Help my U2 argument

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
bono_man

bono_man

Thom's Bitch
Joined
Dec 27, 2000
Messages
2,287
Hello,

Having a brilliant argument with a mate. He doesn't believe U2's change from JT/RH to AB/Zooropa is as important or widely publicised as Radiohead's or The Beatles re-inventions. I keep telling him he is musically un-educated if he doesnt believe so! lol.

I have been trying to find some literature to support my argument with little success. I have Googled all sorts of things and come up empty-handed. I dont really want opinions on the matter from you guys (sorry! :sexywink:) as I know my own arguements in my head. Im just wondering if there are any pieces out there. It seems like the sort of thing Q would do...Best Musical Reinventions.

Okay...there is your homework...

Any help?

:)
 
I was going to reply with "f the beatles and radiohead", but seeing as you dont want opinions..... :wink:
 
thanks for bumping me up tho! People here LOVE giving U2 opinions...I want more!
 
I actually will give you an opinion :shifty:.......(you'll see why in a min :D)

can't tell you anything really about Radiohead's career/creative arcs [NYC commercial radio had gotten so spotty in playing new(er) bands in the by mid-90's & '00's till recently, and I lost 1 major college station in a move, and no access to acquiring mp3 formaatted music. Of course I've heard a few of their songs over the year.

But I can speak fairly knowledgeibly about The Beatles and their album changes because I'm a serious R&R fan- seen hundreds of people live, listened to a lot of radio- and I was/am a Beatles fan during their career once they hit the USA in '64 at 11 yrs.

My opinion & take on the Fab4 in general, and how they changed things....
they were very inventive over the years, And their earlier pop-rock (and maybe even some of their R&B covers {some of that honed in on their Live Show at a club in Hamburg, Germany I think even before their famous Cavern <Liverpool> gigs} was incredibly catchy & powerful.

Since the USA was the rising Superpower it was in the 50's & 60's - "making it" here in USA was a ticket to Super Fame since we were importing our pop & other creative culture around the world.

It really took a strong place on the USA pop charts, and then opened the doorway for other brit bands, and in counter-turn spurred USA musicians further, and they took off esp of course as "the 60's" arose....... and the cross-competition & cross-influences went further.

For instance, there is probably a strong arguement that California Fun in the sun & surf rock.... Beach Boys, Jan & Dean, influneces dipped as The Beatles got stronger.

con't in a min
ok, I iz back :D

I'm not disregarding R&B & Soul etc-- they were quite on top of the charts as a part of the 60's BUT AS FM RADIO arose -- Music on the AM dial beagn to split apart into Black, Latin & White. At some FM station's they stayed happily in an lively mix, but as it got bigger, and more & more structured and narrowing playlists started to take over from more Freeform :heart: Radio. And even FM Radio started to also split into White, Latin & Black Radio, and then Black FM radio turned Urban Radio, before Hip Hop arose.

So the Beatles radically changed the direction of R&R in general......

And when they after growing sophistication musically and in the peeks of approaching psychedelia on Revolver & Rubber Soul -- the FULL ON Bright & Dark colors of Sargent Pepper's-- just spun people around!

The White Album-- maybe a bit less, but still very much head-spinnig work on there.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
SO as to U2's changes from JT/R&H to AB/Zooropia being an equal type of turn around, and as important on to U2 fans as The Beatles changes in R&R Music was for their fans....an absolute YES in MHO... and perhaps a little bit below in turns of over all importance R&R Music changes .....


I don't know if it was quite as big in terms of number of acticles.......

You might also try googling up Melody Maker-- it goes back further than Q, and I think it was still around in the early-mid 90's. Also try (Brit) Sounds, as well!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for my Beatles fanship " vs " U2 etc....
because of how The Beats incredibly, indelibly changed American Popular Music forever ....

..... in fact for you SF "geeks" out there (I'm one, too :neasrd: :) )- I'm sure somehow it's floating around virtually somewhere on the web, or info as to where it might be found There's an Episiode of SLIDER'S that has them go to a USA where the Beatles did NOT get to America, or something like that!
:hmm: OOooo, I hadn't thot about that episoide in a long time ....I'm gonna look it up myself! :lol:

.....I'd have to hold them a bit at least) above everyone who followed......

I have found for me that The Who, Springsteen & E St, and U2 are equal to The Beatles as far as creativity & power goes.

We'll, of course, never know how good The Beatles would have been as a LIVE! touring band in their mid & later work.

I certainly think U2 and the others as I just mentioned were certainly their equals in LIVE! perfomances as far as you could match them in a sort of chronological way till the Beatles "left the field" which you could almost literally say since SHEA Stadium was one of the last places they played/toured.
 
i actually surprised that i cannot find anything at all out there on this. it was certainly one of the great band re-inventions. my friend seems to think that i am U2-biased on this but i know for a fact i am not. i just cant find anything to support my claims!
 
Bono_Man, do you have the Live From Sydney dvd? or the achtung baby vhs? anyway if you do; there is an easter egg that has a pretty great timeline illustration that SHOWS the transition from JT to AB. You should show him that. You prolly already know about it but... just a suggestion.

so it's on the second disk.
Go to documentaries
select view all (fast forwrd to avoid viewing all)
when it takes you back to the main menu go down to languages and then scroll once to the left.
a small gold icon will appear
click on that.

I don't know, just a suggestion. but once you see it with your own eyes it's undeniable how big of a transition it was.
 
Thanks that, however, I could show him images, footage, etc until the cows come home. He doesnt deny a change occured. He just doesn't think the re-invention is recognised on the same level as that of Radiohead or the Beatles. I am looking for comments about their re-invention from the general music media/community. Im surprised there isnt much out there! Alas...I am giving in! :(
 
why care about reinvention?
As long as it sounds quality thats all that matters - its obvious that sound and themes of albums change. The band get older and have familes. You cant keepng writing about being young etc

Radiohead are the most overrated band ever. They are good, but thats. Nothing great

By the way i think the R&H is poor (still good though) compared to JT and Zoo is poor compared to AB

Zoo i dont like much at all - perhaps i should give it another try
 
MadForIt said:
why care about reinvention?
As long as it sounds quality thats all that matters - its obvious that sound and themes of albums change. The band get older and have familes. You cant keepng writing about being young etc

Radiohead are the most overrated band ever. They are good, but thats. Nothing great

By the way i think the R&H is poor (still good though) compared to JT and Zoo is poor compared to AB

Zoo i dont like much at all - perhaps i should give it another try
Click to expand...

I like this guy....
 
MadForIt said:
why care about reinvention?
As long as it sounds quality thats all that matters - its obvious that sound and themes of albums change. The band get older and have familes. You cant keepng writing about being young etc

Radiohead are the most overrated band ever. They are good, but thats. Nothing great

By the way i think the R&H is poor (still good though) compared to JT and Zoo is poor compared to AB

Zoo i dont like much at all - perhaps i should give it another try
Click to expand...

That gives me nothing. It isn't all about 'sounding quality'. Of course re-invention is required by a band that wants to stay relavent. U2 would have never made it into the 90s if they kept making the same music they did in the 80s, regardless of quality.

Don't even get me started on your Radiohead & Zooropa remarks.... :doh:


So...anyone else? Anything?
 
One has to take a good look at the big 80's artists. Almost all big 80's artists had a major drop in popularity come the 90's. Some acts disbanded, others just couldn't produce the hits. Even some big artists, like Springsteen, saw a big drop in the early 90's. Even bands that had been around a while and finally saw their "big break" in the late 80's or early 90's (like REM and INXS) saw their popularity rapidly decline as the decade continued.

U2 remained strong in the 90's. Their tours were huge and all of their albums went Platinum or more. One may argue that U2's "Pop" also showed a drop in U2's popularity. Hwever, any album that sells 1.5M copies in the U.S. and appox. 7M worldwide, and spawns one top 10 hit and other Top 40 hits, is hardly a "flop". The tour - being stadium only - often received some bad press, when in fact, U2 sold more tickets than on some of their supposedly more "successful" tours!

So why did U2 remain a top, in demand act in the 90's? Why would their albums still debut at #1? Why could they still generate big hit songs? Why did they continue to succeed when many of their counterparts did not?

I contend one reason is the shift in sound. It would have been all too easy for U2 to create a "JT - Part 2" in 1991. Sure, they could have advanced the sound some, just as they did on R&H. But they could have still kept the overall song structure, clanging guitars and Bono wails. One might even say that U2's JT look (sans cowboy hats) would have fit in rather well with the grunge look. Write more songs like "Bullet" and "Exit" and U2 could have been a great grunge act!

However, I think had U2 really stayed the same, they would have either been over-shadowed by grunge or just left to fade like other artists. It's only by changing their style - for a second time - that U2 kept fans interested. For example, U2 finally got some major recognition with "War" and people were expecting more of the same and for U2 to break through with that sound. Instead, they changed and that change ultimately led to JT, their biggest album to date. By changing again, they had their second biggest album to date! And by changing again, they have remained relevant and popular (even though fans on this website are somewhat dismissive of the current work).

Therefore, I do think the JT to AB change was huge and recognized by both fans and critics, just as the change from "War" to UF and the change from "Pop" to ATYCLB was.

As for Radiohead... sorry, have they really changed? I hear a natural progression, but not an obvious change. As I'm not a huge fan, I asked one if there was a big change in their sound - and this fan said "no". He also felt it was just a natural progression in their sound. To me, a natural progression is UF to R&H or "Boy" to "War". And that's what I hear when I listen to old Radiohead vs. new Radiohead. So I have no idea what your friend means by "change" there.
 
On the fact that they are NOT as widely publicised as Beatles/Radiohead's re-inventions, you're friend is right. It was overshadowed by the Madchester/early-Britpop scene in the UK and by the Grunge movement (Nirvana's Nevermind, more specificaly) in the US.
On the fact that they are important....Radiohead and the whole Alternative Rock scene from the late 90's and everything that was/is inspired by it wouldn't exist in the way they are (or maybe, not exist at all) if U2 had not re-invented themselves and Achtung Baby had never been released.
What Achtung Baby and U2's re-invention did for the actual music scene is important as what The Beatles did for the actual music scene. Cause the actual music scene is influenced by every great album/artist ever made/existed....and Achtung Baby and U2 ARE in this list. They are not more important than other albuns/artists....but they're not less important either.

