(04-24-2005) World Leader Pretend -- Dallas Observer*

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
for me this kind of critics it's nothing new, i can't understand the surprise.
being a critic of music it's not being an intelectual it's just a way earn a living so they fight it's to be or try to be original and if the most praise sometning so we try to say the opposit, it's an banal thing to do but in the end what counts is to have arguments about it and the arguments of this guy are just patetics.
nevermind :shrug:
 
Fano said:

To be fair this is a U2 fan site not a Worship Shrine.

True, thats why I have no problem with people knocking them for a particular song, album, or even tour/phase but to assasinate the whole band like this article does is fine if your not a fan but to say you agree with it and then post in a U2 fan site about how right this guy is, well that is pathetic.
 
zoo99 said:


True, thats why I have no problem with people knocking them for a particular song, album, or even tour/phase but to assasinate the whole band like this article does is fine if your not a fan but to say you agree with it and then post in a U2 fan site about how right this guy is, well that is pathetic.


:yes:
 
I agree with a lot of the article too...U2 are not the same band they once were. The music is now quite bland and the band's practices are somewhat shady (iPod and the lost CD for example).

I think they lost it towards the end of Elevation (with Bono "crying" into the American flag every night - give me a break!) and they are now getting like The Stones...a parody of themselves. Even Bono's peace signs and open mouths to the camera are looking tired and dated.

It was bound to happen someday...time for U2 to give it away me thinks...
 
bono_man said:
I agree with a lot of the article too...U2 are not the same band they once were. The music is now quite bland and the band's practices are somewhat shady (iPod and the lost CD for example).

I think they lost it towards the end of Elevation (with Bono "crying" into the American flag every night - give me a break!) and they are now getting like The Stones...a parody of themselves. Even Bono's peace signs and open mouths to the camera are looking tired and dated.

It was bound to happen someday...time for U2 to give it away me thinks...

woah woah woah...bono cried in the american flag every night?

what for?

don't tell me he actually staged that?
 
U2 is so bad now, is that why I can't get tickets to a Nov show?
Well fuck, thanks for saving me some money, dude!

Serioulsy - this guy had the right to post his opinion - even back in 19 fucking 87! oh and about 1991's AB also. Let's not forget Zooropa and especially POP (that I love with a passion)
These articles have been written for decades. Still hasn't made any difference. so write on guy!!
if you can loose a 20 years passion, so adamantly I might add, over 2 albums :eyebrow:
Time to move on, if that's the way he feels.
Finally,
He really doesn't make any difference, so let it go...
 
time for U2 to give it away me thinks...


No, just time for you to go away me thinks...
 
Fano said:
Bono is repeating himself far too often in relation to world poverty .

If you keep on repeating yourself ,people grow tired of what you are saying and it defeats the purpose.

Lots of people, not just celebrities, repeat themselves constantly on issues they really care about. God knows I certainly have. Maybe Bono'll finally stop repeating himself about that stuff when world leaders actually do something big about it, really take an interest in this issue. Until then...*Shrugs*.

Also, people complain about Bono being repetitive...yeah, and the kinds of comments like what this newspaper guy made haven't been repetitive?

Originally posted by nuke126
i really wish they'd just act like a real rock band again and get back to the music and shut up about every world event.

As pointed out earlier, they've been doing this since the 80s. Why are people acting like their getting involved with politics and talking about things on stage and all that are something new, something that's just recently started happening?

Originally posted by nuke126
the fans don't want to hear Bono's misguided views on the world,

Correction: you don't. Other people might, however.

And how are they misguided?

Originally posted by nuke126
we want to hear kick ass genious music.

So do we. And we have been.

Also, :up: to U2girl's post :).

Angela
 
zoo99 said:
time for U2 to give it away me thinks...


No, just time for you to go away me thinks...

arent i allowed to voice my opinion? or does anyone who has an opinion that is negative about U2 have to 'go away'?

im right by the way...
 
