Q Magazine named U2 "greatest act of the past quarter of a century"

[LUNEDEMINUIT]

here's a hint... nobody is truly original. everyone, including the names of the "original" acts you included, are derivative of earlier acts and influences.

the beatles, along with elvis, were clearly just doing what black r&b artists had already been doing and brought it to the white mainstream. david bowie was highly influenced by musical theater, and brought many of those elements to rock. bob dylan was simply building on the legacies of woody guthrie, pete seeger, lead belly and other similar artists.

the artists who take this influence and make it their own, passing it along by further influencing future generations... these are the artists who will be remembered forever. and u2 are certainly that.

You forget one important element:Longevity. U2 havent sustained their greatness long enough to be mention in the same league as the beatle,Dylan,the Stones,Elvis,Radiohead ect...U2 greatness period is a very small window. 87' to 93'.And that is only 2 album.Before the Joshua tree they didn't influenced anyone one and after Acthung Baby neither.

 

[Nick66]

how can more than one act, as you listed, "define" a genre?

what genre does u2 really fit into? i'd like to think the greatest of artists can't be pigeon holed into any specific genre. the rolling stones were once a rhythm and blues band. the beatles were a pop band. u2 were a post-punk band.

you're honestly going to say that u2 had no influence on the musical landscape over their career? that's just silly talk.

Ugh. I never said U2 wasn't influential. In fact, I specifically said they were influential. The fact that other artists tried to copy them and were influenced by them doesn't mean they changed the genre. Selling lots of albums doesn't mean you've changed the genre. You seem to think that no band has ever had the kind of influence I'm suggesting.

OK...let me put it back at you. Tell me some bands that YOU think were ground breaking, and changed the musical landscape, and why. Which albums? And how does U2 fit into that? What's the U2 album that changed everything?

For example, Nirvana pretty much popularised grunge and alternative music during what was an otherwise extremely conservative period musically. They changed the landscape...their impact was huge. I don't think they are in U2's league as far as how much I enjoy their music...but I think Nevermind had a bigger influence on music the past 20 years than anything U2 ever did.

What U2 album single handedly did that to that degree?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

You forget one important element:Longevity. U2 havent sustained their greatness long enough to be mention in the same league as the beatle,Dylan,the Stones,Elvis,Radiohead ect...U2 greatness period is a very small window. 87' to 93'.And that is only 2 album.Before the Joshua tree they didn't influenced anyone one and after Acthung Baby neither.

woah woah woah... you won't say u2 sustained their greatness for a long period of time... but you included radiohead???

my mind just exploded with the audacity of your statement.

greatness doesn't come because some guy in skinny jeans in williamsburg still thinks you're the shit.

 

[Nick66]

Nick, I find your eagerness to jump into fights very disappointing. If you look back all I said was that there is a large portion of people inside and outside of interference that would disagree with you. I've posted in here for quite awhile, so I've read quite a few articles, lists, and blogs linked in here throughout the years that disagree with you.

What you're talking about is pretty subjective, but the way you speak you pretend that it's not...

Sure, BVS. Just show me a few of these many critics and lists that put U2 in the same category as those other bands, that say U2 changed the face of rock music permanently, and defined the genre, and I'll concede the point. Since you say there are so many, it should just take you a few seconds to find them.

Show me a single list (from a serious source) of the 10 most influential records of the past 30 years that has a U2 album on it.

That's fair, isn't it?

I don't think I'm "eager" to jump into fights. I state an opinion, and then someone like you comes along and basically tells me I'm "wrong" without backing it up. I just appreciate someone who can make their point with examples, and logic, rather than "You're wrong. And lots of people disagree with you" without any facts. God, I'd just like someone to make their point based on reason, not declarative statements without backing. I've been down that road here before.

 

[gvox]

the artists who take this influence and make it their own, passing it along by further influencing future generations... these are the artists who will be remembered forever. and u2 are certainly that.

I'd agree and go a step further: U2 is one of the bands that brought pop radio around to liking decent alternative music. That got a little muddied mid-late 90s, sure, but up till and including Zooropa U2 was putting out stuff that wouldn't be considered within the normal realm of "mainstream" and sortof forced mainstream to include them. IMO, anyways.

 

[BVS]

You forget one important element:Longevity. U2 havent sustained their greatness long enough to be mention in the same league as the beatle,Dylan,the Stones,Elvis,Radiohead ect...U2 greatness period is a very small window. 87' to 93'.And that is only 2 album.Before the Joshua tree they didn't influenced anyone one and after Acthung Baby neither.

This is a pretty ridiculous statement.

I know of a lot of bands that have listed War,UF, Zooropa, and even ATYCLB as influences.

