U2 nominated for 2 Grammys

[IanIinTheSky]

http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/49th_Show/list.aspx

The streak is alive.

U2 were nominated for Best Pop Collaboration With Vocals for "One" with Mary J Blige and Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal for "The Saints Are Coming" with Green Day.

I think this is something like the 6th straight year U2 has been nominated for a Grammy Award.

 

[Zoots]

I think this is something like the 6th straight year U2 has been nominated for a Grammy Award.

The biggest joke is that they've probably won more grammys in the last 6 years than during their arguably peak years 1985 - 1993

 

[LMP]

Re: Re: U2 nominated for 2 Grammys

The biggest joke is that they've probably won more grammys in the last 6 years than during their arguably peak years 1985 - 1993

But were they the biggest band in the world back then?

 

[susanp6]

It's so strange that i should want U2 to win awards so bad but i like neither of these collabarations, especially not the Mary J Blige one she murdered that song but i do know that discussion has been done to death anyway!

 

[Yahweh]

Yes they were the biggest band in the world back then as well as they are now however they were certainly not what I would consider a Grammy favourite back then even if they did win Album Of The Year once and lose it once by that point. They have distanced themselves from the pack as being the biggest these days though there isnt as many musical powerhouses still around as that is the state of the industry.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

though there isnt as many musical powerhouses still around as that is the state of the industry.

It's actually a good thing.

 

[Edgette]

 

[xaviMF22]

yay?

 

[coolian2]

The Saints Are Coming good.


Mary J One Bludge bad.

 

[Axver]

If ever we needed proof that the Grammy's should not be taken seriously, this is it. Or at least adds to the immense volume of other stuff that is already "it".

 

[gherman]

Re: Re: U2 nominated for 2 Grammys

The biggest joke is that they've probably won more grammys in the last 6 years than during their arguably peak years 1985 - 1993

I think the voters realize that they screwed up early in their career and that they deserved more awards. Now they are making up for it.

 

[DontExpect]

If ever we needed proof that the Grammy's should not be taken seriously, this is it. Or at least adds to the immense volume of other stuff that is already "it".

The following nominees confirmed that for me:

Record of the Year- You're Beautiful -James Blunt

Song of the Year- "Jesus, Take The Wheel"- Carrie Underwood

Best Male Pop Performance- "Bad Day" - Daniel Powter

what is wrong with the world?

 

[Pero]

grammy has its credibility,or at least a little bit of it.
mtv video music awards has none

 

[Earnie Shavers]

grammy has its credibility,or at least a little bit of it.
mtv video music awards has none

But the MTV awards don't really claim to have any, while the Grammys like to pose themselves as God himself reaching down to anoint the few and worthy - you know, like Gwen Stefani.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

I find it amusing that the Grammys are considered to be a large pile of stinking horse shit 99% of the time, but are actually taken seriously whenever U2 get nominated.

The only people who should take the Grammys seriously are US record company executives, not U2 fans.

 

[Jeffo17]

grammy has its credibility,or at least a little bit of it.
mtv video music awards has none

SPOT ON!

 

[Zoots]

Re: Re: Re: U2 nominated for 2 Grammys

But were they the biggest band in the world back then?

Well, they were on top of the world with The Joshua Tree. But not like recent times when they've become a legendary classic rock band.

Anyway, this is typical. Most artists get showered with grammys when they're older and making crappier music. Eric Clapton circa 1992 is enough proof.

 

[rjhbonovox]

Re: Re: U2 nominated for 2 Grammys

The biggest joke is that they've probably won more grammys in the last 6 years than during their arguably peak years 1985 - 1993

Absolutely. The grammies are pile of shite that normally honour fading artists. Look at the nominations that U2 have this time around. 2 fuc#ing awful tracks that are nominated to win awards. Next year larry farting in the bathroom will get nominated for best song!

 

[Val]

but I love when u2 give speeches at the Grammies

 

[Yahweh]

There would be those that also say that U2 of the early 90s is awful too with Achtung Baby which was nominated or Joshua Tree which was nominated. I am not one of these people but I also dont pretend that every U2 fan in the world likes these albums either because that is simply not fact at all.

U2 wont win these awards this year, if they do I would be suprised...Grammys follow a pattern of honouring certain acts for awhile then they will drop them right off the map eventually. U2s next album will have a hard time winning any Grammys no matter how good it is.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Yes, but why do you all CARE????? Who gives a shit who or what wins a Grammy?

 

[Bono's shades]

Re: Re: Re: Re: U2 nominated for 2 Grammys

Well, they were on top of the world with The Joshua Tree. But not like recent times when they've become a legendary classic rock band.

Anyway, this is typical. Most artists get showered with grammys when they're older and making crappier music. Eric Clapton circa 1992 is enough proof.

Exactly.

And strangely enough it was Eric Clapton's sleep-inducing Unplugged album that robbed the brilliant Achtung Baby for Album of the Year in '92.

 

[shart1780]

Well, at least U2 can be happy with their work now.

 

[neilm]

The following nominees confirmed that for me:

Record of the Year- You're Beautiful -James Blunt

Song of the Year- "Jesus, Take The Wheel"- Carrie Underwood

Best Male Pop Performance- "Bad Day" - Daniel Powter

what is wrong with the world?

Holy Crap. I've had sounds come out my arse that sound better than any of those.

Just on the U2 nominations, the version of One with MJB warbling all the way through it, is awful - in my opinion. Absolute massacre of a great song. It's a shame because musically it's played really well. How it got a nomination though is beyond me. There again when you look at the other artists up for nomination in other categories...

With Saints, I actually like that. It's not brilliant, but it's good. It's a good kicking rock song. Is it worthy of a Grammy? Well I wouldn't say so, but again, when you consider who else might end up walking away with one, then yes, it probably is.

 

[Axver]

Holy Crap. I've had sounds come out my arse that sound better than any of those.

 

[Alisaura]

The Saints Are Coming good.

Mary J One Bludge bad.

Hear hear.

 

[U2girl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U2 nominated for 2 Grammys

Exactly.

And strangely enough it was Eric Clapton's sleep-inducing Unplugged album that robbed the brilliant Achtung Baby for Album of the Year in '92.

I thought that was a sympathy vote for the loss of his son.

 

[Galeongirl]

Holy Crap. I've had sounds come out my arse that sound better than any of those.

Just on the U2 nominations, the version of One with MJB warbling all the way through it, is awful - in my opinion. Absolute massacre of a great song. It's a shame because musically it's played really well. How it got a nomination though is beyond me. There again when you look at the other artists up for nomination in other categories...

With Saints, I actually like that. It's not brilliant, but it's good. It's a good kicking rock song. Is it worthy of a Grammy? Well I wouldn't say so, but again, when you consider who else might end up walking away with one, then yes, it probably is.

You said exactly what I feel