Do you think they have it in them ?
- Thread starter U2girl
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Yeah......yeah, I do.
I had the ol' ipod on shuffle yesterday and "Mothers of the Disappeared" came on.....haven't heard it in ages.
In a few words: that song is an example of IT. Sure, an old song, but one I haven't heard in so long, and yet the goosebumps came.
That's an example of IT as far as I know, and I hear IT when it happens.
Now, many other newer songs also have IT, but I'm just saying, when IT happens, I know it.
IT happens. I hope IT happens again.
Rob33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Moser
Refugee
SecretFly
War Child
U2 definitely have it in them for sure. If any band is going to revolutionize rock and roll it will be U2. Rock and Roll in my opinion needs a big kick up the ass.
Screwtape2
Blue Crack Addict
I don't see how U2 is going to revolutionize rock. They aren't playing prog rock, art rock, post-rock or other innovative genres. They aren't pushing the limits of technology. U2 is a great band and influential but they are not revolutionary.
popacrobat
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
thank God for that
Here's the problem---people think stuff like this really is still revolutionary. Dude, it's not. So you added some new computer effect to your song. Big friggin' deal. People have now been doing that for well over a decade. As much as I like Radiohead, they're not really revolutionary anymore...at least In Rainbows wasn't. But it's not just them. So many of the bands and genres that became "cool" by being revolutionary simply aren't revolutionary anymore simply because of time and the fact that so many other people are doing the same thing.
It's like the idiot in high school who wants to be "different" and "unique" by being goth or coloring their hair purple. They become just about as "different" and "unique" as the fifteen other people in their class who are purple-haired goths.
Yes, there still is room for "innovation." But to claim that a well-established genre is the route for it, you're essentially negating yourself.
Screwtape2
Blue Crack Addict
Here's the problem---people think stuff like this really is still revolutionary. Dude, it's not. So you added some new computer effect to your song. Big friggin' deal. People have now been doing that for well over a decade. As much as I like Radiohead, they're not really revolutionary anymore...at least In Rainbows wasn't. But it's not just them. So many of the bands and genres that became "cool" by being revolutionary simply aren't revolutionary anymore simply because of time and the fact that so many other people are doing the same thing.
It's like the idiot in high school who wants to be "different" and "unique" by being goth or coloring their hair purple. They become just about as "different" and "unique" as the fifteen other people in their class who are purple-haired goths.
Yes, there still is room for "innovation." But to claim that a well-established genre is the route for it, you're essentially negating yourself.
1. Clearly you don't listen to much interesting music.
2. To say an artist isn't revolutionary because people later try to do the same thing is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. I'm sorry but it is.
3. I'm just saying that you usually have to work in a certain genre to really do anything revolutionary. It really helps.
Oh and Radiohead is not at all revolutionary.
popacrobat
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
I don't get exactly how you can define interesting music. To somebody, Justin Timberlake can be interesting because of the beats. That person could hate prog rock. To somebody else, prog rock can be interesting, U2 can be interesting, but Elvis or the Beatles can be boring. So clearly, that's all a matter of opinion.
Pray tell...what bands/artists do you consider "revolutionary"?
shaun vox
New Yorker
Queen is revolutionary !
michael jackson is revolutionary!
michael jackson is revolutionary!
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Queen was great, but never revolutionary.
WAS not is, and only for a brief moment.
shaun vox
New Yorker
What... man Queen is/was revolutionary in every-way. check out all their albums and freddie's solo stuff.
1. Actually, Jimbo, I do. Although I'd love to see not only what bands you find "interesting," but also why.
2. I agree, to call someone whose work is later mimicked not "revolutionary" is incorrect, and it's not what I meant. What I do mean is that people who essentially created a sound or even genre aren't really doing anything revolutionary ten years down the road if they're still working with that sound or type of music. Makes sense, but some people fail to see that. Look at the very definition of "art rock"---music that interweaves various formats, often some classical and jazz elements, more often than not keyboard-heavy. The genre has limits set up by definition. If you're working within the genre of art rock, anything you do that still sounds like art rock isn't really going to be "revolutionary." Sure, you may have some technique that hasn't been done before, but you'll still be very likely to group the song with that technique in with any other art rock song compared to some other genre.
3. "Rock 'n' Roll" sounds vastly different now than it did in the 60s, which in turn sounded vastly different by the end of that decade than it did in the mid-50s. Sure, similar roots all throughout, but take your generic piece of crap Creed song and play it in 1962 and it'll be called "revolutionary." And yet, it's all called "rock." But it was a gradual thing, with multiple hard-turns throughout history to get to this different sound. To claim that only a handful of genres hold the magic passkey to creativity is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. I'm sorry, but it is. It's like saying that anything that is novel is "art rock," or that "indie" is a genre in and of itself.
Screwtape2
Blue Crack Addict
Here are just a few:
The Beatles became very revolutionary from a production standpoint.
Miles Davis reinvented jazz by creating jazz fusion.
Peter Gabriel created the first album to combine rock and world music.
Kraftwerk were the fathers of the electronic music genre.
The Who created the first true concept album.
Todd Rundgren made an album with his voice being the only instrument through digital samplers. He also made the first interactive album where you could alter the songs.
Kate Bush made one of the early albums that revolutionized the way digital sampling was used.
There are also people who revolutionized an instrument.
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
Is it true that if you don't use it, you lose it?
I'm just going to sit back and enjoy this conversation for now.
I'm just going to sit back and enjoy this conversation for now.
Similar threads