 

[Galeongirl]

GG, I'm not saying they're not great or impressive for staying together for 25 years, or putting on an amazing live show. You could say the same thing about Rush.

That's completely separate from what I'm saying, and I think you know that. I was the first person to say I agreed w/what Q said.

It's not about that. It's the fact that once again you're biting yourself into an argument, probably without even realising it. Aren't we done arguing on here now the Remaster thing is exhausted?
Is it such a crime that people disagree with you? There's no need to fight people like this. You could just agree to disagree for once.

And for the record, Rush is in NO way comparable to U2. Not many people I know have ever heard of them here. So they might've been big in North America, but U2 is big worldwide.

 

[LemonMelon]

woah woah woah... you won't say u2 sustained their greatness for a long period of time... but you included radiohead???

my mind just exploded with the audacity of your statement.

greatness doesn't come because some guy in skinny jeans in williamsburg still thinks you're the shit.

In Rainbows was still the shit. But if you don't want to extend their relevance that far, they were arguably the most critically adored band on the planet from 1995-2000, right around the time that the media started to cool on U2. That stretch of time is longer than Pearl Jam's peak (1991-1995) as well as Oasis' (1994-1997). Pretty damn good compared to most recent rock greats.

 

[gvox]

You forget one important element:Longevity. U2 havent sustained their greatness long enough to be mention in the same league as the beatle,Dylan,the Stones,Elvis,Radiohead ect...

Holy crap. This guy just put Radiohead in a sentence of sustained greatness alongside The Beatles, Dylan, Elvis...and excludes U2?

Do you even realize how crazy that sounds?

 

[LUNEDEMINUIT]

woah woah woah... you won't say u2 sustained their greatness for a long period of time... but you included radiohead???

my mind just exploded with the audacity of your statement.

greatness doesn't come because some guy in skinny jeans in williamsburg still thinks you're the shit.

From the bend to today thats 16 years,7 albums.I'll say that's a pretty long run in term of greatness.

 

[Galeongirl]

You forget one important element:Longevity. U2 havent sustained their greatness long enough to be mention in the same league as the beatle,Dylan,the Stones,Elvis,Radiohead ect...U2 greatness period is a very small window. 87' to 93'.And that is only 2 album.Before the Joshua tree they didn't influenced anyone one and after Acthung Baby neither.

That's a brilliant new sig quote.

 

[Babydoll]

U2 havent sustained their greatness long enough to be mention in the same league as the beatle

Which beatle?

 

[Galeongirl]

There's only one Beatle big enough to be mentioned on his own.



George Harrison ofcourse.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Ugh. I never said U2 wasn't influential. In fact, I specifically said they were influential. The fact that other artists tried to copy them and were influenced by them doesn't mean they changed the genre.

OK...let me put it back at you. Tell me some bands that YOU think were ground breaking, and changed the musical landscape, and why. Which albums? And how does U2 fit into that?

For example, Nirvana pretty much popularised grunge and alternative music during what was an otherwise extremely conservative period musically. They changed the landscape...their impact was huge.

What U2 album single handedly did that to that degree?

well... firstly i would argue that nirvana were only part of a much bigger movement. pearl jam and soundgarden had a little bit to do with that as well, yet you do not include them on your list. likely because YOU feel nevermind was better than ten. many would disagree. still others would say that it was more of a cultural shift, and that the seattle scene was simply in the right place at the right time. to that, there's only one of those many seattle acts that is still actively recording and touring to this day, and that's pearl jam. so do they win?

i can't tell you that u2 have ever had an album that had a profound culture changing influence on the musical landscape. if that's your point, then fine.. you win.

 

[BVS]

I state an opinion, and then someone like you comes along and basically tells me I'm "wrong" without backing it up. I just appreciate someone who can make their point with examples, and logic, rather than "You're wrong. And lots of people disagree with you" without any facts. God, I'd just like someone to make their point based on reason, not declarative statements without backing. I've been down that road here before.

Nick, everyone can go back one page and see that you're lying. All I said was that many disagree with you, and you came back with the ever so humble: "they'd be wrong".

When I have the time, I'll post some links if that's what you need.

 

[LemonMelon]

Ringo has a big enough nose for it to be mentioned on its own.

 

[Babydoll]

Ringo has a big enough nose for it to be mentioned on its own.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

From the bend to today thats 16 years,7 albums.I'll say that's a pretty long run in term of greatness.

and i haven't liked them since creep, and their last album nauseates me

hey, i guess music is subjective!

 

[BVS]

From the bend to today thats 16 years,7 albums.I'll say that's a pretty long run in term of greatness.

Which bands are being influenced by King of Limbs, Amnesiac, In Lamebows?

