MERGED--> Grammys thoughts thread+One performance discussion +monkey jumped off !!!

[shart1780]

No one can stop anyone from listening to bad music... I never disagreed there. If people wanna listen to crap it's fine by me, but I'll beleve they have bad taste and won't respect their advice on music.

There's alot of music that I know is good and I respect that isn't my cup of tea, and I don't disrespect the taste of those who like it.

 

[catlhere]

Music is subjective, why? Becuase if music were truly all based on who's good, and who's not. We wouldn't be listening to U2, we would all be jamming to Beethoven etc. You can't say that because someone likes a performer you find subpar compared to another, that they have less of a right to enjoy them, than you do your's

That's not fair, nor is it right. Music is not a math problem. It's what you have in your soul, and heart, and what you wanna hear from whoever you may be listening to. To say that one>other turns music into a fact-based argument, which is not the case.

Someone who says that Kelly has a worse voice than Joe Shmoe is basing it off what THEY themselves believe about music, not what is universally known. The only universal fact about music that I can think of is that it speaks to our deep insides on levels that nothing else can. Opinion=fine. Fact=rude

It makes people feel inferior, which is not what Bono would want. It makes people feel that if they don't concur with someones assesment that Bach>Bono, they are somehow of a lesser right to voice their opinion, and that shouldn't be the case.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Okay, now all I can think about is Beethoven in the music store on Bill & Teds.

 

[shart1780]

Music is subjective, why? Becuase if music were truly all based on who's good, and who's not. We wouldn't be listening to U2, we would all be jamming to Beethoven etc. You can't say that because someone likes a performer you find subpar compared to another, that they have less of a right to enjoy them, than you do your's

That's not fair, nor is it right. Music is not a math problem. It's what you have in your soul, and heart, and what you wanna hear from whoever you may be listening to. To say that one>other turns music into a fact-based argument, which is not the case.

Someone who says that Kelly has a worse voice than Joe Shmoe is basing it off what THEY themselves believe about music, not what is universally known. The only universal fact about music that I can think of is that it speaks to our deep insides on levels that nothing else can. Opinion=fine. Fact=rude

It makes people feel inferior, which is not what Bono would want. It makes people feel that if they don't concur with someones assesment that Bach>Bono, they are somehow of a lesser right to voice their opinion, and that shouldn't be the case.

Bono said he thinks Nickleback is bad.

The fact is that Kelly Clarkson writes music that is both instrumentally and emotionally shallow. She can't even express herself through her music because she can't write it! You could argue the reason she became a singer was to become a superstar.

Bono is a good songwriter because he can write music that is honest, poetic and emotionally complex. Kelly Clarkson cannot do this, and I'd go as far as to say that people who think her music is good have an undeveloped taste in music. If you find the meaning in life from Hop on Pop by Dr. Seus I'm not gonna stop you, but I will question your emotional maturity.

 

[ZeroDude]

Bono said he thinks Nickleback is bad.

The fact is that Kelly Clarkson writes music that is both instrumentally and emotionally shallow. She can't even express herself through her music because she can't write it! You could argue the reason she became a singer was to become a superstar.

You do realise that I could say that Thom Yorke is lyrically limited and that he doesn't really have a technical grasp of more complicated literary devices?

Ergo he’s crap.

It's a vicious circle.

Although you have to note that Clarkson is just a girl with a decent voice in my opinion that is.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Bono said he thinks Nickleback is bad.

and music of the Limp Bizkit variety (something along the lines of "rather take suicide pills").

 

[lazarus]

I know this is a bit off topic, and probably something that gets requested often, but does anyone have the clip of Bono giving Sinatra the Grammy for Lifetime Achievement? Or know a better thread to look for it?

I have the text of the speech, but I'd just like to see the video and Frank's tearful acceptance again.

 

[Axver]

and music of the Limp Bizkit variety (something along the lines of "rather take suicide pills").

I believe he said the people who make rap-metal should go away and take suicide pills.

