Grammy Nominations 12-02-09

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Maoilbheannacht said:
No pipe, Atomic Bomb was an amazing album, and at the time both Edge and Bono agreed it was their best work with the exception of Joshua Tree and Achtung. Bono stated this is in Rolling Stone. Atomic Bomb won album of the year from the Grammy awards and also won 7 other grammy awards. Its the one of the most awarded albums in Grammy history. Next the album was a huge seller selling over 10 million copies worldwide at time when the industry had already been in decline for several years.

Both critics, fans, and the bands peers in the music industry agreed that it was a fantastic album.

Its true, there is always someone who will say x album is not good or whatever, but its probably a better idea to ask them what their smoking since the vast majority of people don't smoke period, and we know how the vast majority of people feel about How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb.
Click to expand...

CosmoKramer said:
Any argument outside of numbers (i.e. facts) is just subjective. Maiol provided the fact that it sold 10 million copies WW (3 million in the US), and was one of the top selling albums in both 04 & 05, which clearly shows that the public liked the album. Vertigo was a radio hit and the tour that supported this album was a smash success (granted NLOTH's supporting tour is an even bigger smash but the album failed to produce a radio hit). Compare the same numbers to an album like POP and you will find that HTDAAB was much more well received by critics, fans and the public alike. Additionally, Maiol mentioned that the album won 8 Grammy awards and you dismiss it because you feel that "others" feel like you in that they think they are crap. However, the fact is that the 2,000 or so people that vote on the Grammies felt that Bomb was a great album. That would be 2,000 more than NLOTH....unless you will just dismiss their opinions in addition to Maiol's. Also, the media do not blindly give U2 great ratings on all of their albums. HTDAAB was rated as a better album than NLOTH by most critics (see metacritic.com)...again, unless you want to dismiss their opinion as well. Fact is, I hope U2 go back and make an album like HTDAAB because it was a great album (not knocking NLOTH because it is a very good album but more so I am supporting HTDAAB)
Click to expand...

I was going to ignore these posts, but there's just too much wrong with them. Just because fans, media, etc think that the album was great. Sales don't mean shit because quite frankly, ATYCLB and HTDAAB were quite safely marketed for the press and sales.

There was no real balls in the making of either album, which is why it's reasonable to say that both were bland, because quite frankly, the press, majority of fans or whatever the hell can suck my dick. Record sales don't mean a thing when it comes down to the actual music, because we not all of us perceive music the same, which is the beauty of music.

In the end, commercial sales mean absolutely nothing, because if you listen to a record and think it's shit, then it's shit, not because it has low sales... that's just hopping on the bandwagon.

Maoilbheannacht said:
Well, thats not what happened in Rattle And Hum, Zooropa and POP came out. Those albums, especially POP had it very tough in the media. Even the Unforgettable Fire only got 3 starts out of 5 from Rolling Stone Magazine in 1984. So this idea that people ALWAYS love the new U2 record is clearly false!
Click to expand...

The amount of stars an album is given is completely irrelevant... and for fucks sake, it's Rolling Stone. Why not express your own opinion with having to use the word of the press? Critics aren't the ones who judge how good the music is, that would be the listener.
 
Joe Cool said:
I was going to ignore these posts, but there's just too much wrong with them. Just because fans, media, etc think that the album was great. Sales don't mean shit because quite frankly, ATYCLB and HTDAAB were quite safely marketed for the press and sales.

There was no real balls in the making of either album, which is why it's reasonable to say that both were bland, because quite frankly, the press, majority of fans or whatever the hell can suck my dick. Record sales don't mean a thing when it comes down to the actual music, because we not all of us perceive music the same, which is the beauty of music.

In the end, commercial sales mean absolutely nothing, because if you listen to a record and think it's shit, then it's shit, not because it has low sales... that's just hopping on the bandwagon.



The amount of stars an album is given is completely irrelevant... and for fucks sake, it's Rolling Stone. Why not express your own opinion with having to use the word of the press? Critics aren't the ones who judge how good the music is, that would be the listener.
Click to expand...


Anyone can obviously give their own opinion. I was simply giving info beyond my own opinion which supports the opinion that both ATYCLB and HTDAAB are two of the best U2 albums ever made.

Sales don't mean shit because quite frankly, ATYCLB and HTDAAB were quite safely marketed for the press and sales.
Click to expand...

When it came to radio airplay, both albums actually do poorly, even compared to POP.

