U2 packing it in?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
We are all entitled to an opinion. However, some opinions are objectively more informed than others. At the end of the day, though, if you can't at least *appreciate* something that most people agree is a good thing, then that's on you.

However, when discussing the best of anything, you can have a better discussion if you can offer an argument rather than a mere opinion.

And while anyone can make an argument, some arguments are better than others. And an opinion is not an argument.


Sent from
 
We are all entitled to an opinion. However, some opinions are objectively more informed than others. At the end of the day, though, if you can't at least *appreciate* something that most people agree is a good thing, then that's on you.

However, when discussing the best of anything, you can have a better discussion if you can offer an argument rather than a mere opinion.

And while anyone can make an argument, some arguments are better than others. And an opinion is not an argument.


Sent from

I think Gvox has it right. This has gotten really ridiculous.

Unless someone who is unfamiliar with a band/song posts an opinion about it, we're dealing with informed opinions all around. I love and hate all kinds of things other people hate and love. I'm sure we all do. That's how it goes.

There's no need to reach and stretch towards one opinion being secretly the correct one. Is "Love me Do" a good song? That all depends on who you ask. Is Pop a good album? That depends on who you ask. Is ATYCLB objectively U2's worse album? No, that's just the opinion of some U2 fans. Is someone who says Robert Smith is the greatest songwriter of all time wrong?

These are all opinions and just reports of subjective opinions, almost all pretty damn well-informed ones.

That's all there is.
 
It was a total fucking waste. Based on the Smile Sessions, Pet Sounds--->Smile would have been right on the level of Revolver--->Sgt. Pepper. Not sure what they would have left in the tank to compete with Magical Mystery Tour, The White Album and Abbey Road though.
 
I am experiencing deja vu. Pretty sure we hqd the beatles u2 discussion sometime before NLOTH dropped. Or maybe its just that.. deja vu

Sent from my GT-I9300 using U2 Interference mobile app
 
I am experiencing deja vu. Pretty sure we hqd the beatles u2 discussion sometime before NLOTH dropped. Or maybe its just that.. deja vu

Sent from my GT-I9300 using U2 Interference mobile app

Most discussions here have been done before. It's the new album cycle that gets repeated every time the previous tour has ended.
 
I think Gvox has it right. This has gotten really ridiculous.

Unless someone who is unfamiliar with a band/song posts an opinion about it, we're dealing with informed opinions all around. I love and hate all kinds of things other people hate and love. I'm sure we all do. That's how it goes.

There's no need to reach and stretch towards one opinion being secretly the correct one. Is "Love me Do" a good song? That all depends on who you ask. Is Pop a good album? That depends on who you ask. Is ATYCLB objectively U2's worse album? No, that's just the opinion of some U2 fans. Is someone who says Robert Smith is the greatest songwriter of all time wrong?

These are all opinions and just reports of subjective opinions, almost all pretty damn well-informed ones.

That's all there is.




Did you go to college?


Sent from
 
Niceman, in retrospect I think I misunderstood what you were trying to say with the original post I quoted, and now re reading it I can see what you meant. Apologies for my reaction based on a misreading. :hi5:

I still think you're a crazy person and disagree wholeheartedly with what you actually meant to say, though it's your right to be a crazy person :wink:

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Did you go to college?


Sent from

In fact, I got half-way through getting my masters before financial issues prevented me from continuing and I am now a professional teacher and novelist.

My undergraduate degree was a multidisciplinary degree in Philosophy and Creative Writing from Bard. I then studied at Harvard. My teaching certificate was from L C Consulting at UCLA. I have taught students in L.A., The Czech Republic, Korea, Japan, and throughout the U.S.. Batman writer Chuck Dixon recently reviewed one of my novels and said, "It's like if Albert Camus decided to write a kick-ass sci-fi story." For fun, I am the leader singer in a band.
 
Niceman, in retrospect I think I misunderstood what you were trying to say with the original post I quoted, and now re reading it I can see what you meant. Apologies for my reaction based on a misreading. :hi5:

I still think you're a crazy person and disagree wholeheartedly with what you actually meant to say, though it's your right to be a crazy person :wink:

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Thanks. Mistakes are easy to make. :up:
 
In fact, I got half-way through getting my masters before financial issues prevented me from continuing and I am now a professional teacher and novelist.

My undergraduate degree was a multidisciplinary degree in Philosophy and creative writing from Bard. I then studied at Harvard. My teaching certificate was from L C Consulting at UCLA. I have taught students in L.A., The Czech Republic, Korea, Japan, and throughout the U.S.. Batman writer Chuck Dixon recently reviewed one of my novels and said, "It's like if Albert Camus decided to write a kick-ass sci-fi story." For fun, I am the leader singer in a band.



so you understand that you can't really just give your opinion on Hamlet, you have to present an argument and analysis when writing a paper.

