Anti U2 thread (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter V
- Start date
I think U2 has done an amazing job in not only producing a handful of excellent albums (something few bands can do, regardless of how much time they get), but they've managed a way to keep themselves relevant throughout much of it. How many bands do you know have been making albums consistently as the same group for nearly 30 years?
You compare them with the likes of, say, the Rolling Stones, and those guys haven't made a relevant album in over 30 years.
So unfortunately that means a bored press is going to fawn all over themselves in crowning them the greatest thing since moveable type. One thing I do like about U2 is that they were keenly self-aware of it early on -- as early as the late 80's -- and a bit of their career has been taking the piss out of the whole "biggest band in the world" thing. The self-mockery on the Zoo TV tour was one of the most brilliant things I've seen a band do who had to deal with far more success than they thought they deserved.
If anything, this should be an "anti retarded and uncreative press coverage" thread.
You compare them with the likes of, say, the Rolling Stones, and those guys haven't made a relevant album in over 30 years.
So unfortunately that means a bored press is going to fawn all over themselves in crowning them the greatest thing since moveable type. One thing I do like about U2 is that they were keenly self-aware of it early on -- as early as the late 80's -- and a bit of their career has been taking the piss out of the whole "biggest band in the world" thing. The self-mockery on the Zoo TV tour was one of the most brilliant things I've seen a band do who had to deal with far more success than they thought they deserved.
If anything, this should be an "anti retarded and uncreative press coverage" thread.
I love U2, they've earned the right to fuck around a bit and do whatever they want. They're classic. Being anti U2 is like being anti-Sunshine or anti-good. U2 is one of the few bands that actually put their money where their mouth is. Not like Metallica who was so hard and so real they had to sue Napster because they were afraid to loose money.
If you're pissed because they've taken advantage of the corporatisation of music, then I'll have to assume that you do not listen to a single band that is signed to a major label. Don't hate the player, hate the game. As far as I'm concerned Bono and Edge can do whatever they want. If they want to bring attention to every cause in the world, they've earned the right to do so.
If you're pissed because they've taken advantage of the corporatisation of music, then I'll have to assume that you do not listen to a single band that is signed to a major label. Don't hate the player, hate the game. As far as I'm concerned Bono and Edge can do whatever they want. If they want to bring attention to every cause in the world, they've earned the right to do so.
Thing is, they haven't made anything excellent, even worthwhile, in over 15 years. If you think they did, that's your personal taste. I know a lot of fans, few of them in this thread, who feel that U2 have only been going downhill since 1991's Achtung Baby. Everything they've done later on, musically speaking, has been below average and only a true fan could digest it.
And even with such sub-par music they've managed to make headlines for all the wrong reasons in my opinion. From putting focus on gigantic stages and hundred meter video walls, to Bono's politicism and in the end from, being a marketing whore for over a decade. I wouldn't mind any of those things had they only kept the musical quality higher, but they didn't.
And that's what this thread is about, bands that have neglected music and remained on top due to all the wrong reasons.
Even though I love them, Rolling Stones are in fact a good example of that as well. Though, to a lot smaller degree than U2. They're keeping on going because of one sentence a young Jagger said decades ago, even though their music is going ever downwards.
It's not so much being anti U2, it's being anti-what they stand for currently(see my reply to Swag). Which is over-commercialization which keeps them on top with below average music. No serious music lover can think any of their albums, from the last 15 years, can be mentioned in the same sentence with Joshua Tree, War and Achtung Baby, for example.
Their latest offering is a torture to the ears and they're still being hailed as God's gift to music. Magnificent is a perfect example of everything wrong with today's U2, same old melody, same old sonic-whine riff from Edge and Bono's wailing. It's horrible. I can't believe this is the same band that made Sunday, Bloody Sunday and One.
I could swear 50% of the people that are going to their show in Zagreb, for example, are just going because of the spectacle and the media hype. You can't escape not being interested in it, even if you hate music in general, because there's so much commercials about it. Their PR department is doing more for them, than their music.
And even with such sub-par music they've managed to make headlines for all the wrong reasons in my opinion. From putting focus on gigantic stages and hundred meter video walls, to Bono's politicism and in the end from, being a marketing whore for over a decade. I wouldn't mind any of those things had they only kept the musical quality higher, but they didn't.
And that's what this thread is about, bands that have neglected music and remained on top due to all the wrong reasons.
Even though I love them, Rolling Stones are in fact a good example of that as well. Though, to a lot smaller degree than U2. They're keeping on going because of one sentence a young Jagger said decades ago, even though their music is going ever downwards.
It's not so much being anti U2, it's being anti-what they stand for currently(see my reply to Swag). Which is over-commercialization which keeps them on top with below average music. No serious music lover can think any of their albums, from the last 15 years, can be mentioned in the same sentence with Joshua Tree, War and Achtung Baby, for example.
Their latest offering is a torture to the ears and they're still being hailed as God's gift to music. Magnificent is a perfect example of everything wrong with today's U2, same old melody, same old sonic-whine riff from Edge and Bono's wailing. It's horrible. I can't believe this is the same band that made Sunday, Bloody Sunday and One.
I could swear 50% of the people that are going to their show in Zagreb, for example, are just going because of the spectacle and the media hype. You can't escape not being interested in it, even if you hate music in general, because there's so much commercials about it. Their PR department is doing more for them, than their music.
Metallica is a whole different thing. Even though they've made some shit music in the last decade, it was at least due to exploring different musical venues. They've went from speed metal to hard rock, from playing with a symphonic orchestra to something inexplicably horrible in St. Anger, all to go back to their roots in their latest album. All that aside, they've still managed to put half decent records out there.
Like with U2, I'm a fan of early Metallica.
Like with U2, I'm a fan of early Metallica.
Being classic doesn't always qualify for being good. Lots of classic bands have lost their way during the years. Only the truly great ones have went under the radar, after they've absolutelly drained their mainstream potential.
Take Dire Straits for example. They were as big as any band you can imagine in the 80's, the first band to be played on MTV, but the musical creativity in what they were doing has vanished. They could have kept on going and living of their past glory but they didn't. Knopfler disbanded the band and is now doing music for his soul, exploring different types of music, doing intimate 20.000 people concerts instead of football stadiums, and in the end making different, but quality music.
U2 is going back and forth making shit and selling it and pretty much every music critic will say so.
Take Dire Straits for example. They were as big as any band you can imagine in the 80's, the first band to be played on MTV, but the musical creativity in what they were doing has vanished. They could have kept on going and living of their past glory but they didn't. Knopfler disbanded the band and is now doing music for his soul, exploring different types of music, doing intimate 20.000 people concerts instead of football stadiums, and in the end making different, but quality music.
U2 is going back and forth making shit and selling it and pretty much every music critic will say so.
Perhaps I'm too soft on them, but they have four or five songs that are so good that I'll forgive them anything.
If you're at the Pearly Gates and God asks you what man has accomplished, you could name a U2 song. That's how good they are.
So basically you have someone who has, at the very least, been a great musician and is now trying to save the world.
And you're anti.
If you're at the Pearly Gates and God asks you what man has accomplished, you could name a U2 song. That's how good they are.
So basically you have someone who has, at the very least, been a great musician and is now trying to save the world.
And you're anti.