ATYCLB songs making the HOT 100 Airplay chart in the USA:
Beautiful Day #19
Stuck In A Moment #56

HTDAAB songs making the HOT 100 Airplay chart in the USA:
Vertigo #30

POP songs making the HOT 100 Airplay chart in the USA:
Discotheque #22
Staring At The Sun #16
Last Night On Earth #74


So as you can see, radio played more of POP than they did of either ATYCLB and HTDAAB. But look at the resulting sales in the USA:

POP: 1.5 million
ATYCLB: 4.3 million
HTDAAB: 3.2 million

Despite receiving less airplay, ATYCLB and HTDAAB sold better. It indicates that the better quality of ATYCLB and HTDAAB led to higher sales over POP, despite POP being the more radio friendly record.
 
Maoilbheannacht said:
Anyone can obviously give their own opinion. I was simply giving info beyond my own opinion which supports the opinion that both ATYCLB and HTDAAB are two of the best U2 albums ever made.
.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't really support that opinion because sales aren't indicative of quality. This is pretty basic stuff here. You're trying to say "look how many people liked the album!".

As if you don't have access to sales data for artists' albums who've outsold U2, that you'd never in a million years use as "evidence" that they were better than a U2 album. If you agree, then you also agree it's not "evidence" of anything other than commercial success.
 
GibsonExplorer said:
The best albums of this year weren't big sellers at all.
Click to expand...

Joe Cool said:
The amount of stars an album is given is completely irrelevant... and for fucks sake, it's Rolling Stone. Why not express your own opinion with having to use the word of the press? Critics aren't the ones who judge how good the music is, that would be the listener.
Click to expand...

GibsonExplorer said:
Once again with the meaningless numbers. You haven't convinced anybody that quantity equals quality, so please stop trying.
Click to expand...

Of course you can twist all the numbers and ratings and stuff into making them seem irrelevant because you don't like the album.

If it was the other way around, you'd be going on about how these numbers show the album's greatness.

Your opinion isn't worth more than anyone else's.

For times like these, the numbers and ratings for NLOTH are very good. I think we could all accept that beyond our personal taste and whether we like the album or not.

I'm very happy with how the album has been doing. I don't care to hear the songs on the radio.
 
The only thing that matters are your own tastes. If you like HTDAAB/ATYCLB over NLOTH then FOR YOU it is better. It is just about tastes.

Personally I love NLOTH but trully dislikes ATYCLB. HTAAB is better but still weak.
 
Joe Cool said:
In the end, commercial sales mean absolutely nothing, because if you listen to a record and think it's shit, then it's shit, not because it has low sales... that's just hopping on the bandwagon.



The amount of stars an album is given is completely irrelevant... and for fucks sake, it's Rolling Stone. Why not express your own opinion with having to use the word of the press? Critics aren't the ones who judge how good the music is, that would be the listener.
Click to expand...

Commercial sales mean nothing? Nearly everything in life is judged by commercial sales/success (music, movies, video games, companies). What is the most successful movie in American history? Titanic because it grossed $601 million and won a ton of Oscars but by your logic the opinions of the people voting on those awards and the opinions of the millions of people that saw the movie don’t mean "shit" and only what you think matters:hmm:. It is difficult to argue with numbers because numbers are facts (e.g. NLOTH sold 3.5 million WW) now your interpretation of those numbers is an opinion. When you are arguing facts with opinions things get interesting. Fact-BOMB is considered to be a great album among most critics because it received numerous awards and high ratings. OPINION- the critics are "shit". FACT-Bomb sold nearly 10 million albums WW and was one of the best selling albums in 2004/2005. OPINION-people have shit taste in music and don’t know whats good.
 
GibsonExplorer said:
Once again with the meaningless numbers. You haven't convinced anybody that quantity equals quality, so please stop trying.
Click to expand...

Quality=Opinion
Quantity=Fact

My opinion is that U2 are better than the Beatles but let me go outside of this forum and say that and a holy war will breakout. The fact is, the Beatles have outsold U2 in every market (not sure about Ireland) so based on the quantity of albums that they sold, I would have to agree that they must have been good. But based on what I feel (i.e. my opinion of quality) U2 is better.

Opinion-Step Brothers was the funniest movie ever
Fact- My Big Fat Greek Wedding grossed nearly 2.5x as much money (240 mill to 101 mill I think).

The interpretation of the total gross is an opinion and can be argued. I would sit down and watch Step Brothers 20x before I watched MBFGW 1x but there were more people that liked MBFGW more than Step Brothers based on those numbers (I dont agree).
 
