U2 packing it in? - Page 18 - 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 07-21-2014, 02:21 PM   #256
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,973
Local Time: 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
You want people to take you seriously and this is the first line of your post?

You've got to be fucking trolling, there's no way if you know anything about music that you genuinely meant that. "Opinions" aside, that's just objectively ridiculous.

I very strongly agree with Niceman on this. I've always found The Beatles to be a far less interesting band than U2.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________

__________________
digitize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 02:28 PM   #257
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,506
Local Time: 07:52 PM
That's fine if you aren't a fan of them, but to state that the Beatles "could never write...anything as good as" U2 is prima facie ridiculous, to the point where I am thinking Niceman has got to be trolling.

State your opinion, that's fine. You like every U2 song more than you like any Beatles song, and that's ok, you're allowed to think that.

But saying that "A Day in the Life" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" are objectively not as good as "Red Light" or "Miami" or "The Playboy Mansion"? REALLY?!?
__________________

__________________
DaveC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 02:28 PM   #258
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Registered Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: NWT
Posts: 4,606
Local Time: 08:52 PM
Apples ain't got shit on oranges
__________________
Registered Dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 02:37 PM   #259
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,865
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Elvis ripped off an entire genre. It doesn't make him any less influential.

All music is derivative.

To say U2 isn't influential because they, too, were influenced by those who came before them is a silly thing to say.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 02:37 PM   #260
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,973
Local Time: 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
That's fine if you aren't a fan of them, but to state that the Beatles "could never write...anything as good as" U2 is prima facie ridiculous, to the point where I am thinking Niceman has got to be trolling.

I don't think that Niceman is claiming to be speaking "objectively", whatever that means when it comes to music. I personally don't think that The Beatles could ever write songs as good as U2's best songs. But "good" means "pleasing to me", because what else could it mean? We can discuss cultural relevance (The Beatles win) or influence (The Beatles win), but I'm not sure whether "good" can mean much more than "pleases me". At least when it comes to music. There are certain criteria that is search for in music, and, by and large, U2 fill them much better than The Beatles do, nearly universally. Your criteria may be different.

That being said, I don't think that anyone believes that, say, Womanfish is better than Hey Jude.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
digitize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 02:40 PM   #261
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Nick66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: "I drank what?"-Socrates
Posts: 6,221
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
I don't think that Niceman is claiming to be speaking "objectively", whatever that means when it comes to music. I personally don't think that The Beatles could ever write songs as good as U2's best songs. But "good" means "pleasing to me", because what else could it mean? We can discuss cultural relevance (The Beatles win) or influence (The Beatles win), but I'm not sure whether "good" can mean much more than "pleases me". At least when it comes to music. There are certain criteria that is search for in music, and, by and large, U2 fill them much better than The Beatles do, nearly universally. Your criteria may be different.

That being said, I don't think that anyone believes that, say, Womanfish is better than Hey Jude.
All opinions are equal.

But some opinions are more equal than others.
__________________
Nick66 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 02:45 PM   #262
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,506
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
I don't think that Niceman is claiming to be speaking "objectively", whatever that means when it comes to music. I personally don't think that The Beatles could ever write songs as good as U2's best songs. But "good" means "pleasing to me", because what else could it mean? We can discuss cultural relevance (The Beatles win) or influence (The Beatles win), but I'm not sure whether "good" can mean much more than "pleases me". At least when it comes to music. There are certain criteria that is search for in music, and, by and large, U2 fill them much better than The Beatles do, nearly universally. Your criteria may be different.

That being said, I don't think that anyone believes that, say, Womanfish is better than Hey Jude.
Niceman spoke in a matter of fact tone, that The Beatles "could not" write a song as good as anything (including Womanfish or J.Swallow) that U2 has ever done. There was no "I think", or "for me". It was stated as plain, observable fact.

I don't care if you like U2 more than the Beatles, that's ok. But acting like U2 is the Most Perfect Band In The WorldTM and that every single note they have ever written is superior to every other one written by any person or group that has ever existed on the face of the Earth is beyond ridiculous.
__________________
DaveC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 02:59 PM   #263
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,420
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Saying the Beatles couldn't have written Bad is like saying Edgar Allen Poe couldn't have written The Shining. Fact is, they're all different freakin' people, of course Paul McCartney can't write a better Bono song than Bono, because he's not fucking Bono. And vice versa. They all make different artistic choices when it comes to music, which is the same in all forms of art. They could try to emulate each other, but in the end it would just sound like themselves anyway.
__________________
ozeeko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 02:59 PM   #264
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,506
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Whatever, all this argument is going to do is piss me off, and I really don't have the energy or time for this today. Sorry for dredging up a post from 10 pages ago. We're all dying for something new and U2-related to talk about (seeing as this is at its heart a U2 message board and all), I get that. Resuming discussion about U2 "packing it in" in 3...2...1...

