Did Bono contradict his 1993 self? Interesting ZooTV quote...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The key to any good song in my mind whether it be rock or anything else is that it has to have a good melody to it and the music has to be something that is timeless and unforgetable, outside of the few standout bands from the era nothing in it will be remembered. The reality is with loud staticy guitar and singers with a sub standard range in general, all it gave me was a headache. Open your throat my friends anything that even had a falsetto in it in the early 90s was a no no. Thats why U2 were so against the norm and I think that had to do with their audience just like they said not many bands could get away with it....its very true.
 
The way I view music is that "textbook" melody or not, what makes a good song is whether or not i "like" it. I don't choose likable songs based on their technical achievements, like "melodies". That's one thing you have to disgard when listening to the grunge era music...and i'll tell u this because i used to despise that era of music just as much as u did back in the day. But now, after opening up my ears, I can enjoy much music from that time. Maybe u'll like a song because of the feeling or rush that it gives u. Maybe it's the rhythm section. Or the noise. Or the lyrics. Or whatever. I don't seek certain ingrediants to a song. I don't listen to a song and say "hey, if there's not a distinctive pop melody in this i won't like it". Instead I say "what will move me". When you stop searching for the things u like, and instead open ureself up for new experiences, u'll discover a whole new world of music.
 
Yahweh said:
The key to any good song in my mind whether it be rock or anything else is that it has to have a good melody to it and the music has to be something that is timeless and unforgetable, outside of the few standout bands from the era nothing in it will be remembered. The reality is with loud staticy guitar and singers with a sub standard range in general, all it gave me was a headache. Open your throat my friends anything that even had a falsetto in it in the early 90s was a no no. Thats why U2 were so against the norm and I think that had to do with their audience just like they said not many bands could get away with it....its very true.

I don't disagree at all that U2 were swimming against the stream back then. In fact, it was their most brave, creative period. They were nothing short of genius back then.

Fast forward to 2006, U2 is playing in a far friendlier field, with much less of a riskier creative bend, they are in fact, more boring than anything that you can say about any so called "grunge" band in 1992, if only for the simple fact that there was a proven success measure and those bands tried to defy it. U2 want to alleviate risks. They want success, relevance, they want to validate their music with sales. It's just a terrible premise, IMO.

It can only lead to compromising the music, how could it not?
 
ozeeko said:


How about this, I like The Police, R.E.M. and many grunge bands all the same. Imagine that! Why are the arrangements boring? Why do the lyrics only look good on a peice of paper (have u ever looked at old R.E.M. lyrics on paper without music = talk about reeking of pretension and incoherence). What is your argument? That grunge sucks? Present some backbone to ure argument other than "i like the Police more". I like the Police too!

Hmm...The Police love is great. I love them, too. I would agree with you ozeeko about the arrangements not being boring. Most grunge bands were very boring but some of them were very creative. Take The Smashing Pumpkins for example; they still had the grunge sound when they made Melan Collie And The Infinite Sadness and Adore. Those two albums are by no means boring arrangements. I would also say Pearl Jam had some pretty creative stuff. At the top there was some creative stuff but most of the music at that time wasn't. So Yahweh is half right.

I really want my Police back and my Smashing Pumpkins, too.
 
All I wonder is this, what if the last 2 albums would have failed in the sales department what would have people here been saying about the band, probably that they were all washed up after Achtung Baby.

U2 may be making music that has the potential to sell more records these days then it did back in 1991, based on the music alone yes, are they doing it consiously probably, but that is only because ATYCLB proved that U2 could still sell records by the bucketload, and I dont think they knew or even dreamed it would have the success it did considering they were 40 or so and by that time many rock stars are washed up.

Do I think the U2 of the last few albums is great music yes they are good songs for sure, because they have the basics of music going for them, very solid melody, good instermentation and aragement if not a tad bit of over production.