In the US the jonas brothers or miley cyrus or such shit have sold more albums than U2. Does that mean because of the quantity they sold they are better than U2?:eyebrow:
 
Galeongirl said:
In the US the jonas brothers or miley cyrus or such shit have sold more albums than U2. Does that mean because of the quantity they sold they are better than U2?:eyebrow:
Click to expand...

Again, your opinion is that those two artists are shit. The fact is Miley has one of the most successful albums in the US in 2009. That doesn't mean her album is "better" than U2's but that her album, in the eyes of 1.5 million people, was good. I do not know what critics thought of her album, so I cannot comment on that. As for the Jonas Brothers, to my knowledge they did not outsell u2 this year. For the record, I agree that both of those artists are shit but if others like them, who am I to say that they are wrong. I would take New Years Day over Party in the USA any day.....although that song is catchy.
 
U2DMfan said:
But it doesn't really support that opinion because sales aren't indicative of quality. This is pretty basic stuff here. You're trying to say "look how many people liked the album!".

As if you don't have access to sales data for artists' albums who've outsold U2, that you'd never in a million years use as "evidence" that they were better than a U2 album. If you agree, then you also agree it's not "evidence" of anything other than commercial success.
Click to expand...


The difference is success DESPITE the lack of radio airplay! Its one thing when an artist succeeds because of heavy exposure, its another when they succeed on this level DESPITE the lack of heavy exposure, in this case being radio airplay.

Primarily this involves long time U2 fans who may not have purchased Zooropa or POP coming back to the band because of what they feel is the good quality of the albums of ATYCLB and HTDAAB.

It does not in its self prove that ATYCLB and HTDAAB are better quality albums, but strongly suggest it given the unique circumstances of low relative exposure and high sales.


In contrast, there is NOTHING beyond ones personal opinion, that supports the idea that ATYCLB and HTDAAB are not great quality albums.
 
Tyagu_Anaykus said:
They are not?!

:panic:
Click to expand...

:sad: You just killed a kitten.


And Cosmo, it's not just my opinion that they're shit. I mean, look outside of the USA for a change. There's no huge hype, there's no huge record sales. Sure, some kids like it here, but the majority doesn't give a shit.
U2 is loved all over the planet.

And I'd rather not compare honest good musicians like U2 to a slutty teenager. :huh:
 
Galeongirl said:
:sad: You just killed a kitten.


And Cosmo, it's not just my opinion that they're shit. I mean, look outside of the USA for a change. There's no huge hype, there's no huge record sales. Sure, some kids like it here, but the majority doesn't give a shit.
U2 is loved all over the planet.

And I'd rather not compare honest good musicians like U2 to a slutty teenager. :huh:
Click to expand...

I am just using the USA as an example because that was part of my original conversation when the Grammies were brought up (i.e. Grammies are only US). And don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that they are in U2's league because they are clearly not. I have much more respect for artists that write and perform their own music (with instruments not "beats").

As for the rest of the world, the funny thing is that the whole "sales" being an indicator of an album being considered good/successful (not necessarily better) backs up your point. U2 has outsold Miley WW by a solid amount...take the US out of the WW number and they blew her out of the water.

My original point was that BOMB was a good album (my opinion) and the critics/fans (others opinions) also backed my thought up. That does not mean I am a "sheep" for whatever the media tells me. That simply means that my opinion is in line with a majority of critics and music fans (many other times my opinion is not in line with them). That does NOT mean I feel that Bomb is better than NLOTH or Joshua Tree but that on its own it is a good album. This stems from a poster saying that they hope U2 does not go back and make another HTDAAB album and my feeling was that I wouldn't mind at all if they did....because it was a good album (nothing about it being better/worse than any other album).
 
I stopped caring for media reviews some time ago, not only in regards to U2. I found music reviews to be so contradictory that I simply decided to rely on myself and not follow someone else's opinions. There are critics and there are critics - you can really tell who is in fact giving a band and their music a fair chance and who is just bashing the album or concert because they don't like the band or because it's hip to not like the band. I refuse to take these latter ones seriously.
 