if you're going to say that you prefer one song to the other that's one thing, but if you're going to engage in an argument about the best bands in history you need to offer historical context, comparisons between eras, and a lot of other stuff that goes far beyond individual preference. i might like a cheap wine, but i really can't argue that it's "better" than a more complex, expensive wine. you know? stating "well, that's just your/my opinion" seems like a way of shutting down debate and discussion since it puts everyone's thoughts on an equal setting when, in fact, they are not necessarily equal. you may or may not enjoy "love me do," but it's inarguable that it's a momentous song in history, and therefore, if you are talking about "greatest bands in history," doesn't something like that need to be taken into account when making a judgement or offering an opinion?
 
so you understand that you can't really just give your opinion on Hamlet, you have to present an argument and analysis when writing a paper.

if you're going to say that you prefer one song to the other that's one thing, but if you're going to engage in an argument about the best bands in history you need to offer historical context, comparisons between eras, and a lot of other stuff that goes far beyond individual preference. i might like a cheap wine, but i really can't argue that it's "better" than a more complex, expensive wine. you know? stating "well, that's just your/my opinion" seems like a way of shutting down debate and discussion since it puts everyone's thoughts on an equal setting when, in fact, they are not necessarily equal. you may or may not enjoy "love me do," but it's inarguable that it's a momentous song in history, and therefore, if you are talking about "greatest bands in history," doesn't something like that need to be taken into account when making a judgement or offering an opinion?

But no one on this thread has engaged in an argument. I haven't seen one person debate WHY one band is better than another. This has been a discussion of preferences. I certainly haven't said any more than what I like.

You want an argument with historical context for why I really dislike I want to Hold your hand? I doesn't always work that way. I have made no disparaging comments regarding the historical position of the Beatles. In fact, I have said that I love them. The fact remains that I prefer U2. For me, it isn't close.

You're free to ask why and we could have a more detailed discussion. No one did that.

I'll remind you of Kierkegaard's diopsomata, in which he said (paraphrasing) that if he asked for water and was brought the best wine, he would send it back, because that wasn't what he wanted.
 
i think that's the problem -- you haven't said why you hold some opinions (U2 is better than the Beatles, INXS is better than the Stones, the Stones only have 6 good songs) other than claim that they are your opinions, and therefore unassailable due to the fact that they are opinions.

it's very circular.
 
But no one on this thread has engaged in an argument. I haven't seen one person debate WHY one band is better than another. This has been a discussion of preferences. I certainly haven't said any more than what I like.

You want an argument with historical context for why I really dislike I want to Hold your hand? I doesn't always work that way. I have made no disparaging comments regarding the historical position of the Beatles. In fact, I have said that I love them. The fact remains that I prefer U2. For me, it isn't close.

You're free to ask why and we could have a more detailed discussion. No one did that.

I'll remind you of Kierkegaard's diopsomata, in which he said (paraphrasing) that if he asked for water and was brought the best wine, he would send it back, because that wasn't what he wanted.

I would like to know why you find the Farriss/Hutchence songwriting team of INXS superior to the Jagger/Richards team of The Rolling Stones, beyond just saying "I prefer them." Go!
 
i think that's the problem -- you haven't said why you hold some opinions (U2 is better than the Beatles, INXS is better than the Stones, the Stones only have 6 good songs) other than claim that they are your opinions, and therefore unassailable due to the fact that they are opinions.

it's very circular.

I won't disagree with you.

But this is difficult. WHY do I prefer U2 to the Beatles? Well, first of all, let me re-state that I love the Beatles. Comparison between these two bands is comparison at the highest levels of songwriting.

I can tell you that I've never been able to get into early Beatles work. I just don't feel it. It doesn't hold my interest. I understand it's historical importance and fully understand that other music which I do love would never have happened if not for "Love Me Do" and "I Want To Hold Your Hand." But I don't really find it interesting to my ear in 2014 (or 1984 for that matter.)

That said, their later work is mind-blowingly amazing. I'm also a big fan of John's solo work. But none of that moves me the way that The Joshua Tree does. When I listen to the best U2, it absorbs me. Many people have likened a U2 show to a religious experience, and it is difficult to find a better way to describe it. I think of the moments in the Rattle & Hum movie between Where the Streets Have No Name, MLK, and With or Without You. Nothing musical has ever moved me like that has.

There can be no debate as to historical context or influence. CLEARLY the Beatles have had worlds more influence. In fact, many of the bands most influenced by U2 tend to be kind of mediocre. But U2 themselves have a passion and a fire which the Beatles, IMO, couldn't even imagine approaching.

As far as the Stones, they have a few really amazing songs. Sympathy for the Devil and Paint it Black come immediately to mind. There's very little in rock as good as those two. They have some other songs I like too. And then I quickly lose interest. I don't find a depth of material in their catalog at the level of Paint it Black. At a certain point, they lose my interest. I don't know why, except to point to taste.

As to THE WHO I think I just don't like their sound. It's not a question of technical ability. I can see that they have that. It's not a question of influence, they have clearly had that. I would just never intentionally listen to a song of theirs all the way through. Someone mentioned Bab O'Reilly. I pulled up the track before replying and just wanted it to stop halfway through. I can't get into that sound.

