Author Topic: The U2 of the 2000's  (Read 10553 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #105 on: October 23, 2013, 01:52:09 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

It sold 10 million because it was really, really good. If it had been twice as good, it would have sold 20 million. If it had been a masterpiece, it would have sold 1 trillion.

Because the best albums of all time are the exact same as the top selling albums of all time.

             Oh, ok, so its "dull, boring, and poorly produced" because it sold 10 million copies and won 8 grammy awards? Again, in my opinion it is by far the best album released so far in the 21st century. The fact that it was the most heavily awarded album in Grammy history gives that support. The Grammy awards are voted on by people involved with the production of music. When an artist wins a Grammy award, it is recognition from an artist peers, NOT the general public!

Grammy Awards

Milli Vanilli      1
Baha Men       1
Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass  1

Led Zeppelin   0
The Who         0
Pink Floyd       0
Beach Boys     0

Ya, the Grammy's really mean a lot

           Ok, so we should say the Grammy's mean nothing because one of your hippie bands did not win won. I think not.

let the grasping at straws begin. seriously the very fact ur saying the grammys have any relation to quality or even keep track of them at all shows ur coming from a very different place to say .... anyone who's opinion on music should be taken seriously ...... imo.

           U2 are grammy voters and keep some track of what is going on just like most artist in the music business do. Are you saying that U2's opinion on music should not be taken seriously?

           Besides you're own opinion, what do you look at as a useful indicator of quality?
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 01:54:25 PM by edge245 »

Offline soapit

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,527
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #106 on: October 23, 2013, 01:56:27 PM »
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

u2 have a financial interest in doing so and is therefore understandable. if they are doing it to tell them whether their music is any good then yes, i would have serious doubts on their ability to judge quality.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 01:59:51 PM by soapit »

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #107 on: October 23, 2013, 02:00:24 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

I see, well in my opinion, HTDAAB is the best album of the 21st century to this point. Amazing that one could be attacked on a U2 fan forum for stating that. I can only imagine what would happen to a fan who stated that HTDAAB was the greatest album of all time!

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #108 on: October 23, 2013, 02:05:10 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

u2 have a financial interest in doing so and is therefore understandable. if they are doing it to tell them whether their music is any good then yes, i would have serious doubts on their ability to judge quality.

                What is U2's financial interest in being a Grammy voter? Grammy voters don't get paid for voting. Voting is a privilege. There are thousands of Grammy voters! They are U2's peers in the industry, people involved in writing and recording music.

Offline soapit

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,527
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #109 on: October 23, 2013, 02:07:34 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

I see, well in my opinion, HTDAAB is the best album of the 21st century to this point. Amazing that one could be attacked on a U2 fan forum for stating that. I can only imagine what would happen to a fan who stated that HTDAAB was the greatest album of all time!

i disagree with ur opinion and i personally respect your opinions less because of their quality....imo. be prepared for many others to do the same,

try not to cry about being "attacked" when it happens. its beginning to sound like you have as big a persecution complex as that bethere dude.

Offline The Exile

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,245
  • It's all ball bearings nowadays.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #110 on: October 23, 2013, 02:09:00 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
its beginning to sound like you have as big a persecution complex as that bethere dude.

Imagine that. But it's impossible, this guy's name is different.

Offline soapit

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,527
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #111 on: October 23, 2013, 02:09:22 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

u2 have a financial interest in doing so and is therefore understandable. if they are doing it to tell them whether their music is any good then yes, i would have serious doubts on their ability to judge quality.

                What is U2's financial interest in being a Grammy voter? Grammy voters don't get paid for voting. Voting is a privilege. There are thousands of Grammy voters! They are U2's peers in the industry, people involved in writing and recording music.

can you seriously not join the dots on this? your own opinion of quality is affected by who wins the grammy, there are probably lots of people like you. therefore winning the grammy is financially beneficial. not sure how many they'd win if they refused to vote.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 02:13:03 PM by soapit »

Offline So Cruel

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,163
  • it ain't no sin to be glad that you're alive
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #112 on: October 23, 2013, 02:10:02 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

It sold 10 million because it was really, really good. If it had been twice as good, it would have sold 20 million. If it had been a masterpiece, it would have sold 1 trillion.

Because the best albums of all time are the exact same as the top selling albums of all time.

             Oh, ok, so its "dull, boring, and poorly produced" because it sold 10 million copies and won 8 grammy awards? Again, in my opinion it is by far the best album released so far in the 21st century. The fact that it was the most heavily awarded album in Grammy history gives that support. The Grammy awards are voted on by people involved with the production of music. When an artist wins a Grammy award, it is recognition from an artist peers, NOT the general public!

