So September is over - Grammy deadline is up - who will rob U2

[Matthew_Page2000]

Oh my God.
I wrote "one" when I ment "won" in my last post. Kindly ignore everything I have said as I am an idiot.

MP

 

[U2Kitten]

Matthew_Page, press the center icon above your post, the one with the pencil and paper, and you can go back and edit your message! Then you can erase everything off the second one! Handy, huh?

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

Woohoo!
Thanks U2Kitten.

MP

 

[camiloj]

U2 or Paul Simon will win Album of the Year. Not because I love U2, but because of their increased ariplay & presence following the 9/11 tragedy. U2 has totally been played alot, a lot more, I have read articles about their songs, how comforting it in the wake of the tragedies (some Minneapolis journalist) and heard DJ's make comments. U2 is really really out there, the album was highly praised when released. All of this combined with how it made people feel after the tragedy will be a lasting effect.

Paul Simon is an RIAA favorite and has been playing some songs at the benefits and on SNL tonight. This too will hold a special place in the hearts of the RIAA members. You can count on it.

I have an acquaintance who is a member of the RIAA so you know who I intend to influence. In fact, I think he needs a copy of ATYCLB...

 

[u2head]

Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:
Be prepared to be disappointed friends.

And who could forget the 1992 Grammy, when AB lost out to Eric Clapton's Unplugged, or something like that.

Now, IMO, U2 were robbed that year.

Oh well, I hope U2 wins then... it'll will be a great birthday present.

[This message has been edited by u2head (edited 09-30-2001).]

 

[STING]

The reason famous Rock artist did not when in the past 60s, and 70s, was because the Grammy acadamy was smaller and the voters were older. Today things have changed and the acadamy is much larger, over 10,000 voters, and has a broad base of voters from all parts of the music industry. Strange things can still happen when so many people from different types of music are voting and the margin of victory for any winner is usually very small and a result of votes being split up on the other artist.

 

[Nick Carter's Angel]

Is Steely Dan still eligible? Because those out of touch with reality voters for the Grammys will certainly want to give it to them again. There was actually a couple of Grammys last yr won by the same people who won them the year before for the same exact thing, one was Sheryl Crow. Did anyone actually buy Steely Dan, guess that's irrelevant, or like it. The better awards show is now the American Music Awards, the Dick Clark thing, because everyone shows up for it, they have great performances, and the public can go. U2 should certainly win that because the nominations and voters are the public.

 

[hamholio]

the following Albums didn't win a single Grammy:

Sgt Peppers

whoops, Sgt. Pepper actually won Album of the year. And the Beatles picked up a number of grammies while they were together.

but, the grammies suck. it doesn't matter which way you slice it.

Dylan and Radiohead were the best two albums of the year. Tori Amos's new cd is her best since Little Earthquakes and will be ignored because it's a bunch of covers. Bjork's new album is excellent. . . i would be thrilled to pieces if any of those won. McCartney's new album isn't coming out until november, unfortunately , but it's finished and is out on mp3, and it is awesome, and if it were released in September, it'd win, hands down.

So the grammy goes to, Alicia Keyes. uhm, yay. ;-> (unless macy gray goes burning up the academy voters! i love her new song! )

-tony

 

[hamholio]

oh yeah, Paul Simon was nominated for album of the year last year, and lost. Which was a pity because it was the best of the bunch. :-> (much better than ATYCLB too. . . *hides* ;-))

 

[u2sangel]

I think u2 has a very good chance of winning record of the year.Since the events of September 11th the songs on ATYCLB have even more of an impact.

 

[sharky]

There are several factors that will allow U2 to win the Grammy this year

-BD's win brought that song more aclaim and notice which gives the album more notice. Plus, it seems like there were alot of people happy with awarding that song Grammys. No one really questioned it like they questioned Steely Dan.

-Sept. 11. That album has become not just songs on a CD but a soundtrack for what alot of us are dealing with-- at least to me-- and that's the measure of great music from average music. How it makes you feel as a listener and what it does for you.

-the academy was embarassed by the Steely Dan thing. Same with Milli Vanilli. They will want to make amends and choose something that won't cause controversy or look bad later. So no Alicia Keys- she's too new.

------------------
"Things will not be the same in this city for us." -Bono, Dublin, February 1980

 

[womanfish]

Nick Carter's Angel wrote:
The better awards show is now the American Music Awards, the Dick Clark thing, because everyone shows up for it, they have great performances, and the public can go. U2 should certainly win that because the nominations and voters are the public.

