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

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I'd say that's an accurate assessment. I don't like the term "greatest" in this context (it's so subjective), but they are certainly one of, if not the, most influential and successful.

U2 has not achieved "Beatles" icon status (The Beatles have a singular distinction), but I'd say U2 is among the top "next-tier" acts after the Beatles.
 
Bono: "This is very humbling... if the Clash were up here, we'd be carrying their gear."

The Edge: "I remember back before Q. It was, 'thou shall not go platinum, thou shall not go to America... Q changed all that."


Twitter
 
Bono: "This is very humbling... if the Clash were up here, we'd be carrying their gear."



Bono's actually right here. While I'm a much bigger U2 fan than I ever was of the Clash, the Clash broke ground and were originals in a way that U2 wasn't.

U2, as great as they are, have created incredible rock music, with sometimes innovative elements both inside and outside of the music, but they didn't redefine an entire genre the way some other bands did. U2 was one of the best ever at creating music within a certain musical landscape, but I'm not sure they broke any real new ground the way a band like the Clash did.

That doesn't mean they weren't influential, and doesn't take away from what they've accomplished....they've achieved greatness either way.
 
Nick66 said:
Bono's actually right here. While I'm a much bigger U2 fan than I ever was of the Clash, the Class broke ground and were originals in a way that U2 wasn't.

U2, as great as they are, have created incredible rock music, with sometimes innovative elements both inside and outside of the music, but they didn't redefine an entire genre the way some other bands did. U2 was one of the best ever at creating music within a certain musical landscape, but I'm not sure they broke any real new ground the way a band like the Clash did.

That doesn't mean they weren't influential, and doesn't take away from what they've accomplished....they've achieved greatness either way.

I think there is a large portion of a population inside and outside of here that would disagree with you here.
 
I think there is a large portion of a population inside and outside of here that would disagree with you here.

And they'd be wrong. Though I doubt most people with a serious knowledge of music would disagree.

U2 is my favourite band, by far, but that doesn't mean I don't recognise why they are great. They're very good at what they do, and have sold a lot of records, and even influenced a lot of bands (like Coldplay) and make incredible music.

But no, they are not genre defining, or ground breaking in terms of their music. In fact, a good deal of their music is very derivative, and Bono would be the first person to admit that. It's really not even a matter of opinion. I haven't checked, but I imagine if you do a search of the most influential rock artists of all time....not most popular, not best selling...most influential, and U2 won't be on most credible lists.

Setting aside the 50's & 60's originals, if I mention R&B, or or punk, or electronica, or rap, or even grunge, certain names of ground breaking bands come to mind...U2 wouldn't be on any of those lists.

U2 is the product of a tradition of bands, including the Clash, that broke ground, and U2 perfected it and took it to its zenith...but they didn't change the game in terms of the music itself. Certainly they've made made impressive innovations outside the music itself, but musically, U2 hasn't changed the game. It's the difference between being the first at something and being the best at something.

Sorry.
 
Well then all those people, critics, and list makers are wrong because Nick said so.

You heard it here first.

Well, show me a serious critic, or list, that has U2 as ground breaking, or genre defining. Not the best. Not the most popular. Even the Q article doesn't go there. Or are you just limited to quips?

Better yet, why don't you make an argument, rather than just spitting out sarcasm. Actually articulate a contrary opinion, with facts. How did U2 break ground musically? What genre of music has U2 created? Or redefined?

U2 is an amazing band....I'm not saying they're not. But being good doesn't mean you're first, or genre defining. Even Bono wouldn't suggest U2 is something they're not.

Or were you just trying to pick a fight?
 
Well, show me a serious critic, or list, that has U2 as ground breaking, or genre defining. Or are you just limited to quips?

Better yet, why don't you make an argument, rather than just spitting out sarcasm. Actually articulate a contrary opinion, with facts. How did U2 break ground musically? What genre of music has U2 created? Or redefine?

U2 is an amazing band....I'm not saying they're not. But being good doesn't mean you're first, or genre defining. Even Bono wouldn't suggest U2 is something they're not.

Or were you just trying to pick a fight?

Oh the irony of that last sentence...:crack:
 
So let me get this straight: The Clash introduce elements of reggae and dub into the burgeoning punk rock scene, and are pioneers.

U2 introduces elements of industrial and other electronica, hip hop, trip hop in alternative rock, and aren't doing anything new.

