Dave Grohl On Grammy Awards

Dave Grohl can't believe he is still rocking a music career after two decades - and is proud to be competing with Adele in the Grammy awards.

"It feels great to be the guy with gray hair in his beard who is still invited to these things," Grohl told Billboard. "Twenty years ago, I never thought I'd even have a career in music this long."

The 43-year-old Foo Fighters frontman feels like the last year has been the best of his career. "Wasting Light" has sold over 663,000 copies since its release in early 2011, and has been nominated for an album of the year Grammy. It will compete with releases by Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars, and inevitably, Adele.

"I'm glad that we're with Adele in the same category. It means we've done something right," he said. "She's made an incredible record, and she's an incredibly talented artist, so maybe it is true that the cream actually rises to the top."

Grohl hints that the Foo Fighters performance will feature an unlikely collaboration, but keeps his lips sealed as to who it might be with.

"There has to be some common connection between the artists collaborating [in a Grammy performance], but it has to be somewhat adventurous and unexpected. To be honest, how many (expletive) rock bands are on the show this year? Yeah, so they're not gonna put us with another rock band."

The band have been nominated for a total of six Grammy awards, giving the band a solid chance of taking at least one home - but Grohl won't prepare a speech, whatever the certainty.

"I never plan what I'm going to say when I get up on stage," he admits. "My father was a speechwriter, and my mother was a public speaking teacher, and one thing that I've learned in life is that you never want to read a speech. You just want to go up and give it."

Meanwhile, Grohl is preparing a side-project to document the history behind Sound City Studios where Nirvana recorded "Nevermind". It will include collaborations with Corey Taylor and others who passed through the studio in its heyday.

Foo Fighters will begin writing a followup to "Wasting Light" this year.

Comments

[AnnihilationUK]

woah woah woah... Dave Grohl is 43?!
I don't know why that surprises me so much O.o

[metallicaftwlp]

Foo Fighters will begin writing a followup to "Wasting Light" this year.

pure awesomeness.

[mitchrosko]

metallicaftwlp wrote:

Foo Fighters will begin writing a followup to "Wasting Light" this year.

pure awesomeness.

I'm really interested in the direction they'll go after Wasting Light

[rafey]

So when is this happening?

[MattKempton]

when will dave win the fight against foo??? this battle has gone for too long

[drying out]

AnnihilationUK wrote:

woah woah woah... Dave Grohl is 43?!
I don't know why that surprises me so much O.o

what? you thought nirvana's drummer was 33?

[fede01_8]

mitchrosko wrote:

metallicaftwlp wrote:

Foo Fighters will begin writing a followup to "Wasting Light" this year.

pure awesomeness.


I'm really interested in the direction they'll go after Wasting Light

I'm a FF fan, but they're not the kind of band that try new things for the next record

[spiff-corgi]

Awards have lost all perspective these days. Though he is a talented fella (sick voice), it boggles my mind that Foo Fighters are competing for a Grammy with Bruno Mars...

[AnnihilationUK]

drying out wrote:

AnnihilationUK wrote:

woah woah woah... Dave Grohl is 43?!
I don't know why that surprises me so much O.o

what? you thought nirvana's drummer was 33?

Nah his music just seems to be so fresh.
It's like he doesn't age is what I'm getting at.

I didn't actually think he was in his 20's :P

[thenight07]

"wasting light" should be called "wasting peoples time"

[Rickles360]

"The Band have been nominated"

Get a ****ing editor...

[skyhawk714]

spiff-corgi wrote:

Awards have lost all perspective these days. Though he is a talented fella (sick voice), it boggles my mind that Foo Fighters are competing for a Grammy with Bruno Mars...

I don't get why its a terrible thing that Bruno Mars is nominated. First off the Grammys are a pop awards show, they always have been. So to say that all that wins anymore is pop anymore isn't really a fair criticism. That has always been the case, its just that pop was more acceptable to your taste in the past.

Besides like you said Bruno Mars is talented. He is a great singer and great songwriter. He writes catchy, hooky songs. I'm not a fan of them, but it doesn't mean its worthless.

[spiff-corgi]

skyhawk714 wrote:

spiff-corgi wrote:

Awards have lost all perspective these days. Though he is a talented fella (sick voice), it boggles my mind that Foo Fighters are competing for a Grammy with Bruno Mars...

I don't get why its a terrible thing that Bruno Mars is nominated. First off the Grammys are a pop awards show, they always have been. So to say that all that wins anymore is pop anymore isn't really a fair criticism. That has always been the case, its just that pop was more acceptable to your taste in the past.

