U2 was robbed....

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Originally posted by Bonochick:

Poor India.Arie...7 nominations, and she didn't win a thing!




I was hurt that India didn't win anything, I felt even more hurt when Bono was being sympathetic and all and she was soo graceful about it... ::sniffle:: Maybe next year for India.
frown.gif
 
Originally posted by PrincessBadgirl:

I was hurt that India didn't win anything, I felt even more hurt when Bono was being sympathetic and all and she was soo graceful about it... ::sniffle:: Maybe next year for India.
frown.gif

It really is sad. She must have been SO happy to have 7 nominations and then to go there and get none.. wow.. that just must be horrible. How on earth could it have been that flipped that the nominations would be 7 but get 0?

------------------

"You must not look down on someone just 'cos they are 14 years old. When I was that age I listened to the music of John Lennon and it changed my way of seeing things, so I'm just glad that 14 year olds are coming to see U2 rather than group X." - Bono, 1988
 
Originally posted by *Ally*:
i just don't understand how FOUR of the songs off ATYCLB won grammies, and then the album doesn't win an award. just doesn't add up to me...

but they still had a great night- yeah U2!!!
smile.gif

Of course I thought ATYCLB should have won AOTY, but it did win Best Rock Album, which it most definitely was, the Best ROCK Album.

I think I'm happier that WO won ROTY. It will give the song a new lease on life.

BTW...The Grammys still suck. When the MUSIC industry votes Milli Vanilli Best New Artist, it's hard to take them too seriously.
 
Originally posted by elevatedmole:
It really is sad. She must have been SO happy to have 7 nominations and then to go there and get none.. wow.. that just must be horrible. How on earth could it have been that flipped that the nominations would be 7 but get 0?


The conspiracies... its almost sickening, how is that even possible to be nominated seven times and not get one...not even a half of a grammy? It just felt like she wasn't going to win anything for some odd reason.
mad.gif


[This message has been edited by PrincessBadgirl (edited 02-28-2002).]
 
here's a commentary on the vote-splitting.

It's Time to Nominate a New System
The Grammy voting process may have split support for critically acclaimed albums, giving 'O Brother' the edge.

By ROBERT HILBURN, TIMES STAFF WRITER


"O Brother"? Oh my goodness.

Let's raise a toast to the "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" soundtrack for its victory in the most prestigious Grammy category, album of the year--and then start figuring out how to make the Grammy voting process more credible.

It's easy to feel good when the character and passion of American country and roots music are celebrated with five Grammys, especially when commercial country music has relegated this vintage sound to the outhouse. But "O Brother" wasn't the most distinguished album of the year. It wasn't even one of the three most compelling nominees in that category.

By most measures, Bob Dylan's "Love and Theft," U2's "All That You Can't Leave Behind" and OutKast's "Stankonia" were more substantial works.

In the Village Voice's annual poll of more than 500 U.S. pop music critics to name the best album of 2001, Dylan was the easy winner, with "O Brother" finishing No. 19. In the Voice poll for the best album of 2000, OutKast and U2 finished No. 1 and No. 7, respectively. (Albums from different years may compete in the same Grammys because the eligibility period runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30).

So how did "O Brother" beat three far more acclaimed albums?

One possibility is that the 13,000 Grammy voters, who are often far more conservative in their choices than critics, simply thought it was the strongest work.

But there is a second possibility--one that clouds the Grammy voting so consistently that the recording academy ought to consider changing its voting procedure.

Though I'd have voted for Dylan, U2 went into the competition the overwhelming favorite, thanks to the thoughtful, inspiring tone of its music, which took on added resonance and depth after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The only way the album wouldn't win, pundits said, was if Dylan drew enough votes away from U2 for a longshot--such as "O Brother"--to sneak in. And that is just what happened, one suspects.

Looking over previous Grammy contests, it's easy to see where strong albums may have drawn enough votes from each other to let a compromise choice win. In 1985, two of the great albums of the decade--Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A." and Prince's "Purple Rain"--went head to head in the best album category, allowing Lionel Richie's far less memorable "Can't Slow Down" to get more votes.

Three years later, U2's deserving "The Joshua Tree" might have benefited from a voter split between two other commercial blockbusters, Prince's "Sign 'O' the Times" and Michael Jackson's "Bad."

And didn't Celine Dion's shallow "Falling Into You" win best album in 1997 only because progressive forces Beck, the Fugees and Smashing Pumpkins canceled out one another?

It may be that all of these albums would have won under any circumstances, but the chance of the voters' will being subverted leaves too much of a doubt over the voting system for it not to be addressed.