Do I think the last few albums are as inovative as POP, Zooropa or Achtung Baby, certainly not but I would rate them higher then any of the albums from the 90s, except for Achtung Baby which is my favourite album U2 has done.

Problem with the music from the early 90s was it was under produced, but thats what many people like about it, personally I don't, and thats why I feel American music was behind Europian rock music in the 90's.
 
Yahweh said:

Problem with the music from the early 90s was it was under produced, but thats what many people like about it, personally I don't, and thats why I feel American music was behind Europian rock music in the 90's.

That's a good point. Nothing from America was at the level of Radiohead, Oasis, The Verve and so on. Maybe since all the innovations in music came from Europe, the press jumped on grunge because it was the newest style from America since the dawn of rock and roll. It wasn't the most creative style but it was a little different.
 
Screwtape2 said:


That's a good point. Nothing from America was at the level of Radiohead, Oasis, The Verve and so on. Maybe since all the innovations in music came from Europe, the press jumped on grunge because it was the newest style from America since the dawn of rock and roll. It wasn't the most creative style but it was a little different.

I get a big kick out of these broad generalizations. Nothing from the underproduced America was on the level of the polished European genius bands of the time. Have you ever heard Oasis' first album? God-awful production. Or The Verve's "Northern Soul"- overblown crappy production. Radiohead? They didn't even hit their stride til after the grunge era was over, so I don't see how they qualify as a comparison. I could say Radiohead's "OK Computer" has a worse production than Maroon 5's debut. Technically I'd probably be right. But for me it doesn't matter really. I'll take songwriting over production anyday. I just think you're judging Grunge music by its surface- the clothes they wore, the dark outlook, the hard sound, the music production that didn't sound like glossy 80's hair metal. Whatever. Grunge isn't ure bag, and it's not my favorite music either, but there's a lot there to get into if you just give it a chance.
 
I for one think Soundgarden's Superunknown, Pearl Jam's Vitalogy, Alice In Chains' Dirt, STP's Purple, are all stellar productions. They remain otherworldly while still sounding immediate, like they're playing in your living room. I always found that to be pretty cool. It was more about getting a raw, live sound rather than manufactured ear candy.
 
Last edited:
What is grunge, really? It's a term that conveniently links all these bands together for marketing and journalistic purposes. It's really a bad thing because most of the bands had little to do with one another, minus the hard edge. (as opposed to the flacid edge) What sucks is that the word grunge itself turns people off. The word also manipulates people into believing shit that ain't true, like for instance- every band out of that "scene" sounded the same.

The Pixies definitely weren't grunge. Neither were Pearl Jam, or Nirvana, or Soundgarden, or Alice In Chains, or NIN, or any of these bands.

Grunge is a shitty, demeaning term.
 
Ill be even more demeaning and call it generally boring, whether you want to label it as grunge or alternative it is dull and boring if you listen to it constantly. As I stated before the occasional song now and then isnt bad to listen to but being bombarded with it constantly every day for about oh 4 years...as I think it was worst from early 1991 to late 1994, has turned me off the sound of that "rock" music. Maybe if it was never brought to the mainstream on such an extreme level I wouldnt hate it so much but I dont think it would move me either.

Nirvana has some good songs, Smashing Pumpins have some good songs, Pearl Jam has some good songs, Alice In Chains have some good songs but overall they just dont do it for me. At least not at the level of other music that I would call timeless music.
 
I just hate categorizing music...in the early 90's every band that wore flannel and looked grubby got labelled "grunge", so you ended up with a bunch of bands that didn't really sound alike lumped in together. It didn't help that a bunch of them happened to all come from Seattle...shit, Sir Mix-A-Lot was from Seattle too I think, good thing he never put on flannel eh?