Besides like you said Bruno Mars is talented. He is a great singer and great songwriter. He writes catchy, hooky songs. I'm not a fan of them, but it doesn't mean its worthless.

I think an award for an album should not be based on the catchiness of the singles, but I am rather old fashioned. Too many albums these days are just a collection of singles written with various co-writers (or bought from various writers). It's a bit sad.

[jetfuel495]

MattKempton wrote:

when will dave win the fight against foo??? this battle has gone for too long

Every day is a fight against the foo.

LONG LIVE THE GORHL!

[Kenjamin91]

Would be cool to see them win one. If Lady Gaga wins that award then I think the Grammy's will lose all my respect, or what's left of it.

[LesThanPaul]

Rickles360 wrote:

"The Band have been nominated"

Get a ****ing editor...

You can actually do either, have or has. 'The Band' is ambiguous and can refer to either a singular group or the people that comprise it. Even though most people would say 'the band has', the way they have it is also fine.

[Minivirus2]

"Wasting Light" has sold over 663,000 copies since its release in early 2011, and has been nominated for an album of the year Grammy. It will compete with releases by Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars, and inevitably, Adele.

Here's why I think the Foo should win...

Adele produced a "pop" record of the masses which would sell without little to no question about it, whereas the Foo have put out a ROCK album for the fans which was picked up by the masses. What I'm getting at is, the Foo put out an immensely well received ablum, in a genre which is far from the most popular these days, and it transcended the niche group of fans and found success with the entire music scene. Doesn't happen very often in this day and age.

[ne14t]

mitchrosko wrote:

metallicaftwlp wrote:

Foo Fighters will begin writing a followup to "Wasting Light" this year.

pure awesomeness.


I'm really interested in the direction they'll go after Wasting Light

An entire album of White Limo so I can spend 50 minutes rocking the fark out!

[robquest]

Whoa whoa Dave Grohl AND Corey Taylor in one UG story?!


Who woulda thunk?

[CronoMagus]

ne14t wrote:

mitchrosko wrote:

metallicaftwlp wrote:

Foo Fighters will begin writing a followup to "Wasting Light" this year.

pure awesomeness.


I'm really interested in the direction they'll go after Wasting Light

An entire album of White Limo so I can spend 50 minutes rocking the fark out!

Good vocals on that song but I would like to see how good they would have been without all the fuzz and distortion over them.

[Root Beer]

MattKempton wrote:

when will dave win the fight against foo??? this battle has gone for too long

The battle of Gorhl vs the Foos is a struggle of epic proportions. No one can win, no one can lose. They'll just keep fighting cause that's what they do.

[Elderer]

So no Vultures for me.

Me sad.

Fuck.

[BassFishin]

Nooooo! I hate when I disagree with Dave Grohl...I can't stand Adele...

Oh well. The last line in the article has me stoked!!!

[JPScralatchtica]

spiff-corgi wrote:

skyhawk714 wrote:

spiff-corgi wrote:

Awards have lost all perspective these days. Though he is a talented fella (sick voice), it boggles my mind that Foo Fighters are competing for a Grammy with Bruno Mars...

I don't get why its a terrible thing that Bruno Mars is nominated. First off the Grammys are a pop awards show, they always have been. So to say that all that wins anymore is pop anymore isn't really a fair criticism. That has always been the case, its just that pop was more acceptable to your taste in the past.

Besides like you said Bruno Mars is talented. He is a great singer and great songwriter. He writes catchy, hooky songs. I'm not a fan of them, but it doesn't mean its worthless.

I think an award for an album should not be based on the catchiness of the singles, but I am rather old fashioned. Too many albums these days are just a collection of singles written with various co-writers (or bought from various writers). It's a bit sad.

Please, tell me when that was not common. Elvis did not write all of his songs, The Beatles did not write all of their songs, Led Zeppelin did not write all of their songs...neither did Michael Jackson or Adele or the majority of all artists. Seriously, I'm sick of people saying that artists today do not have talent or originality. They do. They at least have the same amount of talent and originality as the grammy winners from any time period. The specific music and context changes, but it is not any worse. Every "new" or "original" song or thought is a modification of the past.

That rant being said, I'm stoked that the Foos have received so much recognition. They definitely deserve it! Awesome band!

[maxmetalero]

I love how Corey Taylor is mentioned in just about every UG article. Good job UG!

