Back to ATRL
This is
Classic ATRL
, an interactive archive of our original website.
Music News
Charts
Videos
Celebria
Base
The Lounge
Best Of
YTT
Games
TRL Archive
User Name
Remember Me
Password
Members who joined ATRL prior to 2017, sign in here.
Any changes made to your password do not sync.
Classic ATRL
>
Base
>
Discussion: Number #1's vs Grammys?
Sign In
Discussion: Number #1's vs Grammys?
Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
Next >
Last Post
Actions
Drama
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 5,480
Thread Starter
|
Post #1
Number #1's vs Grammys?
In my opinion number #1's are more impressive and Katy comes to mind with Teenage Dream. No other woman in history has 5 #1's on a single album.
But having a million Grammys does say a lot. It's no secret Katy has no Grammys but she holds a record of her own already.
So Which is more impressive?
Nemo
Member Since: 4/28/2012
Posts: 37,654
Post #2
Honestly neither. Outside of the stan world, it's only impact and longevity that really matter in the end.
Jorq
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 5,883
Post #3
Grammys.
Dessy Fenix
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 23,857
Post #4
Grammys, especially if you win an award for your album.
Notorious MINAJ
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 7,228
Post #5
I'd rather have Number 1's tbh. There are some music legends who don't have grammys.
Icarus
Member Since: 1/6/2014
Posts: 19,122
Post #6
Grammys, being recognised for having actual talent
Bloomers
Member Since: 2/5/2014
Posts: 29,111
Post #7
I'd rather have Grammys!
If things go south down the road you can sell them for $$$
Swim
Member Since: 9/1/2013
Posts: 13,357
Post #8
Quote:
Originally posted by
Nemo
Honestly neither. Outside of the stan world, it's only impact and longevity that really matter in the end.
Jay Fenty
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 15,535
Post #9
#1's are way more impressive, #1 hits are also more impressive than a #1 album
musicman101
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 3,339
Post #10
Quote:
Originally posted by
Nemo
Honestly neither. Outside of the stan world, it's only impact and longevity that really matter in the end.
Tbh
WeFoundTrouble
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 7,628
Post #11
I'd rather have Grammys.
KCLA
Member Since: 10/9/2011
Posts: 12,450
Post #12
Quote:
Originally posted by
Notorious MINAJ
I'd rather have
Number
1's tbh. There are some music legends who don't have
grammys
.
Sad for you
Jackk
Member Since: 8/27/2012
Posts: 6,308
Post #13
Grammys are for boring artist.
Rogue
Member Since: 4/26/2012
Posts: 33,881
Post #14
Having both is really amazing!
Revolution
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 4,054
Post #15
#1s. You get coins and relevancy.
Starburst
Member Since: 3/25/2012
Posts: 10,076
Post #16
Quote:
Originally posted by
Nemo
Honestly neither. Outside of the stan world, it's only impact and longevity that really matter in the end.
BaddiéBéy
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 3,470
Post #17
Quote:
Originally posted by
Nemo
Honestly neither. Outside of the stan world, it's only impact and longevity that really matter in the end.
Well said
Hugamari
Member Since: 9/12/2012
Posts: 26,389
Post #18
Not these "talent" stans clinging to Grammys when there are artists who could out-talent their fave any day with 0 Grammys. I'd much rather have the #1 over a hunk of metal with inflated importance.
KLatz
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 6,111
Post #19
Grammys can be bought, but #1s have to be earned. So #1s it is
abrahamjmr
Member Since: 6/24/2012
Posts: 24,708
Post #20
#1s. If a song goes #1 in countries like the US or UK, an artist will certain get enough money to live a comfortable life.
Grammys are important too and are the greatest accomplishment for any musician.
Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
Next >
Actions for this Thread
Print this Thread
"Absolute TRL" 1999-2006; "Popfusion" 2006-2007; "ATRL" 2007-present