The difference is that people were ready for what The Clash were doing and the influence was obvious and direct. With U2, they were too ahead of their time, and the genres they were exploring remained niche for longer. Which is why Radiohead are given all the credit for being pioneers with Kid A (or even OK Computer) when U2 had already laid the groundwork down with Zooropa and Passengers. As you said w/r/t U2, Radiohead just "perfected" it.
 
Oh the irony of that last sentence...:crack:

It's almost painfully obvious isn't it?



Either way, I think it's quite well deserved. They've been one of the few bands that are still around in the same setup as they were 25 years ago, and one of the few that are still making great music and putting up a friggin' amazing liveshow.
 
So let me get this straight: The Clash introduce elements of reggae and dub into the burgeoning punk rock scene, and are pioneers.

U2 introduces elements of industrial and other electronica, hip hop, trip hop in alternative rock, and aren't doing anything new.

The difference is that people were ready for what The Clash were doing and the influence was obvious and direct. With U2, they were too ahead of their time, and the genres they were exploring remained niche for longer. Which is why Radiohead are given all the credit for being pioneers with Kid A (or even OK Computer) when U2 had already laid the groundwork down with Zooropa and Passengers. As you said w/r/t U2, Radiohead just "perfected" it.

Well, at least you're making an argument and backing it up with facts & examples. This I can respect, even if we disagree on some points.

Yeah, your last sentence is exactly what I'm saying. There's nothing wrong with taking what other bands have done before, and created, and running it and being the best at it. But to be truly original, and define the genre so much that you band is instantly associated with it....there's only a handful of artists that have done that...David Bowie, The Velvet Underground, The Clash, The Virgin Prunes, Nirvana, Krafwerk, The Sex Pistols, Boby Dylan, The Pixes, Rage Against the Machine are some I can think of off the top of my head. And of course that's setting aside that obvious 50's & 60's artists like the Beatles.

Having a record that sells well and everyone agrees is a masterpiece and everyone loves does not mean it's particularly original or changed the musical landscape.

It's doesn't mean U2 isn't great, or talented, or influential (they've clearly influenced a lot of bands). I like them better than every band I listed there. But I'm not going to pretend that U2 totally changed the face of music and created a new genre or completely changed the genre, because they didn't. I think they pushed some boundaries, but really didn't change the musical landscape. I mean, what's the album? What's the U2 album that changed rock & roll? Is there anyone who thinks U2 has an album that changed the musical landscape the way, say, Nevermind did? (And I'm not even a Nirvana fan). Or London Calling?

Anyway, we can disagree, that's cool...but thanks for making your case and not making it personal.
 
It's almost painfully obvious isn't it?



Either way, I think it's quite well deserved. They've been one of the few bands that are still around in the same setup as they were 25 years ago, and one of the few that are still making great music and putting up a friggin' amazing liveshow.

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.
 
Well, at least you're making an argument and backing it up with facts & examples. This I can respect, even if we disagree.

Yeah, your last sentence is exactly what I'm saying. There's nothing wrong with taking what other bands have done before, and created, and running it and being the best at it. But to be truly original, and define the genre so much that you band is instantly associated with it....there's only a handful of artists that have done that...David Bowie, The Velvet Underground, The Clash, The Virgin Prunes, Nirvana, Krafwerk, The Sex Pistols, Boby Dylan, The Pixes, Rage Against the Machine are some I can think of off the top of my head. And of course that's setting aside that obvious 50's & 60's artists like the Beatles.

It's doesn't mean U2 isn't great, or talented, or influential (they've clearly influenced a lot of bands). I like them better than every band I listed there. But I'm not going to pretend that U2 totally changed the face of music and created a new genre or completely changed the genre, because they didn't. I think they pushed some boundaries, but really didn't change the musical landscape.

Anyway, we can disagree, that's cool...but thanks for making your case and not making it personal.

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.
 
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.

Completely besides the point, but OK. No one is denying U2 is great and will be remembered "forever."

And in addition to "original" (and it goes w/o saying everyone is influenced by someone else), I said genre defining, and expanding and changing the musical landscape. Now, if you want to say that no bands have done that, I'm not sure what to say to you, it just becomes kind of an exercise in nihilism.

Obviously all those bands were influenced by someone else...it's so obvious it's not worth mentioning. But they also took whatever came before, adapted it, changed it, and altered the musical landscape permanently. Which U2 album did that? And how?

And again, if someone can show me a serious list that puts U2 in the same category as those artists (not, again, for how "great" they are, but for changing the musical landscape), I'd love to see it.
 
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.
 
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...
 
Back
Top Bottom