david
ONE love, blood, life
BigMacPhisto said:
Well, when U2 were young and hungry they were album to churn out albums, great albums, in relatively fast pace.
But come on, they're middle aged now. Priorities change. Things have changed.
WITS = Most similar to which Beatles song?
- Thread starter beLIEve_ZOO121
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Well, when U2 were young and hungry they were album to churn out albums, great albums, in relatively fast pace.
But come on, they're middle aged now. Priorities change. Things have changed.
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
Lancemc said:
Damn!
Lancemc
Blue Crack Addict
Zootlesque said:
Well, to be perfectly fair, I am in a bit of a fragile emotional state right now.
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
Lancemc said:Well, to be perfectly fair, I am in a bit of a fragile emotional state right now.
:heterosexualjerseymanhug:
Lancemc
Blue Crack Addict
Zootlesque said:
:heterosexualjerseymanhug:
Ahh, the good old Garden State.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
BigMacPhisto said:
Oh, thank goodness you've come in to tell us that it's weaker material. Clearly, those of us who claim to like the song have underdeveloped senses of musical taste.
Now who are these Beatles people everyone keeps mentioning? I only listen to U2.
doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
BigMacPhisto said:
But you are a snob!
So you point out a few tracks on "Bomb" thare arew weaker (although I disagree with you on "Crumbs", I agree on the other two). Big deal. I can do the exact same - and MORE - for every other U2 album. There's crap on every album made by every artist.
But we don't love an album or an artist for that crap. It's the masterpieces we enjoy - and "Bomb" has plenty of them. I'm sorry for you that you don't hear them. But instead of asking us to go listen to "good music", could it be that you are so wrapped up in what you think is "hip, modern and better" or too stuck in U2's past that you are blind to the present?
That's harsh, but I've heard plenty of today's music. And U2 still dominates. And I think the public agrees. There's a reason why "Bomb" sold 10-11M copies worldwide. There's a reason why it won all those awards (a token award or two to honor U2's overlooked past is one thing, but for it to dominate the awards is another). There's a reason why U2 still sell out shows and have hit songs. It's because U2's music is as relevant or even moreso than what's out there now.
Now, I'm not saying this new song is the best thing U2 has ever made. That's Bono's job to hype. But I do feel it is a solid song and certainly not worthy of your very negative comments about U2 and their recent music.
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
It's not that I'm saying your tastes aren't refined or anything. It's really that, well, compare this song to anything else on the radio. It's a MILLION times better. So if you aren't really into the underground scene, you're being blown away by a track, while better than everything else in the mainstream, is really pretty mediocre by comparison.
As for the much talked about Beatle influence, I definitely agree that there's a huge solo Lennon vibe here, but it still sounds more like an uninspired Oasis tune than anything else. I don't understand Bono's obsession with a band that hasn't done worthwhile music since 1996 (even admitting it by having 14 of the 18 tracks from their new compilation to be culled from their early period). And I don't see this becoming much of a winner with casual fans. There just isn't that "wow" vibe that hits you like the start of NYD or Pride or Streets or One.....well you get the idea.
And for the record HTDAAB, while really flawed, the best tracks (COBL, SYCMIOYO, MD, Vertigo) stand out with ANYTHING else out there today. Those are definitely mini-masterpieces and were enough to make me very excited about the album.
As for the much talked about Beatle influence, I definitely agree that there's a huge solo Lennon vibe here, but it still sounds more like an uninspired Oasis tune than anything else. I don't understand Bono's obsession with a band that hasn't done worthwhile music since 1996 (even admitting it by having 14 of the 18 tracks from their new compilation to be culled from their early period). And I don't see this becoming much of a winner with casual fans. There just isn't that "wow" vibe that hits you like the start of NYD or Pride or Streets or One.....well you get the idea.
And for the record HTDAAB, while really flawed, the best tracks (COBL, SYCMIOYO, MD, Vertigo) stand out with ANYTHING else out there today. Those are definitely mini-masterpieces and were enough to make me very excited about the album.
Last edited:
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
BigMacPhisto said:
Why isn't it okay to not be into the underground scene?
Frankly, I don't think there's anything wrong with having a preference for things that are a little more mainstream.
doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
david said:
Not only that, but it's really insulting to me - yes, me - when someone claims that I'm "forcing" myself to like U2 or that U2 take years to put out some mediocre crap that's half-filler. When I listen to some of these modern bands, I hear songs that all sound the same, with bands that all sound the same - and, surprise surprise, they are imitating U2! Oh sure, they aren't quite the same, but they are close. So many bands have copied elements of U2's style is tiresome. Yet, people praise these new bands for their "novelty" while dissing the current U2. Yes, that's logical.