 

[gvox]

For the record, U2's period of greatness, in terms of hits, critical acclaim and amazing live shows, is AT MINIMUM 1983-1993. If you start focusing more on live shows, their greatness has not yet even ended. They still to this day put on one of, if not *the, best live shows in music.

 

[Nick66]

It's not about that. It's the fact that once again you're biting yourself into an argument, probably without even realising it. Aren't we done arguing on here now the Remaster thing is exhausted?
Is it such a crime that people disagree with you? There's no need to fight people like this. You could just agree to disagree for once.

And for the record, Rush is in NO way comparable to U2. Not many people I know have ever heard of them here. So they might've been big in North America, but U2 is big worldwide.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me. I'd just like, and respect, someone saying "I disagree with you, and here's why...." instead of insults and telling me I'm wrong without telling me why I'm wrong. Saying "Lots of people disagree with you" is not saying anything. THAT's argumentative. If I say something you disagree with, tell me why you disagree...but merely telling me you disagree and nothing else serves what purpose? Look at Lazarus response to me...I disagree with him, but I can respect that he made an argument.

And I merely made the Rush point because you brought up longevity and live performance...both of which are things Rush is known for. And, each member of Rush happens to be incredibly talented musically. Popularity is really beside the point, but Rush actually has a pretty large world wide following...obviously no where near U2's, but few bands have that.

 

[gvox]

And for the record, Rush is in NO way comparable to U2. Not many people I know have ever heard of them here. So they might've been big in North America, but U2 is big worldwide.

I agree with all your other points, obviously...but in truth Rush is big worldwide. They are in the pantheon of classic Rock and a significant number of bands worldwide have cited them as major influences. They can sell out stadiums in alot of markets outside NA..

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

why is popularity a non issue?

i'm not talking flash in the pan, here for a moment and gone popularity... i'm talking worldwide, adored by millions across the globe for decades upon decades popularity... ya gotta be doing something right to get that... yet that stands for nothing?

 

[LUNEDEMINUIT]

This is a pretty ridiculous statement.

I know of a lot of bands that have listed UF, Zooropa, and even ATYCLB as influences.

Should i start the list of bands who hate this band? come on,lets not be blind or deaf by our fandom here.

 

[BVS]

Saying "Lots of people disagree with you" is not saying anything. THAT's argumentative.

Seriously, you might want to go back and read what I said, there was nothing argumentative or personal about it. Don't be so eager.

 

[BoMac]

Oh the irony of that last sentence...

Almost as ironic as this first sentence:

Nick, I find your eagerness to jump into fights very disappointing.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Should i start the list of bands who hate this band? come on,lets not be blind or deaf by our fandom here.

shall we start with a list of people who hate radiohead (note: you can start the list with me)?

come on, lets not be blind or deaf by our fandom here.

 

[Nick66]

Nick, everyone can go back one page and see that you're lying. All I said was that many disagree with you, and you came back with the ever so humble: "they'd be wrong".

When I have the time, I'll post some links if that's what you need.

I said "They'd be wrong"...and then I said why. You came back with the sarcasm.

Anyway, setting aside the personal stuff, which I'm not interested in (I have no problem with people calling me on things, and showing me why I'm wrong...I want my assumptions challenged...just give me facts and examples w/o making it personal), here's an example of the kind of list I'm talking about. It's just ONE example, before anyone says yeah that's just one persons opinion, but it's pretty representative of what I'm trying to say in terms of musical influence and genre defining...a most lists are pretty similar, albeit in a different order:

The 50 albums that changed music | Music | The Observer

Pay particular attention to the "without which" section, and tell me, besides maybe Coldplay who basically just worship U2, how many bands you could say wouldn't exist "without" U2.

 

[LemonMelon]

Should i start the list of bands who hates this band? come on,lets not be blind or deaf by our fandom here.

I think the Sex Pistols are a shitty boy band concocted to capitalize on a trend and little more, and this opinion isn't as uncommon as you may think, but that hasn't stopped them from being one of the most important bands of their era.

If people hear your music and like it, you have influence. If a lot of people hear your music and like it, you have a lot of influence. If you're unique, a trend-setter like U2 or Radiohead that has few traceable contemporaries, you're going to stand out even more. They may not have invented a "scene," and it may take an extra 5 seconds to determine the bands they influenced, but it's ludicrous to say they held no influence because of that.

 

[BVS]

Should i start the list of bands who hates this band? come on,lets not be blind or deaf by our fandom here.

What does that have to do with anything? So if someone hates Radiohead does that mean they aren't influential?

You made a really ridiculous comment, just face it. There are bands still trying to write their NYD or SBS, yet you claim it wasn't an influential album. Pride, Bad, BD these are all songs I still hear rip offed all the time, yet you claim they weren't influential. So who exactly is deaf here?