U2 packing it in? - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Where The Album Has A Name - Songs of Experience
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 07-20-2014, 11:32 AM   #136
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozeeko View Post
Lol, look I have never been embarrassed to be a U2 fan. I'll defend them til the day I croak, even though they're the band who wrote Stand Up Comedy. I thought I was just stating an obvious earlier. Sure they're one of the biggest best bands of all time. To answer what BVS jumped on last night, I didn't mean that U2's peers "hate" them, I said they don't respect them "enough" to be seen in that upper echelon of classic rock music. They aren't seen as re-inventing the wheel musically, or as a band born out of rock's roots. They're a standalone act. No one will argue as to their level of success, but that they're so big to the point of being irritating gets in the way of recognizing their contribution. That's all I was saying.

I think you're projecting. Saying their peers don't respect them is a pretty easy statement to back up if true. So I was curious if you had examples? Because I know I could give you a long list of peers that have collaborated, showed public respect, or expressed admiration.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 11:36 AM   #137
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 493
Local Time: 08:29 AM
Henry rollins would have something to say about that.
__________________

__________________
LUNEDEMINUIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 12:23 PM   #138
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,420
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I think you're projecting. Saying their peers don't respect them is a pretty easy statement to back up if true. So I was curious if you had examples? Because I know I could give you a long list of peers that have collaborated, showed public respect, or expressed admiration.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
I think the word peers has got me in trouble here. Thinking it over and realizing I'm kind of wrong for saying that. I'll admit it.
__________________
ozeeko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 12:37 PM   #139
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:29 AM
No prob...
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 02:01 PM   #140
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Apartment of Surrender...
Posts: 5,629
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by popacrobat View Post
Word. U2 are my favorite. I don't really care what anybody else thinks about that. A lot of people like them, some people loathe them. Whatevs.
Yeah, I don't get this conversation on a U2 message board with supposed "fans" claiming U2 isn't AT LEAST one of the greatest bands in history. For my money, they're obviously THE greatest band in history and that's that. I couldn't care less whether the current crop of hipsters want to rank them above or below the Rolling Stones (who have only written a half dozen good songs), The Who (Did they write ANY good songs?) or any of the others.

U2 became the best band in the world, in my judgement in 1987. Their work throughout the next 13 years cemented that. They laid an egg with ATYCLB but have been on an upswing ever since.

That's how I see it, and if I'm honest I see those who disagree as plain crazy!

Am I annoyed with Bono's extracurricular work? You bet. Am I exasperated with them not releasing an album in 5 years? Gods, yes! But no other band has ever written anything as good as The Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby.
__________________
Niceman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 02:02 PM   #141
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Apartment of Surrender...
Posts: 5,629
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LUNEDEMINUIT View Post
Henry rollins would have something to say about that.
He's light-years short of being a peer.
__________________
Niceman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 02:16 PM   #142
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 12:29 PM
I dunno. All this "where would you rank U2" on a list is weird because we're all obviously fans.
I mean, I use to consider U2's "peers" as The Police, R.E.M., Simple Minds, The Cure, Depeche Mode....
Then I started to think Pearl Jam, Radiohead, Oasis...
These days I have no idea....
You can't put them up there with The Beatles (objectively....personally you can put them anywhere you want), hard to say they are as important as Led Zeppelin (they're not), nowhere as "big" as Madonna, Prince, Michael Jackson overall...not as "relevant" (ha!) these days as fucking Coldplay....

I'd probably start by comparing them with Springsteen in terms of faithful fan base and longetivity, although obviously Bruce has a few years on them.

Tough one. I really think this next album in a way decides where they land on the next "greatest bands" lists or whatever. Another NLOTH? Somewhere in the teens or 20's spots. Another "AB"? Somewhere just under the top ten.
__________________
JOFO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 02:19 PM   #143
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,953
Local Time: 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOFO View Post
Well, yeah. If they actually produced quality albums more than once every 5 years or whatever, sure, they could get up there as far as songwriting, sales, etc.
Would it be in the panthenon of "top 5 greatest rock bands of all time"? No.
No one will ever top the Beatles or Zeppelin.
The Who and Stones are nothing now but their past was immense.
Do I see U2 doing this? No.

But it COULD be their objective at this point.
No. They'd have to have albums every 2 years with JT level sales each time.

Songwriting ? Bono and Edge are not up there with Lennon/McCartney, Jagger/Richards, Page/Plant, Townshend and Waters as writers. Influence and amount of classic songs/albums are not on U2's side either. And outside of Stones, their careers were far shorter than U2's.

It was never their goal to have the chance of being the greatest rock band of all time..
__________________
U2girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 02:24 PM   #144
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Apartment of Surrender...
Posts: 5,629
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOFO View Post
I dunno. All this "where would you rank U2" on a list is weird because we're all obviously fans.
I mean, I use to consider U2's "peers" as The Police, R.E.M., Simple Minds, The Cure, Depeche Mode....
Then I started to think Pearl Jam, Radiohead, Oasis...
These days I have no idea....
You can't put them up there with The Beatles (objectively....personally you can put them anywhere you want), hard to say they are as important as Led Zeppelin (they're not), nowhere as "big" as Madonna, Prince, Michael Jackson overall...not as "relevant" (ha!) these days as fucking Coldplay....

I'd probably start by comparing them with Springsteen in terms of faithful fan base and longetivity, although obviously Bruce has a few years on them.

Tough one. I really think this next album in a way decides where they land on the next "greatest bands" lists or whatever. Another NLOTH? Somewhere in the teens or 20's spots. Another "AB"? Somewhere just under the top ten.
The Beatles could never write Bad, Running to Stand Still, Bullet the Blue Sky, With or Without You, All I Want is You, Acrobat, Love is Blindness or anything as good as them.