 

[RademR]

i remember Fred Durst saying u2 were the greatest rock band ever

 

[trevster2k]

Because, frankly, it isn't.

Bach is objectively better than Kelly Clarkson, to use an admittedly extreme example.

But that's a different debate.

It is still subjective cause you say Bach is better than Kelly Clarkson, I think Bach is better than Kelly Clarkson, but a 13 yr old girl may think Kelly Clarkson is better than Bach, therefore it is still subjective. We can't measure what or why people like what they like. There are many factors involved like appearance of the performer, the importance of songwriting by the performer to the listener, the complexity of the music or are they looking for a good hook, how many awards they or how many times they have been arrested, some people like music of certain artists because they project a certain image about the listener and so on.

I don't like country music but millions do, am I wrong or are they wrong, neither. People's individual tastes are just that, and as long as it makes people happy, that's all that matters.


ETA I think Nickleback is bad too.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I believe he said the people who make rap-metal should go away and take suicide pills.

I had to go to a Limp Bizkit concert once. I'm with Bono on this one.

 

[ZeroDude]

It is still subjective cause you say Bach is better than Kelly Clarkson, I think Bach is better than Kelly Clarkson, but a 13 yr old girl may think Kelly Clarkson is better than Bach, therefore it is still subjective. We can't measure what or why people like what they like. There are many factors involved like appearance of the performer, the importance of songwriting by the performer to the listener, the complexity of the music or are they looking for a good hook, how many awards they or how many times they have been arrested, some people like music of certain artists because they project a certain image about the listener and so on.

I don't like country music but millions do, am I wrong or are they wrong, neither. People's individual tastes are just that, and as long as it makes people happy, that's all that matters.


ETA I think Nickleback is bad too.

You win the thread.

I'd give you a Grammy if I had a spare one on me.

 

[STING2]

If you were a fine chef would you want an award from the foundation of fecal matter sandwiches?

Contrary to popular beliefe, there is such a thing as crappy music. Despite the fact that some people honestly like the music at the Grammys, it's crappy. It's lacking in talent, creativity and depth. It's obvious that the music celebrated there is required to sell a bajillion copies before it will be considered. That in itself shows the quality of this award show, and the quality of the awards this show gives away.

Sometimes good records will get album of the year (i.e. Thriller). Sometimes good music will have mainstream apeal, but only certain kinds of music. These award shows are extremely close-minded. They don't encourage avant garde music of any kind. They only apreciate extremely mainstream music that is instantly accessable and wll arn thousands of dollars.

And I'll say it again, there is such a thing as bad music. U2's album wasn't bad, but I don't see how getting an award from a bunch of people who feast on crap to be a huge compliment.

The recording academy is made up of 12,000 members who vote every year for the nominations and then vote on the winners out this who get nominated. Each member of the academy is involved with the creation of music, either as a songwriter, engineer, producer etc. Over 110 music catagories are considered, most of it NOT being popular music. Only 12 catagories are shown during the actual televised event, the rest of the awards are passed out earlier in the day.

Music that gets the majority of the votes from the 12,000 members gets nominated during the first round of voting. The 12,000 members then vote on the top 5 nominees in the catagories. Arcade Fire was nominated in the Best Alternative Album field, but it did not receive enough votes to win. So, there are definitely academy members who vote for what many consider to be the more "alternative" or "indie" music artist, but often not in numbers that would get them a nomination or a Grammy win.

Notice that for Album Of The Year, Paul McCartney's album was nominated despite sales of only 400,000 in the USA and less than 1 million worldwide. Although sometimes the big sellers make it into this catagory it is not always the case, and there are often albums nominated that have poor sales compared to many other artist.

HTDAAB won because it first received enough votes to be one of the top 5 nominees in the first round of voting, and then for the winning round received more votes than any of the 4 competing albums. Its the plurality or the majority opinion of the Grammy academy. Its an opinion, no different from other awards from magazines or polls conducted elsewhere, my own opinion or your opinion.

