(12-08-2004) Jay-Z, Linkin Bump U2 - RollingStone*

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Charts, graphs, statistics, spreadsheets, market research; this isn't what music should be about. However, sadly, it's the current reality and even U2 are concerned about it and their place in it. But, unlike many bands of today, U2 always made music 1st before consuming themselves with chart dominance.

This reminds me of UTEOTW during ZOOTV when all those numbers scrolled on the screen and Bono yelled, "Is this rock and roll?!"

So what the band hve been consciously trying to do ever since Pop, in bringing in all these producers in so many fields of sound, from Flood to Danny lanois and Brian Eno, to Jackknife Lee, etc, is trying to surround themselves with a variety of people to replacate the experience they had with Bill. But all these people have never been able to replicate Bill's brilliance in packaging it into one coherent piece. Sadly, the band's prediction that nobody would be able to replace him has proven true.

I remember him, I just didn't know he was that influential. What you're saying makes sense...it's just kind of an uncomfortable thing to think about.
 
pianorocker said:


This reminds me of UTEOTW during ZOOTV when all those numbers scrolled on the screen and Bono yelled, "Is this rock and roll?!"



Pianorocker, yeah...I had forgotten about that, but remember now. Wow, so that's definitely what Bono was going on about. But, our boys know how to make it work for them don't they!

Come on everybody: U2 WENT STRAIGHT TO #1!!!! That's incredible for a band that 1) has their own sound 2) Has been together longer than Elvis!
U2 are one of the few, very few bands in rock's history that can accomplish a feat like that!

So let's blast the new stuff at full volume and get the music & message out there!
The Linkin/JayZ song isn't going to hold the charts. And a month from now, everyone will forget the song anyway. We've got U2's music forever and our lives are the REAL chart!!

For the record, I don't hate Stinkin Park- But I do dislike them. They are mediocre at best. As a listener I don't accept mediocre. I don't have time for it. I certainly expect the best from U2-and they deliver! And if they don't deliver their best, I have the big ones to speak my mind about it:eyebrow:
 
well, i just happen to be a fan of linkin park and u2. so yay for both i say. one band can't take over the world forever.
 
Since I have never listened to a Linkin Park cd, I decided to listen to my nephews copy - yesterday. I've never skipped that many songs on a cd before, and I never skip on any of U2 cd's. Even though Jay Z & LP are not the type of music I would buy, I still like the current #1 song.
and... I did see the Vertigo video from the Brooklyn Bridge concert this morning on MTV. :applaud: So things are progressing along. :yes: Only saw it once, but I can't watch MTV for any length of time anyway and probably missed it. Can't wait to see tonight. :hyper:
 
PinkHairBaby said:
I guess it depends on the age, how old are you? most older people tend to not like newer music. which makes sense.

I'm not old...and I can't stand Stinkin Park!

It's probably not fair to judge what music people are into by their age. There are alot of factors involved in determining who likes what. On the other side of the coin, one could make the point that Kids only like linkin park, ashley simpson, & whoever appeals to the most popular kids at their school. That would be redundant.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I've typically found that people in their teens and early 20's are very limited in their music tastes as well as on their views of culture and world affairs (and I formed that opinion when I was in my teens). This can be related to the fact that many people in that age group aren't exposed yet to many things at large and haven't developed resolute opinions on many topics. There are of course exceptions!

I personally don't listen to alot of 'rock' or it's sub-generas anymore. U2 are one of the greatest groups of the genera, and they keep me interested as they are a shining hope in a pretty much passe' form that corporations, media, and mediocre bands (like Stinkin Park) have ruined and made pointless.

Of course I'm talking about alot of groups/bands/acts that are on the charts and are well known. There's alot of great music out there not being heard or noticed. I believe it's the kind of people who like a band like Linkin park that 'don't get out much' -so to speak.

As for Linkin's music: You can polish a turd, but shiney as it may be, it's still SHIT!!!!!:yes:
 
Last edited:
well i said the age thing because obviously you don't find very many 20 year olds listening to music their 80 year old grandparents do. why do you think their music is shit so much? i think the music is good for my generation because people my age are cruel. there's some linkin park lyrics dealing with kids who make fun of each other, or for kids who feel like shit. i just went to school yesterday and people wanted to put a sign that said "wide load" on an overweight girl. i think music is good for healing people, and linkin park has some good healing lyrics. like the song "breaking the habit", or "numb".
 
well in that sense I guess that's pretty cool. The message sounds positive and if people connect with that it is good on that level. I wouldn't want to poke fun or discredit what someone connects with.

It's just that music and message should not be confused with one another. Just because a person or group have good intentions, it doesn't mean that their music is quality music. But hey, if you feel their music is good as well, that would be your opinion which you are entitled too; just as I am entitled to believe that Linkin Park would better serve with their message... not their music:wink:
 
Look, you really can't blame the "kids" themselves. (Funny, me saying "kids", I'm only just turned 36.)

