Excerpt from the new RS article, "U2: Hymns For the Future" about "Winter" vs Singles

[lazarus]

Maybe a bit simplistic in my approach

You think?

 

[AEKU2]

You think?

Not in your context.

 

[AEKU2]

I'll leave it.

Your classification doesn't seem to work when one considers that U2 has a handful of brilliant albums that come from a heavy dose of involved producers and using the studio as an instrument, and why Radiohead is considered one of the best live bands around right now.

You're seriously beginning to sound like a troll.

And you are an expert in defining a troll. If one does not agree with your argument you can always pull out the "troll" card.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Hence why U2 should not go the path of Radiohead. Maybe a bit simplistic in my approach, but you would have to agree in parts.

Do you mean 'results' as in the level of quality, or 'results' as in the sound/feel/whatever of the resulting project?

Either way, I disagree.

 

[AEKU2]

Which is why it's great that virtually every recording artist on earth has a different, unique process.

Then what about this?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

 

[lazarus]

Hey, where did the Radiohead argument go? Did it disappear in a puff of logic?

 

[lazarus]

And you are an expert in defining a troll. If one does not agree with your argument you can always pull out the "troll" card.

No, what makes you a troll is that you make foolish statements like Radiohead isn't a live band, and then when a bunch of people strike down your position, you avoid or circle around the subject, and finally restate it in even more preposterous terms ("U2 is a live band, Radiohead is a studio band, take it or leave it").

If you're not going to post anything to actually back up what you're saying, instead of repeating yourself or arguing semantics, then maybe you should stay out of the thread, as well as the Steve Lillywhite one where you're doing essentially the same thing.

 

[youarenotimmune]

have you apologised for this yet?

this really struck me as being atrocious and utterly out of touch. YouTube - Radiohead - The Gloaming (From the Basement)

do u2 even have the ability to pull something like that off LIVE? answer that.
for me, i don't care that they don't because that's never really been there thing. but to say radiohead aren't even a live band is to be bankrupt of common sense after seeing them perform quite literally any song in their catalogue.

u2 can do whatever they want. really. they're obsessed with staying relevant, and that's fine. but in my opinion, they want to be relevant amongst bands that aren't relevant to me, so as a result, are only on my personal radar due to the fact that i used to care a great deal about their music. i don't give a fuck about coldplay, the killers, kings of leon or whomever else they namecheck these days, and it's a shame they appear to want to emulate these bands.

this biggest band bullshit is ego-driven, and nothing else. do you ever hear universally respected bands/artists such as radiohead, bob dylan, massive attack, whatever band damon albarn finds himself in (though of course the brit pop scene in the 90's would be a glaring exception... i gather he's moved on from that), etc. talk about this being a big competition? no. you don't. they don't bother themselves with such petty horseshit. it's MUSIC. there are no opponents! there's so much good stuff out there, it's completely outrageous to consider making music in order to "beat out the other guys".

alright, firstly i agree radiohead is fucking brilliant live (im a huge radiohead fan), but saying "do u2 even have the ability to pull something like that off LIVE?" is just plain silly!! like SOO many ppl hav sensibly said, U2 and radiohead are not comparable, at least not in the way their music makes u feel. radiohead and U2 fulfil different musical needs for me; there is NO radiohead song which can give me what i get from listening to U2, and vice versa.

They are able to reproduce the album sound of their songs as well as U2 does, and can also rearrange them to result in a superior live version as well. So they're certainly comparable.

ok, seriously???? U2 are experts at taking songs to another level in live settings (and i don't mean in terms of just level of energy, but arrangement as well). MOST U2 songs are FAR superior in live settings compared to their studio arrangements (tryin to throw your arms, bad, bullet the blue sky, one, gone etc. etc.) on top of that, U2 are also able to rearrange songs which have brilliant studio versions into just as brilliant live versions (running to stand still, streets, with or without you, beautiful day, mysterious ways etc etc) im all for radiohead, and yes they ARE great live, but to me U2 are better!!

and as for the whole debate abt bono's "45" and his plans for musical world domination, and comparing that to other bands who aren't as egotistical, FUCK all that! im obsessed with U2's music, not with U2's members. i dun giv a shit if bono cares abt popularity or his legacy or watever, i dun even care if all that affects U2's music, as long as the music still sounds good!! and it certainly does! if bono's ego and his need to reach out to the masses or dominate charts gives us songs like beautiful day and magnificent, who gives a rat's ass abt any of it!

