MERGED--> Grammys thoughts thread+One performance discussion +monkey jumped off !!! - Page 12 - 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 02-09-2006, 05:23 PM   #166
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
catlhere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 5,665
Local Time: 10:41 PM
Holy moly. Is there anything you supposed fans DON'T shit all over? Jesus get over yourselves!

"omg grammys dont meen the crapzors!" "u2 is st00pid for wanting one"

How? how is it stupid to want to be recognized for doing good work, whatever source it may come from? How is it stupid to want to win the biggest award for the biggest night in music? Can someone explain logically why U2 should just be all "omg fuck everyone, if the critics like it, it must be mainstream crap" God what's with this elitist bullshit about needing to shun recognition. So what if some albums didnt deserve the AOTY award. there have been tons of albums that HAVE deserved the award. Thriller got it, Sgt Pepper got it. I guess those must must have been casual shit records right? because the grammys awarded them. Ya thats the case.

I'm sick of people claiming their musical taste is fact "omg if you listen to this, then you're sad, you have no intelligence about music, not like me" people like what they like, and to say that you have more right to like a band/album/award more than anyone else because you think it's "actually good, not like this crap" you think too highly of yourself and you're just plain wrong. People will enjoy the type of music that speaks to them. If you want to bash a kelly clarkson or kanye because you don't like their music, thats fine, youre allowed to dislike it. But dont come all high and mighty thinking that the grammys/oscars/blah mean nothing because your too "smart" to listen to the music nominated for it.

This is a U2 forum and thusly we should be celebrating u2s achievements as a band last night, not spitting on their legacy because you think they should go back to writing "Pop" calibur songs and be experimental again. They are obviously doing something right because critics and fans love the past 2 albums, and im sorry but thats called a majority. If anyone should be called "sad" for their opinions, its you l33t whiners that bitch at blind sheep, yet blindly criticize anything u2 does/gets that doesn't meet your standards.
__________________

catlhere is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 05:23 PM   #167
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:41 AM
There are a lot of people from various countries and backgrounds on these boards. Many people love HTDAAB and believe it is indeed the best album of the year. Others do not. Either way, its absurd to make accusations about what other people, you don't know, listen to simply because they think HTDAAB is the best of the year or not. There are some people who would rate BOMB over any Radiohead album, and some who would not even make the comparison because they disklike BOMB so much.

The Grammy Awards certainly do not matter more than your own opinion of course, but beyond ones own opinion, it is an interesting process and selection, even if some of this years best new indie artist failed to get a single nomination.

Another thing to remember is that not everyone of the Acadamy members voted for U2 in the catagories they were nominated in. Its essentially a poll of 11,000 people involved in the creation of music. U2 came out on top because they got the most votes, not because 20 people in a back room decided they wanted this person and this group over here to win. Arcade Fire got enough votes to get nominated in the best "Alternative album" catagory but did not get enough to win it. The point I'm trying to make here is that the acadamy is not 11,000 zombies marching to the same song, there is definitely support among them for albums that did not get any nominations, but not in the numbers needed to secure a nomination and then win a grammy this year.
__________________

STING2 is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 05:35 PM   #168
ONE
love, blood, life
 
GibsonGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,270
Local Time: 01:41 AM
This thread is hil-arious!
GibsonGirl is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 05:36 PM   #169
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by GibsonGirl
The Grammys mean nothing. I fail to see why people think they do. I also fail to see why U2 think they do. I'd frankly be embarrassed to be nominated alongside the likes of Mariah Carey, Gwen Stefani, Weezer and Coldplay. The fact that the White Stripes won for the best alternative album is also a little absurd.

But whatever, people will continue to lap up these silly awards shows and use them to say "I told you so" to those of us who don't slobber over the ground U2 walks upon. U2's competition was, in most cases, non-existent. And the industry is known to favour them, especially in recent times. Remember, some of the greatest rock albums ever released weren't even considered for a Grammy.

I'm glad U2 had a fun last night, but I wish they wouldn't place so much importance on the event. Larry and Bono claimed that it was a "disappointment" that AB and Pop didn't fare as well. Why on EARTH do U2 need to win a Grammy and receive commercial adoration from the entire world for them to feel as though they've accomplished something? If you release a record that you feel proud of, who really gives a fuck if a bunch of record industry executives like it or not? It's disappointing to hear Larry say that it "means something."