Over the years, there have been bands that I once loved, but slowly stopped enjoying as much. REM is one. INXS became another. I would listen to the lead single off a new album. I might enjoy it, or I might not. Or I might think it was too similar to past works. And as a result, I passed on the album. Those bands and I were moving in different musical directions. What I once liked, was no longer for me. It happens. Life goes on. People change.
What I didn't do is go onto those groups' fan websites and bitch about these bands "glory days" and how their music is "half-filler" and that people are "forcing" themselves to like the band's newer material. I can't imagine anyone really being this arrogant and condescending in person - yet it happens routinely here on Interference.
It's one thing to discuss U2's music. I'm not a fan of everything they do either. But it's another to just dismiss all of U2's current work as BigMacphisto is doing. I find it personally insulting because I like this newer work a lot and I find it far more inspiring and creative than some of their "glory days".
Still, if one doesn't like what U2's doing now - fine. You are moving in a different musical world than U2 is right now. There's no problem saying that what U2 is doing isn't suiting YOUR life right now. It happens.
Just don't rip apart fans who happen to like newer work. Don't accuse us of "forcing" ourselves to like new songs. I know you may think you're superior than the rest of us - but golly, some of us do have minds of our own and can form our own thoughts and opinions! And some of them may disagree with your views. Shocking, I know.
So to those ripping new U2 and fans who like the new U2, go enjoy the glorious "new music" you've found from other bands and move on from U2. It's time. Here's a goodbye hug.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Well said! And with less sarcasm than I used earlier, which is nice.
(I had to be sarcastic ... I'd been storing it up all day and would have exploded, had I kept it bottled up inside. )
(I had to be sarcastic ... I'd been storing it up all day and would have exploded, had I kept it bottled up inside.
)
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
Once again, as I specified in an above post while you were writing yours, I have nothing against modern U2. I've heard hundreds of albums this decade and All That You Can't Leave Behind is still my favorite, in fact.
It's just that people have no exposure to where the real music is happening. The underground scene isn't totally weird or crazy or anything. Look at The Arcade Fire, for example. That's straight ahead material with some nice twists and turns. And U2 managed to hear about those guys, love them, etc.......however, these bands don't have major label representation, so they have trouble getting on the air. You have to remember that rock radio nowadays is basically a guy yelling and playing three chords. It's total shit. Anything poppy or experimental in the slightest won't get play. Look at U2. Only "Vertigo" had great airplay because it fit the RAWK!!!! format.
I just don't like it when people act like U2 is the above all be all band in the world. Their live show kicks ass, their new albums have AMAZING tracks, etc.....but there's a lot of other great stuff out there. What's worse is that U2 isn't noticing it (outside of the aforementioned Arcade Fire)......I mean, there's plenty of U2-inspired groups that would have loved to open Vertigo....and who does the band pick? A boring major label southern act made from family members that weren't even allowed to listen to most records as kids. Yuck! And as more of a shame, U2 sweeps the Grammys and really do feel like they made the album of the year. They didn't. Not even close. But mainstream album? You bet.
I don't know. I just see myself as in the position as some other people here that used to listen only to the radio and U2 a lot. Some of the stuff that seemed great at the time is just plain
material now that I've been able to see what else is out there. Don't get me wrong, it's not like the underground scene is entirely accessible. You won't hear most of the stuff on mainstream radio and you'll need a fast connection to download albums, etc........but I just feel that there's so many "U2 IS THE GREATEST OMG THEY CAN NEVER DO WRONG" people here.
And then there's U2 themselves. Who I do have beef with. Look at this new compilation. Money. Look at the U2 tower. Pointless extravagance. Look at their INSANE concert ticket prices. Those just aren't reasonable. I paid them to see the band, who are still a top live act, but they could be so much cheaper. They're charging a very unfortunate premium. Finally, there's the fact that U2 held onto HTDAAB so they could sell more at Christmas.......and then there's this album being released, when? Before Christmas. To me, when an artist has something to display to the world, they'll do so. Not worry about how many units they'll shift.
