Vertigo - Record of the Year?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

thereisnospoon9

Babyface
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
25
Location
Peoria
Will Vertigo pull a "Beautiful Day" and win record of the year at the grammies? or at least best rock single? what competition do they have?
 
well there is some good competition.
i think im right.


i dont think vertigo will win record or best rock single of the year.
maby best rock video (if the video is any good)
 
what rock songs is Vertgo competing against?

If it involves Evanescence/Nickelback it will be tough
 
Vertigo is ripping through everyone right now. It should win something.

I think it will be bigger (as in more commercially successful) than BD.
 
Personally, I think the fact BD won grammys will kill it for Vertigo. Remember that the grammys are popularity and appearances first, and quality second. It will hurt U2 that they won so many for their last album.
 
if not for the fact that their last album was 4 years ago...

also BD won grammys one year, and then they came back and won even more grammys for the same damn album the following year.

if it's eligable, it'll be nominated, and they'll probably perform.
 
I doubt Vertigo wins any grammies...

...but then Elevation won Grammy for rock song of the year in 2002, which was (in my opinion) not right, but oh well.

The Grammys have shown a certain liking for U2 historically...I guess anything's possible.
 
I don't care if U2 wins any grammys. The grammys are such a joke. These record labels are paying big bucks to have their artist represented or win an award. As a die hard U2 fan I don't want to see our guys in that kind of atmosphere. Mainstream music is :barf: :barf: :barf:
 
tkramer said:
Remember that the grammys are popularity and appearances first, and quality second.

As a member of the Recording Academy (the Grammy organization), I beg to differ. The MTV Awards and the AMA's are the one's who are style over substance. That's why we always get shit when someone like Shelby Lynn wins for Best New Artist and Steely Dan wins Record of the Year, etc...

This Friday and Saturday I will be attending the Grammy Screening Sessions here in LA.

Experts in their fields and genre - Producers, artists, engineers, etc are flown in from all over the US to listen to all the music/cd's submitted in all categories. For example, Sheryl Crowe may WANT to be submitted in ROCK, but if I listen and deem it's a POP song, into the pop category she goes. I had to throw Metallica into Hard Rock a few years ago because their CD was not hard enough to go into Metal. They were pissed, but that's my job.

We get a list of every category and every song, band, artist, producer, etc, that has been submitted. Obviously, as a fiduciary to the Academy, and standing in a special relation of trust, confidence, and responsibility in this obligation, I can't post what's been listed, but I don't see why I can't let you know if U2 has been submitted and in what categories. I'll find out. I obviously don't want to compromise my position there.

It's a lot of fun because I get to see people I usually only see a few times a year, and I get to listen to alot of great (and not so great) music.
 
PS: U2 relased this CD the same way they released ATYCLB.

The 1st single eligible one year and the rest of the CD eligible the next. Pretty smart move.
 
I think U2 will get best rock song. Record/song of the year? Probably not. In any case, it doesn't matter. The Grammys suck. They get it right once in a while, but most of the time they are a joke.
 
zoopop said:
I don't care if U2 wins any grammys. The grammys are such a joke. These record labels are paying big bucks to have their artist represented or win an award. As a die hard U2 fan I don't want to see our guys in that kind of atmosphere. Mainstream music is :barf: :barf: :barf:

Whoa, that's NOT how it works. NO ONE gets paid. I have been with The Academy for almost 20 years and have been a part of the process from start to finish. I really hate it when people talk about things they know nothing about. If you have questions about the process, email me privately and I'll talk to you about it. Like it or not, U2 IS mainstream music. It's a hell of alot better that 99% of the shit that's out there, but they are still mainstream.
 
"It's a hell of alot better that 99% of the shit that's out there, but they are still mainstream."

Well said, brachanam9. :)
 
brachanam9 said:
PS: U2 relased this CD the same way they released ATYCLB.

The 1st single eligible one year and the rest of the CD eligible the next. Pretty smart move.

Hi! As a member of the association, perhaps you can answer this question that has bugged me for years - why is the Grammy calendar so unusual? I realize voters need time to vote, etc., however, the Oscars and Golden Globes are similar (albeit for films) and they can still vote early. So why are the Grammies from Oct. 1st to Sep. 30th? Is it for the very reason you mentioned - that a song can be nominated one year and the album the next? There must be some logic here. If you can help, it would be appreciated.