I was somewhat let down by U2's last two albums myself, but I could never write an article like this if I wrote music reviews. This guy may have a feel valid points, but they are buried under a lot of bitterness and bile that is really unnecessary and unfair. I'm also sick of people complaining about Bono actually trying to do something to make this screwed-up world a better place. If he did nothing, I'm sure these very same people would be calling him a selfish bastard. He can't win either way! :|

With all that being said, Interference has every right to post this article and other negative articles about U2. Sometimes it is useful to get the perspective from the other side.
 
I guess I am little different. I don't waste time comparing albums, songs, tours, "periods," etc... I love that each and every thing U2 does has something different to offer. Every album is great in its own unique way. I get rather tired hearing people talk about U2 not being the same band anymore, blah, blah, blah. I just love the fact that U2 are still around making music. You can debate on and on about how they have changed or whatever. I just sit back, listen to the new album and love the fact that U2 is not fading away. I think that the tastes of fans change more than the band.
 
Bono's shades said:
I'm also sick of people complaining about Bono actually trying to do something to make this screwed-up world a better place. If he did nothing, I'm sure these very same people would be calling him a selfish bastard. He can't win either way! :|

*Nods* Exactly.

Originally posted by Bono's shades
With all that being said, Interference has every right to post this article and other negative articles about U2. Sometimes it is useful to get the perspective from the other side.

Oh, yeah-like I said, the guy's entitled to his opinion, as is everyone here who may agree with it. I just personally disagree, is all, and I'll debate the points made with people. But yeah, they can still speak their minds-this is a free country, after all.

Angela
 
zoo99 said:


True, thats why I have no problem with people knocking them for a particular song, album, or even tour/phase but to assasinate the whole band like this article does is fine if your not a fan but to say you agree with it and then post in a U2 fan site about how right this guy is, well that is pathetic.

Extreamly well said... and if you agree so much with this article and you "hate" u2 so much why the hell are you on a U2 fan site! I hate people who bash everything about U2 yet they are still members of their fan clubs?? does that make any sense?? personaly if i am ganna bash a band for what they do i am not ganna waste my time on joining a fan club. That my friends is what i call people who have no life.
 
Of course we should welcome every opinion about our favourite band (well, almost - there are exceptions). Everyone has opinions, and it's of course ok to be negative and sceptic about certain things about U2.

But then it should be ok to be positive about this group also, for crying out loud. Without people moaning about the blind followers.
 
Last edited:
Subject RE: 04-24-2005) World Leader Pretend -- Dallas Observer*

~i will post my reply to specific abstracts of the original article in lower case with out punctiation and start each with the ~ symbol


World Leader Pretend

~firstly altough its true that bono has become a world leader it is certianly not due to his pretense but more likely due to his efforts to repay the spirit of human kind for the blessing he receives in life and a penance for his worry that he does not deserve what all the band and he's hard work and talent have wrought

U2's self-invented legacy is a figment of Bono's imagination
By JOE WATSON

~when and how have u2 ever proclaimed legacy status

U2 has gone from the band that mattered most to arguably the most irrelevant.

~if you feel songs about the Creator peace love no more war poverty based on world egalatarinism ie real emotion rather than some candy store version of lust or idealistic infatuation are irrelevant what does relevancy look like

There, I said it. But just because I threw myself on the proverbial cross and 'fessed up, I don't expect you to go out and hawk your tickets to U2's sold-out show at American Airlines Center this October. Or pawn your U2 iPod. Or trade in How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb at CD World. Or disown the band you still foolishly believe is the Greatest. Fucking. Band. Ever.

~as if your venom could ever hope to have that much influence on true u2 admirers

All that takes time. At least 20 years. That's how long it took me, and I was their Biggest. Fucking. Fan. Ever.

