Music U2
- Thread starter Rooney24
- Start date
What a misinformed, ignorant post
Coldplay
Creed
The Killers
Travis
Starsailor
Elbow
The Thrills
Oasis
Radiohead
Members of Blur
No Doubt
Keane
The Script
Smashing Pumpkins
Ryan Adams
Muse ( also influenced by my band, Quo)
And thats only the tip of the iceberg.
McDonalds music?!?! Good Jesus....
So, the melody and instrumentation means nowt then?! It's whether or not it's cool or not?! This isn't the 1960's anymore and we're not sitting in a field, platting each others hair! The music business is all about marketing these days, sadly.
Every single band has a marketing strategy to sell their music now! No one is the exception to the rule. No one!
If you're calling U2 out on that, you best call out every other single band right now in the mainstream.
No, it's not whether it's cool or not it's whether it's good or not.
U2 make shite formulaic music designed for mass consumption, that's where the McDonald's analogy comes in. Eno made them shine from time to time but even he eventutally got fed up polishing turds.
And by the way most of the bands you listed there are fecking terrible, and Radiohead are a thousand times the band that U2 are and owe them nothing.
I'd take Quo ahead of them actually, at least they don't take themselves as seriously.
Radiohead are absolutely terrible imo....One of the single worst bands I've heard and to call Thom Yorke a genius, is insanity.
But that's my opinion.
And see, you say it's about whether the song is good or not. That's fine and exactly the right mindset to have.
But then you say, they make formulaic music for the masses. Two things about that:
1. You're wrong and clearly haven't listened to a U2 album.
2. What the hell does it matter if a song is formulaic??
Music is all about melody and notation and whether it connects with you....Not whether it's in 4/4 time or if the same format was done before.
Very strange way to view music
By the way, @John_Jensen , I'm not trying to make you like U2 or anything.
I respect and love how people like different forms of music.
I just find your view on U2 a tad odd is all....Fair enough if you don't like them but, McDonalds music?
I respect and love how people like different forms of music.
I just find your view on U2 a tad odd is all....Fair enough if you don't like them but, McDonalds music?
1. I've listen to a few U2 albums forced on me by family members, when you tell them they're shite they just tell you you haven't listened to the right album. They're like Bruce Springsteen fan's in that way. The Unforgetable Fire is the most tolerable.
2. It matters because if you keep doing the same thing over and over again it's going to get boring isn't it, especially if it bored the tits off you in the first place? Bono would refer to himself as an artist no? Would an artist keep churning out the same shite time after time or would he be more interested in bean-counting and margins? Did you not find the fawning he did over Steve Jobs and their desperation for their brand to be linked to Apple products a little fecking pathetic?
And you'll find more innovation on a single Radiohead album than all of U2's back catalogue combined.
I like U2, but it's mainly because they were one of the first bands I got into on my own when I was young. So nostalgia plays a big part and now I'm stuck with them. If i came across them now I'd probably hate them the way I do with Coldplay or Muse. I can fully appreciate why people don't like them; just accept them for what they are - a band way past their peak who still manage to put on an incredible live show. You won't find many U2 fans claiming them to be amongst the best in the world at the moment.
1. Don't like the unforgettable fire. Much prefer stuff like Achtung Baby, Zooropa and Pop.
2. Well, this raises an interesting point...I'm a massive Quo fan. All their albums etc etc. The reason I love them is because of their diversity. They have so much light and shade in their music from the 70's. If you're listening to one of their 70's albums, one moment you could be listening to a hard rock song, the next a slow blues song, the next a country song, the next ballad. But, if you ask anyone here on the forum, they'll laugh and make the same "crappy 3 chord" jokes...Even though, they've never even listened to them.....Do you not think, in regards to U2, that it's not always the same shite? Achtung baby and Pop and the Joshua tree are all very different would you not agree?
And yes, you're right....The whole "lick my arse and I'll lick yours" crap with Apple is cringe!
I think for the last 20 odd years they've been churning out the same shite. I think in the 90s on a couple of occasions they took the career decision to "go in a different direction" i.e. incorporate the sound of an already existing "scene" into the Tapestry of the Edge's Soundscape©
I'd certainly agree with you on the material released between 2000-2004
But, this album and the last one, is fairly different.
Obviously you've never listened to their 80's stuff. They were fecking phenomenal. Joshua Tree, Unforgettable Fire, Under a Blood Red Sky, incredible content.
I have yeah. As i said the Unforgettable Fire is the most tolerable of the lot.
I used o be a huge U2 fan some years back. They were my favourite band by a comfortable distance and I saw them as some sort of geniuses.