I was going to type something but GibsonGirl says it better than I could have.
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 05:43 PM   #170
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Kearny, NJ
Posts: 91
Local Time: 05:41 AM
I am very happy right now that U2 won all these awards last night. What a fantastic album, every single song on How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb is BEAUTIFUL!!!!

Who cares about everything else, what it was up against, who played one, who sucks, what this paper said, what p-diddy said, what year you started liking U2. The bottom line is that U2 is still putting out some AMAZING music

It a SOLID album, every single one of those songs is fantastic.

I put this album back on today after not listening to it for a while....and realized how great these times are with this band around.
grant72 is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:03 PM   #171
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 38,948
Local Time: 10:41 PM
I think we're all in need of some serious perspective. Are the Grammys a barometer for all that is superior in music? No. Is it an honor to be recognized by your peers in the industry for your work? Yes. I don't understand why Larry or anyone else in the band being moved by the awards is shallow or wrongheaded. It's a nice gesture. There's no reason to spit in the face of the recording industry, however many douchebags may propagate the business. That's a move for people like the Sex Pistols, because that's ALL they have.

I'm sure U2 realizes that the award isn't always justified--they know Achtung Baby was a superior work to Eric Clapton's ACOUSTIC RERECORDING OF HIS OWN PREVIOUS MATERIAL. They know Automatic for the People and Out of Time are better than the fucking Bodyguard Soundtrack and Natalie Cole doing duets of old songs with her dead father. But that's just how it is.

Having said that, Bob Dylan won for Time Out of Mind. Some may have given it to OK Computer, but Dylan's album is a masterpiece. Lauryn Hill richly deserved her award. So did Fleetwood Mac for Rumours. OutKast's award was a welcome surprise, and the same album was voted best of the year by the largest critic's poll of the country. And U2 won for The Joshua Tree. Stevie Wonder's domination in the early 70's was understandable given his genius output. Go look at the list of winners through the years and you'll see more gems than clunkers, I assure you. To claim that the NARAS voters are a bunch of fools with terrible taste is such a foolish remark. Everyone has their own reasons for voting the way they do, and music is subjective. Sometimes they make you go "huh?" and sometimes they make what appears to be a wise decision. Just like all of us.

Once again, in 20 years The Bomb will more than live up to its title of Best Album of the Year. What it lacks in excitement and innovation it makes up for in depth and humanity, and that's something that people looking back won't have such difficulty recognizing.
lazarus is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:07 PM   #172
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
catlhere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 5,665
Local Time: 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by lazarus
Once again, in 20 years The Bomb will more than live up to its title of Best Album of the Year. What it lacks in excitement and innovation it makes up for in depth and humanity, and that's something that people looking back won't have such difficulty recognizing.
I think it will be regarded as one of their top 3 or 4 masterpieces. It's an amazing album and the only people who seem to not want to give any credit to such an incredible set of songs are the one's who think Edge has to blast into guitar solos and Bono needs to destort his voice every track for an album to be good. U2 are going down a different plane for now. Get used to it, it doesn't mean they aren't making good music just because it's not challenging music. They made the Album Of The Year, they performed in the Tour Of The Year (to me) They have the Person Of the Year. That's an amazing accomplishment for a band that's going on 30 years together. If you can't respect what they have done these first few years of the milennium, or even worse badmouth what they have done, why are you even a U2 fan at all. Just stop listening to them until they make a song you like.
catlhere is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:19 PM   #173
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by catlhere
Holy moly. Is there anything you supposed fans DON'T shit all over? Jesus get over yourselves!

"omg grammys dont meen the crapzors!" "u2 is st00pid for wanting one"

How? how is it stupid to want to be recognized for doing good work, whatever source it may come from? How is it stupid to want to win the biggest award for the biggest night in music? Can someone explain logically why U2 should just be all "omg fuck everyone, if the critics like it, it must be mainstream crap" God what's with this elitist bullshit about needing to shun recognition. So what if some albums didnt deserve the AOTY award. there have been tons of albums that HAVE deserved the award. Thriller got it, Sgt Pepper got it. I guess those must must have been casual shit records right? because the grammys awarded them. Ya thats the case.