 

[shopgirl144]

First of all, congratulations to U2 on winning five grammies! They made an outstanding album. They deserve each and every grammy!

But, winning a Grammy is not the "end all, is all". It really is just an accolade and recognition for superior work. Plain and simple!

 

[ZooMacPhisto800]

Eminem doesn't give a damn about a Grammy. Half of the critics can't stomach him, let alone stand him... but wouldn't it be weird if he won so they could sit him there next to Britney Spears but he'd probably want to switch chairs with Christina Aguilera so he can sit next to Carson Daly and Fred Durst.

 

[Utoo]

Wow---as if this thread hadn't gotten stupid to start with....in the last few pages, it reall has. oh well.

 

[Lila64]

Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020802027.html

U2 Plus Five Is No. 1

 

[Utoo]

Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020802027.html

U2 Plus Five Is No. 1

Funniest part about that article is the caption underneath the picture------they mistake Adam for Larry!

 

[Yahweh]

U2 have lost enough Grammys good to see the Grammy comittee making up for it on the last 2 albums, the reality is U2 is judged on a different level then the rest of the competition, and as long as they keep making albums that are great they can and will continue knocking at Grammy's door and winning some and losing some...just give yourself enough chances to win and you will win.

 

[AtomicBono]

I think we're all in need of some serious perspective. Are the Grammys a barometer for all that is superior in music? No. Is it an honor to be recognized by your peers in the industry for your work? Yes. I don't understand why Larry or anyone else in the band being moved by the awards is shallow or wrongheaded. It's a nice gesture. There's no reason to spit in the face of the recording industry, however many douchebags may propagate the business. That's a move for people like the Sex Pistols, because that's ALL they have.

I'm sure U2 realizes that the award isn't always justified--they know Achtung Baby was a superior work to Eric Clapton's ACOUSTIC RERECORDING OF HIS OWN PREVIOUS MATERIAL. They know Automatic for the People and Out of Time are better than the fucking Bodyguard Soundtrack and Natalie Cole doing duets of old songs with her dead father. But that's just how it is.

Having said that, Bob Dylan won for Time Out of Mind. Some may have given it to OK Computer, but Dylan's album is a masterpiece. Lauryn Hill richly deserved her award. So did Fleetwood Mac for Rumours. OutKast's award was a welcome surprise, and the same album was voted best of the year by the largest critic's poll of the country. And U2 won for The Joshua Tree. Stevie Wonder's domination in the early 70's was understandable given his genius output. Go look at the list of winners through the years and you'll see more gems than clunkers, I assure you. To claim that the NARAS voters are a bunch of fools with terrible taste is such a foolish remark. Everyone has their own reasons for voting the way they do, and music is subjective. Sometimes they make you go "huh?" and sometimes they make what appears to be a wise decision. Just like all of us.

Once again, in 20 years The Bomb will more than live up to its title of Best Album of the Year. What it lacks in excitement and innovation it makes up for in depth and humanity, and that's something that people looking back won't have such difficulty recognizing.

best post in this thread!

I'm surprised at how negative everyone is. The number of people attacking the "blind followers" seem to greatly outnumber any real "blind followers." Look, just because someone actually liked U2's performance (I found it to be mediocre by U2 standards, but not terrible) or felt they deserved every award they got does not make them a "blind follower." Some people here just happen to, y'know, actually like U2. I'm all for criticism and different opinions, but some people here are nothing but negative about U2, which is just as bad if not worse than someone who just worships the band. The fact that people are getting upset with people that are happy that U2 won is absurd. This is a U2 fansite, of course people are gonna be happy U2 won, and as far as I'm concerned, they deserved it. Are the Grammy's a huge deal? No, and they don't always pick the right people, but I'm happy U2 won anyway, it is an honor.

Italics, people. Italics.