My musical tastiest have evolved since, though. Their music is formulaic and popcorn music really. It's good for the purpose it serves but that sort of music while being catchy is a bit simple and doesn't serve the purpose for me.
My musical tastiest have evolved since, though. Their music is formulaic and popcorn music really. It's good for the purpose it serves but that sort of music while being catchy is a bit simple and doesn't serve the purpose for me.
Can't believe people are defending Status Quo in here.
It's just wrong and unnatural. Like homosexuals.
It's just wrong and unnatural. Like homosexuals.
I don't like Status Quo or modern day U2.
I do however like October, Under A Blood Red Sky, Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree and I love Actung Baby. U2 made some great music way back when.
I do however like October, Under A Blood Red Sky, Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree and I love Actung Baby. U2 made some great music way back when.
I'm not a U2 fan by any means but you are talking shite. The Joshua Tree was not selling shit to the masses its one of the best albums ever.
Been a huge fan of U2 for years. To deny their influence on music is like denying the existence of gravity.
Their best works are the ones from the 80s - War, The Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree, October. After that they grew up and lost that unique tone from their music. It got worse when Bono started believing that he's Jesus. Majority of their works from the 90s onwards are crap.
They should have gone on a hiatus or disbanded when they were on a high, just like The Police. Maybe then people will look at them in a good light. Then again, this is a real world and people need to earn a living, so who can fault them?
Their best works are the ones from the 80s - War, The Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree, October. After that they grew up and lost that unique tone from their music. It got worse when Bono started believing that he's Jesus. Majority of their works from the 90s onwards are crap.
They should have gone on a hiatus or disbanded when they were on a high, just like The Police. Maybe then people will look at them in a good light. Then again, this is a real world and people need to earn a living, so who can fault them?
Why's that?
They are rumored to be playing at Coachella next summer.
Yes it is.
Number 3 of 100 best albums of the 80's according to Rollingstone.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/l...eighties-20110418/u2-the-joshua-tree-20110330
According to Rolling Stone, exactly.
The same Rolling Stone that gave their last album a 5/5 star review.
It's interesting....
As a U2 fan, I don't even rate it as their best album. But, it is a very good album.
Also, Rolling Stone magazine are full of shit 99% of the time
U2 are awesome and I'm convinced that the opening 3 songs to Joshua Tree is one of the best opening 3 songs to any album.
I quite like the War LP. Nothing else they did really resonated with me, and now they've become a total cartoon, but that album is good.
I really don't understand the hype around The Joshua Tree. It just sounds so wishywashy to me. Not a single note of it made me twinge and think "yeah, that's pretty good". It's so bland, yet it's hyped as some kind of second coming of Jesus.
I really don't understand the hype around The Joshua Tree. It just sounds so wishywashy to me. Not a single note of it made me twinge and think "yeah, that's pretty good". It's so bland, yet it's hyped as some kind of second coming of Jesus.
Aright then, so according to John jensen its not, fine. I grew up in the 80's in England and remember things different mind you.
Righto, it's all about opinions after all.
I was just complaining about the all out media assault today.
Alight ffs I don't even read the rolling fecking stone it was the first link that came up.
It's pretty grim for sure, although I pretty much ignore every review and would rather listen to it myself, so many reviews are bullshit.
I dont like U2 I dont like bono and I dont like their music, but everybody liked the Joshua tree, it has to be named in the top 10 albums of the 80's.
Joshua Tree is pretty much in the top 10 of all these best album polls....And yet, you still pick Rolling Stone
Well, because, you know, they're rubbish and stuff.
As for U2: I kind of like some their earlier songs like I Will Follow and New Year's Day but not much apart from that. They're very good at what they do, though- stadium rock. Big, anthemic numbers that Coldplay do a piss-poor impression of.
They've never been innovative, though. Some of the tracks off Boy are just Gang of Four rip-offs. They are what they are at this stage: a bunch of old rockers who haven't had a decent album in years and who'll shill for corporations just to hawk their latest bland record.
Well, because, you know, they're rubbish and stuff.
As for U2: I kind of like some their earlier songs like I Will Follow and New Year's Day but not much apart from that. They're very good at what they do, though- stadium rock. Big, anthemic numbers that Coldplay do a piss-poor impression of.
They've never been innovative, though. Some of the tracks off Boy are just Gang of Four rip-offs. They are what they are at this stage: a bunch of old rockers who haven't had a decent album in years and who'll shill for corporations just to hawk their latest bland record.
U2 aren't rockers though it has to be said.
I wouldn't know what genre to put them in
Corporate?
It was very popular for sure, and if you were ranking U2 albums it would be near the sharp end but there were lots of better albums around in the 80s for me.