CosmoKramer said:
Commercial sales mean nothing? Nearly everything in life is judged by commercial sales/success (music, movies, video games, companies). What is the most successful movie in American history? Titanic because it grossed $601 million and won a ton of Oscars but by your logic the opinions of the people voting on those awards and the opinions of the millions of people that saw the movie don’t mean "shit" and only what you think matters:hmm:. It is difficult to argue with numbers because numbers are facts (e.g. NLOTH sold 3.5 million WW) now your interpretation of those numbers is an opinion. When you are arguing facts with opinions things get interesting. Fact-BOMB is considered to be a great album among most critics because it received numerous awards and high ratings. OPINION- the critics are "shit". FACT-Bomb sold nearly 10 million albums WW and was one of the best selling albums in 2004/2005. OPINION-people have shit taste in music and don’t know whats good.
Click to expand...
Yawn.

Instead of using the word of sales, etc, why not use your own judgement? What you're being is a tool, because when it comes to music, it's all a matter of personal preference, not the amount the record has sold.
 
CosmoKramer said:
I am just using the USA as an example because that was part of my original conversation when the Grammies were brought up (i.e. Grammies are only US). And don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that they are in U2's league because they are clearly not. I have much more respect for artists that write and perform their own music (with instruments not "beats").

As for the rest of the world, the funny thing is that the whole "sales" being an indicator of an album being considered good/successful (not necessarily better) backs up your point. U2 has outsold Miley WW by a solid amount...take the US out of the WW number and they blew her out of the water.

My original point was that BOMB was a good album (my opinion) and the critics/fans (others opinions) also backed my thought up. That does not mean I am a "sheep" for whatever the media tells me. That simply means that my opinion is in line with a majority of critics and music fans (many other times my opinion is not in line with them). That does NOT mean I feel that Bomb is better than NLOTH or Joshua Tree but that on its own it is a good album. This stems from a poster saying that they hope U2 does not go back and make another HTDAAB album and my feeling was that I wouldn't mind at all if they did....because it was a good album (nothing about it being better/worse than any other album).
Click to expand...

Now this post I can agree with. That your opinion strokes with the masses. That sounds a lot better than what other posters here are trying to prove, that BECAUSE the masses liked it, it must be good and I therefore must love it.
And agreed in full about having more respect for musicians that are actually musicians.
 
Joe Cool said:
Yawn.

Instead of using the word of sales, etc, why not use your own judgement? What you're being is a tool, because when it comes to music, it's all a matter of personal preference, not the amount the record has sold.
Click to expand...

Ahhh yes, when someone doesn't agree with you...insult them as if it would validate your point. The irony of your post is that you offer an opinion that I must be a "tool" because your opinion is that record sales (facts) do not matter.. :lol:

If you take the time to read through these posts, you would see that I never once said that my thoughts on U2 albums were driven by sales but rather sales dictate/indicate what OTHERS think of an album (typically). If you say October is the best U2 album and that Joshua Tree sucks, well thats your opinion. If I said Joshua Tree is a classic album and October is crap, well that is my opinion. You would attempt to back your opinion up with facts of some sort as would I. I would be remiss if I did not mention that the Joshua Tree sold 20 million albums WW and was one of the best selling albums of 1987 and one of the most critically acclaimed albums of the 80's, meaning that I am not alone in my appreciation for the Joshua Tree. This is what is known as a "debate" or "discussion" or "conversation". Notice how in my example I used facts like record sales and I avoided an opinion like "the Joshua Tree is a better album because you're a tool". When you use facts to back up an opinion, it validates your position (as long as those facts are relevant to the topic and are rational).
 
Galeongirl said:
Now this post I can agree with. That your opinion strokes with the masses. That sounds a lot better than what other posters here are trying to prove, that BECAUSE the masses liked it, it must be good and I therefore must love it.
And agreed in full about having more respect for musicians that are actually musicians.
Click to expand...

I usually go against the masses but I am not a "down with the mainstream", "the media is trying to brainwash us" kind of person. Magnificent was a radio dud, didn't get nominated for any awards and really didn't dent the sales chart (it hit # 79 on the hot 100) yet I think it is one of U2's best songs. Now people might argue that Lady Gaga's Poker Face it better but I would disagree whole heartedly but based on sales and critical acclaim...my opinion would appear to be the less popular but that doesn't change what I think.

Heck, Maoil wrote that A Man and a Woman is a classic U2 song. I think he is nuts but its all subjective (especially when no numbers are involved). He might say that I am nuts for thinking that Breathe is a classic U2 song. Who knows, maybe we are both crazy :shifty:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
71
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus
88mph
Sphere #3 - Oct 5 - Setlist Party
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
dan_smee
dan_smee
M
Ticketmaster app
Replies
3
Views
486
rosephile
R
O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
275
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
T
Hello from a U2 guitarist in Massachusetts!
Replies
2
Views
1K
bobbvis
B

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom