U2 to perform at the Grammy Awards

[Tripoli]

The more good performers/bands the Grammys get the better. Nominated or not.

C-play, Radiohead (lol) and U2 on the same stage.

whats lol about radiohead

 

[ramblin rose]

I don't know if it's already been said here, but it's not COMPULSORY to watch the Grammy Awards. Even if U2 are playing. I'd rather watch paint dry myself, but I'm like that....

What does this even mean, did anyone say it was COMPULSORY to watch the Grammy Awards, U2 or not?

 

[zuropa_fit]

Well, with this move, U2 has guaranteed themselves a Best Single Grammy next year, and if the album is half-way decent, they've just wrapped up another one for Best Album... and perhaps a few others for whatever else the nominations are for...

wtf?

 

[zuropa_fit]

What does this even mean, did anyone say it was COMPULSORY to watch the Grammy Awards, U2 or not?

I think what she was trying to say, and I could be wrong, since I'm not her, is "why complain about them or berate them for playing when nobody's asking you to watch".

 

[Abycka]

Are we talking about this years Grammy's? I thought you have to have a single before Oct 30 or something like that?

 

[LemonMelon]

Are we talking about this years Grammy's? I thought you have to have a single before Oct 30 or something like that?

They're performing at the Grammy's, but they're not receiving anything.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

I think what she was trying to say, and I could be wrong, since I'm not her, is "why complain about them or berate them for playing when nobody's asking you to watch".

Something like that

 

[last unicorn]

I haven't watched the Grammys in past years, but I will this year, because there are 1. U2 2. Coldplay 3. Radiohead. Great lineup.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

They could play the Inauguration set and then that American song with all of the other performers.

i would give strong consideration to renouncing my fanship if they were to do something that incredibly lame.

 

[Tripoli]

seriously doubt radiohead would join them for that america song. and i still would like to know whats so LOL about radiohead. if any of those artists is LOL its coldplay, and i dont know what the big anticipation is to hear them perform, chris martin cant sing and that guitarist cant play

 

[INSTCUWSUMVC]

seriously doubt radiohead would join them for that america song. and i still would like to know whats so LOL about radiohead. if any of those artists is LOL its coldplay, and i dont know what the big anticipation is to hear them perform, chris martin cant sing and that guitarist cant play

The anticipation with Coldplay is C-Mart's awesome dancing and the chance of seeing butterfly confetti.

 

[subnet]

yes don't diss radiohead

 

[Gilead12]

Butterfly confetti!!

.
.
.
.
.

 

[INSTCUWSUMVC]

U2 should use boot shaped confetti!!!!!

 

[ShipOfFools]

Whoo...I'm psyched! And a live version of GOYB, fantastic!

 

[Tripoli]

Butterfly confetti!!

.
.
.
.
.

French revolution costumes

.
.
.
.
.

 

[last unicorn]

Well, I actually LOVED the butterfly confetti at the Coldplay shows. I have a couple of them on my wall.

 

[Yahweh]

I wonder if they will have girls in sexy boots on stage and lava woohoo

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

I wonder if they will have girls in sexy boots on stage and lava woohoo

that'd be hot

 

[ultraviolet625]

I haven't watched the Grammys in past years, but I will this year, because there are 1. U2 2. Coldplay 3. Radiohead. Great lineup.

This is the same exact reason I will be watching U2 and Coldplay

 

[VintagePunk]

Grammy countdown: Why U2 shouldn't be performing | Pop & Hiss | Los Angeles Times

I just read that article, and the comments below it are overwhelmingly in U2's favour.

But guess what I found, folks!

I'm a U2 fan, but this article is absolutely right. U2 used to be too hip to hog the spotlight away from so many bands. That said, except in the "Best Alternative Album" category, the Grammys have consistently shown a preference for obvious mainstream music. U2 is no exception. Its best album was "Achtung Baby", which did not get "Album of the Year" or many Grammys, though maybe it was enough to win "Best Rock Performance by a Group" for that amazing album. There's no way in hell "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" deserved any award, much less a nomination.

The purpose of award shows is to attract the public to those things that are the best, not the most popular. The popular artists already rake in millions. When there are better artists or works of art that get little recognition, it is incumbent upon the Grammys to shine a spotlight on them. By cleaving to ratings, the Grammys show what a shame they are.

Radiohead has never wavered in its artistic integrity. U2 has for nearly a decade now. I hope it reverses course with this new album, but this kind of marketing -- which is representative of its hunger for profit and popularity beyond all reason -- is not a good sign. Stay away from the Grammys, U2. Many other artists deserve it more.

However, if it is between Foo Fighters, Timberlake or especially that white trash bastard Kid Rock, I'll take U2 any day.

Posted by: Muldfeld | January 29, 2009 at 09:55 PM

Now there's a big surprise.

 

[LemonMelon]

I just read that article, and the comments below it are overwhelmingly in U2's favour.

But guess what I found, folks!



Now there's a big surprise.

That white trash bastard Kid Rock couldn't even spell "politically insightful".

 

[powerhour24]

Whatever your opinion on the last album (production aside there are more heartfelt sentiments on that disc than most of what's out there, and that counts for a lot in my book) you can't deny they are dynamic performers that a ton of the nominees and others connected with the show nowadays look up to, so there's really no way you can say they shouldn't be there.

 

[VintagePunk]

That white trash bastard Kid Rock couldn't even spell "politically insightful".

He's probably never even seen an episode of BSG, and let me tell you, Pam Anderson is no Chris Carter, that's for sure.

 

[last unicorn]

I just read that article, and the comments below it are overwhelmingly in U2's favour.

But guess what I found, folks!



Now there's a big surprise.

Who cares what some random guy thinks? U2 would be stupid not to use that platform to promote their latest output. The Grammys are also using a band like U2 for promotion, after the quality of the show has constantly gone downhill in recent years. It goes both ways and U2 have every right to show the world they're back, just like any other artist.

 

[The Sad Punk]

Who cares what some random guy thinks?

Posted by: Muldfeld | January 29, 2009 at 09:55 PM

 

[LemonMelon]

Posted by: Muldfeld | January 29, 2009 at 09:55 PM

I'd take a random guy I've never conversed with far more seriously, to be honest.

 

[The Sad Punk]

I'd take a random guy I've never conversed with far more seriously, to be honest.

Well, you'd be mad not to.

 

[The John Tree]

U2 has waivered its artistic integrity?

Yeah fucking right.

 

[rihannsu]

U2 has waivered its artistic integrity?

Yeah fucking right.

Oh, didn't you know, refusing to be popular equals artistic integrity.

Dana