U2's music has a unique feel abt it - it's always U2. same goes for radiohead. same goes for any great artist, no matter how much they experiment or break through boundaries, they always retain their UNIQUE style. it's an imprint which makes them different from anybody else, and which makes them so great! and this is NOT the same as saying that their works are all similar, or that they don't have any artistic range, but rather acknowleding that something "special" which all the greats have!

 

[Zoomerang96]

AEKU2, you lost and everyone else won.

 

[AEKU2]

AEKU2, you lost and everyone else won.

What is this about winning? I dont get it with you people, you are obsessed with winning an argument. Are you sick? And its only you and lazarus and U2MDFan when you mean "everyone else". Do you normally gang up like this? Or is it because i only have a few posts to my name, so you have decided to target me?

 

[AEKU2]

No, what makes you a troll is that you make foolish statements like Radiohead isn't a live band, and then when a bunch of people strike down your position, you avoid or circle around the subject, and finally restate it in even more preposterous terms ("U2 is a live band, Radiohead is a studio band, take it or leave it").

If you're not going to post anything to actually back up what you're saying, instead of repeating yourself or arguing semantics, then maybe you should stay out of the thread, as well as the Steve Lillywhite one where you're doing essentially the same thing.

You have no right to tell me whether i can or cant post. What are you the Internet Sherriff? If you dont like what i say then accept that you dont agree with me and move on. I dont agree with you and i dont agree with your bullying tactics.

 

[lazarus]

ok, seriously???? U2 are experts at taking songs to another level in live settings (and i don't mean in terms of just level of energy, but arrangement as well). MOST U2 songs are FAR superior in live settings compared to their studio arrangements (tryin to throw your arms, bad, bullet the blue sky, one, gone etc. etc.) on top of that, U2 are also able to rearrange songs which have brilliant studio versions into just as brilliant live versions (running to stand still, streets, with or without you, beautiful day, mysterious ways etc etc) im all for radiohead, and yes they ARE great live, but to me U2 are better!!

ZOMG!!1!!1!! I didn't say Radiohead were better. I just said they were comparable, meaning they both have very good live reputations. This was only a response to AEKU2's assertion that Radiohead wasn't a live band. I don't know what you're getting so worked up about.

 

[lazarus]

You have no right to tell me whether i can or cant post. What are you the Internet Sherriff? If you dont like what i say then accept that you dont agree with me and move on. I dont agree with you and i dont agree with your bullying tactics.

You can post wherever and as much as you want. I'm just telling you that your tactics and reasoning in this discussion are making you look like you don't know what the hell you're talking about. If you're cool with that, keep digging, by all means!

 

[mikal]

i haven't heard either U2's or Radiohead's music, but i think they both suck. Daughtry is the best.

 

[BVS]

i haven't heard either U2's or Radiohead's music, but i think they both suck. Daughtry is the best.

Winner.

 

[Zoomerang96]

What is this about winning? I dont get it with you people, you are obsessed with winning an argument. Are you sick? And its only you and lazarus and U2MDFan when you mean "everyone else". Do you normally gang up like this? Or is it because i only have a few posts to my name, so you have decided to target me?

it's because you only have a few posts your name.

i think it's pretty clear. oh and because you're a u2 fan. we all hate u2 here.

 

[namkcuR]

And when rock music forgets about the 45, it tends toward progressive rock, which is like a mold that grows on old, burned-out artists who've run out of ideas. We have a soundtrack/Pink Floyd side of our band, and it has to be balanced by fine songwriting.