It's just that people have no exposure to where the real music is happening. The underground scene isn't totally weird or crazy or anything. Look at The Arcade Fire, for example. That's straight ahead material with some nice twists and turns. And U2 managed to hear about those guys, love them, etc.......however, these bands don't have major label representation, so they have trouble getting on the air. You have to remember that rock radio nowadays is basically a guy yelling and playing three chords. It's total shit. Anything poppy or experimental in the slightest won't get play. Look at U2. Only "Vertigo" had great airplay because it fit the RAWK!!!! format.
I just don't like it when people act like U2 is the above all be all band in the world. Their live show kicks ass, their new albums have AMAZING tracks, etc.....but there's a lot of other great stuff out there. What's worse is that U2 isn't noticing it (outside of the aforementioned Arcade Fire)......I mean, there's plenty of U2-inspired groups that would have loved to open Vertigo....and who does the band pick? A boring major label southern act made from family members that weren't even allowed to listen to most records as kids. Yuck! And as more of a shame, U2 sweeps the Grammys and really do feel like they made the album of the year. They didn't. Not even close. But mainstream album? You bet.
I don't know. I just see myself as in the position as some other people here that used to listen only to the radio and U2 a lot. Some of the stuff that seemed great at the time is just plain
material now that I've been able to see what else is out there. Don't get me wrong, it's not like the underground scene is entirely accessible. You won't hear most of the stuff on mainstream radio and you'll need a fast connection to download albums, etc........but I just feel that there's so many "U2 IS THE GREATEST OMG THEY CAN NEVER DO WRONG" people here. And then there's U2 themselves. Who I do have beef with. Look at this new compilation. Money. Look at the U2 tower. Pointless extravagance. Look at their INSANE concert ticket prices. Those just aren't reasonable. I paid them to see the band, who are still a top live act, but they could be so much cheaper. They're charging a very unfortunate premium. Finally, there's the fact that U2 held onto HTDAAB so they could sell more at Christmas.......and then there's this album being released, when? Before Christmas. To me, when an artist has something to display to the world, they'll do so. Not worry about how many units they'll shift.
totally random comment and coincidence... but the song following Windows on my iPod is Windsong from John Denver... the opening melody of Windsong is nearly identical (to my non musican ear of course).... when U2 cranks it, they are no longer similar... but as the songs meld together on the pod its odd
have a listen if you have it....
have a listen if you have it....
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
BigMacPhisto said:
Where are you getting that from? How do you know where most of the people here are hearing music? Just because they hang out a lot on Interference, they must not be listening to anything else?
Sure, if someone only listens to commercial radio, then they're not getting exposure to a lot of music. But seriously ... that's quite an assumption to make.
Dorian Gray
Refugee
BigMacPhisto said:
god, please don't cite that self-important, bloated wreck of a website.
for fucks sake, they review albums to the decimal point!! wtf!
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Hey, guess what! I had more to say.
Fine, but you don't have to be condescending about it. You can say all you like about how much you like some of their recent stuff, that's great, but you're still coming across as very condescending. Like we're missing something if we're not agreeing with you.
Says who? Do you want them to put out a monthly press release of all the hip, cool, underground, indie, Pitchfork-endorsed bands they're listening to?
Okay, they could have mixed it up a little with their opening acts, but just because you don't like Kings of Leon doesn't mean U2 isn't noticing underground stuff.
... and this affects you how? If it annoys you, go enjoy the U2 music you enjoy somewhere else. After all, it's supposed to be all about the music and how it affects you. Right? Or is it all about indie cred?
Let people like what they like. It might surprise you, but maybe people are happy liking what they like. Some people are lucky enough to seek out and/or stumble across a new band that excites them, and yay for them! But there's nothing wrong with liking stuff that's more in the mainstream. Or liking only a few artists.
Maybe I've got this anti-indie chip on my shoulder, but you're really coming across as a condescending indie snob, no matter how many times you reiterate how much you like ATYCLB or whatever other song/album.
I'm sorry if that's snippy, but your posts are really chapping my hide, and my righteous indignation forced me to respond.
BigMacPhisto said:
Fine, but you don't have to be condescending about it. You can say all you like about how much you like some of their recent stuff, that's great, but you're still coming across as very condescending. Like we're missing something if we're not agreeing with you.
Says who? Do you want them to put out a monthly press release of all the hip, cool, underground, indie, Pitchfork-endorsed bands they're listening to?
Okay, they could have mixed it up a little with their opening acts, but just because you don't like Kings of Leon doesn't mean U2 isn't noticing underground stuff.