One solution is a weighted system. Instead of just voting for one artist, voters would list preferences one to five. The recording academy brain trust was smart enough in 1995 to put the final responsibility for choosing nominees in key categories in the hands of a special committee. The quality of nominees has improved greatly since then, but the final balloting now needs to be addressed.

It was encouraging to see so many quality acts receive Grammys at Staples Center on Wednesday, including Dylan, Alicia Keys and U2, but a weighted system could do much to increase confidence in the integrity of the awards.

In addition, the academy ought to put a second item at the top of its Grammy telecast agenda.

Wednesday's show was a maddening mix of stirring performances by classy artists--from U2 and Dylan to Keys and OutKast to the "O Brother" ensemble--and tacky sidelights.

Emcee Jon Stewart's opening fell so flat--he stripped to his shorts as part of a skit involving heightened security precautions following Sept. 11--that he never recovered. After failing to regain his comedic edge, he seemed at the end to simply be going through the paces, eager for the final curtain.

Even worse was the usual award-show clutter of TV personalities and other celebrities who traded inane comments while presenting awards. This celebrity obsession is obviously designed to lure viewers, but there ought to be a way to include celebrities without insulting the intelligence of the audience.

How absurd it is to cut short speeches by the night's key winners--U2's Bono, Keys and "O Brother" producer T Bone Burnett--while they let actor Ray Romano run around Staples Center endlessly handing out door prizes to confused audience members.

Oh my goodness.
 
Agreed. U2 was robbed. BUT......only of a chunk of metal, really; because they really did/do deserve Best Album of the Year. You know it, I know it, the Audience knew it...and U2 knows that too. That's all that really matters in the long run. They walked away doing pretty good for themselves. I'm happy for them and happy they won the awards they got.
 
Originally posted by Blue Room:

Fly, I guess we will agree to disagree then. Your theories are just as subjective as mine. So neither of us really know for sure. My analogy was basically to point out that most people would, based on those kind of circumstances, want and expect to win. U2 are human beings after all, they are not robots or deitys that dont have personal bias's or hopes. My "guess" is that they were disappointed and probebly thought they were going to win album of the year. I still dont know how saying they know they should have won is saying they were pissed about the situation, that is quite a stretch if you ask me.


We can agree to disagree but let me just say that you said "robbed" and associated that word with how U2 felt. When I read someone say "robbed" in what was considered a somewhat tight race, then there is an implication of bitterness. U2 may have thought they made an album of the year but did they think they won an album of the year as voted by the grammys... I dunno. If U2 are that arrogant then I guess yeah they can think they deserved things.


I'am sure they were happy for their friend T Bone but disappointed at the same time (actually I think they may have known in advance). That doesnt translate to being bitter. As far as Edge standing and applauding. What do you think he would do. Even if he was pissed (which I dont think he was) he certainly wasnt going to sit there with his arms crossed looking pissed. So that proves nothing IMO.


Clarifying the situation: All of U2 were standing up and clapping while T-Bone came up to receive the award. The whole audience wasn't. The rest of the band sat down but Edge remained standing and clapping... you can interpret this situation as being just couteous but like I said before U2 has been the champion of the underground or under-appreciated music forms and for the Edge to be excited about the soundtrack winning more then his own album ain't unlikely. Besides U2 won a ton of Grammys.


You never really answered the question directly either. I know you think Stankonia should have won over ATYCLB (which amazes me also, but to each his own)but do you think O Brother deserved the award over ATYCLB, yes or no?

Sure. Why not? They fit what are my requirements of what is defined as best album of the year. So did ATYCLB, etc. ATYCLB is album of the year. When you narrow down several albums as diverse as the nominated in the category, you're essentially saying what is better... bluegrass vs. rock vs. hip hop vs. soul, etc. With that in mind I can't say something for sure deserves "Best of theYear," in this category b/c each album was "great." Like I said earlier... calling something Best Album of the Year is subjective.

Maybe album of the year doesnt indicate original material. But it is voted on by artists and I think most artists appreciate material that is written and performed by an artist over a compilation of covers.

Not necessarily true... i.e. Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, etc. Considered deities in the music industry... but never sang their own music and sang covers. The Fugees did covers and were just as acclaimed by artists for their covers as well as original stuff.

As I indicated before, the only reason I think O Brother won was because the rock, hip hop and R&B votes were all fragmented between artists so the country/western group all voted for one album. If there had been another country artist nominated O Brother may very well have not won album of the year.

That maybe true. But I think the fragmentation between r&b/ soul and hip-hop crowd isn't as great... Who's to say that Dylan didn't take away from O'Brother or U2 either.

