5! :-)
Let's see where this post will go.

I do congratulate U2. They made a fantastic album and they deserved their awards. Bono's a good man with good convictions. No one else is out there doing what he does, not even the Stones. Good for him for using his celebrity and clout for good. Yes I think Paul deserved an award and I would've loved to see the Stones win best Rock Album but whatever. U2 is a damn good band who made a damn good album. And yes it probably was the best album of the year.

Laughs........ I nearly diedddddddddddddd

did Bono hovver to the stage, to pick up his awards?
or did he walk there, like a mere mortal?

Good on them but Atomic bomb isn't up to scratch for mine.
ABB is better and that's not bias cos I think All you can't leave behind is better than anything either band has done since SW/Actung period.

McCartney's newie is better than Atomic bomb imo.

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

U2 are a cracking band.... one of the greats. I just can't get into the new album. Achtung for me

Ditto ablett.

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

U2 don't deserve to get a prize for best "Rock" album...it's not consistent! The record has got only one rock song, Vertigo. the rest is just pop music. And even as a pop album, it's not so good, I think. Their previous album was much better, at least there were awesome ballads in it.

"got to be worked on
don't have no bark nor bite..."

Me too. I am with the guys here. U2 is a good band but Atomic Bomb did not get it for me. Has it's moments. When you watch the video with the guys up against the wall of lights doing "City of Blinding Lights" or I listen to "Sometimes you can't make it" and IO for get how much Bono and those lyrics are bugging me and I concentrate on a guy singing to his dead father - then it is a pretty good album. IMO they are not pushing the two best cuts: "Crumbs" and the 4th tune...whatever it is called. the "political" one.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

U2 are a pop band.The Rolling Stones are the greatest rock n'roll band in the world.Its like comparing a Lada to a Rolls Royce.The Stones win everytime.

monkey man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> McCartney's newie is better than Atomic bomb imo.
>
>

I think both their newies suck. But oh well.

Hi Some Girl

I wasn't too impressed with Paul's at first I admit but after a quite a few listens it really grew on me.
I don't think Atomic is bad, just was let down after I heard the kick off single expecting alot more than what I heard. It's OK but I expect more from them. Not fair I guess but I'm just a consumer that's a U2 fan.

But that's just my opinion. It sold squillions so what do I know?

If you're a Beatles fan at all, Georges farewell LP is wonderful.

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

U2 wins... great... whatever.

I'll admit that I listen to U2... a band that formerly was a Stones and Beatles cover band.

When you're put in a category with one of your heroes (the stones), I think it would've been proper to at least acknowledge them.

Bono has gotten so far up his ass there's no way he's finding his way out.

Ever hear the question "who is the real leader of the Stones?"

I can tell you that the real leader of U2 is not Bono.

stonesctl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Ever hear the question "who is the real leader of
> the Stones?"
>
> I can tell you that the real leader of U2 is not
> Bono.


Everyone in the world would say Mick is the leader of the stones just as everybody will say Bono is the leader of U2.

Cheers,
Wuudy

U2's last album for me is achtung
from that point i think they started repeating themselves each time with less inspiration
beside that, on a personal note, i feel the distance between me and their music. it is as if it sound like teenage music to me, and i am not anymore and don't even feel a teenager
take joshua, superb album, i used to have goosebumps each time i listened to it
but now...a great record, nothing more

on the opposite, i keep listening to the stones and when i re-discover an album i have not listened to for some time, either i find myself in a time capsule or i am surprised by it as it was a new thing

stones make me feel young (that is not teenage)

indeed, Wuudy, I agree that most people would say Mick and Bono lead their respective bands.
The perception is that the front man is the leader... he's the most vocal as he is the vocalist.

However, both front men have come dangerously close to pissing off their bandmates with their antics... specifically Bono as of late.

Bottom line is that U2 is trying to carry the torch ignited by the Stones. While U2 has won awards, praise and respect, I still would not put them as peers to the Stones and the Beatles.

My whole point is that U2 should have acknowledged the Stones in accepting the rock album of the year (frankly, the should've acknowledged Neil Young too).

Ah yes, more bitter jealousy from Stones fans who hate the idea that there's a band out there that is nearly as popular live, and more popular on record.

U2 are a great band...they deserve awards more than most anyone else out there, for sure. HTDAAB is a good album...not great but I can think of worse bands to nominate.

It's good for U2, really.

But it makes me wonder why U2 got 5 Grammy's and The Rolling Stones got 0.

A Bigger Bang is cool. It has all kinds of songs. Rock, blues, raggea-style, ballads. It's allot of new stuff but it's still very "Stones". U2's album is just more and more of the same stuff they've been realeasing for the past 10 years.
But really, you can't take an award show seriously when they give Grammy's to Kelly Clarkson and A Bigger Bang gets merely a nomination.

I think the Grammy's are funny, they're so American. They like Kelly Clarkson because:
She's a Christian. "First of all I'd like to thank God, and Jezus". She actually said it.
It's typical American rock, it has the musical aspects of rock in a way but it's very decent. There's no foul language, naked bodyparts, drugs, alcohol, nothing. The lyrics are not daring at all. Regular "I love you" and "he broke up with me, and now I'm sad" songs. All the musical instruments are made with a synthesizer.

