Rolling Stone & U2

[Iggy Fizz]

i love it when people who have been on the forums for a month talk shit like they know everything about us take your armchair psychology back to @u2, doctor fraud.

pathetic

 

[DaveC]

Been following the forums for 15 years, ace. Try again.

so then you don't even have "i'm new" as an excuse for being a douche. sad!

 

[trevgreg]

no, it's that their post-2000 music isn't very good, especially when compared to the 80s and 90s when they wrote better songs and were demanding of their audience. People are willing to accept old artists making good music - Bowie, Cave, Weller, Dylan, etc. Most of that respect (and quality) comes from them continuing to grow and take risks, while U2 have done the opposite.

I was on an Arcade Fire forum recently and had a good laugh reading this...

I bought tickets to Boston, but didn't go. I feel like this band is at a crossroads. Are they going to try and make music again for the 15-30 year old crowd? Or will they get back to making a more rock oriented record for their original fans. As for us older fans, we do like a little electronica, but I feel like it's gone a bit too far. I also wonder which group of fans is more loyal to their music. I think the answer to that is related to the lack of ticket sales on this tour.

They've officially entered the realm of releasing enough albums for some people to think that their songwriting process is being compromised somehow for a "young" crowd... or not doing that one "thing" enough to make good music anymore.

 

[kiwilad]

Been following the forums for 15 years, ace. Try again.

Ohhhh! Ace! Is that a registered cuss word valid for and approved by the internet moderation decorum standards authority?

I kinda get your point. But is it a point that needs the tone of a beligerant fanny?

 

[Salome]

Pitchfork and RS are both more calculated in how to protect their brand than U2 is.

 

[hasin73]

jaime's right.. this kind of thing is a big reason why people dislike u2, these days.

Also there's nothing in his post that suggests he thinks U2 are the only ones to get this treatment. Your use of is patronizing. Wish people wouldn't post this kind of thing

BVS is 100% accurate in pointing out jaime's obvious attempt to suggest U2 are the main beneficiary of critical adoration.

 

[hasin73]

From the 'Bomb' review:

"Maybe the biggest problem with Atomic Bomb is just that it sounds so much like U2, and their semi-absurd, totally unparalleled ubiquity has left all of us just a tiny bit tired of listening to things that sound like U2..."

"... But maybe U2's immortality is also their biggest curse-- and now they're forced to wallow in superstardom, forever perpetuating their own colossal myth."

They may have given the album a 6.9 based on tracks they liked, like LAPOE and COBL, but the band themselves? Pitchfork seems, like many, to only like the old stuff and have grown weary of the band themselves. They spend a lot of their album reviews talking about U2 the band, the concept, and not necessarily the actual album.

EDIT:

And then, strangely, in the subsequent NLOTH review, trashing Bomb:
"But 2004's How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb and its subsequent tour were troubling.

That record saw four guys famous for dabbing classic rock into all sorts of impressionistic frames (or dismantling it entirely via Village People costumes) uncomfortably grasping for old-fashioned riffs, when they weren't mindlessly feasting on their own past. It was completely predictable ("City of Blinding Lights"), canned ("Vertigo"), and depressingly Sting-like ("A Man and a Woman"). "

 

[hasin73]

I'm not saying their post-2000 material has reached the heights of what they did in the 80's and 90's, but saying it "isn't very good" just shows that you are more concerned with appearance rather than substance.

Plenty of their post-2000 stuff has been challenging and musically sophisticated, you're just too concerned about what others think to admit it. It's like you guys read from a script when it comes to this issue - you all say exactly the same thing, It's like the snotty, arrogant, cool-kid Pitchfork mindset has infected your brain.

 

[cobl04]

Pitchfork suffers from what several of the so-called U2 fans on Interference also suffer from: desperately wanting to be cool and part of the "group". It has become fashionable, even among some on this forum, to blindly bash almost any post-2000 U2 material. It helps them pretend to be hip and cool. In reality, it's just sad and disappointing. Some people can never let go of the juvenile high school need to be part of the "in crowd".

I'm not saying their post-2000 material has reached the heights of what they did in the 80's and 90's, but saying it "isn't very good" just shows that you are more concerned with appearance rather than substance.

Plenty of their post-2000 stuff has been challenging and musically sophisticated, you're just too concerned about what others think to admit it. It's like you guys read from a script when it comes to this issue - you all say exactly the same thing, It's like the snotty, arrogant, cool-kid Pitchfork mindset has infected your brain.

This is such pathetic bullshit.

Believe it or not champ, not everything the band does has some sort innate goodness to it because it's U2. It's fucking laughable that a subset of people here think that any criticism is some sort of hipster Pitchfork sheep thing.

MAYBE, it's just that some of the music they've put out since 2000 hasn't been very good.

 

[Axver]

no, it's that their post-2000 music isn't very good, especially when compared to the 80s and 90s when they wrote better songs and were demanding of their audience. People are willing to accept old artists making good music - Bowie, Cave, Weller, Dylan, etc. Most of that respect (and quality) comes from them continuing to grow and take risks, while U2 have done the opposite.