[Tonganation]

JPScralatchtica wrote:

Please, tell me when that was not common. Elvis did not write all of his songs, The Beatles did not write all of their songs, Led Zeppelin did not write all of their songs...neither did Michael Jackson or Adele or the majority of all artists. Seriously, I'm sick of people saying that artists today do not have talent or originality. They do. They at least have the same amount of talent and originality as the grammy winners from any time period. The specific music and context changes, but it is not any worse. Every "new" or "original" song or thought is a modification of the past.

That rant being said, I'm stoked that the Foos have received so much recognition. They definitely deserve it! Awesome band!

The songs that weren't originals from Elvis, the Beatles, and Led Zepplin were covers adapted to their respective styles though. Adaptation of a song shows talent and originality in many cases. Today you see singers with little songwriting talent having original music written for them by professional songwriters. These pop singers may be very talented vocalists, worthy of praise I might add, but their originality is not their own. It is only a product of the music written for them.
My personal preference is for artists that write their own music though. I don't see integrity in getting famous by singing someone else's songs written specifically for your album.

[shwilly]

Minivirus2 wrote:
Here's why I think the Foo should win...

Adele produced a "pop" record of the masses which would sell without little to no question about it, whereas the Foo have put out a ROCK album for the fans which was picked up by the masses. What I'm getting at is, the Foo put out an immensely well received ablum, in a genre which is far from the most popular these days, and it transcended the niche group of fans and found success with the entire music scene. Doesn't happen very often in this day and age.

Rather than being just some random genres, terms like "pop" and "rock" encompass much more than a general sound. Adele is a singer-songwriter who's music can be described as a mix of soul, pop, r&b, (piano) ballads, maybe some doo-wop and country here and there... she's known for preferring a more old skool production, so no auto-tune and drum computers, and has approached a wide array of producers, ranging from Rick Rubin to Paul Epworth to Mark Ronson, so no Timbaland or The Messengers...

That and the fact that she looks like Lindsay Lohan's fat sister don't really make for a product "for the masses which would sell without little to no question about it". Just for comparison: she's released both of her records simultaneously with Duffy whom you could describe as a similar kind of act, just not as good. I believed Duffy even outsold Adele a few years ago, but there really was no contest this time

Grohl has contributed to a whole bunch of projects over the years, and I’d say Foos are without a doubt the most mainstream one of them all. Which is fine, in the end Nevermind wasn’t much more than a collection of really catchy and well written songs performed by a punk / alternative rock band. But Foos were never groundbreaking or exceptional. The cool thing about the new record is that it sounds much more focussed than their previous efforts and there really are no weak or draggy songs on it. But to describe ‘em as some kind of underground act who succeeded against all odds is just silly: they’ve been making hit records for quite some time now. This one was just better according to a lot of people, that’s all

[brandon54]

spiff-corgi wrote:

skyhawk714 wrote:

spiff-corgi wrote:

Awards have lost all perspective these days. Though he is a talented fella (sick voice), it boggles my mind that Foo Fighters are competing for a Grammy with Bruno Mars...

I don't get why its a terrible thing that Bruno Mars is nominated. First off the Grammys are a pop awards show, they always have been. So to say that all that wins anymore is pop anymore isn't really a fair criticism. That has always been the case, its just that pop was more acceptable to your taste in the past.

Besides like you said Bruno Mars is talented. He is a great singer and great songwriter. He writes catchy, hooky songs. I'm not a fan of them, but it doesn't mean its worthless.

I think an award for an album should not be based on the catchiness of the singles, but I am rather old fashioned. Too many albums these days are just a collection of singles written with various co-writers (or bought from various writers). It's a bit sad.

I took a rock and roll history class and thats kind of how it started! But i agree its Albums not Singles.

[Spychosis]

fede01_8 wrote:
I'm a FF fan, but they're not the kind of band that try new things for the next record

In Your Honor disagrees.

[Minivirus2]

shwilly wrote:

Minivirus2 wrote:
Here's why I think the Foo should win...

Adele produced a "pop" record of the masses which would sell without little to no question about it, whereas the Foo have put out a ROCK album for the fans which was picked up by the masses. What I'm getting at is, the Foo put out an immensely well received ablum, in a genre which is far from the most popular these days, and it transcended the niche group of fans and found success with the entire music scene. Doesn't happen very often in this day and age.

