Tonight's Grammy's will U2 steamroll other acts

[spotlightkid]

To me it is abvious that u2 will steamroll over other artists in tonight's grammy's,they are the best rock n roll band in the last 20 years.many of the other acts that win tonight will not be remembered 20 years from now-true?

[Matt]

Well, I definitely think U2's going to win best album (not all the major awards, though; I have a feeling that there isn't going to be one overwhelming winner this year like, say, Clapton did with Unplugged), but I wouldn't use the Grammy's as an indicator in quality. The Grammy's are probably the biggest joke of an award's show, worse than the Emmy's. They're notorious for nominating the best-selling, worst crap out there, as well as being clueless about the music scene in general. Remember how they shut out rock music for much of the 60's and even the 70's? Remember Jethro Tull as best HEAVY METAL band? Or how about the "new artists"? How come the average winner of that category has recorded for years?

Having said that, I wouldn't agree that no one's going to remember anyone else at the Grammy's this year 10 years from now. India.Arie is a promising talent, and Outkast's Stankonia is actually a very good album. O Brother Where Art Thou? will definitely be known for reviving a pure country tradition (Note the Hank Williams tribute album, which is recorded by mostly non-country artists, but is the one of the few country albums nominated that is a real country album. Gotta love the irony...). Lucinda Williams will certainly be remembered. And what about "Love and Theft"?

P.S. I like U2 a lot, but I think the Talking Heads and R.E.M. among others could beat it out for best band of the last 20 years.:)

[PsychFan]

Originally posted by Matt
The Grammy's are probably the biggest joke of an award's show, worse than the Emmy's.

Change "probably" to "definitely," and I'd agree. Whenever an act of real value and quality wins a Grammy, it's usually some kind of accident.

Just remember the whole Milli Vannilli episode. Jeez ...

That said, I really hope Love and Theft wins (or else O Brother, Where Art Thou); I think it's a much better album than U2's. They've really done nothing I've liked since Achtung Baby. But I certainly don't vote for who wins, so I recognize it's very possible they'll walk away with it ...

[mcow1]

Originally posted by Jeff Partyka


That said, I really hope Love and Theft wins (or else O Brother, Where Art Thou); I think it's a much better album than U2's. They've really done nothing I've liked since Achtung Baby. ...

I agree these are much better albums, and about U2 also. They haven't put out anything great since they got really impressed with themselves, IMHO.

[Sckott]

Well that's not always the point, but U2 is a great band. As far as what they've stood for to where they are now, politically and musically has changed radically in 8 years. That may or not effect your feelings about the band. I feel, artisically, the best is definately behind them. Not a bad thing.

[Matt]

I won't feel too bad if "All That You Can't Leave Behind" wins best album. It's not the best out there, but I actually thinks it's a very good, solid album. A few so-so tracks (the UK version throws on "The Ground Beneath Her Feet" from Million Dollar Hotel, which should've been left off), but I think it's quite nice. Outside of the bigger tracks, I really like "Grace" and "Wild Honey."

I thought only a few tracks on Pop were really good, and I thought Zooropa's first half is pretty solid. Achtung Baby was my favorite album in junior high.

[Beagle]

Originally posted by spotlightkid
To me it is abvious that u2 will steamroll over other artists in tonight's grammy's,they are the best rock n roll band in the last 20 years.many of the other acts that win tonight will not be remembered 20 years from now-true? Rock and roll? U2 wouldn't know rock and roll if it bit them in the collective ***. If Bono quit forcing his world views upon everyone and the U2 overhype were to cease, I could have forgotten U2 existed 10 years ago. I don't really think the Grammys or U2 have much to do with rock and roll. Mostly hype and political posturing and showbiz. The electricity bill/talent ratio is about 20,000/1. The Grammys are a joke when you realize that the U2 album came out in 2000 and is up for a 2002 Grammy. But obviously there is a larger demand for more Bono anecdotes than there is to spotlight real artists who have made good albums in the last 12 months. It's like there's an empty "rock & roll" pedestal that needs to be mounted and U2 are there by default. I do hope that U2 sweep because perhaps then, like Christopher Cross, Kim Carnes, and Toto, we won't hear from them ever again.

