nibznik 13.02.2005 22:04 |
I was wondering what "important" awards have Queen won ? |
The Fairy King 13.02.2005 22:14 |
nope -.- |
foxxy_moron 13.02.2005 22:14 |
Freddie won one for Killer Queen.. an Ivor something award. Sorry I dont know the name of it. But there are pictures of them with alot.. ALOT.. of awards. |
The Fairy King 13.02.2005 22:15 |
They've won Brits, Ivor Novello's, MTV Awards n more i think but no Grammy's. |
The Fairy King 13.02.2005 22:19 |
link |
Adam Unger (QueenVault.com) 13.02.2005 23:14 |
I think they were nominated twice for The Game. One for producing and one for rock album of the year maybe? Or record of the year? Also, Freddie Mercury: The Untold Story was nominated for some minor category too. |
Melancholy Blues 14.02.2005 03:13 |
john was nominated for another one bites the dust |
Teo_torriate04 14.02.2005 03:25 |
link 1975 - Carl Allen Award for contribution to ballroom dancing! What the hell's that all about! |
deleted user 14.02.2005 03:46 |
Of course, they won two Grammys in 1980 (for best album "The Game" and for best group in 1980 / for "Another One Bites The Dust") Still a shame, they should have won more Grammys ... well: Americans and their problems with QUEEN !!! |
Mr.Jingles 14.02.2005 08:40 |
<b><font color="red">Peter Cetera</b> wrote: Of course, they won two Grammys in 1980 (for best album "The Game" and for best group in 1980 / for "Another One Bites The Dust") Still a shame, they should have won more Grammys ... well: Americans and their problems with QUEEN !!!I think there's a difference between being NOMINATED, and being a WINNER. |
Mr.Jingles 14.02.2005 08:40 |
After all, do Grammys really matter? I don't think so. How come crap artists like Barbara Streisand and Sting have over a dozen of them while great bands like The Who, AC/DC, Queen, Guns N' Roses have never won a single award. |
kohuept 14.02.2005 13:14 |
At the Hall of Fame Induction, Brian said: "This makes up for all the Grammys we DIDN'T win". |
Mr.Jingles 14.02.2005 13:29 |
Actually it was Roger the one who said that. |
kohuept 14.02.2005 13:50 |
OK, it's been a while. |
NOTWMEDDLE 14.02.2005 16:03 |
Queen lost Best Rock Performance to Bob Seger. Pink Floyd were nominated as well in same category. Grammies suck! Jethro Tull won for Best Metal in 1988 shows you Grammy people are DUMB! |
bassist08 14.02.2005 18:05 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote: After all, do Grammys really matter? I don't think so. How come crap artists like Barbara Streisand and Sting have over a dozen of them while great bands like The Who, AC/DC, Queen, Guns N' Roses have never won a single award.I totally agree. I do think that even though they didn't win many awards, Queen and all previously mentioned, they touched so many lives through their music and that is award enough in my eyes. |
Mr.Jingles 14.02.2005 23:11 |
NOTWMEDDLE wrote: Queen lost Best Rock Performance to Bob Seger. Pink Floyd were nominated as well in same category. Grammies suck! Jethro Tull won for Best Metal in 1988 shows you Grammy people are DUMB!LOL... I remember when Metallica finally won for best metal band for 'The Black Album', and Lars said: - "First of all we'd like to thank Jethro Tull for not putting an album out this year". The Grammys for the most part suck. Don't forget about the Milli Vanilli incident. Regardless of the fact that they returned their awards after the whole fiasco, the fact that someone thought those guys had talent was simply dumb. |
nino trovato 15.02.2005 06:21 |
Peter Cetera is correct. I remember watching Roger and John receiving it back in 1980 on tv. |
iGSM 15.02.2005 09:00 |
heh, no one considers a Grammy an award now-a-days. |
Lisser 15.02.2005 09:29 |
In America, the Grammy's are a huge deal. They are considered the most prestigious of all music awards. I think its great though that John received so many top bass player awards! |
Mr.Jingles 15.02.2005 09:51 |
Although the Grammys remain as the most prestigious music award, yet they don't mean as much to artists (especially rock stars) as having their albums go multi-platinum. Besides, it's the opinion of millions of music buyers what really matters to them, and not dozen or at the most hundreds of music critics. |
Lisser 15.02.2005 11:36 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote: Although the Grammys remain as the most prestigious music award, yet they don't mean as much to artists (especially rock stars) as having their albums go multi-platinum. Besides, it's the opinion of millions of music buyers what really matters to them, and not dozen or at the most hundreds of music critics.i agree with you about the albums going platinum, that is very important. But they can't give an award like a Grammy to every artist that goes platinum. Britney Spears went platinum, but does she deserve a Grammy? :S I also think the artists do value the awards given to them voted on by the fans bc they help the artists to live in multimillion dollar homes and drive $200,000 cars. Not only just that but the fans are who they are working for so to speak. But there is something about having a "grammy" in your trophy case I guess if you are a recording artist. |