~ the number 1 fanatic falls from grace rather quickly

Yeah, I was--long before Bono's ascension to would-be president of the World Bank. Before U2 traded in the challenge of making groundbreaking music--for which it earned its keep upon the perch of modern rock from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s--for the Top 40 of the aughts.

U2 has not only gotten cosmetically younger, reaching out to the Now That's What I Call Music! crowd. It's become musically immature, so much so that I half expect the foursome to leave Earth in about 25 years as toddlers returning to Ork.

~ being in their fortys (and being true to their fortay as you would know having been mr no 1 fan) the band is changing along with life and times and the culture of the 2000s as they should

It's not the corporate sellout even U2's most loyal fans acknowledge, coupled with five consecutive years--and two consecutive albums--of mediocrity. (Although, if iPods were being sold with War, The Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby as the commercial soundtrack, rather than a lame attempt like "Vertigo" to court a younger audience, you wouldn't hear a peep from the purists anyway.)

~bono him self states that the band as is any recording artist for pay for that matter is a corporation and to act otherwise is a lie dating back to the sixties a play which bands used to sell records
so wheres the sellout

The shit that gets me most is Bono's pressing flesh with Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Kofi Annan, Nelson Mandela and dozens of other global power players, while he and his bandmates--The Edge, Adam Clayton and Larry Mullen Jr. --try to force U2's self-invented legacy down our throats as we're puking up the sales pitch.

~if you wanna make change amongst the ducks you better learn to quack at least enough so they will hear your ideas change comes from within not brom barking up the wrong trees at cats

Every time Bono flashes a Cheshire grin after an inconsequential discussion on Third World debt relief or funding for AIDS research, I think of the tourists who smile for the camera in front of the gaping hole where the World Trade Center once stood.

It's all so disingenuous. And downright insulting.

~hmm here again the above topics third world opression killer disease ect does not appear to most of us to be inconsequential

When Bono publicly lobbied for U2 to reclaim the title of "best band in the world" in 2001 on the Elevation tour, I thought to myself, "You don't apply for the position, dude. You're anointed by history."

~if that was even said i beleive you mistook the fly or mcphisto for bono but what do i know i'm only fan # 34509875 and you were # 1 and know the man inside out as per the great amount of attention to detial of the bands morpheus that the above comment required of you

Of course, U2 has manipulated history for the better part of three decades, which is partly why I believed U2 would outdo the Stones, Bob Dylan and Neil Young--the once-mighty who falsely believe they're still making good music--by actually continuing to make good music as part of the music-plus-savvy-marketing equation. Sadly, the jig is up.

This wasn't an easy conclusion for me, as I haven't always been a U2-basher. Quite the opposite.

Of course, I own every album (yes, I bought them; they're not burned copies), including a half-dozen low-quality bootlegs and this decade's major disappointments, All That You Can't Leave Behind and Atomic Bomb. As a teenager, I read from cover to cover, in one sitting, Eamon Dunphy's gratuitous blowjob of a book, Unforgettable Fire: The Story of U2, and believed in every bit of it. I groaned aloud when Bono didn't win "Sexiest Male Rock Artist" in the 1987 Rolling Stone readers' choice poll (George Michael took first place, with Bono a distant fourth). And I'm not even gay.

~nor hung up about your true hetrosexuality but now i see where the aids is inconsequential idea comes from ie to you aids is a gay disease

As preposterous as it was that Zooropa won the Grammy for Best Alternative Album over Smashing Pumpkins' Siamese Dream in 1993, I belted out a thunderous "Hell, yeah!" and rubbed it in every hater's face.

But I've realized in the past five years--my loyalty slowly chipped away--that U2 won't be the band Bono always promised us.

~bono never promised anything and you have here the crux of your issue ie your loyality faded a decision you made

While the majority are still in denial about U2's worth to progressive music, there's a small minority of rock critics around the country, not employed by Rolling Stone, who are calling U2's bluff.