If you are going to start number crunching and going by critical acclaim. ATYCLB has all the same numbers and critical acclaim as O Brother AND it has 4 different songs from the that album that won individual Grammy's. O Brother had zero individual songs that were even nominated (as far as I know). How can an album with the same sales figures, critical acclaim, written and performed by the artist, and deemed good enough by the Academy to have 4 different songs that deserved their own Grammys, not win Album of the year? It doesnt make sense on that level and I think it is because of the fragmented genre voting that is more political than what is deserving. That is what pisses me off. It also pisses me off because this is the second time they should have won album of the year and did not. Basically I said I was pissed about it, not Edge. Maybe that was the confusion on my prior posts.

[This message has been edited by Blue Room (edited 02-28-2002).]

The last argument is strong but then how many songs are there released in a year in every genre. Lots. Lot of competition. the difference in quality of some songs nominated to those not nominated might be narrow. I mean is "Elevation" a better rock song then "fill in the blank." Also, all of those U2 songs were released to radio while O' Brother was more of a total package and probably not released as singles to the public.


In the end, I just don't take the awards seriously. I watched it mostly for the performances. The awards themselves are just artificial gamesmanship. Awards shows are politics and have always been in my eyes.



------------------
~ "You can't resist her. She's in your bones. She is your marrow and your ride home. You can't avoid her. She's in the air; in between molecules of oxygen and carbon dioxide." ~ RC

[This message has been edited by Flying FuManchu (edited 02-28-2002).]
 
Also U2 was never really robbed of Album of the Year. It wasn't their award to take. It was T. Bone Burnett's.

------------------
~ "You can't resist her. She's in your bones. She is your marrow and your ride home. You can't avoid her. She's in the air; in between molecules of oxygen and carbon dioxide." ~ RC
 
Fly, you STILL did not answer the question. Sure, is not yes or no. You must have an opinion on which album is more deserving?

You really like to get into the semantics of words and draw conclusions about it. You must be a Bill Clinton fan
wink.gif
"It depends on what you think the meaning of the word is, is????"

Here is my bottom line opinion of the situation based on what I know and saw.

1. I think U2 got screwed last night with the album of the year award, you disagree but that is my opinion.

2. I think U2 was disappointed with not winning that award but were happy for their friend T Bone. However that does not translate into them thinking they didn't deserve the award themselves or that they were not disappointed as you seem to think.

3. I dont think a compilation of covers should ever win album of the year over an artist that writes and performs an entire album despite the fact that it is not a Grammy rule. IMO it shows much more talent to write and perform your own music than it does to cover someone elses songs. You mention Elvis and Frank Sinatra. Great voices but the fact that they didnt write their music is one reason I will never consider them better or more talented than someone like for example the Beatles who wrote and performed almost all of their own material. As Keith Richards once said about artists sampling songs and using them "Write the damn stuff yourself, be original, thats the real talent"

4. The fact that O Brother is a bluegrass album doesnt bother me. I have never said that I thought it was a bad album. It is the fact that it is a soundtrack, covers only and a compilation of many artists that bothers me.

5. 4 different songs from ATYCLB won their own Grammy's (you can argure whether they deserved all of them, I'am not sure they did) But if you go by what the Academy thinks then this would say that ATYCLB would most likely be the best album.

So that is it. I'am sure you will try to take one word out of this and use it to infer something that I'am not saying but that is my bottom line opinion of the situation. I think "most" people U2 fans and non U2 fans think U2 should have won over O Brother. There are already alot of articles and polls out there that confirm just that.



[This message has been edited by Blue Room (edited 02-28-2002).]
 
I agree with lemonator..they were totally jipped. I started bawling like a baby..and then after that I was totally pissed, and still am.

------------------
"Whenever you see this kind of darkness, there is an extraordinary opportunity for the light to burn brighter." -Bono

"Why doesn't anyone molest him?" -My mom, when Bono was walking through the crowd at the halftime show..

u2er@u2email.com
 
Album of the year was the one award I wanted them to win more than any other. So I was disappointed. Just like with AB at the 93 show, we lost to an album primarily made up of old standards and covers.
 
While I think ATYCLB WAS album of the year, I think it kind of evened out some. U2 also won one which I think they were fortunate to win. I was really surprised that Elevation beat out Dave Matthews.
 
I'm still in shock that

1.) they lost album of the year!

2.) they WON record of the year!

I never saw record of the year coming. I assumed Alicia had it, I almost turned off my tv! Thank god (Bono
wink.gif
) I didn't! But when you look at it from a non-fan point of view, it makes sense the lost album....

Academy voters who like veterans would have split their vote between Dylan and U2.

The (and I hate this term!) black vote would have split between Outkast and India.

