For me, I have no problem hating parts of U2's career, but I think it's pretty much a fact that they were one of the best bands of the 80's. Whoahh, Mr. Shankly! Aren't you supposed to be some kind of musical elitist? That's not entirely true. Consider this exhibit A. Anyways, I digress.
For me, they were one of my favorite bands growing up. I loved the anthemic, change the world, quality about their music. I saw U2 on the first leg of the Joshua Tree, and I still consider that to be of the best concert experiences of my life. The band's sense of self-importance got overbearing by the time of Rattle and Hum, even though there were a few good songs on that album (Angel of Harlem), but still I was curious what they would do next. I didn't like Achtung Baby, at first, but it has since grown on me big time, and I think it's one of their best. One has be one of the greatest ballads ever, for example. Then I went to see them on the Zoo TV Tour, and if there's one concert experience from my history I would erase, it would be that one. I just didn't get the whole spectacle, or what exactly the point of it was. Irony? That's for indie rockers like Pavement, not the overly earnest U2. Anyways, from that point, all the way through most of the 2000's, I was fairly bored by U2's music that I heard (with the exception of that kind of garagey song that opened atomic bomb), and I think they just got more and more irrelevant. And then for some reason a couple years ago, I checked out No Line on the Horizon from the library, and was pleasantly surprised. It's actually a good album and working with Brian Eno again was a smart move on their part. I'm getting past the age where everything has to be hip and cool for me to enjoy it. If it sounds good to my ears, it sounds good, period, and No Line on the Horizon sounds good.
I mentioned this to Jhereko a year ago, when we had a long argument about The Joshua Tree (my introduction to him). I really think there's a generational difference in how one perceives U2. If you grew up in the 90's and 2000's, then I totally understand why you think U2 sucks. I thought they mostly sucked then too. Maybe also when one listens to a band like Coldplay that sounds really boring to my ears, and traces back their U2 influence, this might also influence your perception of the band. But if you grew up in the 80's or are a bit older, you know that U2 was originally one of the alternatives to a lot of bad music on the radio. Basically, there was U2, R.E.M., The Talking Heads, The Pretenders, The Police, and a few other decent bands mixed amongst a whole lot of crap in the 80's (By the way, I hated synth pop then, and I hate it now, and I find it amusing, that it's suddenly considered hip music). U2 stood out. They were my generation's Arcade Fire or Muse. So that period will always hold a special place in my heart. I do think it would be a good idea for them to call it a day soon though.
Although, you have to applaud their longevity. I'm not totally positive, but I think they might have the greatest longevity of any rock band in history. Think about it. They've kept the same line up for 32 years. R.E.M. couldn't claim that. The Rolling Stones couldn't claim that. No one could. That's amazing for a band of musicians to stay together that long!
Well said Mr. Shankly _________________ .
I owe $100,000 and wasted 4 years of my life.
#12 | Posted: 01/15/2012 03:42 | Post subject: Re: U2- for fans not haters
purple wrote:
pssh, you think R.E.M. quit ahead, more like 31 years too late... anyways U2's already got that beat by being overdue 36 years
This is the exact ignorance I didn't want on this thread. I wanted to discuss U2's future career with people that understands them and have given them the time of day. I don't know a U2 fan that is stupid enough to be all yes men. I love how most haters of U2 haven't given them any time.
#13 | Posted: 01/15/2012 03:51 | Post subject: Re: U2- for fans not haters
sethmadsen wrote:
purple wrote:
pssh, you think R.E.M. quit ahead, more like 31 years too late... anyways U2's already got that beat by being overdue 36 years
This is the exact ignorance I didn't want on this thread. I wanted to discuss U2's future career with people that understands them and have given them the time of day. I don't know a U2 fan that is stupid enough to be all yes men. I love how most haters of U2 haven't given them any time.
What do you think of my post? I tried to present a pretty balanced viewpoint and outlook on the band.
#14 | Posted: 01/15/2012 03:51 | Post subject: Re: U2- for fans not haters
sethmadsen wrote:
purple wrote:
pssh, you think R.E.M. quit ahead, more like 31 years too late... anyways U2's already got that beat by being overdue 36 years
This is the exact ignorance I didn't want on this thread. I wanted to discuss U2's future career with people that understands them and have given them the time of day. I don't know a U2 fan that is stupid enough to be all yes men. I love how most haters of U2 haven't given them any time.
Don't mind purple, he seems a prick at first, but once you get 2 know him better you may appreciate his Candor more.
Personally, I hope U2 keeps it going a bit longer. _________________ .
I owe $100,000 and wasted 4 years of my life.