I think this quote says a lot. This attitude towards progressive rock is very much in keeping with the attitude of the original punk rock movement of the late 70s. The Sex Pistols, The Clash, etc, and many of their fans, regarded progressive rock - the Pink Floyd, Yes, etc, type, with 10-20 minute songs, much of which were completely instrumental - to be 'self-indulgent'. Those guys felt like the progressive trend in rock music in the 70s was killing rock music as a whole. They believed that in order for rock music to matter, it had to be fresh, lean, without any excess, speak to the people, and shouted, and it had to get the people shouting back. Their movement was as much a social movement as it was a musical movement. The point is, this is a very punk rock attitude, and U2 started out in punk rock. That's the movement that gave them life in the beginning, and they still appear to truly think of themselves as a punk rock band - at least for a few tracks per album - So Bono making this kind of statement about progressive rock shouldn't really surprise anyone.

That said,
No Line On The Horizon
Magnificent
Moment Of Surrender
Unknown Caller
I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight
Get On Your Boots
Stand Up Comedy
Fez-Being Born
White As Snow
Breathe
Cedars Of Lebanon

 

[mikal]

That said,
No Line On The Horizon
Magnificent
Moment Of Surrender
Unknown Caller
I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight
Get On Your Boots
Stand Up Comedy
Fez-Being Born
White As Snow
Breathe
Cedars Of Lebanon

i agree with all that except SUC. i love every other song on this album, but SUC sucks, IMO.

 

[ultraviolet7]

I think this quote says a lot. This attitude towards progressive rock is very much in keeping with the attitude of the original punk rock movement of the late 70s. The Sex Pistols, The Clash, etc, and many of their fans, regarded progressive rock - the Pink Floyd, Yes, etc, type, with 10-20 minute songs, much of which were completely instrumental - to be 'self-indulgent'. Those guys felt like the progressive trend in rock music in the 70s was killing rock music as a whole. They believed that in order for rock music to matter, it had to be fresh, lean, without any excess, speak to the people, and shouted, and it had to get the people shouting back. Their movement was as much a social movement as it was a musical movement. The point is, this is a very punk rock attitude, and U2 started out in punk rock. That's the movement that gave them life in the beginning, and they still appear to truly think of themselves as a punk rock band - at least for a few tracks per album - So Bono making this kind of statement about progressive rock shouldn't really surprise anyone.

True and well reasoned. However, another trait of punk is non-complacence and an inherent despise for the "system". While Bono & Edge like to define U2 as a punk band, Bono is making this kind of statement that sounds definitely "punk" and the band has displayed a sort of punk attitude during many years, I frankly don't see them ideologically anywhere near punk these days. That is why this sort of statement regarding prog rock sounds somewhat absurd and seems rather unfairly used to make a case for the hit single.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

I think this quote says a lot. This attitude towards progressive rock is very much in keeping with the attitude of the original punk rock movement of the late 70s. The Sex Pistols, The Clash, etc, and many of their fans, regarded progressive rock - the Pink Floyd, Yes, etc, type, with 10-20 minute songs, much of which were completely instrumental - to be 'self-indulgent'. Those guys felt like the progressive trend in rock music in the 70s was killing rock music as a whole. They believed that in order for rock music to matter, it had to be fresh, lean, without any excess, speak to the people, and shouted, and it had to get the people shouting back. Their movement was as much a social movement as it was a musical movement. The point is, this is a very punk rock attitude, and U2 started out in punk rock. That's the movement that gave them life in the beginning, and they still appear to truly think of themselves as a punk rock band - at least for a few tracks per album - So Bono making this kind of statement about progressive rock shouldn't really surprise anyone.

That said,
No Line On The Horizon
Magnificent
Moment Of Surrender
Unknown Caller
I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight
Get On Your Boots
Stand Up Comedy
Fez-Being Born
White As Snow
Breathe
Cedars Of Lebanon

Me agrees with tis post.

i agree with all that except SUC. i love every other song on this album, but SUC sucks, IMO.

SUC is awesome. IMO.

 

[shart1780]

Coldplay is better than U2 and Radiohead so I don't see what the point in arguing about those lame bands is.

 

[catlhere]

What do you all think Bono's favorite food is? I wonder if he eats it for inspiration.

 

[Salome]

he better loves something "dark and heavy"
like black pudding