RademR
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
i'm in between...I agree that the Grammys mean shit, but who cares? I like seeing my band get awards.
shart1780 said:Ok people, it's time for a negative Nancy to come in the thread.
I mean Kelly Clarkson got an award for Heaven's sake. They really have no respect for the lesser known bands that are infinitely better.
If you only listen to the type of stuff that's at the Grammys I have pity on your soul.
The two best albums of the year are Andrew Bird's "The Mysterious Production of Eggs" and Sufjan Steven's "Illinoise". I say The Bomb is my favorite just because I'm a U2 obsessed fanboy, but objectively they didn't have the best album.
Again, I'm glad U2 got their recognition, but the Grammys are a shallow scam.
trevster2k said:
But they didn't just finish performing onstage, people are suggesting he was drunk, therefore he performed drunk, which I do not think was the case. I got no problem with the boys having drinks at an awards show, but to suggest that they perform under the influence is an insult to this band.
theu2fly said:I thought it was funny that the Rolling Stones, who were nominated for a Grammy, didn't get it. And they get called the 'best rock band around', after their Superbowl performance they fail in comparison to U2's performance.
I don't know how people could like the Stones, whereas U2 can actually win AWARDS for NEW MATERIAL, not just touring with old material. The Stones will fade away in time, but U2 will still be around.
Absofuckinglutely! Same here. A Bigger Bang kicks major fucking ass. It's in fact being regarded by most fans as one of their best albums. This awards shows are nice cause we get to see the band and all but they don't prove anything really.xaviMF22 said:
<------ will forever love the stones
GibsonGirl said: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 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.lazarus said: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.
catlhere said: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.
One man's shit is another man's salmon.shart1780 said:
If you were a fine chef would you want an award from the foundation of fecal matter sandwiches?
catlhere said: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 said:
One man's shit is another man's salmon.
ZeroDude said:Why do people always forget that musical taste is purely subjective?
financeguy said:
Because, frankly, it isn't.
Bach is objectively better than Kelly Clarkson, to use an admittedly extreme example.
But that's a different debate.