Rather than being just some random genres, terms like "pop" and "rock" encompass much more than a general sound. Adele is a singer-songwriter who's music can be described as a mix of soul, pop, r&b, (piano) ballads, maybe some doo-wop and country here and there... she's known for preferring a more old skool production, so no auto-tune and drum computers, and has approached a wide array of producers, ranging from Rick Rubin to Paul Epworth to Mark Ronson, so no Timbaland or The Messengers...

That and the fact that she looks like Lindsay Lohan's fat sister don't really make for a product "for the masses which would sell without little to no question about it". Just for comparison: she's released both of her records simultaneously with Duffy whom you could describe as a similar kind of act, just not as good. I believed Duffy even outsold Adele a few years ago, but there really was no contest this time

Grohl has contributed to a whole bunch of projects over the years, and I’d say Foos are without a doubt the most mainstream one of them all. Which is fine, in the end Nevermind wasn’t much more than a collection of really catchy and well written songs performed by a punk / alternative rock band. But Foos were never groundbreaking or exceptional. The cool thing about the new record is that it sounds much more focussed than their previous efforts and there really are no weak or draggy songs on it. But to describe ‘em as some kind of underground act who succeeded against all odds is just silly: they’ve been making hit records for quite some time now. This one was just better according to a lot of people, that’s all

Bleh, exactly what I feared, someone over thinking what I said and putting it a tad to literal.

Here's a better, more to the point, way of saying what I meant:

Adele - Wrote music which is easily absorbed and accept by the general music scene of today. (i.e. pop or popular music)

Foos - Note: I never said underground once throughout my previous post. While garnering heavy mainstream success in the past, they're still part of a shunned music genre in the mainstream. Seriously, how many rock videos are played on TV anymore. How many rock radio stations are there compared to generalized stations? Also, would rock typically be played on any of the "pop" stations you know of? Mine sure as Hell wouldn't, but THE FOO WERE! Even people who don't like rock, know the songs Rope and dear Rosemary. Also, as you've pointed out yourself, WL is easily one of the best albums the FF have ever made.

When an album becomes accessible to all, and the core fanbase doesn't scream sell-out, there's something special about it. I can't say I've enjoyed any Adele personally.

[GREENWARRI0R]

Pretty sure if they weren't nominated Dave would have something negative to say about the Grammy's and their nominees. I could be a bit biased, though as I am not a fan of him or his music.

also, Foo Fighters are far from "niche" and not far from pop. I hear them on the radio constantly.

[foxytabber]

AnnihilationUK wrote:

woah woah woah... Dave Grohl is 43?!
I don't know why that surprises me so much O.o

Probably because his voice has been virtually unaffected by aging. It surprised the hell out of me too!

[xwf]

Go to the Grammy website, and feel your heart sink to the floor. Apparently the colab is with them, Lil Wayne, Deadmau5, Chris Brown, and David Guetta for some sort of "dance electronica" tribute. I could ****ing vomit.

[bustapr]

Minivirus2 wrote:

Bleh, exactly what I feared, someone over thinking what I said and putting it a tad to literal.

Here's a better, more to the point, way of saying what I meant:

Adele - Wrote music which is easily absorbed and accept by the general music scene of today. (i.e. pop or popular music)

Foos - Note: I never said underground once throughout my previous post. While garnering heavy mainstream success in the past, they're still part of a shunned music genre in the mainstream. Seriously, how many rock videos are played on TV anymore. How many rock radio stations are there compared to generalized stations? Also, would rock typically be played on any of the "pop" stations you know of? Mine sure as Hell wouldn't, but THE FOO WERE! Even people who don't like rock, know the songs Rope and dear Rosemary. Also, as you've pointed out yourself, WL is easily one of the best albums the FF have ever made.

When an album becomes accessible to all, and the core fanbase doesn't scream sell-out, there's something special about it. I can't say I've enjoyed any Adele personally.

me being a guitar and metalhead, I admit that I enjoy Adeles style in music and most of the songs on her album. just because its pop and easily accepted doesnt mean its worse than a rock band with a fan base. Foos album was great all around, but Adeles was also great. And she fkn SINGS those live performances.

Im not a real fan of pop, but I gotta recognize talent where its merited, and so far Adele and foos are the only ones I can see as talented in that lineup.

[opusthecat]

fede01_8 wrote:
I'm a FF fan, but they're not the kind of band that try new things for the next record

So in other words, you haven't listened to Wasting Light...

[TimTheWizard]

spiff-corgi wrote:

Awards have lost all perspective these days. Though he is a talented fella (sick voice), it boggles my mind that Foo Fighters are competing for a Grammy with Bruno Mars...

