GRAMMYS-POST ALL COMMENTS, ETC. HERE

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
YES u2!!!!!! GREAT speeches by Bono tonight!!

adam spoke!!!!!
smile.gif
 
Great now I don't have to kick anyones ass tonight!!!!!!!!

Did ya'all hear my GWENnie yelling for them "edge" "edge" while they were giving their speech

YAAAAAAAAAAAA
 
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
FINAL RESULTS

8 total nominations.

WON: 4
LOST: 4



Sorry Bubba, but I don't like how you are doing this. By your "calculations" even if U2 won in every single category, they would have 7 wins and 1 loss - which is ridiculous because they would have swept.

They were up for 7 awards. That is the most they could win - period. They won 4 of them. So they won in 4, lost in 3.

This makes ATYCLB a 7x Grammy winning album, with consecutive Record of the Year awards (arguably the most prestigious award) and still NO Album of the Year award.
frown.gif
 
No, I still think the Grammy's are full of shit. I have since the Achtung Baby debacle. I'am sorry but Zooropa was not the best alternative album at the 1994 show either, Smashing Pumpkins got screwed that year.

I agree though, I think 4 wins with different songs will bode well for the album. I think it would have seen a bigger surge with the album of the year sticker on it. They should have won 4 Grammy's tonight. I dont think they should have won record of the year but they should have won album of the year. At least we didnt have to see Alicia Keyes smug face again. I think she thought she would get record of the year for sure.

[This message has been edited by Blue Room (edited 02-27-2002).]
 
Okay. Mission completed. I?m going to bed now. Walk On won Record of the Year, same with Beautiful day. That?s important thing.

Boa noite a todos. Good night ya?ll.
 
Originally posted by doctorwho:
Nope - not me. I'm even more upset. How could one album have TWO Record of the Year awards (perhaps the most prestigious award), see EVERY single released from it win a Grammy, see a Song of the Year, Rock Album of the Year, Rock Song of the Year (twice) and Pop Song of the Year award and still NOT win Album of the Year??? This just makes me all the more upset.

At least - at least - U2 won another very prestigious award tonight. This gives me hope for a sales boost thanks to the Grammy wins. And 4 awards out of 7 categories - it may not be a sweep, but it is impressive.


I still hate the Grammy's and all award shows. Always will but I love my boys more and I want them to win and I totally agree how can an album win 7 grammy's and not will Album of the year. It is still CRAP that they did not win album.

I will not let the Grammy's off that easy.
 
I guess they'll just have to release an album late this summer before the cut-off date and win it all next year.
 
I think the prediction before hand that Dylan might draw votes away from U2 came to pass and that is why they lost album of the year. Most of the country artists probebly voted for O Brother. Still, I would imagine it was close though. It does suck very badly. It doesnt do anything to help the grammy's image. Their last 2 album of the years were complete shit IMO that most people didnt care for all that much.
 
The curse of Bono's hug- last year, he was hugging Macy Gray last year when he beat her. This year, he was hugging India and beat her too!
 
Originally posted by *Stormy*:
The curse of Bono's hug- last year, he was hugging Macy Gray last year when he beat her. This year, he was hugging India and beat her too!

What in the world were they doing back there anyway?
 
Originally posted by doctorwho:

Sorry Bubba, but I don't like how you are doing this. By your "calculations" even if U2 won in every single category, they would have 7 wins and 1 loss - which is ridiculous because they would have swept.

They were up for 7 awards. That is the most they could win - period. They won 4 of them. So they won in 4, lost in 3.

Truly, they could win no more than seven, but they were nominated eight times, and my list reflected that. I honestly don't see what you're complaining about.
 
Originally posted by ramblin rose:
What in the world were they doing back there anyway?

They knew they'd won beforehand.

It's obvious the organizers know who wins probably a week before the show...if they didn't we wouldn't see quite so many "Play a song, win an award" instances. Moreover, the movement of Album of the Year to nearly an hour before the show finished rather than the finale is a clear indication that they didn't want the second Grammy Awards in a row to end on a ridiculously sour note, so they shuffled things around.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone from the Grammy's went to U2 a few days ago (or today, whatever) and said "Listen, you guys basically got screwed in the Album of the Year voting. Everything got split up among rock and R&B, which left O Brother Where Art Thou open to win it. However, you managed to take home Record of the Year, so we're going to move that to the end so we can finish on a high note. Our deepest apologies for bending you guys over again."
 
Originally posted by Blue Room:
Their last 2 album of the years were complete shit IMO that most people didnt care for all that much.

OK, I agree with you on the Steely Dan record, but not O Brother Where Art Thou...I mean, that record introduced bluegrass to a whole new generation. It kicked off a whole bluegrass craze. I don't think that the album was better than ATYCLB (not by a long shot), but I don't think it's right for ppl to short-change the album either.
 
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Truly, they could win no more than seven, but they were nominated eight times, and my list reflected that. I honestly don't see what you're complaining about.

Not complaining - correcting. You list "4 wins and 4 losses" which indicates that 8 wins were possible. Clearly that was not the case.
 
Guys/Girls

I just wanna thank you all for keeping me updated. I have the day off and the Grammy's are not shown in Australia until Friday night. Kept hitting that refresh button for the pain and the joy that flowed thousands of miles away

I share your pain - definitely the country set voted for O Brother and the rock vote was halved - this was always a worry for ATYCLB. Record of the year is nice compensation and they deliberately held this last by the sounds of it to avoid the feckin shock of it all (imagine if Record of the year got presented before the Album of the year - the shock and horror).

So it was shared around this year....again. However compromise this year will not work and questions will be asked
 
Originally posted by kariatari:
OK, I agree with you on the Steely Dan record, but not O Brother Where Art Thou...I mean, that record introduced bluegrass to a whole new generation. It kicked off a whole bluegrass craze.

I guess I slept through that.
 
Bonochick and MSUMike, it certainly wasnt here in Michigan. I never even heard of this O Brother album until this week. I guess we are just not into the hipness of bluegrass????? Somehow I dont see any staying power in a blue grass craze??!! Other than maybe Kentucky (No offense Kentuckians
smile.gif
)

[This message has been edited by Blue Room (edited 02-27-2002).]
 
Back
Top Bottom