#15 | Posted: 01/15/2012 04:10 | Post subject: Re: U2- for fans not haters
Mr. Shankly wrote:
sethmadsen wrote:
purple wrote:
pssh, you think R.E.M. quit ahead, more like 31 years too late... anyways U2's already got that beat by being overdue 36 years
This is the exact ignorance I didn't want on this thread. I wanted to discuss U2's future career with people that understands them and have given them the time of day. I don't know a U2 fan that is stupid enough to be all yes men. I love how most haters of U2 haven't given them any time.
What do you think of my post? I tried to present a pretty balanced viewpoint and outlook on the band.
Mr. Shankly, I thought your post was great. I usually like your comments actually. The following is interesting though:
"Irony? That's for indie rockers like Pavement, not the overly earnest U2."
Isn't it ironic that the overly earnest did the exact opposite of what they were known for. In an age when Nirvana was getting accolades for being the band that broke the 80s (which they were), I find it interesting that U2 (who broke the 80s throughout the 80s, minus The Unforgettable Fire song that attempted that 80s feel, the album was great) decided to destroy that image. In Bono's words, Achtung Baby was the sound of 4 men chopping down the Joshua Tree. They, the overly earnest began mocking themselves as rockstars with the Fly character and Macphisto.
Also check out Passenger's Soundtrack One or whatever that side project was called. It's awesome in my opinion.
#17 | Posted: 01/15/2012 04:44 | Post subject: Re: U2- for fans not haters
sethmadsen wrote:
Mr. Shankly wrote:
sethmadsen wrote:
purple wrote:
pssh, you think R.E.M. quit ahead, more like 31 years too late... anyways U2's already got that beat by being overdue 36 years
This is the exact ignorance I didn't want on this thread. I wanted to discuss U2's future career with people that understands them and have given them the time of day. I don't know a U2 fan that is stupid enough to be all yes men. I love how most haters of U2 haven't given them any time.
What do you think of my post? I tried to present a pretty balanced viewpoint and outlook on the band.
Mr. Shankly, I thought your post was great. I usually like your comments actually. The following is interesting though:
"Irony? That's for indie rockers like Pavement, not the overly earnest U2."
Isn't it ironic that the overly earnest did the exact opposite of what they were known for. In an age when Nirvana was getting accolades for being the band that broke the 80s (which they were), I find it interesting that U2 (who broke the 80s throughout the 80s, minus The Unforgettable Fire song that attempted that 80s feel, the album was great) decided to destroy that image. In Bono's words, Achtung Baby was the sound of 4 men chopping down the Joshua Tree. They, the overly earnest began mocking themselves as rockstars with the Fly character and Macphisto.
Well, I don't think it worked. I think the attempt to parody themselves made them look even more self-important and pretentious. Irony just doesn't work for U2. I think the trick to irony is to be subtle and clever about it. Subtlety and nuance has never really been U2's strong suit, and the Zoo TV Tour proved that. It was ridiculous!
#20 | Posted: 01/15/2012 05:10 | Post subject: Re: U2- for fans not haters
sethmadsen wrote:
purple wrote:
pssh, you think R.E.M. quit ahead, more like 31 years too late... anyways U2's already got that beat by being overdue 36 years
This is the exact ignorance I didn't want on this thread. I wanted to discuss U2's future career with people that understands them and have given them the time of day. I don't know a U2 fan that is stupid enough to be all yes men. I love how most haters of U2 haven't given them any time.
I have given them the time of day. I own half of U2s discography. And I really do mean it when I say I think they're not fun to listen to. The only concessions I'll give you is that I haven't listened to Achtung Baby- but what I have listened to from before and after that record is giving me motivation to listen to it- and I can dig The Edge sometimes.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
I really think there's a generational difference in how one perceives U2. If you grew up in the 90's and 2000's, then I totally understand why you think U2 sucks. I thought they mostly sucked then too. Maybe also when one listens to a band like Coldplay that sounds really boring to my ears, and traces back their U2 influence, this might also influence your perception of the band. But if you grew up in the 80's or are a bit older, you know that U2 was originally one of the alternatives to a lot of bad music on the radio. Basically, there was U2, R.E.M., The Talking Heads, The Pretenders, The Police, and a few other decent bands mixed amongst a whole lot of crap in the 80's (By the way, I hated synth pop then, and I hate it now, and I find it amusing, that it's suddenly considered hip music). U2 stood out. They were my generation's Arcade Fire or Muse. So that period will always hold a special place in my heart. I do think it would be a good idea for them to call it a day soon though.
Shop at your favourite store