Thanks! :)
 
It's a hell of alot better that 99% of the shit that's out there, but they are still mainstream. [/B]

The grammys just look so manufactured. I was joking about the labels paying too. I know they don't pay, but they campaign like crazy to sell more records.

I really don't see U2 as mainstream. There a band making the music they want to and at there age are still making relivant music. U2 has such a global following it puts them over the stratosphere.

Hey brachanam9, I would like to know the process and think its cool your apart of the Academy.
 
brachanam9 said:


As a member of the Recording Academy (the Grammy organization), I beg to differ. The MTV Awards and the AMA's are the one's who are style over substance. That's why we always get shit when someone like Shelby Lynn wins for Best New Artist and Steely Dan wins Record of the Year, etc...

This Friday and Saturday I will be attending the Grammy Screening Sessions here in LA.

Experts in their fields and genre - Producers, artists, engineers, etc are flown in from all over the US to listen to all the music/cd's submitted in all categories. For example, Sheryl Crowe may WANT to be submitted in ROCK, but if I listen and deem it's a POP song, into the pop category she goes. I had to throw Metallica into Hard Rock a few years ago because their CD was not hard enough to go into Metal. They were pissed, but that's my job.

We get a list of every category and every song, band, artist, producer, etc, that has been submitted. Obviously, as a fiduciary to the Academy, and standing in a special relation of trust, confidence, and responsibility in this obligation, I can't post what's been listed, but I don't see why I can't let you know if U2 has been submitted and in what categories. I'll find out. I obviously don't want to compromise my position there.

It's a lot of fun because I get to see people I usually only see a few times a year, and I get to listen to alot of great (and not so great) music.

I've been impressed with the Grammy performances over the past few years, particularly last year. Hell of a show! However, who are you guys trying to kid by saying that the Grammys award substance? Maybe in the smaller categories, but the major categories are a joke! How do Nelly and the Backstreet Boys get nominations in the major categories? Nickelback? Missy Elliott for Best Album? Take a look at the Shortlist Prize if you want to award substance.
 
I like the Grammys... they actually try to give focus/ attention to less popular styles/ genres. Are they perfect... no... but not bad. I would never have heard of Nnenna Freelon if not for the Grammys... I thought it was awesome to see them have a group singing performance by Alison Krauss, Emmylou Harris, and Gillian Welch on that same show. You would never see that on MTV or any other awards program for that matter, but of course most people's tastes revolve around rock alone...:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
O! an actual grammy voter!

I remember that weird break with BD one year and All That you Can't the next. and I guess this ties in to someone question above: I can understand that the album comes out right before Christmas...cool. But really, what's up with the calendar? Also, what would qualift Vertigo? Single release on iTunes or radio/commercial release?
 
I remember when Jethro Tull beat Metallica for Best Heavy Metal Album. Jethro Tull, heavy metal? Nevermind that, better than Metallica's Black album or Justice, whichever one it was.

The Grammy's are a joke, honestly. The best award given in music? Yeah, probably but it's still a joke and says a lot about the AMA's and the MTV awards. Not trying to offend our resident Grammy voter, it's not a personal thing, just don't care much for the whole spectacle. I can list other instances like the one above, but it's not worth the effort.

I'd rather see Vertigo hit #1 on the Billboard charts in the US than to win a Grammy. U2 haven't hit #1 in the US (with a single) since 1987.
 
Last edited:
I wanted to shoot Eminem when he stole U2's oscar... [/B][/QUOTE]

I wish U2 would have won as well, but Eminem's song WAS a huge smash hit, while Gangs of New York (while an excellent song) couldn't have possibly hoped to beat "Lose Yourself" because it was much more low key. I think Eminem deserved to win for once. :grumpy:

(Just look at all the attention it gave 8-Mile itself... and it was a movie award show...)
 
I don't see Vertigo winning any individual awards (except maybe rock song), but I think the album as a whole might do something. The early buzz sounds promising.
 
Back
Top Bottom