1) Why do you think it is that U2 was highly ranked on this site and has since fallen?
As many people already said, the main reason is that they declined heavily and people remember the recent bad albums due to recency bias. Also Bono has somehow become the most hated rock star in the world, with most people thinking he's a pretentious prick.
Quote:
2) What is it about The Smith's that makes them higher ranked/their rank has grown?
Their short and perfect career. Good music stands the test of time, simple as that.
Quote:
3) Has U2's longevity actually hurt their "legacy" or did they just suck all along?
I don't think it hurt their legacy, they still can surprise as and release something good. And from what I've heard they're still a very good live band, which is admirable.
Quote:
4) R.E.M. has a similar jangle and much longer career - what makes them rank much lower than both groups?
No idea, really. I guess they just weren't as popular as those other two.
Quote:
5) What do you like most about each band (R.E.M., U2, and The Smith's) and what do you like least?
They have good songs, and they have bad songs. 🤣
Quote:
6) Which vocalist do you find has the best vocals? Best Lyrics? Best Guitarist/Bassist/Drummer?
Bono is the best vocalist easily, and they all have some good lyrics. Not sure about other stuff.
Quote:
7) How much exposure to each band do you have? (listened to complete discography multiple times to I've heard a song or two a few times)
I've listened to U2 the most, their 80's albums especially. I feel I know them quite well. With R.E.M I've only listened to Automatic For THe People, Murmur and Out of Time, though only AFTP I've really got to know well. The Smiths I've listened to every album a couple times. I know the singles really well but the albums still require lots of listening to properly judge them. _________________ All time
You know, I think it's total bullshit that people hate U2 for a move they made with Apple. It's a distributor and they gave out a free album. It was your dumb ass that automatically downloaded it. You see way less people mad about the release of Windows 10 for free and shoved down people's necks (again if you weren't a dumbass you could have avoided the "forced" upgrade).
I'm actually going to guess that The Smiths are higher ranked/ranked at 11 now where U2 were ranked in 2011 due to these factors in no order and is likely incoherent rambling:
1) Hip stuff like pitchfork puts them in a higher status. Cool kids gotta be cool. Whether that is music discovery or the already discussed U2 kept going and became less and less cool/combined with supply and demand (a diamond in the rough probably will be ranked higher).
2) the quality of albums that are/were highly ranked on this site don't change because of U2's latest image. I think the numbers are likely more effected by more people putting The Smith's on the chart than a U2 album, but that IS effected by latest image of U2 (latest as in past 20 to 15 years).
3) Supply and demand - if Nirvana were a band today, they likely would be similar to where Pearl Jam's at today.
4) When I look at U2's highly rated songs, it's the radio bullshit. Most people haven't actually tried U2 out.
5) I don't buy the music hasn't aged well because I think all three of these bands you could argue that on (I also don't believe it for most of it too).
Also, I think these things apply to Smashing Pumpkins too. Corgan is often seen as a pompous ass and many claim they haven't aged well, etc.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
I think it's interesting how some bands who may be on the same level get treated differently (Re this thread or a similar thread on Pearl Jam vs Nirvana vs Smashing Pumpkins).
I mean I'm not saying I'm expecting these bands to be on the same page or whatever - they are totally different bands with totally different impacts, yet do have key components which make me wonder what makes one more adored.
I remember a rapper saying he liked the Smiths, adding he had the impression Morrissey was singing poetry with a group in the background. I think it's very true; And that it's the limit of the Smiths. And the voice is a bit irritating at that (except on Stangeways which is best produced for the voice).
This is typical teenage music; I loved them so much at the time...I think I loved the classicism of them (that was classy, just like the band name: classic, classy). And the lyrics of course.
Talking of which, I also remember a journalist saying we should blame the Smiths or the Cure for ruining our teenage years. Quite spot on as well:) Depressing music: not good for the youth ! (but I loved them)
U2: we're a bit replete of them, aren't we? A 10 year hiatus would help. But they're great, I think.
REM: a certain monotony in Stipe's voice (is it the tone, the range, i don't know). I like Green very much. Out of Time is both great and lifeless: bizarre ! They should have made an album with an orchestra, perhaps. Something really epic.
You know, I think it's total bullshit that people hate U2 for a move they made with Apple. It's a distributor and they gave out a free album. It was your dumb ass that automatically downloaded it. You see way less people mad about the release of Windows 10 for free and shoved down people's necks (again if you weren't a dumbass you could have avoided the "forced" upgrade).
You know, I remember that, but never had apple devices at the time (and still don't), but it's kind of hilarious all these things. You know, 90% (number pulled out of my ass, but it's basically "most") of what people complain about would be solved if they just used their brains. I've never once had anything shoved down my throat or put into place of my stuff without my approval. People just can't seem to take control of certain things and use so many excuses as to why and it annoys the hell out of me. Anything I am not satisfied with I can basically change on a day to day basis for the most part, but if it doesn't happen, it's usually my fault. I think that's the issue here, people just can't accept what occurs is their fault, but instead they want to blame U2 or some voodoo magic or some emergency occurring or whatever.
As for the whole U2 vs. REM and smiths thing, I think The Smiths are the worst of the three. I love REM, but U2 has really grown on me. The music is bombastic, fun, and well written. What more can you want from music of that kind?
I don't think any of the three bands would qualify as great. Unless you happen to be a fan. It's just how it works. If you're a fan of somebody, we tend to think they're great. We all do this. The most I could say about any of these three is they came up with a handful of pretty good tracks.
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
Daydreamer
RoundTheBend
bobbyb5