I watched last year's Grammy's "pre-show" or whatever they call it (not the fancy show, but the one where they do all the boring awards and whatnot) and there were inbetween interviews with artists who donated money to the Grammy Foundation and Bruno Mars and some other chick (who won a Grammy too, but no one remembers her now already) were members and they were both nominated for every category they could possibly be categorized to.

This shows that the Grammy's are LONG LONG time no more bout who's best, greatest or most innovating or renewing the musical soundscape but just who gives the most money in order to get it back from their own hands. Grammy's are worthless pieces and so are all other music awards.
Give me sold out stages or arenas instead of a Grammy and I'll feel like I've made it as a musician.

[Nex_]

Regardless of what anyone else says about the Grammys 'cred', they won back a little from me after they awarded Album of the Year to Arcade Fire. Loved the what-the-**** reaction across the net who didn't know who they were. I don't really care if you call me a hipster, I thoroughly enjoyed their album and was glad they won one for the ole maple leaf

[MoFly41]

Uhh is it just me or are all of you forgetting that Adele doens't have guitar solos...F that. That's what the Grammys should be about. The complexity of the only true instrument in music. The Axe.

[GenerationKILL]

Though I'm happy for the Foos even Grohl knows that this is Adeles year. Shes a force to be reckoned with vocally and has really upped the ante for female singers. Even some who are considered industry greats and inspirations themselves.

Your standard, narrow minded 17 year old metalhead who learned a few riffs here on UG and now thinks they know everything will disagree obviously, but trolling comments and retorts from MOST of the idiots on here should be taken with a grain of salt.

Expect that collaboration to be with Adele...

[Maiden95]

An unexpected collaboration?... Lou Reed?

[beineken]

GenerationKILL wrote:

Expect that collaboration to be with Adele...

I wish. Adele had throat surgery recently and supposedly isn't going to be able to tour for 3 years or something. I doubt she'll be performing at all this year. If she does, that will be beyond awesome.

I love the Foos far more than I do Adele, but I wouldn't complain about latter coming home with some of the big awards; they both deserve them.

[GeekInThePink]

I think "White Limo" should win every award ever.

MoFly41 wrote:

Uhh is it just me or are all of you forgetting that Adele doens't have guitar solos...F that. That's what the Grammys should be about. The complexity of the only true instrument in music. The Axe.

No no no no no no no. No.

[queenslander47]

GenerationKILL wrote:

Though I'm happy for the Foos even Grohl knows that this is Adeles year. Shes a force to be reckoned with vocally and has really upped the ante for female singers. Even some who are considered industry greats and inspirations themselves.

Your standard, narrow minded 17 year old metalhead who learned a few riffs here on UG and now thinks they know everything will disagree obviously, but trolling comments and retorts from MOST of the idiots on here should be taken with a grain of salt.

Expect that collaboration to be with Adele...

Agree totally. Adele's talent just can't be denied and her album is STILL at number one. She will clean up at the Grammys and if she doesn't something is wrong.

[JPScralatchtica]

Tonganation wrote:

JPScralatchtica wrote:

Please, tell me when that was not common. Elvis did not write all of his songs, The Beatles did not write all of their songs, Led Zeppelin did not write all of their songs...neither did Michael Jackson or Adele or the majority of all artists. Seriously, I'm sick of people saying that artists today do not have talent or originality. They do. They at least have the same amount of talent and originality as the grammy winners from any time period. The specific music and context changes, but it is not any worse. Every "new" or "original" song or thought is a modification of the past.

That rant being said, I'm stoked that the Foos have received so much recognition. They definitely deserve it! Awesome band!
The songs that weren't originals from Elvis, the Beatles, and Led Zepplin were covers adapted to their respective styles though. Adaptation of a song shows talent and originality in many cases. Today you see singers with little songwriting talent having original music written for them by professional songwriters. These pop singers may be very talented vocalists, worthy of praise I might add, but their originality is not their own. It is only a product of the music written for them.
My personal preference is for artists that write their own music though. I don't see integrity in getting famous by singing someone else's songs written specifically for your album.

I agree with you, partially. My point was more that I'm sick of people stating that artists today are more reliant on other people to write their songs than they did in the past, which is just a ridiculous statement. Most pop artists have writers and are just good vocalists and that's true of every generation.

Thankfully, bands such as The Beatles and the Foos have raised the bar by both writing and performing their songs, but that's definitely not the norm.

[Koelker12]

One by One is still my favorite FF album, though I like them all. Hope they try to do something a bit different for the next album, maybe break down the formula a bit.

