Reward or Cover Up?

[CrashedCarDriver]

just wondering folks

after the boys cleaning up at the Grammies it occurred to me that U2 is being used to cover up the fact that music is experiencing one of its worst periods in history with the calibre of Boybands and Pop Princesses dominating what is called a 'commercially viable market' type bullshit

it just occurred to me when it was the early 90s when music was ruled by ageing rockers and 'people on the comeback trail' when Nirvana burst on the scene with their raw brand of 'Grunge' where it was obvious to the point where groups like the Pixies and Sonic Youth were responsible for creating that brand of music. Yet it was Nirvana that was seen as the commercially viable MTV product at the time

and its happening right before our eyes at the very moment where bands like The Strokes and the White Stripes have further taken the piss away from groundbreaking bands like the Pixies

anyway back onto the point of U2 it definitely does appear that the Grammies seem to award on the basis of Record Sales rather than artistic merit these days. if it were based on artistic merit: bands like Train, Fuel, Limp Bizkit would NEVER ever be nominated for their mediocre music. and artists like Radiohead and R.E.M would be seen as something more than 'alternative'

this being said: here's hoping U2's music does not suffer because of all this, because there's quite a few Radio-heads that concur the fact that U2 is starting to sound like Sell-outs rather than taking music forwards, or if they are: they are just doing it ever so little

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Why should U2 take the blame for the sucky music industry? And why should Radiohead fans blame U2 rather than the industry for the lack of accolades to Radiohead? Imo, that's a pretty lame excuse. Of course Radiohead is a great band and SHOULD be nominated for heaps of awards, but to point the finger at U2 and say it's their fault? Sounds more like jealousy.

 

[CrashedCarDriver]

jealousy?

never

i happen to like radiohead (and all forms of music which i have been referred to and onwards) because of the fact i got into U2 in the first place and needed MORE music than what i was getting (want to know? tune into our fantastic commercial radio station where they play 1 song 25 times a day, have plenty of talk, and lots of ads)

now thanks to u2, its either tapes or CDs of whatever music i know that is deprived and never played on radio

 

[Salome]

wow, never played on radio
it must be ****in great then

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by CrashedCarDriver:
jealousy?

never

i happen to like radiohead (and all forms of music which i have been referred to and onwards) because of the fact i got into U2 in the first place and needed MORE music than what i was getting (want to know? tune into our fantastic commercial radio station where they play 1 song 25 times a day, have plenty of talk, and lots of ads)

now thanks to u2, its either tapes or CDs of whatever music i know that is deprived and never played on radio

Thanks to U2? Yeah, thanks to U2 everything on the radio does not sound the same anymore! Although ATYCLB has been over-exsposed and even out-played, it DOES NOT sound like the other stuff out there---that is fact.

I understand your frustration w/radio and today's unoriginal, formulated music. However, to blame U2 for this is ridiculous. NONE of the songs from ATYCLB even made it into the top 20!!! When you are as big as U2 the songs will be played no matter what. IF people like the songs, then they may be over played. So be it. Thats life. Just b/c the are overplayed does not make it bad. That is shallow thinking, my friend.

You know it has occured to me that the "mainsteam" assumes that if something is not played on the radio then it is not good. An astute music fan will know that is not the case.

There are then people, like you, who tend to think that EVERYTHING on the radio sucks and everything that IS NOT on the radio is great.
That attitude of completely dismissing something b/c it is on the radio is just as naive, ridiculous and unintelligible as the "mainstream" thinking that you dislike in the first place.

Music is art, art is an opinionated thing. There is good and bad. There are only a few that are exceptional in anything(sports, music, movies, etc...) U2 fits into this category. I am not going to argue their material as it speaks for itself(if someone does not like them, that's fine; however you can still respect them!).

You sound like every other person who complained about the JT b/c it was outplayed. And, yes, ATYCLB is outplayed. That is why when I listen to it I usually start with song 5. I would suggest that you do the same.

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by CrashedCarDriver:
just wondering folks

after the boys cleaning up at the Grammies it occurred to me that U2 is being used to cover up the fact that music is experiencing one of its worst periods in history with the calibre of Boybands and Pop Princesses dominating what is called a 'commercially viable market' type bullshit

it just occurred to me when it was the early 90s when music was ruled by ageing rockers and 'people on the comeback trail' when Nirvana burst on the scene with their raw brand of 'Grunge' where it was obvious to the point where groups like the Pixies and Sonic Youth were responsible for creating that brand of music. Yet it was Nirvana that was seen as the commercially viable MTV product at the time

and its happening right before our eyes at the very moment where bands like The Strokes and the White Stripes have further taken the piss away from groundbreaking bands like the Pixies

anyway back onto the point of U2 it definitely does appear that the Grammies seem to award on the basis of Record Sales rather than artistic merit these days. if it were based on artistic merit: bands like Train, Fuel, Limp Bizkit would NEVER ever be nominated for their mediocre music. and artists like Radiohead and R.E.M would be seen as something more than 'alternative'

this being said: here's hoping U2's music does not suffer because of all this, because there's quite a few Radio-heads that concur the fact that U2 is starting to sound like Sell-outs rather than taking music forwards, or if they are: they are just doing it ever so little

One more thing. U2 promotes the **** out of Radiohead and their fans should be appreciative of the fact. As for progression: U2 spent the 90's making musical progress(fact--if you dont like it that is another story). The public assumed that Nirvana and the other Seattle bands was extremely progressive when all the while it was a mixture of 70's rock and heavy metal influenced stuff and punk influenced as well(dont get me wrong: Nirvana, PJ and others are great and my favorites; however, many people do not give enough credit to those who influence them, like you did). U2's work at the time(AB) was way more progressive than the other stuff.

Radiohead is a progressive band and I think people w/ musical knowledge appreciate that fact. However, much of their music sounds the same and that is not progressive.

The grammys nominate and award on BOTH record sales AND talent. They are still the only show(US anyway) that judges musically talented stuff unlike Billboard and MTV. Yes some of the stuff is commercial ****. However, you should notice that NSYNC, Britney and Backstreet did not win a thing at the grammys. Why? B/c the people judging them are not just fans, they are musicians and critics that LISTEN to music not just HEAR music.

Steely Dan won AOTY last year. They are extremly talented and that album WAS NOT commercial and did not have big record sales. REM, Radiohead and Beck have also been nominated (and won some awards) w/out huge record sales.

The grammy's acknowledges everything. In a watered down field, it is still the most credible show out there.