So what do I like? My favorite band is U2. The Cure is #2. Then some of my other favorites are Faith No More & Patton's many other projects, Tom Waits, Nick Cave, INXS, Billy Idol, Depeche Mode, Bowie, Bowie, Bowie, Grant Lee Phillips/Buffalo, The Beastie Boys, New Model Army, Ladytron, Eminem, The XX, Cults, the Kills, Smashing Pumpkins, the Beatles, and many many many others. I've really been getting into Amon Amarth lately, which is much harder than what I usually listen to. I like the new Pixies album, I do not like most of Jack White's new album because I'm allergic to that style of country music. And my favorite non-U2 song may well be Echo and the Bunnymen's The Killing Moon.
 
I would like to know why you find the Farriss/Hutchence songwriting team of INXS superior to the Jagger/Richards team of The Rolling Stones, beyond just saying "I prefer them." Go!

I'm not sure I have an answer except to report on my personal experience. INXS's work moves me and I listen to the albums again and again. I can't say that about the RS.

Which is why I say I prefer INXS.
 
WHY do I prefer U2 to the Beatles? Well, first of all, let me re-state that I love the Beatles. Comparison between these two bands is comparison at the highest levels of songwriting.

That's reasonable. And it's a far cry from where you started on "songwriting"...

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.

And this...

I understand it's historical importance and fully understand that other music which I do love would never have happened if not for "Love Me Do" and "I Want To Hold Your Hand."

...is a far cry from this...

Yeah, Love Me Do is shit. And I want to Hold Your Hand is the source of all musical evil.

So what is "I Want to Hold Your Hand"? The song that made all the music you love happen, or the source of all musical evil?

So, this is great you're revising and extending your remarks now, but let's not pretend there's not some historical revisionism going on. :)
 
That's reasonable. And it's a far cry from where you started on "songwriting"...



And this...



...is a far cry from this...



So what is "I Want to Hold Your Hand"? The song that made all the music you love happen, or the source of all musical evil?

So, this is great you're revising and extending your remarks now, but let's not pretend there's not some historical revisionism going on. :)

No, I don't see a contradiction between these statements at all. The quality of a song can be measured either technically or in it's power. I have never cared about the technical quality of music. I can see it, but it doesn't matter to me.

The influence of a band or a song doesn't really belong to the band/song. It is the responsibility of the musicians which come next. If Nick Cave can listen to Love Me Do and then write a song which I love, then Cave is the one who has written the song that I love. If the Killers can listen to R&H and then release Sam' Town, the mediocrity of Sam's Town does not diminish R&H.

As I evaluate music, I'm not concerned with either influence or technical aspects. I only care about what the music itself does to me. I can't stand I Want to Hold Your Hand, but it has influenced music which I do love. That doesn't make me like IWTHYH.

And I will emphatically say that 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. Not one Beatles song can do to me what the above list does.
 
No, I don't see a contradiction between these statements at all.

:lol: Dude, first you said that I Want to Hold Your Hand was the root of all music evil, then you said none of the music you loved would have happened without it.

Whatever man. Keep digging. Next you'll say you never claimed that U2 was as productive now as they were 10 or 20 years ago. ;)
 
:lol: Dude, first you said that I Want to Hold Your Hand was the root of all music evil, then you said none of the music you loved would have happened without it.

Whatever man. Keep digging. Next you'll say you never claimed that U2 was as productive now as they were 10 or 20 years ago. ;)

I think you take a lot of drugs.

"the root of all musical evil" was a statement which any sane person would recognize as comedic hyperbole. I find the song to be insipid pap. I can't stand listening to it. That does not mean I'm unaware that others listened to early Beatles (including the Beatles) and were moved to create something better.

As far as your weird comments about U2's productivity, all I can think was that I do remember commenting that U2 seemed to be doing as much songwriting as ever, just not releasing material. I based this on the constant reports of them being in the studio for years now, and constant promises of new plural albums. If you want to pretend that I said U2 was releasing as much material as ever, well I hope you convince somebody. MAYBE that would make someone out there think you have had something to add to this conversation, instead of being motivated solely by attempts to start fights. But we all know you better.
 
I think you take a lot of drugs.

"the root of all musical evil" was a statement which any sane person would recognize as comedic hyperbole.

Ah, it's the old personal insults combined with the "Why did you take me seriously, I was only kidding" response! I think most people would have thought the stuff about the Beatles not being able to touch U2 as songwriters was the "comedic hyperbole".

Should we just all agree that you're a comedian then? :)
 
Ah, it's the old personal insults combined with the "Why did you take me seriously, I was only kidding" response! I think most people would have thought the stuff about the Beatles not being able to touch U2 as songwriters was the "comedic hyperbole".

Should we just all agree that you're a comedian then? :)

Again, you are motivated only by a desire to fight. You have no desire to clarify, discuss, debate. All you do again is to try and stretch to find a place where you can pretend someone meant something they obviously didn't so that you can point and laugh.

I haven't contradicted myself, my sincere opinion is that U2's best work is vastly superior to The Beatles' best work, and when asked I have clarified what that means.

Yet again, you do have my sympathy because someone as toxic as you must indeed have a terrible off-line life.
 
Back
Top Bottom