[Matt]

I can see how the posturing can put people off; there's an SNL sketch where a guy wearing a bowler hat pretended to be Bono and berated the audience for not caring enough about third world issues. But I wouldn't criticize them for that, though. They do support a lot of causes, but they are good causes; there's nothing wrong trying to free someone who's being tortured and held as a political prisoner. I suppose if you were cynical enough, you can say it's a career move, but even if they do come on really strong, I feel they're being sincere, especially when you consider their religious background and the political climate they grew up in.

[mcow1]

I don't mind the posturing so much, I can ignore that. However I think that the music is lacking because they are putting more time and energy into the posturing than into the music or trying to force it into the music.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Beagle
Rock and roll? U2 wouldn't know rock and roll if it bit them in the collective ***. If Bono quit forcing his world views upon everyone and the U2 overhype were to cease, I could have forgotten U2 existed 10 years ago. I don't really think the Grammys or U2 have much to do with rock and roll. Mostly hype and political posturing and showbiz.

My sentiments exactly!

If you take any half decent "Rock n' roll" band and surround them with all kinds of elaborite advertising year after year even a mediocre album by them will sell better than an artist of better caliber. IMHO:D

[Paul Chang]

Please don't be too harsh on U2. Look at the tremendous progress they've made over the years. :rolleyes: Remember the days they didn't even know how to play the instruments. (They still don't.) :D

One of the beauties of freedom of speech is that it allows an idiot to make a fool out of himself and still believes he's a genius at the same time.

[mcow1]

Originally posted by Paul Chang

One of the beauties of freedom of speech is that it allows an idiot to make a fool out of himself and still believes he's a genius at the same time.
Love it.

[jligon]

Originally posted by Paul Chang

One of the beauties of freedom of speech is that it allows an idiot to make a fool out of himself and still believes he's a genius at the same time.

And make $40,000,000 a year doing it. What a joke. What could possibly be appealing about this band in 2002?

[Cousin It]

Originally posted by Beagle
Rock and roll? U2 wouldn't know rock and roll if it bit them in the collective ***. If Bono quit forcing his world views upon everyone and the U2 overhype were to cease, I could have forgotten U2 existed 10 years ago. I don't really think the Grammys or U2 have much to do with rock and roll. Mostly hype and political posturing and showbiz. The electricity bill/talent ratio is about 20,000/1. The Grammys are a joke when you realize that the U2 album came out in 2000 and is up for a 2002 Grammy. But obviously there is a larger demand for more Bono anecdotes than there is to spotlight real artists who have made good albums in the last 12 months. It's like there's an empty "rock & roll" pedestal that needs to be mounted and U2 are there by default. I do hope that U2 sweep because perhaps then, like Christopher Cross, Kim Carnes, and Toto, we won't hear from them ever again.

Beagle,you read my mind.Sheer brilliance.
I detest U2 and in particular their self-inflated (wonder where the nozzle is ???) frontman.

[Steve Hoffman]

I like U2.

I don't think they are posturing for headlines, I think they have grown aware that there is a lot of weird crap happening in the world, and the music fans either aren't aware of it, or don't care about it. So, let them spread the word. This is much better to me than a drum machine driven group that just wants to Fu*k Your Mama.

[Paul Chang]

There may be nothing wrong with bringing people to the awareness of various problems in the world. What I don't like is many celebrities think they have suddenly become experts on issues they may know very little about once they are famous.

Solving world problems is not as easy as making records, which itself could prove to be quite challenging for some, especially making good sounding ones. And there are plenty of serious problems that the majority of the celebrities seldom, if ever, touch. This makes me wonder if celebrity advocacy actually hurts the world in the bigger picture, by steering resources and attentions to their favorite causes away from other areas that also need help.

IMO, most celebrities (1) aren't qualified to decide which issue is important and which is not, (2) aren't experts on the causes they advocate for, and (3) can create new problems other than the ones they intend to solve, even if they don't make them worse.

Some of them are truly sincere about wanting to help, though, and I'll give them credit for that.

[Beagle]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
I like U2.