For instance, there's Chicago Tribune music critic Greg Kot, who penned one of the more honest pieces about the band's decline--both musically and ethically--I've read. In his February 13 column for the paper, he wrote: "In recent years, [U2's] business practices have become more suspect, their attention-seeking more transparent, their principles more readily compromised, and their music less challenging."

~ya right on mr keep it real himself who seems to have faded back to the sixties lie his hippie commie granny sold him have another suck on the bong pal

Still, with every new album and every subsequent tour, some fake, highbrow critic's gotta gush that there's something new and brilliant about Bono that no one's ever caught on to before. Or that every pompous move Bono makes has to have some deeper meaning.

Like Kelefa Sanneh's New York Times review of U2's Vertigo tour opener in San Diego on March 29, in which Sanneh observed: "While Bono delighted in playing the diplomat and playing the showman (and in hinting that these two characters have something in common), the rest of the band got down to work, creating the deceptively simple sounds and textures that appear again and again in their songs."

In other words, Bono screwed around and created a spectacle of himself to draw attention away from the fact that the new songs suck.

~ so i await the release of your replacement album

And therein lies the core of how U2 has dismantled itself, because really, this isn't a rant about the ills of selling out, as U2 has clearly done. The Stones did it, too--long ago--albeit by way of Budweiser, which never could have been used as a guise for a creative outlet in the way U2 has lately attempted to justify its deal with Apple.

~never attempted to justfy as others before me and oh the band itself has made clear the ipod thing was a choice based on wanting to be part of their favorite technology at the time but i guess apple are a host of fakes to becuase as you suspected all along they really cant put tiny little musicians into the player ergo the music is is phony by defualt

What U2 has done--in its quest to become bigger than the Beatles (and, in turn, claim that no one is bigger than Jesus)--translates to this:

They fucked up a really good thing.

Like the girlfriend you never cheated on breaking your heart.

Like the bastard who breaks up a championship team.

Like W., post-Clinton.

Like Bono and U2 for almost a decade now.

Have fun in October, suckers.

~um about the Jesus / crucifix / religiosity hang up you seem to have..."who feels it knows it lord" (bob marley)

--Dallas Observer

Thanks Allegra!

~ uhm did u mean Thanks Viagra "you stiff necked fool" (bob marley again)



Published on 04-24-2005 at 05:35 PM

~refuted on 4 26 2005 and for ever
 
ElectricalVoice said:
Of course we should welcome every opinion about our favourite band (well, almost - there are exceptions). Everyone has opinions, and it's of course ok to be negative and sceptic about certain things about U2.

But then it should be ok to be positive about this group also, for crying out loud. Without people moaning about the blind followers.

:up:. I also have to say that I agree with Hershey1's post, too.

Angela
 
PLEASE STANBY FOR TRANSMISSION:SOUND'S LIKE ANOTHER SHOT FROM THE GRASSY KNOLL TRYING TO ASSASINATE THE TRUTH!!!!!PEACE, THE ROCKMEISTER
 
wow... never woulda thought my rant would get you guys so riled up. i used to be like you, though, so it's understandable. thanks for reading.
joe watson
 
Well.. if you really are who you say you are.. then what did you think? That we would ALL agree with you.

It's not that you/he,she it.. bashed the band, that happens all the time.. but you also bashed hundreds of thousands of fans who currently possess tens of thousands of sold out tickets around the world.
I'm not riled up I'm just voicing my rejection of your opinion as you have done to mine. Without knowing me you insulted my taste in music and my love of people who try to do the right thing.

If you even knew the band personally you would not be saying this. And I say that because, you don't know them or the music or lyrics - since you've gone so far out of the way to insult every aspect of their entire existence.
That's MY!! opinion you're not an ex-fan your're just a fair weather -it's all about making me happy person.

I'll keep defending U2 and Bono no matter how much you and people like you spew out. So I say to you :madspit:

Proud to be a blind follower.:wink:


Edited to say: I don't know the band or Bono personally, either, but I know the history and the lyrics and that's enough for me.
 
