U2 packing it in?

[PhilsFan]

Bruce Springsteen is a songwriting freak of nature. Comparing anyone to him is simply not fair.

The guy shits out 12 songs a day.

What you can compare between him and u2 is that Bruce long ago stopped caring about what will "play" on the radio, and simply does whatever project he wants whenever he wants. He's content with himself, doesn't ignore his less successful albums, and just goes with whatever feels right to him.

That is a fair criticism when comparing U2 and Springsteen.

Songwriting? Bruce has always written at a faster pace than just about everyone of his peers, so that this continues into his 60s is not exactly a shock.

Most older acts don't produce albums and material at the same pace they did in their earlier stages. Bruce is merely an exception to that rule, because again... he's a freak.

This is exactly it. The relevant difference is that Springsteen isn't self-conscious in the way that U2 is. He was always going to put more material out because, like you said, he is really good at writing music constantly. But he isn't jockeying for status like U2 always is.

 

[U2girl]

I dunno, I think that's debatable.



Right; they wanted to be the greatest of all time, never mind having a chance at it.

It's not for most people

They did want to be "no. 1", but they never outright said we want to be greatest ever. Unless you count that "reapplying for the job of best band on the planet" Grammys comment, which isn't the same thing.

 

[ozeeko]

While some may find U2's constant drive to be #1 admirable, I can't help but feel that it's not worth all the anxiety. Wouldn't they have more fun just being a normal band for a change?

 

[CMIS]

I think you are overstating U2's influence compared to Zep, but that's just my opinion.
I also think your list of U2's songs that had most mass appeal is off.

On the whole I agree with your point about Led Zep, but what I am saying is that U2 are not too far behind. I don't know if I am overstating U2's influence. Led Zep is always going to be special because they raised the bar musically. U2, and I am not saying this as a criticism, kind of lowered that bar. I mean it is a huge deal that four guys who started out their career as technically quite deficient musicians became the biggest band in the world. That had to give lots of people hope.
As for the song list, I chose from Unforgettable Fire to Zooropa. Besides the ones mentioned, I like many more from those album, maybe even more than the ones mentioned. Which ones did I miss?

 

[JOFO]

I thought you meant those songs you listed were the most popular ones from U2's entire career.

 

[Nick66]

U2 is one of the greatest rock bands of all time...that's pretty much beyond debate at this point.

But among the most "influential"? I don't think so. There are bands of course that have been influenced by U2. But did U2 have a major influence on rock music in general? That's a much more difficult case to make. Nothing U2 has done can be described as "genre defining" "game changing" in the world of rock. Certainly U2 built upon what others before them had done...and in fact usually did it better than most. But I can't say they broke a lot of new ground with their music.

 

[ozeeko]

For every person who claims that Edge invented a guitar sound, there will be another person with a big nose who knows, and will trip them up and laugh, saying "he ripped off Joy Division, PiL and Television."

 

[JOFO]

For every person who claims that Edge invented a guitar sound, there will be another person with a big nose who knows, and will trip them up and laugh, saying "he ripped off Joy Division, PiL and Television."

So, which is correct?

 

[JOFO]

U2 is one of the greatest rock bands of all time...that's pretty much beyond debate at this point.

But among the most "influential"? I don't think so. There are bands of course that have been influenced by U2. But did U2 have a major influence on rock music in general? That's a much more difficult case to make. Nothing U2 has done can be described as "genre defining" "game changing" in the world of rock. Certainly U2 built upon what others before them had done...and in fact usually did it better than most. But I can't say they broke a lot of new ground with their music.

Agreed.

 

[ozeeko]

So, which is correct?

I don't know, I just wanted to quote Morrissey.

(the part about the big nose, not where the quotation marks be)

 

[Super Yo]

U2 is one of the greatest rock bands of all time...that's pretty much beyond debate at this point.

But among the most "influential"? I don't think so. There are bands of course that have been influenced by U2. But did U2 have a major influence on rock music in general? That's a much more difficult case to make. Nothing U2 has done can be described as "genre defining" "game changing" in the world of rock. Certainly U2 built upon what others before them had done...and in fact usually did it better than most. But I can't say they broke a lot of new ground with their music.

I don't know if you have to be groundbreaking to be influential.
When I listen to a lot of bands these days, I can listen U2's influence.
From Coldplay to Arcade Fire, from Killers to The Horrors, I hear a lot of U2's "colour" these days.

 

[ozeeko]

Ever listen to VAST? Biggest influences were U2 and Depeche Mode

 

[JOFO]

I don't know if you have to be groundbreaking to be influential.
When I listen to a lot of bands these days, I can listen U2's influence.
From Coldplay to Arcade Fire, from Killers to The Horrors, I hear a lot of U2's "colour" these days.

I hear Edge's influence on the guitar player from Coldplay, but if Chris Martin didn't mention U2 every other sentence then I wouldn't even see a connection sound-wise.

I never understood how the Killers were supposed to be U2 influenced.

 

[Super Yo]

I hear Edge's influence on the guitar player from Coldplay, but if Chris Martin didn't mention U2 every other sentence then I wouldn't even see a connection sound-wise.

I never understood how the Killers were supposed to be U2 influenced.

Well, I believe Coldplay would never exist without U2, so imagine how influenced I think they are. From the guitar to the epic way they structure their songs, everything.

About Killers, just an example:

Sam's Town - The Killers | Songs, Reviews, Credits, Awards | AllMusic

U2 is a role model for those bands.

 

[DaveC]

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.

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.

 

[digitize]

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

 

[DaveC]

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?!?

 

[Registered Dude]

Apples ain't got shit on oranges

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

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.

 

[digitize]

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

 

[Nick66]

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.

 

[DaveC]

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.

 

[ozeeko]

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.

 

[DaveC]

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.

 

[Nick66]

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...

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.

 

[ozeeko]

I will say that U2 does have the edge on Ringo in terms of songwriting.

 

[Nick66]

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.

 

[DaveC]

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.

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

 

[digitize]

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

 

[mama cass]

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.