goinback 15.02.2005 17:07 |
Actually, here in America the Grammys are a joke (and Roger's comment was right on). Everyone knows Grammys don't really go to the people who deserve them most, but instead to what's trendy at the time. (There are exceptions of course, and this year the awards were better than before.) It's basically old men choosing what's the best and least offensive among what 10-to-15-year-olds like. The groundbreaking and longest-lasting artists don't get Grammys until 20-50 years later when they get a "Lifetime Achievement" award or something. Still, it's probably the biggest musical event of the year just because of the glamour. But, especially with a war going on, everyone's really tired of the overabundance of awards shows for people who don't deserve it. The Grammys especially lost all credibility after the Jethro Tull and Milli Vanilli incidents. |
Mr.Jingles 15.02.2005 17:59 |
The Grammys might be a joke, but so are the Brits. I mean, both awards shows have a lot of prestige and some of the artists awarded truly deserve it. However, take for instance that The Spice Girls received a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Brits. Pink Floyd has never received an award like that at The Brits after a career span of over 30 years, hundreds of millions albums sold, and a unique style that makes them music legends. Then comes The Spice Girls which are nothing but fabricated bubblegum pop, put out two albums and then they get a lifetime achievement award?! That is a fuckin' insult to those artists who truly deserve an award like that, and also for those who have it already. Oh, and don't get me started with Robbie Williams. The guy keeps putting out crappy albums and that automatically gives him more Brits. Seriously, what is this obsession that they have in Europe with this guy? |
Lisser 16.02.2005 10:08 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote: The Grammys might be a joke, but so are the Brits. I mean, both awards shows have a lot of prestige and some of the artists awarded truly deserve it. However, take for instance that The Spice Girls received a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Brits. Pink Floyd has never received an award like that at The Brits after a career span of over 30 years, hundreds of millions albums sold, and a unique style that makes them music legends. Then comes The Spice Girls which are nothing but fabricated bubblegum pop, put out two albums and then they get a lifetime achievement award?! That is a fuckin' insult to those artists who truly deserve an award like that, and also for those who have it already. Oh, and don't get me started with Robbie Williams. The guy keeps putting out crappy albums and that automatically gives him more Brits. Seriously, what is this obsession that they have in Europe with this guy?Excellent point. |
NOTWMEDDLE 18.02.2005 15:00 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote: The Grammys might be a joke, but so are the Brits. I mean, both awards shows have a lot of prestige and some of the artists awarded truly deserve it. However, take for instance that The Spice Girls received a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Brits. Pink Floyd has never received an award like that at The Brits after a career span of over 30 years, hundreds of millions albums sold, and a unique style that makes them music legends. Then comes The Spice Girls which are nothing but fabricated bubblegum pop, put out two albums and then they get a lifetime achievement award?! That is a fuckin' insult to those artists who truly deserve an award like that, and also for those who have it already. Oh, and don't get me started with Robbie Williams. The guy keeps putting out crappy albums and that automatically gives him more Brits. Seriously, what is this obsession that they have in Europe with this guy?Pink Floyd only won one Grammy and it was for Best Rock Instrumental for Marooned from their 1994 album The Division Bell and it is a great song. They were nominated for Album of the Year with Dark Side and lost to Innervisions by Stevie Wonder. Also, Alan Parsons lost Best Engineer Grammy to the dudes who recorded and mixed Innervisions. The Wall was nominated for Album Of The Year in 1980 and lost as well to Christopher Cross' self-titled(and he is not remembered). Also, Floyd and Queen were nominated for Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group for Another Brick and AOBTD respectively and lost to Bob Seger's Against the Wind. The Wall won one technical Grammy for Best Engineered Recording and their co-producer/engineer James Guthrie got the award. |
dragonzflame 18.02.2005 23:41 |
The Grammys are more of an ass than the Oscars. |