I remember a lot of criticism of the bands that came along a bit later than Nirvana, PJ, the Pumpkins etc...in particular, Bush. Bush got ripped across America for copying the American "grunge" sound. It was really ridiculous...I also remember STP taking a lot of criticism for trying to mimic Pearl Jam. I never really saw them that way though. But I think maybe that's what B was getting at, that newer bands like STP, Bush, and Silverchair etc were making the rock scene stale. IMO we're in a much worse state now with a bunch of bands trying to sound like blink 182...and the rap scene has gotten just as bad.
 
yeah, the term "Grunge" sucks. Pearl Jam or Alice in Chains sound NOTHING like Nirvana pex...



Yahweh...

Grunge is classified by me as white rock boys in a garage with capri pants and plad shirts making music with loud guitar that sounds of nothing but distortion in a bad way, very few listenable notes the guitars sound the same throughout the song....angry shallow lyrics written by mostly mid to upper class white boys that really have nothing to be angered about.

sorry dude, but this is ridiculous. Talking about Pearl Jam, or you just don't like them, or you know nothing about their music. Listen to Ten, Vs, Vitalogy, No Code, Yield, or even the last album, and tell me how songs like Black, Release, Leash, Porch, Unemployable, Inside Job, Faithful, Nothingman, Immortality, Corduroy, Present Tense, In My Tree, In Hiding, ... fit into "loud guitar that sounds of nothing but distortion in a bad way", or "very few listenable notes". Same for Alice in Chains.
 
ozeeko said:


I get a big kick out of these broad generalizations. Nothing from the underproduced America was on the level of the polished European genius bands of the time. Have you ever heard Oasis' first album? God-awful production. Or The Verve's "Northern Soul"- overblown crappy production. Radiohead? They didn't even hit their stride til after the grunge era was over, so I don't see how they qualify as a comparison.

You misunderstand me. You were talking about 90's music in general and I agreed that that decade couldn't match the music coming out of Europe. I wasn't talking about grunge alone. I would agree with you that the music from the grunge era coming from Europe wasn't that good. It did take a couple years before Radiohead, Oasis and The Verve hit a stride.
 
MacPhistoPT said:
[B
sorry dude, but this is ridiculous. Talking about Pearl Jam, or you just don't like them, or you know nothing about their music. Listen to Ten, Vs, Vitalogy, No Code, Yield, or even the last album, and tell me how songs like Black, Release, Leash, Porch, Unemployable, Inside Job, Faithful, Nothingman, Immortality, Corduroy, Present Tense, In My Tree, In Hiding, ... fit into "loud guitar that sounds of nothing but distortion in a bad way", or "very few listenable notes". Same for Alice in Chains. [/B]

Nice list MacPhistoPT but you forgot Crazy Mary, Indifference, Light Years and Yellow Ledbedder. Pearl Jam has so much great music that given a proper listen, they could hook just about everyone.
 
Crazy Mary it's a cover they do, but great anyway.

that list of songs I used in the last post was pretty random. yellow ledbetter, i got shit, nothing as it seems, thumbing my way, low light...

they've got so many incredible stuff... that's why it's a shame to label them with "grunge"

I was just reading this thread (quite interesting so far btw) but I can't help posting when I saw my favorite band being mistreated...:( I like nirvana too, but PJ are 100000 times superior. I hate when people say "Nirvana and Pearl Jam"
 
No Code is a crap album and so is Yield, they should have Yielded that album before they even started making it. I havent heard the latest album so I cant comment on it. Honestly I tried to give Pearl Jam a chance because so many people said oh they are so great but I still fail to see the greatness of it really.
 
XHendrix24 said:
The Pixies aren't grunge. And neither are the Smashing Pumpkins.

Carry on.

I think The Smashing Pumpkins' first album bordered on the grunge barrier, but the rest are more shoegazing, then weird Corgantastic stuff afterwards.
 