... and this affects you how? If it annoys you, go enjoy the U2 music you enjoy somewhere else. After all, it's supposed to be all about the music and how it affects you. Right? Or is it all about indie cred?
Let people like what they like. It might surprise you, but maybe people are happy liking what they like. Some people are lucky enough to seek out and/or stumble across a new band that excites them, and yay for them! But there's nothing wrong with liking stuff that's more in the mainstream. Or liking only a few artists.
Maybe I've got this anti-indie chip on my shoulder, but you're really coming across as a condescending indie snob, no matter how many times you reiterate how much you like ATYCLB or whatever other song/album.
I'm sorry if that's snippy, but your posts are really chapping my hide, and my righteous indignation forced me to respond.
Last edited:
What makes underground music so much better then what is on the radio anyway? I have heard lots of underground music and truth be told there is just as much bad underground music then their is bad music on the radio, but the elitists dont want to admit to that. If you dont like this new music dont listen to it period. If you want to live with the U2 of 1984 go ahead this is the U2 of 2006 take it or leave it.
david
ONE love, blood, life
the only good thing about pitchfork media is the review of the last jet album on there.
other than that pitchfork is pretty annoying.
other than that pitchfork is pretty annoying.
The Slow Loris
War Child
The real irony here is that U2 had more variety in opening acts during the Vertigo tour than any time in their history. Maybe someone who can do a little research (I'm far too exhausted right now, about to head to bed), and post them for us? There were a ridiculous amount. Arcade Fire was just one of many.
Catman
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Honestly, I can see where BigMacPhisto is coming from. Aside from the fact that I really do enjoy their latest little tune, there are quite a few people on this forum who think U2 can do no wrong, and it is our job, as fans, to say something and be upfront about it to the band - not merely sheep just following the herd. I honestly don't think the band wants that, either. Now regardless on whether how you feel about the record POP (I actually love it), I'm sure the band felt it a good kick in the pants to have so many of their fans turn their backs on them. This resulted in ATYCLB (which I enjoy even moreso than POP), as well as HTDAAB (which, unfortunely, I felt to be a disappointment).
If all of U2's fans kept quiet and just accepted everything they put out, how could they possibly become a better band?
peace.
edit: i agree wholeheatedly with david's comment above
If all of U2's fans kept quiet and just accepted everything they put out, how could they possibly become a better band?
peace.
edit: i agree wholeheatedly with david's comment above
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Of course it's our duty (for lack of a better word) to tell U2 when they're being crappy. But it's not our duty to call someone out for supposedly being a sheep.
It's ridiculous to put someone down or insult them because they love something you don't. (And yes, there are as many people being insulting and weird when someone hates something they love.)
Because what if the people who are saying how much they love song x really, honestly love it? Just because someone seems to love every single thing doesn't mean they're just saying it just to extol their continuous love for the band. Maybe they actually love every single little thing. And good for them.
There are plenty of people who speak out and say when they don't like something. Does that band hear it? Hard to say. I'm sure the negative reactions are hard to hear over the gazillions of concert tickets and CDs sold.
It's ridiculous to put someone down or insult them because they love something you don't. (And yes, there are as many people being insulting and weird when someone hates something they love.)
Because what if the people who are saying how much they love song x really, honestly love it? Just because someone seems to love every single thing doesn't mean they're just saying it just to extol their continuous love for the band. Maybe they actually love every single little thing. And good for them.
There are plenty of people who speak out and say when they don't like something. Does that band hear it? Hard to say. I'm sure the negative reactions are hard to hear over the gazillions of concert tickets and CDs sold.
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
I've said what I want to. I'm not some indie snob. If something's part of the mainstream and kicks ass, then I'll enjoy it.
As for you anti-Pitchforkers (yes, the site is preachy, I use it to find new music and don't give a damn about the overly wordy reviews) and anti-indie crowd, I think a lot of you resent it simply because Pitchfork will give mainstream efforts bad reviews (ones that are indeed lacking) or you aren't listening to the best stuff out there. There's crap all throughout the industry, everywhere you look. It's undeniable. But I'm just trying to say that if you aren't seeing or hearing all of the great acts out there (and c'mon, you haven't heard a single song from the albums listed in Pitchfork's Best New Music unless you actually bothered to download them or know a friend with a few), then of course you're going to be quick to praise anything U2 does because there's relatively nothing else out on the radio (especially rock radio) that's worth a damn.