The folk vote would have split three ways between India, Dylan, and U2. (ATYCLB does have a folk sound. It also has a soul sound. It's ecclectaic. <---and that's not spelled right, sound it out!)

What does that leave? The country vote. There is only one country album, all country fans vote for O Brother. It's the only genre without a split vote.


So it makes sense. But it just sucks. ATYCLB is my album of the year.

------------------
Celebrate the Grammys!

Love,
Emily


Walk On. Stay safe tonight.

Visit my webpage for U2 wallpapers:
www.geocities.com/springtime5348/index.html
 
NO EXCUSE. ATYCLB should have won that award. never mind the other songs and category's. that album, from beginning to end is a beautiful piece of work by U2. I for one am pissed off. I would have rather seen them lose the rest and just get album of the year (and rock album). That's what makes U2 U2, you can even get rid of all the singles and have a killer album left.
 
Originally posted by Blue Room:

Flying, I never said he was bitter about it. Re read my post. I said that there is no way they really thought it deserved to win over ATYCLB but he would never say that. I do agree that he was probebly happy for his friend T Bone Burnett as well. But you know they wanted to win it and thought they should.

Well, sorry if I seemingly misinterpreted what you said in the following...

"There is little doubdt that U2 got robbed. U2 knows it as well. But they are going to be gracious about it."

"That doesnt mean they think it deserved album of the year."

I give you that the Edge may believe his own album is the shiznit. But with that said, I don't think that he is that competitive/ arrogant in his mind that he'd think that all the albums nominated shouldn't have been album of the year or that ATYCLB defintely deserved it above them especially for the critically acclaimed O'Brother. I mean I seriously doubt that the Edge thought they were "robbed" or "O'Brother..." didn't deserve the award. But saying the above implied that the Edge was bitter.

You never answered my question either. Do you really think O'Brother deserved to win over ATYCLB? I would like to hear your reasoning if you think it did.


I thought ATYCLB would win but didn't mind that O'Brother Where Art Thou won.
Did it deserve to win? Uh this is the Grammys... an awards show, they usually get it wrong. I think an album like Stankonia should have maybe won. Since this is mainly an American awards show I could see why O'Brother Where art Thou won though.

(1) It sold well in the US. 3-4 million copies meaning it had mainstream success.

(2) It was critically acclaimed. I have never really seen any negative reviews of this soundtrack album. Only positive. Considered the best soundtrack album of the year as well as an album that carried the film. I 've reead several reviewers who were handicapping saying that it or Stankonia deserved the award.

(3) You mention the fact that a lot of the songs are actually covers and and old traditional standards. Well that is true but we all know that a great song can be made greater by interpretation of the vocals for instance or arrangements. Many of the traditonal songs were "reinterpreted" (alah Harris, Welch, and Krauss).

(4) Well you'll counter that ATYCLB is original music created by the artists. Well I would just counter that album of the year in the Grammys does not mean "best album of original work" or "best album of non-covers." It is just best album of the year. Best for the year is highly subjective as we all know considering how fractured music is, so I'm not pissed that they lost. There has been precedence of a similar occurence happening and that is why I think O'Brother could have won. Also when I say that Stankonia should have won, I was just hoping to see something more groundbreaking yet not as mainstream winning the award. I know Outkast is fairly mainstream now, but not as much as U2.


See if this analogy works to prove my point. Say you are in college and you are a very good student and well liked by the Staff and other students. You write a research paper and spend alot of time and effort to write something original and new. The paper is so good you are put up for an award with the school for best paper.

Another paper is also up for the award by a student who you are friends with but isnt all that well known with the other students or the staff but gets good grades. This students paper is a collection of prior research papers combined and given a few twists to the original papers. This paper wins over yours.

If you were the first student would you really think the 2nd students paper deserved to win over yours? Sure, if you were the first student you would be happy for your friend and you would be supportive but that doesnt mean you thought they should have won over your paper.


[This message has been edited by Blue Room (edited 02-28-2002).]

This is an interesting anology but the problem is you're assuming that Edge is thinking the worst of the situation when we don't really know. I don't know if he thought ATYCLB was more deserving just as you can't really. I just guessed that he wasn't pissed, just as you guessed he might be. The Edge might have hoped to win and that it was a candidate, but to say it is the best... is arrogant... oh wait, this is U2 we're talking about.

Also I noticed when T-Bone received album of the year award, Edge was still standing and applauding while other members of the band decided to sit.




------------------
~ "You can't resist her. She's in your bones. She is your marrow and your ride home. You can't avoid her. She's in the air; in between molecules of oxygen and carbon dioxide." ~ RC



[This message has been edited by Flying FuManchu (edited 02-28-2002).]
 