[Root Beer]

MoFly41 wrote:

Uhh is it just me or are all of you forgetting that Adele doens't have guitar solos...F that. That's what the Grammys should be about. The complexity of the only true instrument in music. The Axe.

I sense sarcasm...

[GREENWARRI0R]

MoFly41 wrote:

Uhh is it just me or are all of you forgetting that Adele doens't have guitar solos...F that. That's what the Grammys should be about. The complexity of the only true instrument in music. The Axe.

I remember when I was 13.

[Chuckster189]

DEADMAU5 is performing with the Foo Fighters at the grammy awards.

[thenextkirk92]

xwf wrote:

Go to the Grammy website, and feel your heart sink to the floor. Apparently the colab is with them, Lil Wayne, Deadmau5, Chris Brown, and David Guetta for some sort of "dance electronica" tribute. I could ****ing vomit.

Deadmau5 is a talented electronic artist. But I can understand the disapproval for the others.

[RC52190]

Rickles360 wrote:

"The Band have been nominated"

Get a ****ing editor...

Get a credit in a high school english class, you dumbass. You use the word "have" with a band as opposed to "has" because although you're talking about the band, you're really referring to all the members in it, therefore you use the plural "have" instead of "has."

[doomey22a]

Where the F*ck is Florence in all this? Have you heard her new album? It takes a massive steaming musical dump over anything else I've heard in the past year

[metallicaftwlp]

RC52190 wrote:

Rickles360 wrote:

"The Band have been nominated"

Get a ****ing editor...
Get a credit in a high school english class, you dumbass. You use the word "have" with a band as opposed to "has" because although you're talking about the band, you're really referring to all the members in it, therefore you use the plural "have" instead of "has."

Wrong, the band = singular, therefore has. Studying Italian has greatly enlightened me on how shit English grammar is.

[Mr_Gilb]

Instead of writing something to follow up wasting light, cant foo fighters just write something instead of wasting light, as that album was awful and just disappointing, especially when their older stuff was so good!!

[spiff-corgi]

JPScralatchtica wrote:

spiff-corgi wrote:

skyhawk714 wrote:

spiff-corgi wrote:

Awards have lost all perspective these days. Though he is a talented fella (sick voice), it boggles my mind that Foo Fighters are competing for a Grammy with Bruno Mars...

I don't get why its a terrible thing that Bruno Mars is nominated. First off the Grammys are a pop awards show, they always have been. So to say that all that wins anymore is pop anymore isn't really a fair criticism. That has always been the case, its just that pop was more acceptable to your taste in the past.

Besides like you said Bruno Mars is talented. He is a great singer and great songwriter. He writes catchy, hooky songs. I'm not a fan of them, but it doesn't mean its worthless.

I think an award for an album should not be based on the catchiness of the singles, but I am rather old fashioned. Too many albums these days are just a collection of singles written with various co-writers (or bought from various writers). It's a bit sad.

Please, tell me when that was not common. Elvis did not write all of his songs, The Beatles did not write all of their songs, Led Zeppelin did not write all of their songs...neither did Michael Jackson or Adele or the majority of all artists. Seriously, I'm sick of people saying that artists today do not have talent or originality. They do. They at least have the same amount of talent and originality as the grammy winners from any time period. The specific music and context changes, but it is not any worse. Every "new" or "original" song or thought is a modification of the past.

That rant being said, I'm stoked that the Foos have received so much recognition. They definitely deserve it! Awesome band!

This is a long quote but I thought I'd add my final say. Basically, what I mean is I don't like albums that are just a collection of singles. I know this has gone on ever since pop has existed but it's a known statistic reported by UG that sales for pop albums have increased a lot recently. Back in the day, albums like Thriller produced lots of singles cos the songs were just so fricking good, AND it worked as an album. My point is that most of these platinum selling albums are just singles bought for the purpose of being singles and then patched together haphazardly into an "album".

[SirWurscht]

The Foos should win every grammy they're nominated, except the Metal/Hard Rock one: MEGADETH!

And stop bitchin about Adele. I think she's a great musician. But everyone should have his own opinion as long as it's not completely stupid^^

[XDforlife]

Root Beer wrote:

MoFly41 wrote:

Uhh is it just me or are all of you forgetting that Adele doens't have guitar solos...F that. That's what the Grammys should be about. The complexity of the only true instrument in music. The Axe.

I sense sarcasm...

The sarcasm is strong with this one

[breakinslash]

Fuck Yeah