Do I like the Beatles? Sure, I love them. But I just don't see that they did anything as good as U2's best work. No one has.

U2's peers were always the other popular and relevant artists of the current day. Yes, early on they were The Police, Simple Minds, INXS. Later it was REM, Faith No More, Guns N Roses, Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, Soundgarden. As time went on they outlasted them all and I think as of the 21st century you can only compare them to the upper echelons of Rock history: The Beatles, Floyd, Zeppelin.

IMO on their best days they wrote better songs than anyone else up there, they are a better live act, and they've outlasted them all.

I would rather have a new U2 album than a new Beatles, Stones, Floyd, Dylan, Who, or Zeppelin album, that's for sure!
__________________
Niceman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 02:26 PM   #145
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2girl View Post
Songwriting ? Bono and Edge are not up there with Lennon/McCartney, Jagger/Richards, Page/Plant, Townshend and Waters as writers.
I dunno, I think that's debatable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2girl View Post
It was never their goal to have the chance of being the greatest rock band of all time..
Right; they wanted to be the greatest of all time, never mind having a chance at it.
__________________
JOFO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 02:26 PM   #146
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Nick66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: "I drank what?"-Socrates
Posts: 6,067
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niceman View Post
Yeah, I don't get this conversation on a U2 message board with supposed "fans" claiming U2 isn't AT LEAST one of the greatest bands in history. For my money, they're obviously THE greatest band in history and that's that. I couldn't care less whether the current crop of hipsters want to rank them above or below the Rolling Stones (who have only written a half dozen good songs), The Who (Did they write ANY good songs?) or any of the others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niceman View Post
The Beatles could never write Bad, Running to Stand Still, Bullet the Blue Sky, With or Without You, All I Want is You, Acrobat, Love is Blindness or anything as good as them.
LOL. What a bunch of straw man arguments.

For one thing, as far as I can see NO ONE is saying that U2 is not "at least one of the greatest bands in history". I imagine most, if not all, the people participating on the board would agree with that. So let's dispense with that straw man foolishness right away.

Secondly, it's not the "current crop of hipsters" who would rank, say the the Rolling Stones, above U2. It's most of the the musical world, critics and fans alike. And when you say the Stones have only a "half dozen good songs" you're only embarrassing yourself (again). And I say this as someone who isn't a particularly big Stones fan. You comments about The Who are equally facile and again, you're showing your musical ignorance on a board that has a pretty fair number of people very knowledgeable about music. I won't even get into your Beatles remarks.

U2 is my favourite band. And IMO their legacy as one of the greatest rock bands ever is secure, and nothing they can do now can really diminish that. But please, if you're going to make your point, please just say "U2 is my favourite band" and and leave it at that. And if you must inform your comments with comparative rock history, at least make sure they're informed.
__________________
Nick66 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 02:33 PM   #147
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,460
Local Time: 07:29 AM
The Stones have like maybe three good chords. Tops. And I'm being generous here.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 02:34 PM   #148
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Apartment of Surrender...
Posts: 5,629
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
LOL. What a bunch of straw man arguments.

For one thing, as far as I can see NO ONE is saying that U2 is not "at least one of the greatest bands in history". I imagine most, if not all, the people participating on the board would agree with that. So let's dispense with that straw man foolishness right away.

Secondly, it's not the "current crop of hipsters" who would rank, say the the Rolling Stones, above U2. It's most of the the musical world, critics and fans alike. And when you say the Stones have only a "half dozen good songs" you're only embarrassing yourself (again). And I say this as someone who isn't a particularly big Stones fan. You comments about The Who are equally facile and again, you're showing your musical ignorance on a board that has a pretty fair number of people very knowledgeable about music. I won't even get into your Beatles remarks.

U2 is my favourite band. And IMO their legacy as one of the greatest rock bands ever is secure, and nothing they can do now can really diminish that. But please, if you're going to make your point, please just say "U2 is my favourite band" and and leave it at that. And if you must inform your comments with comparative rock history, at least make sure they're informed.
You know, you have consistently been a belligerent poster since I first noticed you on this board. I can only imagine your life outside of it is very difficult, so I won't worry myself that you are yet again diving in desperate for a fight.

Reading over the last few pages I see more than one poster suggesting they are not in the pantheon with the Beatles, the Stones, etc. There's no straw-man involved in my calling that foolishness what it is.

I have an opinion when it comes to the Stones, and it is that they are the most over-rated band in history. I've lived a long life filled with music and it is my considered opinion that the Stones have maybe 6 songs which are anything above mediocre, and only 2 or 3 great ones. IMO I would take INXS' KICK over the entire Stones catalog 8 days out of 7. That's my opinion. It's not an objective statement. There can be no debate.

(And, strangely, I'm actually NOT embarrassed to share it publicly!)

I don't like The Who. I've been told my who life that they were great, often even by Bono, and I don't get it. They're not for me. I don't hate them. I simply don't see anything interesting about them. They certainly have never written anything I would want to pay money for.

No, I won't limit my comments to "U2 is my favorite band." I will also share any other thoughts I care to, without fear that grumpy ol' Nick might get his feelings hurt by someone expressing an opinion on art which is not the same as his.
__________________
Niceman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 02:37 PM   #149
Blue Crack Addict
 
mikal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Black Lodge
Posts: 24,918
Local Time: 06:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
The Stones have like maybe three good chords. Tops.

And the truth!


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
mikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 02:37 PM   #150
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Nick66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: "I drank what?"-Socrates
Posts: 6,067
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
The Stones have like maybe three good chords. Tops.
All Bob Dylan has is that plus a red guitar and the truth.
__________________

__________________
Nick66 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com