I'm sick of people claiming their musical taste is fact "omg if you listen to this, then you're sad, you have no intelligence about music, not like me" people like what they like, and to say that you have more right to like a band/album/award more than anyone else because you think it's "actually good, not like this crap" you think too highly of yourself and you're just plain wrong. People will enjoy the type of music that speaks to them. If you want to bash a kelly clarkson or kanye because you don't like their music, thats fine, youre allowed to dislike it. But dont come all high and mighty thinking that the grammys/oscars/blah mean nothing because your too "smart" to listen to the music nominated for it.

This is a U2 forum and thusly we should be celebrating u2s achievements as a band last night, not spitting on their legacy because you think they should go back to writing "Pop" calibur songs and be experimental again. They are obviously doing something right because critics and fans love the past 2 albums, and im sorry but thats called a majority. If anyone should be called "sad" for their opinions, its you l33t whiners that bitch at blind sheep, yet blindly criticize anything u2 does/gets that doesn't meet your standards.
If you were a fine chef would you want an award from the foundation of fecal matter sandwiches?

Contrary to popular beliefe, there is such a thing as crappy music. Despite the fact that some people honestly like the music at the Grammys, it's crappy. It's lacking in talent, creativity and depth. It's obvious that the music celebrated there is required to sell a bajillion copies before it will be considered. That in itself shows the quality of this award show, and the quality of the awards this show gives away.

Sometimes good records will get album of the year (i.e. Thriller). Sometimes good music will have mainstream apeal, but only certain kinds of music. These award shows are extremely close-minded. They don't encourage avant garde music of any kind. They only apreciate extremely mainstream music that is instantly accessable and wll arn thousands of dollars.

And I'll say it again, there is such a thing as bad music. U2's album wasn't bad, but I don't see how getting an award from a bunch of people who feast on crap to be a huge compliment.
shart1780 is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:23 PM   #174
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
catlhere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 5,665
Local Time: 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780


If you were a fine chef would you want an award from the foundation of fecal matter sandwiches?
One man's shit is another man's salmon.
catlhere is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:25 PM   #175
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by catlhere
If you can't respect what they have done these first few years of the milennium, or even worse badmouth what they have done, why are you even a U2 fan at all. Just stop listening to them until they make a song you like.

Constructive criticisms of U2's output are permitted here.

If you want to set up your own fan-site where only uncritical opinions are permitted, no-one's stopping you.


Now I like HTDAAB, incidentally. I wouldn't dismiss it. I just don't think it's quite the record it could have been.
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:27 PM   #176
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ZeroDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belfast
Posts: 4,953
Local Time: 06:41 AM
Why do people always forget that musical taste is purely subjective?

Also is there anyone else here who finds it amazing that the fans of one band argue over said band’s work as much a punk fan would have argued against a progressive rocker in the seventies?

In all honesty I’m sure U2 would find that to be a great compliment.

Don't expect, suggest..
ZeroDude is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:28 PM   #177
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by catlhere

One man's shit is another man's salmon.
Do people who enjoy it as salmon have good taste? Not al things are relative.

And I'd beg to dffer about the beliefe that taste in music is subjective. There is such a thing as bad music.
shart1780 is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:29 PM   #178
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ZeroDude
Why do people always forget that musical taste is purely subjective?
Because, frankly, it isn't.

Bach is objectively better than Kelly Clarkson, to use an admittedly extreme example.

But that's a different debate.
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:31 PM   #179
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
angelordevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Inside a sound
Posts: 5,830
Local Time: 02:11 AM
If there's one thing we can agree on, it might be the fact that Edge's t-shirt collection is getting better and better...

angelordevil is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:32 PM   #180
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ZeroDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belfast
Posts: 4,953
Local Time: 06:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


Because, frankly, it isn't.

Bach is objectively better than Kelly Clarkson, to use an admittedly extreme example.

But that's a different debate.
Extreme and irrelevant I might add.

Although I agree with you to an extent but that doesn't stop someone from choosing to listen to Kelly Clarkson's music in favour of Bach’s.

Likewise I’ve a distinct distaste for Alice In Chains but that doesn’t mean they were a screaming pile of musically inept wasters?

Does it?
__________________

ZeroDude 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 12:41 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