And don't try and act like Pitchfork is the only site that'll give U2 a bad review.
Here's the metacritic lists from 2004/2005......the era when U2 supposedly had The Best Album Of The Year. But wait a minute? If these albums are better, then why didn't they win the Grammys? Could it be that they're not on a major label? Could it be that U2 faces no competition in the mainstream? It's almost as if the Grammys and record sales are completely intertwined with corporate greed and marketability. Surely, these artists can't be any good or worthy of your attention if they aren't on the radio. Surely all of the best artists are riding in cadillacs and sales are the only way to truly measure artistic success.
http://www.metacritic.com/music/bests/2004.shtml
http://www.metacritic.com/music/bests/2005.shtml
And once again, I have nothing against any of you. I'm not saying you have bad taste (you like U2, therefore you don't). I'm not saying you're deluding yourselves into thinking that this new U2 song is great.
All I'm saying is that there's a much bigger world of music out there and I don't think this song compares with that. And I also feel that the money making endeavours of the U2 of late (expensive tour, fan club, compilation, etc..) along with the weakness of the track make me worried for the band.
As for you anti-Pitchforkers (yes, the site is preachy, I use it to find new music and don't give a damn about the overly wordy reviews) and anti-indie crowd, I think a lot of you resent it simply because Pitchfork will give mainstream efforts bad reviews (ones that are indeed lacking) or you aren't listening to the best stuff out there. There's crap all throughout the industry, everywhere you look. It's undeniable. But I'm just trying to say that if you aren't seeing or hearing all of the great acts out there (and c'mon, you haven't heard a single song from the albums listed in Pitchfork's Best New Music unless you actually bothered to download them or know a friend with a few), then of course you're going to be quick to praise anything U2 does because there's relatively nothing else out on the radio (especially rock radio) that's worth a damn.
And don't try and act like Pitchfork is the only site that'll give U2 a bad review.
Here's the metacritic lists from 2004/2005......the era when U2 supposedly had The Best Album Of The Year. But wait a minute? If these albums are better, then why didn't they win the Grammys? Could it be that they're not on a major label? Could it be that U2 faces no competition in the mainstream? It's almost as if the Grammys and record sales are completely intertwined with corporate greed and marketability. Surely, these artists can't be any good or worthy of your attention if they aren't on the radio. Surely all of the best artists are riding in cadillacs and sales are the only way to truly measure artistic success.
http://www.metacritic.com/music/bests/2004.shtml
http://www.metacritic.com/music/bests/2005.shtml
And once again, I have nothing against any of you. I'm not saying you have bad taste (you like U2, therefore you don't). I'm not saying you're deluding yourselves into thinking that this new U2 song is great.
All I'm saying is that there's a much bigger world of music out there and I don't think this song compares with that. And I also feel that the money making endeavours of the U2 of late (expensive tour, fan club, compilation, etc..) along with the weakness of the track make me worried for the band.
Last edited:
omg what a crappy song. even at the risk, that i get nailed on the cross. this new song WITS is simply awful. they continue there, where they stopped with the cheesy bomb. however i had a spark of hope, when I heard, that RR is the producer.
for me that is only lalala music for supermarkets right off the assembly-line. some call it also dadrock.
the song sounds like a bad mix of OOTS TST NYD, whereby NYD fis a great piano driven classic with substance. i'm sorry, but these four men they really seem have lost completely their creativity.
for me that is only lalala music for supermarkets right off the assembly-line. some call it also dadrock.
the song sounds like a bad mix of OOTS TST NYD, whereby NYD fis a great piano driven classic with substance. i'm sorry, but these four men they really seem have lost completely their creativity.
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
jacobus said:
That's exactly where I'm coming from. It doesn't have that U2 spark, there's nothing original or enthralling about this track. It just seems like it was thrown out there to help sell units, which it was. I just feel that the new U2, while still churning out wonderful tunes like COBL, is getting overly recognized for churning out work that is often nowhere near the level of what we can hear elsewhere.
And I swear that the fans here are overly defensive. I'm not the only person here today who has been told to leave in other threads because they don't like the new track or the way the band is headed. I love this group, they're my second favorite ever (after, coincidentally, The Beatles). I just think the fans should allow our posts and not feel obligated to get into a match. I didn't want to have to keep posting replies to explain myself, especially when the message was readily apparent. I mean, the users here understood what I was trying to say, but then took things personally as an attack against them. We're here debating the merits of this new track. I said my words and if someone disagreed they should have said to themselves, whatever, and moved on.
