul 31, 2000
Messages
6,367
Location
My TARDIS - currently located in Valparaiso, IN
U2 have actually won 22 Grammy's. Inexplicably, even the Grammy website doesn't list all of U2's awards.

Prior to the release of ATYCLB, U2 had won 7 Grammy's, including one Album of the Year. ATYCLB brought in 7 additional Grammy's over a 2 year period. That made it 14. "Vertigo" won all three awards for which it was nominated last year. That's 17. Then U2 won five awards this past week. That's 22 total. These include awards for video, but do not include awards for producer.

Here is the full list:

1. Album Of The Year 1987 - 30th Annual GRAMMY Awards - The Joshua Tree
2. Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal 1987 - 30th Annual GRAMMY Awards - The Joshua Tree
3. Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal 1988 - 31st Annual GRAMMY Awards - Desire
4. Best Performance Music Video 1988 - 31st Annual GRAMMY Awards - Where The Streets Have No Name
5. Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal 1992 - 35th Annual GRAMMY Awards - Achtung Baby
6. Best Alternative Music Album 1993 - 36th Annual GRAMMY Awards - Zooropa
7. Video, Long Form 1994 - 37th Annual GRAMMY Awards Zoo TV - Live From Sidney
8. Record Of The Year 2000 - 43rd Annual GRAMMY Awards - Beautiful Day
9. Song Of The Year 2000 - 43rd Annual GRAMMY Awards - Beautiful Day
10. Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal 2000 - 43rd Annual GRAMMY Awards - Beautiful Day
11. Record Of The Year 2001 - 44th Annual GRAMMY Awards - Walk On
12. Best Pop Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal 2001 - 44th Annual GRAMMY Awards - Stuck In A Moment You Can't Get Out Of
13. Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal 2001 - 44th Annual GRAMMY Awards - Elevation
14. Best Rock Album 2001 - 44th Annual GRAMMY Awards - All That You Can't Leave Behind
15. Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal 2004 - 47th Annual GRAMMY Awards - Vertigo
16. Best Short Form Music Video 2004 - 47th Annual GRAMMY Awards – Vertigo
17. Best Rock Song 2004 – 47th Annual GRAMMY Awards - Vertigo
18. Album Of The Year 2005 - 48th Annual GRAMMY Awards - How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb
19. Song Of The Year 2005 – 48th Annual GRAMMY Awards - Sometimes You Can’t Make It On Your Own
20. Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal 2005 – 48th Annual GRAMMY Awards - Sometimes You Can’t Make It On Your Own
21. Best Rock Song 2005 – 48th Annual GRAMMY Awards - City of Blinding Lights
22. Best Rock Album 2005 – 48th Annual GRAMMY Awards - How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb
 
My fave is them getting Best Alternative Album with Zooropa. It's shocking they didn't get more for AB, though.
 
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?
 
Ah, now I see why some articles put them at 20 and 21 awards instead of 22 - the two video awards. Does the artist actually receive a Grammy for videos, or just the producers/directors?
 
People were probably scared of AB and Pop and y'know, stuff that isn't 100% accessible to the mainstream masses. I'm not disrespecting ATYCLB or Bomb because I adore them both and think they deserve all they got, but I just have a weird suspicion that things like the Grammys seem to reward what THEY see as the music bands should be making.
 
Pop Artist said:
Ah, now I see why some articles put them at 20 and 21 awards instead of 22 - the two video awards. Does the artist actually receive a Grammy for videos, or just the producers/directors?

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 second one is supposed to read "Best Rock Performance..." - some how the "Best Rock" part got cut off (I asked a mod to correct it). Basically, it's the equivalent to "Rock Album of the Year". So just three awards for JT, one being a video. I imagine if JT was released today, it would get the amount ATYCLB and HTDAAB received.
 
chickadee said:
People were probably scared of AB and Pop and y'know, stuff that isn't 100% accessible to the mainstream masses. I'm not disrespecting ATYCLB or Bomb because I adore them both and think they deserve all they got, but I just have a weird suspicion that things like the Grammys seem to reward what THEY see as the music bands should be making.

I think the year when Pop won nothing was probably when Billy Ray Cyrus and Garth Brooks swept the board. And well deserved too!:wink:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!)
 
Pink Floyd's "The Wall" was nominated for album of the year, but it lost to "Christopher Cross" by Christopher Cross.
 
STING2 said:


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 ;)
 
tommyvill said:
Shit that's incredible! U2 never won so many grammies with a single album!
:ohmy:
Hut dab ever better than Joshua tree or AB? :eyebrow:

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.
 
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!!!
 
Chizip said:
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom