Is This It?

[cobl04]

I'm assuming, having been around since 2002, that many people here have met you. Are you this stubborn and boring and argumentative in real life? lol

I'm sure we'd get along fine, but christ don't you tire of arguing here, haha

 

[BVS]

I'm assuming, having been around since 2002, that many people here have met you. Are you this stubborn and boring and argumentative in real life? lol

I'm sure we'd get along fine, but christ don't you tire of arguing here, haha

How is it that the poster that just called people 'idiot' and 'stupid' find THAT post to be argumentative?

That post for the most part was benign.

 

[mikal]

Oh no! The "Other Place" has been invaded.

 

[cobl04]

How is it that the poster that just called people 'idiot' and 'stupid' find THAT post to be argumentative?

That post for the most part was benign.

Gvox is a big boy, I'm sure he rolled his eyes and got on with his day.

 

[BVS]

Gvox is a big boy, I'm sure he rolled his eyes and got on with his day.

I'm sure he did, doesn't make your post any less head-scratching though.

 

[Hollow Island]

I think the point is that literally none of those bands' albums in the last 10 yrs was actually better than SOI.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Nick Cave & TBS have released three albums better than both SOI and NLOTH in the last ten years. Just straight up demolished them.

 

[mikal]

I'm not a fan of Nick Cave. And I'd like to see them fill up a stadium.

 

[LemonMelon]

I don't think the goal of this discussion is to change anyone's feelings about SOI, just to point out that there are old bands putting out respectable music besides U2.

 

[mikal]

I don't think the goal of this discussion is to change anyone's feelings about SOI, just to point out that there are old bands putting out respectable music besides U2.

I know he hasn't done anything recently but David Byrne's releases have been pleasant.

 

[Nick66]

The thing is, strictly speaking I'm not sure how many rock bands there are out there, that have been around for 40+ years, still putting out new music and touring with their original lineup other than U2. Almost all comparisons are apples & oranges.

The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Rush...around since 1974 with essentially the same, original line up (Neil Peart joined the band shortly after the debut record) and until last year were still putting out new music and touring (though they've recently taken a hiatus from both...making U2 a singularity in this regard AFAIK).

Who else besides U2 & Rush can say that? Anyone?

 

[Hollow Island]

I don't think the goal of this discussion is to change anyone's feelings about SOI, just to point out that there are old bands putting out respectable music besides U2.

Exactly.

 

[cobl04]

Even the mere mention of the name Rush makes me flinch.

I'm not a fan of Nick Cave. And I'd like to see them fill up a stadium.

They packed out the Sidney Myer Music Bowl last month 10,000 +

 

[mikal]

Even the mere mention of the name Rush makes me flinch.







They packed out the Sidney Myer Music Bowl last month 10,000 +

If the vocals weren't so awkward they could have packed in 50k+. [emoji16]

 

[Hollow Island]

The thing is, strictly speaking I'm not sure how many rock bands there are out there, that have been around for 40+ years, still putting out new music and touring with their original lineup other than U2. Almost all comparisons are apples & oranges.

The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Rush...around since 1974 with essentially the same, original line up (Neil Peart joined the band shortly after the debut record) and until last year were still putting out new music and touring (though they've recently taken a hiatus from both...making U2 a singularity in this regard AFAIK).

Who else besides U2 & Rush can say that? Anyone?

Reducing the field to an absurd length and U2 still aren't better than their only competition!

Rush have 8 years on U2, band members are seven years older. If you can elevate U2's longevity to be equal to Rush's then I can elevate Radiohead's to be equal to U2's.

 

[mikal]

Can't we just agree that U2 is good...and some of us also like other bands, and they're good too?

Good.

 

[Hollow Island]

Can't we just agree that U2 is good...and some of us also like other bands, and they're good too?

Good.

Nope! You must agree that U2 are the most remarkable band ever. Maybe even the only band ever!

 

[BVS]

I'm not sure why this is so pain inducing for some? U2 are in a fairly unique position, not solely unique but fairly unique. Why is that so hard to admit?

 

[BVS]

Can't we just agree that U2 is good...and some of us also like other bands, and they're good too?

Good.

No, one song is better than their whole career.

 

[Nick66]

If you can elevate U2's longevity to be equal to Rush's then I can elevate Radiohead's to be equal to U2's.

No you can't, because I won't allow it.

 

[Hollow Island]

I'm not sure why this is so pain inducing for some? U2 are in a fairly unique position, not solely unique but fairly unique. Why is that so hard to admit?

Something can't be fairly unique, and solely unique is redundant.

The claim was that no band of U2's age is as good. Which just​ isn't true. Hell, U2 aren't even the best band if their generation!

Bring on the fire, bitches!!

??????

 

[kabigon]

I gave you the fire, do your own extinguishing.

 

[Hollow Island]

No you can't, because I won't allow it.

Tame Impala are as old as Mastodon are as old as Radiohead are as old as U2 are as old as Rush are as old as the Beatles

 

[Iggy Fizz]

People are passionate about U2 because they don't like when the band they've followed all these years continue to do stupid shit. They seem to be morphing ever more rapidly into something more unrecognizable as a rock band every day. A rolling carnival of self promotion, artistic compromise, corporate hedging, in-your-face social do-goodism, political self-righteousness... etc. Yes I know this has been going on for a while... but to me it has gained bullet-train momentum over the past 10-15 years.

The list of stupid shit is long and eye watering.

Just make a great album boys. Shut up and sing Bono.

 

[lazarus]

I'm not sure why this is so pain inducing for some? U2 are in a fairly unique position, not solely unique but fairly unique. Why is that so hard to admit?

Yeah, and I hate to add another qualifier to the mix and sound like even more of an apologist, but in addition to having four original members and a democratic process, they've also been the biggest band in the world since somewhere between JT and AB. And partially because of the increasing diversity of the listening audience and more niche options, no one has really been able to take that title from them in 25 years.

This is in many ways a self-imposed pressure to be everything to everyone (especially from 2000 onward). But when the machine gets that big, it can be difficult to turn off. To say that Motörhead or Wire are still able to put out great (or "better") albums doesn't really mean anything in this context.

So I don't think they are in a "fairly unique" position but rather a very unique one. No active band has maintained that level of status for that long, and still release albums that receive legitimate critical consideration and are the primary focus of each new tour. I'd argue that no Stones release has been a legitimate "event" since Voodoo Lounge, and of course that album doesn't have anything interesting or noteworthy about it, and was only featured lightly on its respective tour.

We make a special case for U2 with these comparisons because they ARE a special case, regardless of whether or not you enjoy what they've been doing the last 10-15 years.

 

[DaveC]

Yeah, and I hate to add another qualifier to the mix and sound like even more of an apologist, but in addition to having four original members and a democratic process, they've also been the biggest band in the world since somewhere between JT and AB. And partially because of the increasing diversity of the listening audience and more niche options, no one has really been able to take that title from them in 25 years.

i suspect this has more to do with the increased influence of hip hop and subsequent decline of rock as a force in mainstream musical tastes that started around the mid 00s, rather than anything U2 have done themselves. they still benefit immensely from being one of the last truly *huge* rock bands in the public consciousness.

 

[womanfish]

Yeah, and I hate to add another qualifier to the mix and sound like even more of an apologist, but in addition to having four original members and a democratic process, they've also been the biggest band in the world since somewhere between JT and AB. And partially because of the increasing diversity of the listening audience and more niche options, no one has really been able to take that title from them in 25 years.

This is in many ways a self-imposed pressure to be everything to everyone (especially from 2000 onward). But when the machine gets that big, it can be difficult to turn off. To say that Motörhead or Wire are still able to put out great (or "better") albums doesn't really mean anything in this context.

So I don't think they are in a "fairly unique" position but rather a very unique one. No active band has maintained that level of status for that long, and still release albums that receive legitimate critical consideration and are the primary focus of each new tour. I'd argue that no Stones release has been a legitimate "event" since Voodoo Lounge, and of course that album doesn't have anything interesting or noteworthy about it, and was only featured lightly on its respective tour.

We make a special case for U2 with these comparisons because they ARE a special case, regardless of whether or not you enjoy what they've been doing the last 10-15 years.

Very well said. There truly is no other band that has ever been in their position. A "big band" since '83, and THE biggest band since '87, I would say at least up until 2009-10. But one could easily argue up until present day. Thats a solid span of 20-25 years or more. No other band even approaches them. AND no other band encapsulates all that they still do.

 

[lazarus]

Who's bigger after 2010? Coldplay? Not in ticket sales, and I'm guessing there's not that big a difference between album sales.

 

[Hollow Island]

There have been plenty of bands as big as or bigger than U2 since 87. Just look at album sales and cultural impact.

GnR (87-91)
Metallica (early 90s)
Nirvana (92-94)
Pearl Jam (92-95)
Oasis (95-97)
REM (91-95)
NKOTB (late 80s)
Backstreet Boys (97-00)
N Sync (98-00 ?)
Smashing Pumpkins (95-96)
Depeche Mode (87-94, still play arenas & stadiums)
Radiohead (97-preaent)
Coldplay (02- present)


Then there's Michael Jackson, Mariah, Bruce, Taylor, Beyonce, Kanye, Jah Rule & Ashanti, Biggie, Tupac...

If you want

U2 sustained what they couldn't, but they're more like Steve Yzerman than Wayne Gretzky. And nobody really cares about their new stuff aside from fans, which is fine.

 

[Nick66]

That list is embarrassing, and you should be embarrassed for even posting it. I'm embarrassed for you.

None of those bands are as big as U2...and none of them, at their height, were ever bigger than U2 post 1987. REM, at the height of their popularity (Green or Automatic) weren't as big as U2 at their Pop low point. Same goes for Coldplay. Radiohead? LOL.

And yes, there's more to defining how big a band is than record sales.

 

[mikal]

Yeah, and I hate to add another qualifier to the mix and sound like even more of an apologist, but in addition to having four original members and a democratic process, they've also been the biggest band in the world since somewhere between JT and AB. And partially because of the increasing diversity of the listening audience and more niche options, no one has really been able to take that title from them in 25 years.



This is in many ways a self-imposed pressure to be everything to everyone (especially from 2000 onward). But when the machine gets that big, it can be difficult to turn off. To say that Motörhead or Wire are still able to put out great (or "better") albums doesn't really mean anything in this context.



So I don't think they are in a "fairly unique" position but rather a very unique one. No active band has maintained that level of status for that long, and still release albums that receive legitimate critical consideration and are the primary focus of each new tour. I'd argue that no Stones release has been a legitimate "event" since Voodoo Lounge, and of course that album doesn't have anything interesting or noteworthy about it, and was only featured lightly on its respective tour.



We make a special case for U2 with these comparisons because they ARE a special case, regardless of whether or not you enjoy what they've been doing the last 10-15 years.

Perfectly stated.