Last edited:
Lancemc
Blue Crack Addict
More than ever I'm pitching for the complete and total pop album from U2. All songs like WITS, OOTS, Beautiful Day, Stuck, and the like. Given Rubin's production it would be a dream come true. It would also be like a flushing of the system for the band and the fans. I'm sure it would put a lot of the 2000-haters over the edge, probably never to return. I'm cool with that (and I'm not speeking to anyone particularly in this thread, though a few people on these forums could stand to go with the flush).
Whilst I'm not sure which Beatles song this is most similar to (I am not an expert on their catalogue) I feel it certainly has that vibe. I don't get the criticism. This song is a very rare beast for U2 - a joyous love song. There are some great lyrics in there and the sound soars. I hope they stick with Rubin for the next album, and I hope it hits the streets sooner rather than later.
shart1780
Rock n' Roll Doggie
A return to the dark side? I'd say it's lighter than almost any love song U2 has written.
I'm liking it better as I listen to it more. I don't think it will ever be a U2 classic for me, but I do like it alot right now.
I have a feeling that U2's next album will be much more pop oriented than the last few. I'm thinking songs like this; light, poppy, catchy, not as epic numbers. The fact that they're in Abby Road (ok that might not mean anything) and we've been hearing stuff like this and 404 (how much more poppy does it get) gets me thinking so. I honestly can't really say I'm hoping for this. I'm one of those people who would love to see another Zooropa or Passengers.
I'm liking it better as I listen to it more. I don't think it will ever be a U2 classic for me, but I do like it alot right now.
I have a feeling that U2's next album will be much more pop oriented than the last few. I'm thinking songs like this; light, poppy, catchy, not as epic numbers. The fact that they're in Abby Road (ok that might not mean anything) and we've been hearing stuff like this and 404 (how much more poppy does it get) gets me thinking so. I honestly can't really say I'm hoping for this. I'm one of those people who would love to see another Zooropa or Passengers.
beLIEve_ZOO121
The Fly
BigMacPhisto said:I've said what I want to. I'm not some indie snob. If something's part of the mainstream and kicks ass, then I'll enjoy it.
As for you anti-Pitchforkers (yes, the site is preachy, I use it to find new music and don't give a damn about the overly wordy reviews) and anti-indie crowd, I think a lot of you resent it simply because Pitchfork will give mainstream efforts bad reviews (ones that are indeed lacking) or you aren't listening to the best stuff out there. There's crap all throughout the industry, everywhere you look. It's undeniable. But I'm just trying to say that if you aren't seeing or hearing all of the great acts out there (and c'mon, you haven't heard a single song from the albums listed in Pitchfork's Best New Music unless you actually bothered to download them or know a friend with a few), then of course you're going to be quick to praise anything U2 does because there's relatively nothing else out on the radio (especially rock radio) that's worth a damn.
And don't try and act like Pitchfork is the only site that'll give U2 a bad review.
Here's the metacritic lists from 2004/2005......the era when U2 supposedly had The Best Album Of The Year. But wait a minute? If these albums are better, then why didn't they win the Grammys? Could it be that they're not on a major label? Could it be that U2 faces no competition in the mainstream? It's almost as if the Grammys and record sales are completely intertwined with corporate greed and marketability. Surely, these artists can't be any good or worthy of your attention if they aren't on the radio. Surely all of the best artists are riding in cadillacs and sales are the only way to truly measure artistic success.
http://www.metacritic.com/music/bests/2004.shtml
http://www.metacritic.com/music/bests/2005.shtml
And once again, I have nothing against any of you. I'm not saying you have bad taste (you like U2, therefore you don't). I'm not saying you're deluding yourselves into thinking that this new U2 song is great.
All I'm saying is that there's a much bigger world of music out there and I don't think this song compares with that. And I also feel that the money making endeavours of the U2 of late (expensive tour, fan club, compilation, etc..) along with the weakness of the track make me worried for the band.
O RLY?
TLDR - Please guys, go argue about how good/bad/etc. the song is in another thread. Lets stay on topic.
Instant Karma, yes, I hear some bits of it for sure!
Im not too familiar with Lennon's solo work, could someone point me in the right direction in terms of what songs are similar?
gmc
Refugee
Sounds very Oasis influenced to me,so there's your Beatles link.
Similar threads