I know you need an argument from some book/magazine, but I couldn't find any....so I said what I would've said if I were in your situation (and sorry if my english sucks ;D)
 
bono_man said:
That gives me nothing. It isn't all about 'sounding quality'. Of course re-invention is required by a band that wants to stay relavent. U2 would have never made it into the 90s if they kept making the same music they did in the 80s, regardless of quality.

Don't even get me started on your Radiohead & Zooropa remarks.... :doh:


So...anyone else? Anything?
Click to expand...

Relevant to who?
Is it all about selling records to U2? - If the next U2 album is produced by Timbaland and has a duet with Jay Z does that count as re-invention?

No - its called selling out and making rubbish music. If its not broke why fix it? The Beatles were revolutionary as they got there first. If U2 were in the 1960's people would say the same about them.

I dont see too many major changes with the U2 albums - the tours on the other hand were revolutionary - they changed how BIG things can get

Perhaps after JT U2 knew they had a killer album which people would talk about and thought, "hey, lets just turn the amps up on this one" - And anyways the MADchester influence can be seen on AB as The End of the World sounds a bit like the Happy Mondays.

I own ALL the Radiohead albums. I would not say any of them are great but they do have some super tracks. I have to skip a few on each album. The Bends is the best as its rockier. In Rainbows had about 3 good tracks and too much whining.

And on Zoo. Its not rubbish but one the albums i least listen to. JT onwards its the worst. Pre JT i'm still listening to LP's, to see if i like them.
 
MadForIt said:
Relevant to who?
Is it all about selling records to U2? - If the next U2 album is produced by Timbaland and has a duet with Jay Z does that count as re-invention?

No - its called selling out and making rubbish music. If its not broke why fix it? The Beatles were revolutionary as they got there first. If U2 were in the 1960's people would say the same about them.

I dont see too many major changes with the U2 albums - the tours on the other hand were revolutionary - they changed how BIG things can get

Perhaps after JT U2 knew they had a killer album which people would talk about and thought, "hey, lets just turn the amps up on this one" - And anyways the MADchester influence can be seen on AB as The End of the World sounds a bit like the Happy Mondays.

I own ALL the Radiohead albums. I would not say any of them are great but they do have some super tracks. I have to skip a few on each album. The Bends is the best as its rockier. In Rainbows had about 3 good tracks and too much whining.

And on Zoo. Its not rubbish but one the albums i least listen to. JT onwards its the worst. Pre JT i'm still listening to LP's, to see if i like them.
Click to expand...

oh man...where do i start?

a) it isnt all about selling records at all.

b) if U2 have an album produced by Timaland with Jay-Z on it, I would assume it would sound like nothing they have done before. Hence, this would be a re-invention of their sound. Whether or not this re-invention would be successful or not is another question.

c) you dont see changes in U2 albums? man...thats a ridiculous thing to say. i can't even be bothered.

d) if it ain't broke don't fix it? are you serious? once again, i can't be bothered to even go there. someone else can flame you on that if they like...

e) if the only difference between the JT-era and to AB-era to you is the volume of their amps you need to listen more. have you ever heard of music being about moods, themes and emotions? these eras come from totally different angles.

f) from what i gather, you are a rock & roll only sort of person. rather conservative who wouldnt want a band to change and challenge what you already know and love. perhaps in U2 and Radiohead, you have chosen the wrong bands to follow. I believe Oasis & Nickleback have been great at maintaining their sound over the years and not veering into new territory. Perhaps you can try them.
 
I think U2 and Oasis are quite similar - just simple understandable songs. Thats what they are for me. Obviously people apply different meanings to songs. But for me Oasis and U2 are the only 2 bands in the world which express such a positive "yeah you can do it" attitude. Thats why i like them. If i wanted over complicated trash i'd turn to Bloc Party

Keep it simple, Keep it real

Dont worry i am on the Oasis track already and if you listened to ALL their albums, they are clearly not the same.

I dont see how U2 and Radiohead are similar in their music either. Yes Both have very arrogant frontmen!
1) i understand what Bono sings
2) Most radiohead stuff post Kid A is the same and not like U2 - Radiohead could never make a meaningful song like Sometime You Cant Make It On Your Own

Nickleback are not a band
 
Oh and please don't compare U2 with Oasis. They are really world's apart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Billie Eilish Thought U2 Was From Scranton
Replies
1
Views
729
lazarus
lazarus
cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
P
The Band That Saved My Life - Paulo Vetri's project
Replies
4
Views
2K
Paulo Vetri
P
D
Paul Epworth provides some interesting insight into U2's songwriting process.
Replies
24
Views
2K
An Cat Gav
An Cat Gav
N
  • Locked
NBA 2022-23 Thread
46 47 48
Replies
1K
Views
45K
U2inUtah
U2inUtah

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom