Author Topic: The U2 of the 2000's  (Read 10459 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #120 on: October 23, 2013, 02:36:06 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
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

         In the black and white world, one is not allowed to include things like sales or grammy award wins as possible indicators of quality. I and many other U2 fans think its a great thing that U2 won all those grammy awards. The Grammy awards are not perfect and don't prove quality, but they are an indicator. Its also ok for U2 fans to express this on a U2 fan forum.

         Yes, the 00s in my opinion have been an amazing time for U2. I'd take an album made of U2's non-album 00s tracks over any Radiohead album easily!

           

Offline Droo

  • Traffic Cop (Rue du Marais)
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,172
  • don't expect, suggest
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #121 on: October 23, 2013, 02:46:21 PM »
Chris Brown has a Grammy.

The Grammys are meaningless.

Offline soapit

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,527
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #122 on: October 23, 2013, 02:48:25 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
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

         In the black and white world, one is not allowed to include things like sales or grammy award wins as possible indicators of quality. I and many other U2 fans think its a great thing that U2 won all those grammy awards. The Grammy awards are not perfect and don't prove quality, but they are an indicator. Its also ok for U2 fans to express this on a U2 fan forum.

         Yes, the 00s in my opinion have been an amazing time for U2. I'd take an album made of U2's non-album 00s tracks over any Radiohead album easily!

           
there you go again, persecution complex.

you're allowed to do it. just be prepared for you giving weight to those things to affect how people rate your opinions from then on (extremely adversely for me, and it seems a quite a few others).

i note you have offered no alternative reason for posting the grammy info so we can confirm you do in fact think it backs up your opinion that htdab was quality work (in full colour).
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 02:52:24 PM by soapit »

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #123 on: October 23, 2013, 02:54:49 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
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

         In the black and white world, one is not allowed to include things like sales or grammy award wins as possible indicators of quality. I and many other U2 fans think its a great thing that U2 won all those grammy awards. The Grammy awards are not perfect and don't prove quality, but they are an indicator. Its also ok for U2 fans to express this on a U2 fan forum.

         Yes, the 00s in my opinion have been an amazing time for U2. I'd take an album made of U2's non-album 00s tracks over any Radiohead album easily!

           
there you go again, persecution complex.

you're allowed to do it. just be prepared for you giving weight to those things to affect how people rate your opinions from then on (extremely adversely for me, and it seems a quite a few others).

                         Why do you need to adversely rate the opinions of other U2 fans on a U2 fan forum, simply because they love 00s U2, are happy they won the grammy's and do give the grammy's some weight in terms of measuring quality, just like U2, Radiohead, Jimmy Page and Robert Plant do?

                          Sure, I don't agree with every decision the grammy awards makes in terms of nominations or winners. But that does not mean the awards are meaningless.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 02:57:23 PM by edge245 »

Offline soapit

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,527
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #124 on: October 23, 2013, 03:01:48 PM »
i dont need to but am sometimes forced to such as in this case. it does help to know when to tune out the noise. saves me time. i guess they're kinda the same reason.

not simply because they express love for 00's u2 or are happy they won an award but because they post several pages of completely irrelevant info (imo) to demonstrate why their opinion is correct.

all done independently of what any of those famous people you listed may do in my situation.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 03:04:04 PM by soapit »

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #125 on: October 23, 2013, 03:17:37 PM »
Who would have thought that showing unrestrained love for 00s U2, as well as making a nod to the awards U2 won, on a U2 fan forum, would get some people panties all wadded up?  8)

Offline striker

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 669
  • Dream Out Loud
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #126 on: October 23, 2013, 03:42:41 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Chris Brown has a Grammy.

The Grammys are meaningless.
+1

The grammys is just a glorified ego-stroke for pretentious, rich jerks -- just like every other awards show out there. 
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 08:58:52 PM by Droo »

Offline soapit

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,527
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #127 on: October 23, 2013, 03:48:58 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Who would have thought that showing unrestrained love for 00s U2, as well as making a nod to the awards U2 won, on a U2 fan forum, would get some people panties all wadded up?  8)

If it makes you feel better to believe thatís whatís happening then Iím not going to try and correct you.

Offline THRILLHO

  • Holy Joe
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,361
  • The sun won't melt our wings tonight
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #128 on: October 23, 2013, 03:53:26 PM »
i dont know if i've ever once taken a look at the awards/sales/box office of anything artist/movies i've loved in the past 13 years. i did however used to love watching the Academy Awards, again, when i was in hs <96-00>

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,430
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #129 on: October 23, 2013, 05:21:15 PM »
So to recap bethere has re-iterated that bomb is the greatest album of the 21st century - and despite the fact that he is entitled to believe this and state it as his own opinion - which is absolutely fine, he has backed it up with 'proof' because it won a host of grammy awards. . . Ok so . . . Im saying its rubbish and despite my opinion being all I need I am going to throw in the fact it won zero brit awards and lost in the international album class to the scissor sisters in 05 and Green Day in  06 - oh and u2 lost to those 2 bands in the international group category in both those years as well.

So to avoid any doubt the scissor sisters or green days american idiot is now the greatest album of the 21st century and thats the end of it - unless anyone else has an opinion that they want to become fact - award success in any chosen avenue of awards essential to validate your opinion -ta!
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 05:32:06 PM by an tha »

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #130 on: October 23, 2013, 05:34:23 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Who would have thought that showing unrestrained love for 00s U2, as well as making a nod to the awards U2 won, on a U2 fan forum, would get some people panties all wadded up?  8)

If it makes you feel better to believe thatís whatís happening then Iím not going to try and correct you.

              The anti-U2 00s hate mob are the only ones in need of a "feel better moment".  8)

Offline neilkap

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 173
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #131 on: October 23, 2013, 05:36:14 PM »
The greatest album of all time must be supernatural by Santana.

It not only outsold htdaab by a lot, it also won grammys in 2 languages.

Discussion over. 



Offline big_willy_wonka

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 351
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #132 on: October 23, 2013, 05:41:48 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

U2 are at a level that whatever they release it will sell. Sales are no measure of artistic integrity. Looking at U2's releases objectively (and regardless of personal taste) I think it would be fair to say ATYCLB represented a sea change in U2's sound. This carried through to HDTAAB (which was basically ATYCLB but with horrific production) then on to the unholy mess that was NLOTH.

Previous to that (from TUF to POP) U2 released significantly different albums that were by and large radically different to each other. These records were daring and bold. The U2 of the last 3 records shows a band that has lost its way and lost its balls.

             That's not factual or objective. Its your individual subjective opinion. Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

          If the name alone were all it took, the POP album and POPMART tour would have been some of U2's biggest sellers. The name alone will not achieve massive sales.

The last sentence of my post was subjective yes. The rest of it was an objective commentary on the styles of music U2 produced pre and post 2000.



           Sorry it was all opinion and not objective, except the statement that it only takes an artist name to sell records is actually false. I can provide dozens of examples, the POP album and popmart tour being one.

Quote
But seeing as you're being purely subjective, my subjective opinion is that ATYCLB and HTDAAB and to a greater extent NLOTH are horrible U2 records. Populist, badly produced and so concerned with marketing and sales they barely know who they are. But seeing as the majority here are so obsessed with chart positions and how many units each record shifted I would have to admit by those standards they were a success. As artistic statements they were a failure. 

           Goood....., let the hate flow through you!

I think we can all agree there's no such thing as objective opinion - once we get over that intellectual hurdle we can all agree that your subjective opinion about HTDAAB means your opinion and my opinion are subjective and also totally irrelevant. Except it all suddenly becomes objective when it suits your argument. Who cares - you think it's great, I think it's crap. U2 are coining it in so don't care either way.

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,430
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #133 on: October 23, 2013, 05:43:49 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The greatest album of all time must be supernatural by Santana.

It not only outsold htdaab by a lot, it also won grammys in 2 languages.

Discussion over.

The bar has been raised. . . .


Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #134 on: October 23, 2013, 05:47:34 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The greatest album of all time must be supernatural by Santana.

It not only outsold htdaab by a lot, it also won grammys in 2 languages.

Discussion over.

            I never said that such things proved an album was better, I simply said they were indicators of quality, and something other than ones own opinion that could indicate quality. Predictably, the U2 00 haters mob then try's to mock such things by trotting out trivial examples.