FEA
Active topics
  1. There is a new You Too, you can vote for this new poll on the frontpage and discuss it in this thread.

    The last You Too:

    Only if you heard it (enough times to judge): How would you rate the new single, Get On Your Boots, after a few listens? (poll started on 2009-01-19)

    4 stars - Great tune, great first single. - 41.5%
    3 stars - Good single but there has been better, and worse - 34.1%
    5 stars - Wow, I love this song more than anything. - 10.2%
    2 stars - Not really what I expected. - 9.6%
    1 star - Worst single U2 ever put out. - 4.6%

    Votes: 698

    The question of this new You Too is:

    Do you take music awards like the Grammys seriously?

    Yes, they reflect the quality of the music
    No, it's commercial and/or a matter of taste
    I don't have an opinion/another opinion..

    Please vote on the frontpage of the website, in this thread you can tell us why you voted for your answer.
    Your vote is valued! Thank you!
  2. Obviously these things can't be taken seriously. Only people who sell a lot get them. U2 got it a lot of them with Atomic Bomb. Also, how can somebody say this song is better than this other song?? Matter of taste. Bad taste usually. I think that these are enough reasons not to take them seriously. It's not that I don't like Atomic Bomb, it is just that I can't believe that it had the best rock song, or was the best rock album of that year. It is simply not true.
  3. Matter of taste imo.
    It does show a bit of what music is popular and other artists could use this knowledge (like CP with VLV: influenced by hiphop-artist, one of their greatest hits). But it's still commercial bullshit.
  4. god no- I beleive the year that Nevermind would have been eligble, Natalie Cole won for that creepy record she did with her dead father. Case closed IMO
  5. I don't know what to answer, I think they are sometimes awarded to the most deserving (in the case of U2 ) and i think it kind of represents what's happening but only on a limited and popular scale, yet I'm glad that Kings of Leon got nominated. I personally love seeing U2 win grammy's and I'd love it if KOL won. But I don't think you can take them too seriously because, it's not really about winning grammy's, don't think U2 or anybody (specifically) enters into a recording process with the looming hope of winning a shitload of grammy's for the album their about to make. So I'm kind of torn, but I guess I don't take them too seriously. I only really care about the grammy's when U2 is nominated
  6. Originally posted by notcomingdown:god no- I beleive the year that Nevermind would have been eligble, Natalie Cole won for that creepy record she did with her dead father. Case closed IMO


    haha
  7. No
  8. yes most seriously
  9. I haven't for a long time. The wrong artists are winning the awards (exclude U2).
  10. No
  11. No, I watch them, but I don't think that they are a good reflection of what's going on, and they also give awards to shitty artists *coughRihannacough*
  12. same here..I watch them but I dont take them seriously.....
    But grammys are almost good...mtv awards and those arent my taste at all
    but Im still very very happy when U2 wins an award....and every time Im praying for it
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.