Grammy Awards

Milli Vanilli      1
Baha Men       1
Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass  1

Led Zeppelin   0
The Who         0
Pink Floyd       0
Beach Boys     0

Ya, the Grammy's really mean a lot

           Ok, so we should say the Grammy's mean nothing because one of your hippie bands did not win won. I think not.

Are you serious? My hippie bands? Zep, The Who, Floyd, and the Beach Boys are all some of the biggest selling and most influential bands ever. Not one won a Grammy. Other major bands with no grammys are the Doors, the Kinks, Queen, Jimi Hendrix, & Bob Marley

The Stones didn't win a Grammy till friggin 1994.

Bowie only won in '84 for some music film.

The New Vaudeville Band's song The Winchester Cathedral beat The Beatles Eleanor Rigby and The Beach Boys Good Vibrations for best song. (Yes, you read that right)

The soundtrack for Mary Poppins beat the Beatles A Hard Days Night

The Fresh Prince of Bell Air beat Public Enemys It Takes a Nation of Millions To Hold Us Back for best rap album.

Clapton's unplugged Layla beat Smells Like Teen Spirit and One for rock song of the year. Unplugged beat Achtung Baby.

A Taste of Honey was best new artist the same year Elvis Costello and the Cars were nominated

Christopher Cross's Theme from Arthur beat Pink Floyds The Wall for album of the year

Jethro Tull won best metal award and the guy plays a f'n flute!

Bethere, you really think the Grammy's mean anything? I like Bomb. In my opinion U2's best album of the '00s and much better then the mediocre No Line, but it winning Grammy's means absolutely nothing.


Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #113 on: October 23, 2013, 02:14:48 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

u2 have a financial interest in doing so and is therefore understandable. if they are doing it to tell them whether their music is any good then yes, i would have serious doubts on their ability to judge quality.

                What is U2's financial interest in being a Grammy voter? Grammy voters don't get paid for voting. Voting is a privilege. There are thousands of Grammy voters! They are U2's peers in the industry, people involved in writing and recording music.

can you seriously not join the dots on this? your own opinion of quality is affected by who wins the grammy, there are probably lots of people like you. therefore winning the grammy is financially beneficial. not sure how many they'd win if they refused to vote.

           I said the Grammy's CAN be an indicator of quality, I never said that it proves quality.

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #114 on: October 23, 2013, 02:15:42 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

I see, well in my opinion, HTDAAB is the best album of the 21st century to this point. Amazing that one could be attacked on a U2 fan forum for stating that. I can only imagine what would happen to a fan who stated that HTDAAB was the greatest album of all time!

i disagree with ur opinion and i personally respect your opinions less because of their quality....imo. be prepared for many others to do the same,

try not to cry about being "attacked" when it happens. its beginning to sound like you have as big a persecution complex as that bethere dude.

          Don't worry, I'm not crying, I'm laughing! LOL

Offline soapit

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,527
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #115 on: October 23, 2013, 02:20:56 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

u2 have a financial interest in doing so and is therefore understandable. if they are doing it to tell them whether their music is any good then yes, i would have serious doubts on their ability to judge quality.

                What is U2's financial interest in being a Grammy voter? Grammy voters don't get paid for voting. Voting is a privilege. There are thousands of Grammy voters! They are U2's peers in the industry, people involved in writing and recording music.

can you seriously not join the dots on this? your own opinion of quality is affected by who wins the grammy, there are probably lots of people like you. therefore winning the grammy is financially beneficial. not sure how many they'd win if they refused to vote.

           I said the Grammy's CAN be an indicator of quality, I never said that it proves quality.

i never said you did - though i doubt you would post several pages of grammy info here if you thought it didnt demonstrate quality in this case.

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #116 on: October 23, 2013, 02:21:17 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

It sold 10 million because it was really, really good. If it had been twice as good, it would have sold 20 million. If it had been a masterpiece, it would have sold 1 trillion.

Because the best albums of all time are the exact same as the top selling albums of all time.

             Oh, ok, so its "dull, boring, and poorly produced" because it sold 10 million copies and won 8 grammy awards? Again, in my opinion it is by far the best album released so far in the 21st century. The fact that it was the most heavily awarded album in Grammy history gives that support. The Grammy awards are voted on by people involved with the production of music. When an artist wins a Grammy award, it is recognition from an artist peers, NOT the general public!