Are you on crack?!?! Actually I am hoping that you are joking and I will look silly for taking this seriously. But The American Music Awards are by far the worst awards show EVER devised by man. And if I my remind you, U2 is not American so they will not be up for any awards, let alone win any.

 

[womanfish]

Has everyone forgotten the BIGGEST SCREWING of all time at the Grammys?!?!?

U2 won album of the year for Joshua Tree, BUT... With or Without You lost to Somewhere Out There!!!!! You know that song from American Tale with Feivel the Mouse?!?!?

Please admit, there can be NO bigger screwing than that!

 

[u2utah]

Originally posted by womanfish:
Has everyone forgotten the BIGGEST SCREWING of all time at the Grammys?!?!?

U2 won album of the year for Joshua Tree, BUT... With or Without You lost to Somewhere Out There!!!!! You know that song from American Tale with Feivel the Mouse?!?!?

Please admit, there can be NO bigger screwing than that!

LOL! Oh my, I agree, that's about as big as it gets.

 

[PopFly]

Springsteen's "The Ghost of Tom Joad" actually did win a Grammy, for best folk album or something.

It's funny reading this thread, since everybody seems to be taking it so seriously. It's an AWARDS SHOW, people! The Grammys have an even worse track record than the Oscars, which are maybe 50-50 at best in terms of rewarding quality.

What people forget about the Steely Dan album last year is that it got pretty good reviews. It's only considered a bad winner because it was seen as the "safe" choice going up against Eminem. Believe me, a much bigger travesty would've occurred if that misogynist, homophobic piece of trash had won. In retrospect, I bet the Academy wishes they had given Album of the Year to Radiohead and avoided a lot of flak.

Here is what I expect the album of the year nominees to be...

U2
Paul Simon
R.E.M.
Alicia Keys
Bob Dylan

And U2 will more than likely win.

------------------
They want you to be Jesus
They'll go down on one knee
But they'll want their money back
If you're alive at thirty-three
And you're turning tricks
With your crucifix
You're a star

"I can't watch a man sing a song. He gets all emotional, he starts swaying...it's embarrassing!" -- Jerry Seinfeld

 

[Nick Carter's Angel]

The Grammy voters aren't just "industry people" go read who can join (grammy.com). Music teachers can join. Music therapists can join. Etc. They also are a lot of "industry people" that have been retired mentally, or physically, for eons. They vote for middle-of-the-road. You can also only vote outside of your "category" on the six major awards, like record of the year, hence classical music people don't like "noise" and vote for the most soothing music (or whatever). Remember Christopher Cross got like 10 grammies that year. Sailing should have been called snoozing. Even the Blockbuster awards are more meaningful.

 

[hamholio]

oops, think everyone's forgetting one nominee: NSync's Celebrity will probably be nominated, since it's the best reviewed boy group album ever. :->

and again, paul simon was nominated last year. unless he snuck another new one out under my nose, he won't be nominated.

 

[sharky]

Actually it doesn't matter if you're American-- you can still win an American Music Award. the AMAs have tended to be skewered to a younger audience than the Grammys-- that's why bands like N Sync and the New Kids have won AMAs and not Grammys-- but the AMAs are also voted on by fans not industry. So its more of a popularity contest whereas the Grammys are more industry so the people voting are more familiar with all kinds of music and would more likely base their votes on quality rather than who dresses better or is cuter.

------------------
"Things will not be the same in this city for us." -Bono, Dublin, February 1980

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

I forgot about Eric Clapton's Unplugged beating out Achtung. What an appalling moment that was. Arguably the best album of the last twenty years gets beaten out for album of the year by a mediocre live record. The remake of Layla was about as bad as it gets. A tremendous, passionate and rocking song turned into a dirge. One would have thought that Layla was the name of Clapton's cough medicine.
If they had to give Album of the Year to an Unplugged how in the hell could they have missed out on Nirvana's release just a few years later? Or Neil Youngs Weld? Surely two of the greatest live records ever released.
For that matter did any of the great albums from the nineties win major grammies?
What about Nevermind or Ten? Heck, nearly anthing released by Nirvana or Pearl Jam in the 90's was worthy. Did Nine Inch Nails ever win anything? What about Tori Amos' first two albums? (Y Can't Tori Read doesn't count smartasses.) Did The Ghost of Tom Joad win anything? Our Time in Eden? What about the Smashing Pumpkins? Did The Bends win a major award? What about Ok Computer? Did Automatic For the People even get nominated for Album of the Year? What about Sinead O'Connor? Bjork?
I'm not stupid so I'm not even going to bother asking about Fugazi, Sleater Kinney, Mudhoney, Aimee Mann or Ani Difranco. Obviously, they got screwed.
Anyone else think that the best alternative album award was created to screw over great bands like U2, the Pumkins and Radiohead?Here's your token award guys...