MacPhistoPT said:
Crazy Mary it's a cover they do, but great anyway.

that list of songs I used in the last post was pretty random. yellow ledbetter, i got shit, nothing as it seems, thumbing my way, low light...

they've got so many incredible stuff... that's why it's a shame to label them with "grunge"

I was just reading this thread (quite interesting so far btw) but I can't help posting when I saw my favorite band being mistreated...:(

Crazy Mary is a cover? Wow, it's like 409 all other again.

The Smashing Pumpkins are my band and I don't like the attacks on thier lack of creativity. Albums like Melan Collie And The Infinite Sadness, Siamese Dream, and Adore are something very special. Nirvana gets alot of the attention from the media but I think in the next decade Pearl Jam and Smashing Pumpkins will be the bands remembered from the decade.
 
Screwtape2 said:
The Smashing Pumpkins are my band and I don't like the attacks on thier lack of creativity. Albums like Melan Collie And The Infinite Sadness, Siamese Dream, and Adore are something very special. Nirvana gets alot of the attention from the media but I think in the next decade Pearl Jam and Smashing Pumpkins will be the bands remembered from the decade.

:up:

I fucking love the Pumpkins, and think that Billy Corgan, Eddie Vedder, and even Michael Stipe of R.E.M. are criminally underrated when talking about the '90s music scene.

Everyone's too busy up Kurt Cobain's ass to see anything different.
 
Probably the thing I hate the most about Pearl Jam is Eddie Vedders, what I would call "tribal chant" voice, while unique it gets very annoying.

Smashing Pumpkins made one grunge album and it was the first one the others they made moved on from that and thats why they are more well respected now, then they would have been if they stayed with the sound of Bullet With Butterfly Wings.
 
Yahweh said:
No Code is a crap album and so is Yield, they should have Yielded that album before they even started making it. I havent heard the latest album so I cant comment on it. Honestly I tried to give Pearl Jam a chance because so many people said oh they are so great but I still fail to see the greatness of it really.

Well, No Code and Yield are just my 2 favourite albums. I'm not saying that they are the greatest albums ever, far from that, but they are the 2 albums that I have most pleasure listening to, up there with the joshua tree, achtung baby, dark side of the moon, the bends, ...

so I guess we should end the argument here :wink: about pearl jam we'll never agree, that's for sure :wink:
 
Screwtape2 said:
Just as a general question, do you think the Nirvana love would have begun to slow or completely stop if Kurt Cobain hadn't committed suicide?

of course, since every artist (music, art, whatever) gets infinite amounts of postmortem success.

Cobain is just one of the ones I don't feel deserves all of the praise.
 
LemonMacPhisto said:


I think The Smashing Pumpkins' first album bordered on the grunge barrier, but the rest are more shoegazing, then weird Corgantastic stuff afterwards.

1979 rocks!1

thanx buddy:rockon: :bow:
 
LemonMacPhisto said:


of course, since every artist (music, art, whatever) gets infinite amounts of postmortem success.

Cobain is just one of the ones I don't feel deserves all of the praise.

They were huge by the time he died. But I guess that if they were still around they would be less popular than Pearl Jam are now.

Or not...

Alice in Chains were buried since 1996, and now they've started touring with another singer, and it has been totally awesome. Their show here in Portugal was totally mad, it was a festival but there was lots and lots of people there just to see them. It was surely one of the gigs of my life... :up:
 
MacPhistoPT said:


They were huge by the time he died. But I guess that if they were still around they would be less popular than Pearl Jam are now.

Or not...

Alice in Chains were buried since 1996, and now they've started touring with another singer, and it has been totally awesome. Their show here in Portugal was totally mad, it was a festival but there was lots and lots of people there just to see them. It was surely one of the gigs of my life... :up:

Yes, but they probably would've faded with the times or maybe adapted into something listenable.

Alice in Chains' Unplugged album is just beautiful, I need to check out more of their stuff.

xaviMF22 said:


1979 rocks!1

thanx buddy:rockon: :bow:

np, have you checked out any of their other stuff?
 
Back
Top Bottom