Grammy Awards

Milli Vanilli      1
Baha Men       1
Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass  1

Led Zeppelin   0
The Who         0
Pink Floyd       0
Beach Boys     0

Ya, the Grammy's really mean a lot

           Ok, so we should say the Grammy's mean nothing because one of your hippie bands did not win won. I think not.

Are you serious? My hippie bands? Zep, The Who, Floyd, and the Beach Boys are all some of the biggest selling and most influential bands ever. Not one won a Grammy. Other major bands with no grammys are the Doors, the Kinks, Queen, Jimi Hendrix, & Bob Marley

The Stones didn't win a Grammy till friggin 1994.

Bowie only won in '84 for some music film.

The New Vaudeville Band's song The Winchester Cathedral beat The Beatles Eleanor Rigby and The Beach Boys Good Vibrations for best song. (Yes, you read that right)

The soundtrack for Mary Poppins beat the Beatles A Hard Days Night

The Fresh Prince of Bell Air beat Public Enemys It Takes a Nation of Millions To Hold Us Back for best rap album.

Clapton's unplugged Layla beat Smells Like Teen Spirit and One for rock song of the year. Unplugged beat Achtung Baby.

A Taste of Honey was best new artist the same year Elvis Costello and the Cars were nominated

Christopher Cross's Theme from Arthur beat Pink Floyds The Wall for album of the year

Jethro Tull won best metal award and the guy plays a f'n flute!

Bethere, you really think the Grammy's mean anything? I like Bomb. In my opinion U2's best album of the '00s and much better then the mediocre No Line, but it winning Grammy's means absolutely nothing.

            Well, that's just you're opinion. Millions of other people feel differently including U2. Just because the dinosaur hippie bands failed in the grammy category does not mean the Grammy's are meaningless. After all, its the opinion of the artist peers in the industry. Jimmy Page is a Grammy voter. So is Thom Yorke!

                HTDAAB is the greatest album of the 21st century and indicators that back that opinion up are the fact that it won more grammy awards than any other album in the 21st century. In fact, its 8 wins may be the record for all time, not just the 21st century. Its a great accomplishment and shows much appreciation and admiration for U2's peers in the music industry!

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #117 on: October 23, 2013, 02:22:22 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

u2 have a financial interest in doing so and is therefore understandable. if they are doing it to tell them whether their music is any good then yes, i would have serious doubts on their ability to judge quality.

                What is U2's financial interest in being a Grammy voter? Grammy voters don't get paid for voting. Voting is a privilege. There are thousands of Grammy voters! They are U2's peers in the industry, people involved in writing and recording music.

can you seriously not join the dots on this? your own opinion of quality is affected by who wins the grammy, there are probably lots of people like you. therefore winning the grammy is financially beneficial. not sure how many they'd win if they refused to vote.

           I said the Grammy's CAN be an indicator of quality, I never said that it proves quality.

i never said you did - though i doubt you would post several pages of grammy info here if you thought it didnt demonstrate quality in this case.

           In some peoples black and white world, that may be true.

Offline soapit

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,527
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #118 on: October 23, 2013, 02:27:31 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

u2 have a financial interest in doing so and is therefore understandable. if they are doing it to tell them whether their music is any good then yes, i would have serious doubts on their ability to judge quality.

                What is U2's financial interest in being a Grammy voter? Grammy voters don't get paid for voting. Voting is a privilege. There are thousands of Grammy voters! They are U2's peers in the industry, people involved in writing and recording music.

can you seriously not join the dots on this? your own opinion of quality is affected by who wins the grammy, there are probably lots of people like you. therefore winning the grammy is financially beneficial. not sure how many they'd win if they refused to vote.

           I said the Grammy's CAN be an indicator of quality, I never said that it proves quality.

i never said you did - though i doubt you would post several pages of grammy info here if you thought it didnt demonstrate quality in this case.

           In some peoples black and white world, that may be true.

and in the full colour real world its certainly true. feel free to offer an laternative reason why you are posting grammy info other than you thinking it backs up your positive opinion of htdab

Offline soapit

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,527
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #119 on: October 23, 2013, 02:31:26 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

I see, well in my opinion, HTDAAB is the best album of the 21st century to this point. Amazing that one could be attacked on a U2 fan forum for stating that. I can only imagine what would happen to a fan who stated that HTDAAB was the greatest album of all time!

i disagree with ur opinion and i personally respect your opinions less because of their quality....imo. be prepared for many others to do the same,

try not to cry about being "attacked" when it happens. its beginning to sound like you have as big a persecution complex as that bethere dude.

          Don't worry, I'm not crying, I'm laughing! LOL

you misunderstood. crying means a kind of self pitying whining in that context. best avoided.