 

[angelordevil]

It is still subjective cause you say Bach is better than Kelly Clarkson, I think Bach is better than Kelly Clarkson, but a 13 yr old girl may think Kelly Clarkson is better than Bach, therefore it is still subjective. We can't measure what or why people like what they like. There are many factors involved like appearance of the performer, the importance of songwriting by the performer to the listener, the complexity of the music or are they looking for a good hook, how many awards they or how many times they have been arrested, some people like music of certain artists because they project a certain image about the listener and so on.

I don't like country music but millions do, am I wrong or are they wrong, neither. People's individual tastes are just that, and as long as it makes people happy, that's all that matters.


ETA I think Nickleback is bad too.

The hole in your argument is this: Kelly Clarkson, and her kind, are not musical tastes that just arrive in the wind organically; they’re force-fed into the minds of 13-year-olds by hulking corporations. It’s not subjective, it’s targeted bombardment of brain cells for pure profit.

Let’s travel back in time for a second for purposes of clarity. When U2 speak of their failings with POP, it is about record sales, yes, but it’s also about not doing battle with the disposable crap like they thought they could. They wanted to take on the commercial monster and beat it at their own game. Why? I think it was to get big ideas across to as many people as possible through the portal we call popular culture. At heart, they wanted to transcend the boundaries and limits of crass consumerism.

With the five Grammy awards last night, they’ve accomplished their mission. They’re everywhere. Bono is on the cover of Time. The ideas are getting across, and U2 is competing—and even bettering—the likes of Mariah Carrey, Clarkson, and other corporate drivel.

But what about the music? Yes, the originality has suffered, there’s no doubt. Bomb is good, but not great. They’ve made their way to the award shows by design, and through a quest to mean something in a fickle world. U2 are a sociologist’s dream.

Musically, they’ve now got the power to "dream it up all over again", and take millions of new listeners with them—if they dare to.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Because, frankly, it isn't.

Bach is objectively better than Kelly Clarkson, to use an admittedly extreme example.

But that's a different debate.

LOL, on this forum and probably from the mouths of many Interferencers, Bach would be too musically complex and lack soul b/c of his musical complexity. He wouldn't be too minimal enough therefore he will be labeled the suck. Bad example... LOL!

 

[Lila64]

"People Got The Power" (hearing that snippet from 'Bad' in my head...)

 

[Utoo]

best post in this thread!
.

yup.

 

[Utoo]

"People Got The Power" (hearing that snippet from 'Bad' in my head...)

and now it's stuck in mine! Thanks, Lila

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Personally, I used to think the Grammys were worthless too but over time, I've come to accept their existence and see their importance in that its basically a vote coming from people associated with making music (U2's peers) such as engineers, sound people, studio musician types, producers, etc... To be voted in by them would be a great honor if I was in a band and nominated/ won a Grammy. Also its a night in which pretty much ALL styles of music are honored or given a bit of a spotlight. Would never ever have heard Nnenneh Freelon if not for the Grammys. So in the end, I can see HOW or WHY U2 might feel the Grammys are important. Also if you win a Grammy, your album sales go up and U2 loves that kind of "Grammy benefit."




Also I think, the fact that the Grammys have a significant legacy/ history in music as opposed to say the Blockbuster Awards, plays a part as well.

 

[Utoo]

Also I think, the fact that the Grammys have a significant legacy/ history in music as opposed to say the Blockbuster Awards, plays a part as well.

Hey, just don't knock the Teen People Awards!

 

[shart1780]

The sad thing is that the best U2 albums get the cold shoulder and the worst ones get awards.

The worst U2 albums are better than anything at the Grammies mind you.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Bono said he thinks Nickleback is bad.

WTF... Bono said Nickelback is GOOD essentially. Don't make me pull out the transcript.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Hey, just don't knock the Teen People Awards!

I respect Teen People b/c as Scary Spice used to say back in the day... children/ kids have the best taste in music b/c they their perspective isn't littered with bullshit self-importance or something to that nature. They have an innocence to their tastes.

LOL