Last edited:
Just out of curiosity, why is it so bad to like pretty much everything U2 does? I mean, if someone is one of those people who likes some things and not others, that's fine, that's their prerogative. But why do those who like pretty much everything U2 does get criticized for being that way?

Angela
 
Moonlit_Angel said:
Just out of curiosity, why is it so bad to like pretty much everything U2 does? I mean, if someone is one of those people who likes some things and not others, that's fine, that's their prerogative. But why do those who like pretty much everything U2 does get criticized for being that way?

Angela


Yeah - exactly. I really think that those who don't get it just can't relate to the fact that there are those that do.

I'm not asking for your approval... just not your insults.
Not that insults will make any difference, just that some of the pontification (the distractors) express...to prove their point... is the same as they accuse Bono of doing.

Which way is it, Bono is the fake or are you the fake?
You really love U2 but have some aversion/phobia to amit it?
 
first, i should point out a couple of misconceptions: i never had tickets to the current tour, nor did i ever attempt to get tickets. i'm not jealous, nor filled with hate. and aside from calling you all "suckers," my rant was not directed at you, but at the band for failing to live up to what i believe they indirectly promised all of us. when i first heard "zooropa," i wasn't crazy about it. same goes for "pop". but i continued to respect the band for challenging themselves, and for giving all of us "die-hard" fans the finger. that's what i loved about them: they cared little about adoration and more about testing authority and the status quo. what is U2 now? frankly, embarrassing. they made a conscious decision to make easier music, to rely on pop melodies and ballads rather than create progressive music. they have substituted what everything from boy to pop did to push our intellectual and social limits with "vertigo" and photo ops. is it wrong for you to love everything U2 does? no, of course not. but have you asked yourself why you love everything U2 does? are you not following them blindly? do you respect yourself for doing so? at the heart of U2's music and their lyrics is rebellion and dissention (at least, those albums before atyclb and htdaab). sadly, that's no longer the case.
joe
 
I love challenging music. I listen to a lot of bands/songs that deal with important issues, that do really different, creative things with the music, all that good stuff. There's some great challenging music out there. No argument about that.

But what I don't understand is when this train of thought came along where it suddenly became bad for music to be simple and fun. Can someone explain the downside of that to me, 'cause I'm not really getting it. There's some times when I just want to rock out to a song and party, too. Pop music can be good-pop isn't just relegated to the bubblegum people, after all, and melodies can be good, too.

And I'd say U2 still test the status quo-when I've seen them perform "Bullet The Blue Sky" on recent DVDs and stuff, they don't really seem to be hiding much with that one, it's pretty obvious what they're trying to say there. Besides that, testing the status quo doesn't always mean doing something really big and obvious to prove you're against the status quo. A simple, quiet action can prove you're not agreeing with the status quo, too. And photo ops? They've been doing those for years. Practically every mainstream band does photo ops. That's nothing new, or even really anything bad, in my opinion.

I love everything U2 does simply because their music relates to me in some way, shape, or form, and simply because they make really good songs. Those are the main reasons I personally listen to music. The popularity of the artist isn't important to me, even how innovative they may or may not be isn't of major importance to me. All that truly matters to me when I'm deciding whether or not I like an artist/song is: Can I relate to what they're saying? Is the song one that can fit any mood I'm in? Is it a fun song for me to sing along to at the top of my lungs? If the artist/song meets one or more of those requirements, then it's good in my book. Hence why U2 is there, and why I love everything I've heard by them (the sole exception being "Some Days Are Better Than Others". Just never could get into that song, personally).

Again, you are completely entitled to feel however you wish regarding the band and regarding music in general and all that sort of thing. But I disagree, and I've just never really understood why it's considered bad to like practically everything a band does.

Angela
 
Back
Top Bottom