She sings songs like God Bless The USA.

...

No really, she did. Look up the lyrics.

All in all, a great example for American kids.

Pff...

keefriff, I just want to take a moment to distinguish myself from the category of "bitter stones fan."

I congratulate U2 on the win. I have seem them live many times and think they are just outstanding. They do the bare bones 4 man band deal better than anyone else out there. I also love the album prior to the latest.

And I'll also say that they do a pretty decent job of mixing songs from many albums in their live performances.

Charlie says that U2 is the band most likely to carry the torch. I agree.

I simply think that U2 should've acknowledged the Stones because they were nominated at the same time in the same category. I just would've been the proper thing to do.

That's all I have to say about that. Period.
For me the Stones, U2 and Springsteen put on shows that blow away every band out there. Any chance to see one of those acts, take it.

Congratulations to U2! They won everything they were nominated for. HTDAAB is a great reocrd, very strong and very guitar driven which is always great! I don't think that Vertigo was the only rock song on that reocrd, what about All Because Of You, Love And Peace Or Else and Fast Cars? Great rockers that are even better and more aggresive live. I was glad to see them winning. I hope this inspire them to make an even better record next time.




"Too many roads lead to nowhere
But how they twist and they turn
And a dead end and a dusty old strip mall
Where your tires are all shredded and burned"

- Driving Too Fast

keefriff99 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
HTDAAB
> is a good album...not great but I can think of
> worse bands to nominate.


Maybe those "worse" bands deserve a chance at one lousy Grammy after the 50 billion that U2 have gotten. How many other bands' albums have you even heard?

stonesctl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I simply think that U2 should've acknowledged the
> Stones because they were nominated at the same
> time in the same category. I just would've been
> the proper thing to do.
>

There is no need for them to acknowledge the Stones, beacause they have surpassed the Stones. Apparently, many people here don't care, many are jealous as hell, and many hope that maybe when the Stones finally croak, they will re-claim the already piss-poor number 2 spot from U2.

U2 has become everybodys darling, because of Bono's political engagement and correct behaviour....

Bono has become the political correct person - talks about the poor countries, talks with the political leaders, business men, does speaches (even if he doesn't understand the topic) etc..... he has become THE man people / leaders want to be seen together with......

That's also why U2 got som many Grammy's this year - a political correct descision..... not musically..... How to dismantle is not U2's best album (far from) and is not the best album this year.... could name a lot of them, also better than Bigger Bang for that's sake......

Somehow, I think on long term his politcal correctnes / engagement will become U2's end.... because at a certain moment they will not have the credibility as a rock band anymore....

Some Girl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> keefriff99 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> HTDAAB
> > is a good album...not great but I can think
> of
> > worse bands to nominate.
>
>
> Maybe those "worse" bands deserve a chance at one
> lousy Grammy after the 50 billion that U2 have
> gotten. How many other bands' albums have you even
> heard?
Hundreds, if not thousands. Why?

I think Grammy's are worthless, for the record. They rarely reward genuine talent, unlike the Oscars. It seems more commercially-oriented. Nevertheless, why should U2 be kicked to the curb if they can still put out inspired music 20+ years into their career simply because they've already won?

why should U2 be kicked to the curb
> if they can still put out inspired music 20+ years
> into their career simply because they've already
> won?


Because there are artists who put out far more "inspired" music out at this point? I think How to Dismantle sucked and offered absolutely nothing new. Sure, people think the same about the last 6 Stones albums too, even here. But is it so hard to believe that U2 actually do not DESERVE any awards for musical merit at this point?

I agree with MauMau: to me, U2 has lost something in their songwriting -- the last great album from them was Achtung Baby.

I still have a lot of respect for them, they can be incredible playing live. Unfortunately, they can also be very preachy.

Stone's are Rock&Roll.

U2 is POP/Rock.

They don't even play the same type music.


It's what the music does to you that matters, the feelings, excitement, fun.

If U2's music gets you going......then great. If The Stones won 5 awards I would have cared less...it's the music not the popular vote that matters.

With all due respect to U2 - their new album sucks. I bought it and well....it's average. Vertigo is quite OK as Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own, but I get impression the rest tracks are only fillers.

Do I congratulate U2? Why should I? It's the Stones who deserved this Grammy. They recorded mixed style record which is a evidence Stones are working band and they still progress. U2 stopped quite a long time ago.

Grammy sucks let's say it.

country honk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> U2 has become everybodys darling, because of
> Bono's political engagement and correct
> behaviour....
>
> Bono has become the political correct person -
> talks about the poor countries, talks with the
> political leaders, business men, does speaches
> (even if he doesn't understand the topic) etc.....
> he has become THE man people / leaders want to be
> seen together with......
>

Bono's just a male version of Angelina Jolie.
Politicics in music just do not fit, man. Keith made a point about it once.

Great band (one of THE greatest in fact), but the last tour seemed so utterly flat and uninspirational. The magic seems to have gone.

They need to re-invent themselves (again).