I really don't think U2 ought to pack it in, but I agree with other posters that if they really just made music that they want to make, rather than stressing over how it's going to do in the charts, I think they would save themselves a whole lot of grief. I know it's how they've always been but the sooner they realize that the general album-buying public nowadays doesn't want guitar rock from 50+ year-olds, the better their music will get.

I see lots of flashes in their post-ATYCLB stuff of brilliance (Love and Peace or Else was interesting in how different it was from their other material, and there were some great moments in songs like Breathe and No Line), but mostly those moments seem to be overproduced or jammed into songs that have been retouched and played with so much that they just get neutered and watered down or completely obscure that original nugget of genius they started off with.

I love U2, and I think they are deservedly in the top pantheon of bands (in my opinion, on the level of The Who/The Stones/Zeppelin - I think the Beatles and Bob Dylan are in a league of their own - and this is only considering "Rock" artists). I hope they put out another amazing album full of great songs that was totally worth the wait and makes up for the general mediocrity of their output from the past 12 years (Electrical Storm is U2's "jump the shark" moment for me). I'm not holding my breath though as all signs point to this being another "chart grasper", and I don't think the people who go out and buy albums nowadays really want guitar rock from middle aged men anymore.
__________________
DaveC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 03:00 PM   #265
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Nick66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: "I drank what?"-Socrates
Posts: 6,221
Local Time: 12:52 AM
I never mistook "nicemans" opinion for fact. It's clearly not a "fact" that U2 is better than the Beatles, or the Stones, or can write songs better than either of them, etc...it's ALL just opinion. De gustibus non est disputandum.

But when you make an "opinion" that's so far out of the consensus in the musical word, and make it so strongly and decisively, you shouldn't be surprised, or offended, when people push back on it...and rather strongly. I imagine if someone came on here and said "Justin Beiber makes better music than U2" you'd see some pretty strong reactions as well. But in fact saying Justine Beiber is better than U2 is just as much a valid "opinion" as saying U2 is better than the Beatles. You can also say that the script to "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is better than Hamlet if you'd like. Or you could call Beyonce' "talentless scum". But don't act hurt and shocked when people point out how clueless you are.

Your right to express an opinion doesn't mean you're immune from criticism.

And...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ozeeko View Post
Saying the Beatles couldn't have written Bad is like saying Edgar Allen Poe couldn't have written The Shining.
Exactly. And could U2 have written as perfect a pop song as "Love Me Do"? They haven't yet. How do we know? Bono said so. And he'd be the first person to say he's not a better songwriter than Lennon/McCartney. Comparing them is just silly.
__________________
Nick66 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 03:01 PM   #266
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,420
Local Time: 12:52 AM
I will say that U2 does have the edge on Ringo in terms of songwriting.
__________________
ozeeko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 03:09 PM   #267
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Nick66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: "I drank what?"-Socrates
Posts: 6,221
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozeeko View Post
I will say that U2 does have the edge on Ringo in terms of songwriting.
Neil Peart has them all beat.

Has U2 ever written a song about an astronaut being pulled into a black hole and emerging in Olympus, where he witnesses the gods Apollo and Dionysus caught up in the immortal struggle between Mind and Heart?

What about a song featuring an air car being chased by thought police in a dystopian future where all automobiles are outlawed?

I didn't think so. Case closed.
__________________
Nick66 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 03:11 PM   #268
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,506
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
But when you make an "opinion" that's so far out of the consensus in the musical word, and make it so strongly and decisively, you shouldn't be surprised, or offended, when people push back on it...and rather strongly. I imagine if someone came on here and said "Justin Beiber makes better music than U2" you'd see some pretty strong reactions as well. But in fact saying Justine Beiber is better than U2 is just as much a valid "opinion" as saying U2 is better than the Beatles. You can also say that the script to "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is better than Hamlet if you'd like. Or you could call Beyonce' "talentless scum". But don't act hurt and shocked when people point out how clueless you are.

Your right to express an opinion doesn't mean you're immune from criticism.
Well said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ozeeko
I will say that U2 does have the edge on Ringo in terms of songwriting.
On this I think we can agree, although now I have Octopus' Garden stuck in my head
__________________
DaveC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 03:14 PM   #269
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,973
Local Time: 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
Exactly. And could U2 have written as perfect a pop song as "Love Me Do"? They haven't yet. How do we know? Bono said so. And he'd be the first person to say he's not a better songwriter than Lennon/McCartney. Comparing them is just silly.

Exhibit A of how opinions on music can vary: in my mind, Love Me Do is proto-Rick Astley garbage.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
digitize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 03:15 PM   #270
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,992
Local Time: 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozeeko View Post
Saying the Beatles couldn't have written Bad is like saying Edgar Allen Poe couldn't have written The Shining. Fact is, they're all different freakin' people, of course Paul McCartney can't write a better Bono song than Bono, because he's not fucking Bono. And vice versa. They all make different artistic choices when it comes to music, which is the same in all forms of art. They could try to emulate each other, but in the end it would just sound like themselves anyway.
__________________

__________________
mama cass is offline   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 07:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com