MP

[This message has been edited by Matthew_Page2000 (edited 10-01-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Matthew_Page2000 (edited 10-01-2001).]

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

I forgot to mention Rage Against the Machine, My Bloody Valentine, The Stone Roses, The Indigo Girls, Suede, Oasis, Lucinda Williams and about a dozen other bands.
They didn't win a damn thing did they? I guess that after you've given Sting all his yearly awards there isn't much left for everyone else but come on...

MP

p.s.- I like Sting, really I do but it's almost embarrassing how often he gets nominated and wins.

 

[Roland of Gilead]

Remember when Santana cleaned house? I have a feeling ATYCLB is going to do that this year. That Santana album had been out forever already and it was still going strong when the grammys came around. The atmosphere is identical with ATYCLB. No album in the past year has come close to matching the staying power of ATYCLB. The truth is, I'll be really shocked if U2 do not win album of the year.

------------------
"I know that this is not goodbye." -Kite

 

[u2utah]

Originally posted by MSU2mike:
Of course this is where U2 failed...release the album a month earlier and they have a #1 album and also sweep the Grammy's away. They were a shoe-in for Album of the Year had they released it in time.

But then we wouldn't have anything to be excited about this year...

Actually, it's my theory that they did this deliberately. Released BD just in time to be eligible, but not the album. It's not like they aren't aware of the deadlines. So last year they got record of the year and the corresponding publicity and sales increase. This year they have a chance at Album of the year, which would bring their record back into the spotlight.

And like I said before, I don't think it's a coincidence they are back in the USA touring right around the time the Grammy ballots are going out.

I don't think it's so much the awards they are after as the promotion of their album that comes with them.

 

[scatteroflight]

Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:


p.s.- I like Sting, really I do but it's almost embarrassing how often he gets nominated and wins.

Naaahhhh, it's not embarrassing.

But I'm biased, I always think he deserves it...There have been many occasions when he was nominated but didn't win, also. How about someone like Shania Twain who was still getting nominated and winning for songs off an album that came out, what, three years before?!

------------------
"I am so amazingly cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month. I am so hip I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis." -Zaphod Beeblebrox

 

[scatteroflight]

Originally posted by womanfish:
Has everyone forgotten the BIGGEST SCREWING of all time at the Grammys?!?!?

U2 won album of the year for Joshua Tree, BUT... With or Without You lost to Somewhere Out There!!!!! You know that song from American Tale with Feivel the Mouse?!?!?

Please admit, there can be NO bigger screwing than that!

But that was such a sweet song!!

 

[anitram]

Originally posted by hamholio:
oops, think everyone's forgetting one nominee: NSync's Celebrity will probably be nominated, since it's the best reviewed boy group album ever. :->

Even so, they have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

 

[Danospano]

It sounds like many of you are pissed off at the Grammy's for ALWAYS awarding mainstream crap? If this is true, why are you so obsessed with the idea of wanting U2 to win? If you want U2 to win, you're saying that The Grammy voters for the first time in the history of their existence are going to vote for something respectable. That's what I don't understand.

I for one believe that Grammy usually awards artists based on previous work, not the album or song that goes along with their nomination. Bob Dylan, Steely Dan, Eric Clapton, Natalie Cole, Santana, were all well-deserving during their prime, but never recieved the BIG awards until their status was assured in the mainstream. The other determining factor is the "Hip/Popular Factor". This would be your George Michael's, Alanis Morriesette's, Lauren Hill's, and Christopher Cross's. They were really cool for the moment, but later prooved to be less creative than their counterparts that were nominated in the same year. For these reasons, I think U2 stands a great chance of winning based the former factor. They won last year (3 impressive awards), and in 1987 they won the Album of the Year, which may nix my prediction. In the end, U2 has more going for it that Keyes and Dylan, who are examples of the hip and the old. U2 fits snuggly in the middle. and that terriost attack didn't hurt their chances either...

 

[Nick Carter's Angel]

Remember last year when U2 performed, and it was like they were performing in front of zombies. If you have a tape from last yr, take a good look when they show around the audience there, not exactly people who actually buy the nominated music. Even Madonna walked out early. U2 definitely could win this considering how Beautiful Day won all it's categories last year. They have so many categories now so they can touch all bases and get some great performances, and it's too bad they don't let fans have tickets then those performances could actually be appreciated in person.