It's quite self-contradictory in a sense.

Let's see, the FIRST FOUR SONGS on the album each won at least one Grammy, for a total of 6 GRAMMIES between them . . . but the album itself didn't get Album of the Year. Strange.
 
Fly, I guess we will agree to disagree then. Your theories are just as subjective as mine. So neither of us really know for sure. My analogy was basically to point out that most people would, based on those kind of circumstances, want and expect to win. U2 are human beings after all, they are not robots or deitys that dont have personal bias's or hopes. My "guess" is that they were disappointed and probebly thought they were going to win album of the year. I still dont know how saying they know they should have won is saying they were pissed about the situation, that is quite a stretch if you ask me.

I'am sure they were happy for their friend T Bone but disappointed at the same time (actually I think they may have known in advance). That doesnt translate to being bitter. As far as Edge standing and applauding. What do you think he would do. Even if he was pissed (which I dont think he was) he certainly wasnt going to sit there with his arms crossed looking pissed. So that proves nothing IMO.

You never really answered the question directly either. I know you think Stankonia should have won over ATYCLB (which amazes me also, but to each his own)but do you think O Brother deserved the award over ATYCLB, yes or no?

Maybe album of the year doesnt indicate original material. But it is voted on by artists and I think most artists appreciate material that is written and performed by an artist over a compilation of covers. As I indicated before, the only reason I think O Brother won was because the rock, hip hop and R&B votes were all fragmented between artists so the country/western group all voted for one album. If there had been another country artist nominated O Brother may very well have not won album of the year.

If you are going to start number crunching and going by critical acclaim. ATYCLB has all the same numbers and critical acclaim as O Brother AND it has 4 different songs from the that album that won individual Grammy's. O Brother had zero individual songs that were even nominated (as far as I know). How can an album with the same sales figures, critical acclaim, written and performed by the artist, and deemed good enough by the Academy to have 4 different songs that deserved their own Grammys, not win Album of the year? It doesnt make sense on that level and I think it is because of the fragmented genre voting that is more political than what is deserving. That is what pisses me off. It also pisses me off because this is the second time they should have won album of the year and did not.

Basically I said I was pissed about it, not Edge. Maybe that was the confusion on my prior posts.



[This message has been edited by Blue Room (edited 02-28-2002).]
 
How can the best band in the world, with the best tour this year, lose to some soundtrack of an unpopular movie? Doesn't make sense. Maybe in a week they'll give them the grammy for it, just like the Canadian's got gold in figure skating.

------------------
"Yep...Silver and Gold!!!" - Bono

We'll Shine Like Stars In The Summer Nights...

[This message has been edited by Lemonator (edited 03-01-2002).]
 
How can you say which album was better? Have you heard the soundtrack in full?

Sure, i'm biased because i'm a U2 fan - and i hoped they will win. But what are you gonna do - i take 7 Grammys over 2 year period over 1 Grammy anytime.

Also, why should U2 or U2 fans be bitter or anything? I mean, what difference does 1 Grammy mean when you already won 7 Grammys?

There will be other opportunities - besides, the only person who got robbed was India Arie - 7 chances yet she got nothing at all.

[This message has been edited by U2girl (edited 03-01-2002).]
 
Jumping into the fray...

First, to those of you saying that the O Brother soundtrack didn't deserve to win because it was a bunch of covers...you clearly aren't familiar with this genre of traditional music. Quite a few of the tracks on that album are reinterpretations of old standards. There's something to be said for a song that stands the test of time. Would you knock a jazz recording because it "covered" a Miles Davis tune? Or a Gershwin song? Would it therefore not be a real album, or an artistic album, because it didn't have original music? You've set down a pretty narrow definition of what qualifies as artistry.

Second, a number of songs off the O Brother soundtrack were indeed nominated for--and won--individual awards: male country vocal performance (win); and country collaboration with vocals (2 songs nominated, 1 win). It also won the award for best compilation soundtrack. Many of the artists featured on this album also went on to win awards for their other work (such as Alison Krauss and Union Station, who won in other categories). I think that speaks to the quality of the music on this album.

Third, the impact of this album (and the movie) was big--it did a lot to bring traditional music back into the public eye. I think the fact that it was even nominated in this category speaks to that.

Sure, it's not U2. Was it disappointing that ATYCLB didn't win? Sure. Were they robbed? I personally don't think so. And I'm as big a U2 fan as any.

Did U2 feel they were robbed? That's a tough question, and unless any of us are them or have it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak, I don't think we can answer that question.

(Fu, you live across town from me!)
 
Back
Top Bottom