I don't think they are posturing for headlines, I think they have grown aware that there is a lot of weird crap happening in the world, and the music fans either aren't aware of it, or don't care about it. So, let them spread the word. This is much better to me than a drum machine driven group that just wants to Fu*k Your Mama. True enough LOL, but I thought Bob Geldof was a lot more sincere and productive about it. I think music fans are quite aware of what's going on in the world, but music serves as a bit of an escape from that, which is what music should be, I suppose. I thought this was the message in "Beautiful Day". If I want to find out what's going on in the world, I tune into CNN. If I want to relax and feel good, I listen to music. If I want both, I listen to "Eve Of Destruction";) For me, the best way to spread the word is to write a great song with a great lyrical message.

[JohnnyK]

What's with Bob Dylan? Don't get me wrong, I am a big Dylan fan, but I wish the guy would enunciate his words better. I could not understand what he was singing last night.

[PsychFan]

JohnnyK:

I'm one of the planet's biggest Dylan fans, but I hear you ... I was disappointed with his performance last night. Mostly it was his choice of song ("Cry a While" is perhaps my least favorite song on Love and Theft, an album I love dearly), but his vocal performance was extra-phlegmy (even for him) and in general it left me cold.

His performance of "Love Sick" at the '98 Grammys was much more powerful and impressive (Soy Bomb notwithstanding), IMO ...

[RDK]

Yeah, Dylan can be his own worst enemy sometimes.

I'm a huge fan, but all i could think about while watching him perform last night was here's more fodder for the Dylan-bashers and comedians out there who like to ridicule his singing.

Just last week, i was spinning Blonde on Blonde when my father-in-law asked me who was singing. When i told him, he seemed surprised and said that he didn't know that Bob could sound that way (meaning: good).

I also agree that the song he chose last night is one of the weakest ones on the new album.

Ray

[Matt]

Man, did you guys get a load of the academy president's rant against "web piracy"? I only tuned in to the show for a few minutes and that was what I saw. I hope they didn't build the show around that. It felt a little bizarre.

Going back to U2 for a second, his Grammy speeches are usually a bit embarassing, but I just can't see the animosity towards the music. Yeah, Bono can come on real strong that he seems self-important, but like I said, I can't criticize someone for promoting a good cause. It's a lot better to have some rock band, any rock band believe they can change the world and promote a good cause than have those same causes lose all that media attention. Yes, they make a lot of money, but I hardly call that hypocrisy. A LOT of rock stars make the same obscene amount of money U2 does for doing far less for charity and musically.

Going back to the music, I don't agree that they don't put a lot of effort into their music. Even their latest album, which has a scaled-back, modest production, sounds like an album where attention was paid to every detail. I don't have any problems with their instrumental prowess, either. If you were really cynical, you could say that the Edge's guitar sound is really built around a limited technical ability, but it's still a great sound. It's U2's trademark sound, and I think it sounds pretty damn cool. It may not be difficult to play, but neither are the Ramones, and they're music is great.

I admit their music doesn't always come together for me. Some of the lyrics to even their best political anthems like "Sunday Bloody Sunday" and "Pride" are a bit muddled in spots, and "Rattle and Hum" is a really uneven album, but I still think they're a great band.

P.S. Just out of curiousity, any PJ Harvey fans out there? She was actually nominated in the best rock album category but lost. She opened for U2 on their last tour, and I think she's great, too.

[mcow1]

Dylan seems to be one of those guys who is either on or way, way off. When I saw him on the Dylan & the Dead tour it was one of the most awful sounding things I ever heard. You just could not tell what song he was singing by the sound, you had to try and catch a verse. Then a few months later he showed up at a Dead show at the Forum and was great. Last year I was lucky enough to catch him at a little club called the Sun in Anaheim and he was wonderful again. On or off I guess.

[lennonfan]

I thought U2 made a few good songs about 18 years ago;) ....but lately I find them an embarrassment. I clicked on the grammys and saw some of their performance, but ultimately shut it off by the time the song was over.
Right wing talk radio is more entertaining:)
I saw who the artists were that were appearing and out of all of them I liked maybe 3.
It wasn't worth suffering through the rest of the garbage to hear a few songs that -may- or -may not- be good.
Rock and Roll, I fear thy best days are behind ye.

[Matt]

Rock n' roll isn't on its last legs, lennonfan. There's a lot more out there than "Driving Rain."

[JohnnyK]

Originally posted by mcow1
Dylan seems to be one of those guys who is either on or way, way off. .

I saw Dylan play with The Band in the early/mid 70's in Chicago and he was great. I could make out every word that he sang.