Everything is so culturally straitjacketed, niche-marketed, categorized, computer-programmed. Look at the state of radio. You know things are truly awful when even Stephen King writes a blistering editorial in Entertainment Weekly blasting "classic rock" stations (the ones who play Springsteen and Lez Zeppelin and Aerosmith, etc) don't even play NEW MATERIAL by THOSE acts! IN other words, the radio stations who blast Bruce's "Born To Run" or anything from "Tunnel of Love" won't even play "the Rising", his heabvily marketed "9/11" album. (You'd think that would be strong enough incentive for the bastards at Clear Channel to plug that new album into the computerized playlist!)

You listen to one radio station, and hear only one type of music. You watch MTV and if you are even able to find music at all, it;s marketed towards high school kids. The situation has gotten so bad here, too, that MTV debuts a TV CHANNEL TO BE PIPED INTO COLLEGE DORMS AND NOWHERE ELSE for "college level" acts, (and no other type of music is played here at all...not even what's on the radio.) And the college kids hate it. My sister tells me so. You watch TV, and no matter what channel you watch, network or cable, everyone is broadcasting news programs loaded with faceless faces spouting 90% heated opinion and 10% warmed-over bullcrap.


Compare this to a scant 7 or 8 yrs ago, when both CNN and Fox were respectable channels still broadcasting news, "alt rock" was a name only, and it was still possible to hear a guitar-based act like the Smashing Pumpkins on a variety of radio "formats"; when you might (just might) be able to hear the new Springsteen on a classic rock station. The example I alwys cite is the mid-80's, when I was a teen, and kids like me became Rolling Stones fans through radio and MTV's heavy pushing of Mick and Keith;s cover of "Dancing In The Street."

Those of you who dis Linkin Park, Jay-Z, etc, sound like the proverbial old fogies glum about the kids taking over. I went through a dark period like osme of you, about 2-3 yrs ago, but now I am amzed that ANY good music is able to ge ton the radio at all. And I am comforted by the fact that for every Jessica Simpson out there, groups like Modest Mouse and System of a Down can still function out there, are written up in the music raqgs, and bubble and forth along just under the slipstream. There is some danged good music out there..it just seems to be not as good as what we used to hear, because it is being heard in so fewer places> there are far less outlets for it to be heard, so it seems as though no one great music "scene" can ever be a reality again.
 
Teta040 said:
There is one very interesting fact that many people may have forgotten, but I'mnot surprised. Hot Press magazine (Dublin) is the only one who mentioned it at the time.

A big factor in U2's seeming lack of musical direction and coherence (there are many other factors, which I discuss at length in the John Waters review thread somewhere here in the News area) may be the untimely death, in 1997 or '98, of a man named Bill Graham. Not to be confused with the man who founded Bill Graham Productions, the famous concert agency in the U.S. This was a totally different guy. He just may have been, besides Paul McGuiness, THE most important "power behind the throne" in the U2 camp over the yrs.

Not many people know much about him. At least he isn't discussed much in the media, and the band have only brought him up at length to Hot Press over the yrs. I happen to live in an area where we get Hot Press in the local bookstores, even though I'm a Yank. So I've read it for a while.

It seems that ever since the late 80's, U2 had a shadowy, little-mentioned but VERY influencial "musical advisor". I forget what Bill was--a music historian or professor or if he was ever in band or what. But he was a veritable walking musical encyclopedia with a brilliant mind and a fantastic record collection, and ears like sponges; he was, for the decade 1985-95 or so, THE man the band turned to to "beef things up" whenever they wanted fresh new ideas. I forgot how they met him. For example, when the band told him that they wanted to explore American roots music on their next album, (which became JT), Graham was the one who brought them the BB King albums and old gospel stuff and introduced them to Leadbelly, "Lady Day", Jelly Roll Morton, etc. He found them allthese acts they'd never heard of. And not only that. He also not only introduced them to groupa, the band used to have long "bull" sessions with him in which he showed them how these musical strains interlocked, how one insired the other, etc. it was like going to Music College. Brian Eno may have been their "public" music teacher, but this guys' influence was far more deep and subtle. And unlike Brian, he was like a sponge, with a much more comprehensive depth of knowledge. he used to suggest ways to interweave ideas and organize the new materialinto a coherent whole. I remember reading the Hot Press article that had Bill's obit. He died young, in his mid 50s, and his death was quite sudden. The band was devestated and said they'd miss Bill more than they would ever know. They even indicated that their music would never be the same, and he could never br replaced.

So what the band hve been consciously trying to do ever since Pop, in bringing in all these producers in so many fields of sound, from Flood to Danny lanois and Brian Eno, to Jackknife Lee, etc, is trying to surround themselves with a variety of people to replacate the experience they had with Bill. But all these people have never been able to replicate Bill's brilliance in packaging it into one coherent piece. Sadly, the band's prediction that nobody would be able to replace him has proven true.



Wow thats very interesting, thanks! I wonder how many bands have people like this in their inner circle, that we never get to hear about.
 
Teta040, your thoughts are very interesting, but one thing that needs to be stressed is that in the last few years of his life, the wonderful Bill Graham was a hopeless drunk, and that U2 had moved beyond him to find other mentors who provided them with invaluable advice, including, of course, Gavin Friday. Let's never underestimate his influence!
 
Worldwide, the album has sold 3.6 million copies as it now tops the world charts with 840,000 copies this past week.
 
Back
Top Bottom