zooropop40
Refugee
U2 is very much like Radiohead in terms of musical exploration and vision. U2 will put a few mainstream tracks on an album but that doesnt mean they are not experimental. Perhaps you have not listened close enough? listen to passengers, Zooropa, Pop, even NLOTH with good headphones- the detail of the sound is incredible. Many of those albums are way ahead of their time. Perhaps you dont remember the first time you heard a U2 songs and said "WTF was that!?!?" and then you learned to understand it and appreciate it. Think back a bit harder, and hopefully you will see that the 2 bands sometimes even parallel eachother.
Your post is completely off in my opinion- I see U2 a bit differently than you do
how about this? nine inch nails. the fragile. or dream theater whos songs sometimes take up one album. or kid a. i mean kid a borders on not even being called music thats how experimental it is. u2 experimented with different sounds/attitudes in the 90's. compared to thier 80's stuff, it was a WTF experience. but still within some reason. AB for me is as much about attitude as the style of music. i understand u2 pisses pff the hardcores by not playing enough album cuts. and thats valid. but now some people are crossing the line , by doing the whole "us real fans know the hits are just so-so, we are here for the album cuts only" shit. that's what a cure fan can say if he goes to a show and they played only the songs that made it to radio. cause the cure's lesser known stuff is thier better stuff. thats what kinda band they are. just like david bowie. u2's lesser known should be played. but thier isn;t this huge gap between thier hits and albums cuts like whats made out to be. not like the bands i listed above.
desire,AIWIY)