Pitchfork does like U2's 80s and 90s though, and were fine with ATYCLB and Bomb.

Most of that respect (and quality) comes from them continuing to grow and take risks, while U2 have done the opposite.

Yes. As each year goes by, U2 seem more and more interested in advancing their 'brand', at whatever cost to their music. And it seems to be having the opposite effect on everyone but the most dedicated/fervent/hardcore fans.

These are both good posts.

Indeed, it seems that the more concerned an older artist gets with "relevance", the less of it they have.

I'm not saying their post-2000 material has reached the heights of what they did in the 80's and 90's, but saying it "isn't very good" just shows that you are more concerned with appearance rather than substance.

Or, you know, many people think the post-2000 material isn't very good because too much of it lacks substance and is more concerned with appearance.

Pitchfork suffers from what several of the so-called U2 fans on Interference also suffer from: desperately wanting to be cool and part of the "group". It has become fashionable, even among some on this forum, to blindly bash almost any post-2000 U2 material. It helps them pretend to be hip and cool. In reality, it's just sad and disappointing. Some people can never let go of the juvenile high school need to be part of the "in crowd".

If anybody's behaving like a juvenile high schooler, it's you with your presumption of motives, boxing people into groups, and obsession with who's trying to be "cool".

 

[hasin73]

This is such pathetic bullshit.

Believe it or not champ, not everything the band does has some sort innate goodness to it because it's U2. It's fucking laughable that a subset of people here think that any criticism is some sort of hipster Pitchfork sheep thing.

MAYBE, it's just that some of the music they've put out since 2000 hasn't been very good.

When you compare this 2017 popular song from one of the cool band of this time........

https://youtu.be/fKopy74weus

then I have no option but to say that even post-2000 U2's 99% songs are classic compared to that aforementioned SHIT.

 

[Axver]

You need to listen to more 2017 music, clearly.

 

[Haywa1979]

You need to listen to more 2017 music, clearly.

No, he’s completely right. And no one is going to take the word of the biggest fake u2 fan on this site, anyway.

 

[DaveC]

You need to listen to more 2017 music, clearly.

you must not be educated enough to understand and appreciate U2.

 

[DaveC]

No, he’s completely right. And no one is going to take the word of the biggest fake u2 fan on this site, anyway.

thus sayeth the gatekeeper

 

[Axver]

No, he’s completely right. And no one is going to take the word of the biggest fake u2 fan on this site, anyway.

I'd love to know how a guy who runs a U2 setlist website is a "fake U2 fan", or why the hell anybody would care to pretend to be a fan of a band so widely mocked as U2. I've got better ways to ruin my social life than pretending to be a U2 fan.

And, you know, I've listened to well over 200 albums from this year so I think I have at least some handle on 2017's quality. Disagree with my taste if you want, but there's definitely a lot of great stuff happening this year - just not Imagine Dragons or, possibly, U2.

you must not be educated enough to understand and appreciate U2.

I never learned to read.

 

[LemonMelon]

Imagine setting the bar so low for U2 that even the most bland, forgettable indie rock bands can clear it.

Remember when the band was ahead of the curve? I don't, because I was six years old. Twenty years later they're being compared to rock's detritus.

 

[DaveC]

 

[LemonMelon]

You don't get it. I love U2. Everything U2 has ever done is incredible. U2 is the best band of all time. I wish I could drink U2's music so I could have it inside me.

 

[Axver]

You don't get it. I love U2. Everything U2 has ever done is incredible. U2 is the best band of all time. I wish I could drink U2's music so I could have it inside me.

This is the new forum description for EYKIW.

 

[kps88]

And, you know, I've listened to well over 200 albums from this year so I think I have at least some handle on 2017's quality. Disagree with my taste if you want, but there's definitely a lot of great stuff happening this year - just not Imagine Dragons or, possibly, U2.

What would you consider the year's best albums so far?

 

[Axver]

What would you consider the year's best albums so far?

My favourite so far is Auras by Deafcult, because I'm a shoegaze nerd.

Beyond that, I've been especially digging:

Ali Barter: A Suitable Girl (indie rock)
Bullet Height: No Atonement (industrial alt rock)
Citizen: As You Please (emo)
Cloud Nothings: Life Without Sound (indie/post-hardcore)
Dryjacket: For Posterity (emo)
Fazerdaze: Morningside (indie rock)
The Holy Circle: s/t (dreamy synthpop)
Hundredth: Rare (hardcore-influenced shoegaze)
Kaleida: Tear the Roots (moody synthpop)
Kardajala Kirridarra: s/t (electronica mixed with Australian Aboriginal traditional music)
Marnie: Strange Words and Weird Wars (synthpop)
Mermaidens: Perfect Body (psychedelia)
The Orbweavers: Deep Leads (dreamy folk)
Palehorse/Palerider: Burial Songs (doom metal)
Panda Riot: Infinity Maps (dream pop)
Nadia Reid: Preservation (folk)
Ride: Weather Diaries (shoegaze)
Sannhet: So Numb (post-rock)
Save Ends: A Book About Bad Luck (emo)
Slowdive: s/t (shoegaze)
Tiny Deaths: Elegies (synthpop)
Ulver: The Assassination of Julius Caesar (artsy synthpop)
The War on Drugs: A Deeper Understanding (gently psychedelic indie rock)
Wolf Alice: Visions of a Life (indie rock)
Wolves in the Throne Room: Thrice Woven (atmospheric black metal)
The World Is a Beautiful Place and I Am No Longer Afraid to Die: Always Foreign (emo)
Yumi Zouma: Yoncalla (really smooth dream pop)

Also, Major Leagues' album Good Love is patchy, but when it's good it's really fucking good, that sort of jangly indie pop from Queensland in the vein of The Go-Betweens. And Cloud Control's album blows hard but "Rainbow City" is one of the songs of the year and "Treetops" is also worth the time.

I better stop. There's more.

And I'm sure LM has a very good, even more deeply informed, but quite different list.

 

[cobl04]

When you compare this 2017 popular song from one of the cool band of this time........

https://youtu.be/fKopy74weus

then I have no option but to say that even post-2000 U2's 99% songs are classic compared to that aforementioned SHIT.

This is a fucking stupid post.

 

[hasin73]

Your one-liner post seems more banana-fucked.

 

[kiwilad]

Your one-liner post seems more banana-fucked.

But, if you're really really honest, if U2 had of written and released Thunder this year, and had it gone to no.1, wouldn't heaps of U2 fans be fans of the song? And stoked for U2? Regardless of its quality?

I think U2 fans are sometimes torn between wanting their band to rise above the post-Pop hate and become popular again, vs wanting them to be artists.

 

[hasin73]

But, if you're really really honest, if U2 had of written and released Thunder this year, and had it gone to no.1, wouldn't heaps of U2 fans be fans of the song? And stoked for U2? Regardless of its quality?

I think U2 fans are sometimes torn between wanting their band to rise above the post-Pop hate and become popular again, vs wanting them to be artists.

Between the horses of love and lust....... We are trampled underfoot

 

[Axver]

You don't get it. I love U2. Everything U2 has ever done is incredible. U2 is the best band of all time. I wish I could drink U2's music so I could have it inside me.

I think somebody drank U2's music:

Between the horses of love and lust....... We are trampled underfoot

 

[hasin73]

i think somebody drank u2's music:

 

[hasin73]

My favourite so far is Auras by Deafcult, because I'm a shoegaze nerd.

Beyond that, I've been especially digging:

Ali Barter: A Suitable Girl (indie rock)
Bullet Height: No Atonement (industrial alt rock)
Citizen: As You Please (emo)
Cloud Nothings: Life Without Sound (indie/post-hardcore)
Dryjacket: For Posterity (emo)
Fazerdaze: Morningside (indie rock)
The Holy Circle: s/t (dreamy synthpop)
Hundredth: Rare (hardcore-influenced shoegaze)
Kaleida: Tear the Roots (moody synthpop)
Kardajala Kirridarra: s/t (electronica mixed with Australian Aboriginal traditional music)
Marnie: Strange Words and Weird Wars (synthpop)
Mermaidens: Perfect Body (psychedelia)
The Orbweavers: Deep Leads (dreamy folk)
Palehorse/Palerider: Burial Songs (doom metal)
Panda Riot: Infinity Maps (dream pop)
Nadia Reid: Preservation (folk)
Ride: Weather Diaries (shoegaze)
Sannhet: So Numb (post-rock)
Save Ends: A Book About Bad Luck (emo)
Slowdive: s/t (shoegaze)
Tiny Deaths: Elegies (synthpop)
Ulver: The Assassination of Julius Caesar (artsy synthpop)
The War on Drugs: A Deeper Understanding (gently psychedelic indie rock)
Wolf Alice: Visions of a Life (indie rock)
Wolves in the Throne Room: Thrice Woven (atmospheric black metal)
The World Is a Beautiful Place and I Am No Longer Afraid to Die: Always Foreign (emo)
Yumi Zouma: Yoncalla (really smooth dream pop)

Also, Major Leagues' album Good Love is patchy, but when it's good it's really fucking good, that sort of jangly indie pop from Queensland in the vein of The Go-Betweens. And Cloud Control's album blows hard but "Rainbow City" is one of the songs of the year and "Treetops" is also worth the time.

I better stop. There's more.

And I'm sure LM has a very good, even more deeply informed, but quite different list.

That's a massive list. I could never even dream of assimilating so much music in a lifetime. Ax..... could you please point out to me some bands from your list who are similar to U2's type of music or close ? I will then give them a listen.

 

[Kieran McConville]

I would die for U2.

Wait, that came out wrong. I mean they would die for me.