Utoo said:
But when the same words are used to characterize (or criticize) the music of both bands----"daring," "experimental," etc.---it's almost hard to say that one isn't really comparing the two bands on some level. To me, other than the bass lines, most of RHCP isn't "daring," nor really "edgy," etc.
First of all, I have never seen anybody use words like 'daring' and 'experimental' to describe anything to do with RHCP! Nor have I personally ever used it. Where are you getting this?
Utoo said:
I think it's fine if one wants to argue that U2 have taken a step down from where one believes they may have been. However, I don't think the level they're at now is any lower than the level where oft-praised bands lie.
As evidenced by just about everything but their rhythm section, RCHP only occasionally delivers a complete package. When a band like U2 only delivers half a package, they get railed on because we're used to getting more from them. But when a band that only occasionally gives you the full thing comes out with half a package, they're praised. Is it that you don't expect as much?
Secondly, this is a good question you have raised which I'd like to attempt an answer for. Don't know if I've got this figured out so I'll give 3 possible takes or cases.
CASE I
Ever since Blood Sugar Sex Magik in 1991, the RHCP have been pretty consistent with their output, whether you think they've been really good, good, okay or bad. Now some may argue that One Hot Minute was worse than anything else but I'm not in a position to comment on that since I haven't heard the entire album. Nor have I listened to the entirety of By The Way but I think I understand the general picture of their consistency in quality from album to album. These are guys that do what they do best and I think they're pretty good at it. They're not chameleons, they hardly ever make drastic changes. Sure, their earlier material was way more funky and now they've somewhat mellowed out. But I don't see it as that drastic of a change. So, in all probability if you liked Blood Sugar Sex Magik, you'd also like Californication, By The Way and Stadium Arcadium.. for the most part. Cos they all sound quite similar, at least to my ears.
On the other hand, U2 have always been chameleons. They make drastic changes in sound, image, concept.. that's what defines U2 as they've always been. So you never know what to expect from them and they often set themselves up for disappointment. So here, if you liked The Joshua Tree, there's no guarantee you'll like Achtung Baby or Zooropa. And if you liked Pop, there's no guarantee you'll like ATYCLB. Maybe that's why their fan base is so vocal and expect 100% from the band all the time.
CASE II
I can only speak for myself. But I'll just assume that since we're on a U2 message board, we all know U2's music very well. We have all the albums and can think of at least 2 or 3 albums that we consider the best ever, not just by U2 but by any band. For instance, I consider The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby and Pop to be 3 of the greatest albums ever by anyone. Anyway, so what I'm trying to say is we hold them on such a high pedestal. Personally I don't hold RHCP or Radiohead on that same high pedestal. We expect so much from U2. And when we find flaws on their albums we freak out and discuss them to death. Flaws that may have gone un-noticed on an RHCP album or a Radiohead album for the simple fact that we're not as big fans of those bands! This is U2 so it gets scrutinized under the fine lens of the fan microscope. Every single thing has to be perfect... the music, the lyrics, the album artwork, the production, the attitude, the themes, the concept.. Whereas I doubt if you guys spend so much time discussing new albums of bands you like but you're not crazy about. It's U2 so it must be the best! It must be able to stand alongside their other genius albums! Maybe this mentality is setting us up for disappointment.
CASE III
All of that is bullshit. You can never define how you feel about music. There is no hypocracy here. You may feel U2 sold out by making pop music but may still like the melodic tunes of Keane. Because that's just what your instincts tell you! You cannot control it. You cannot explain it. There's just something to Album A that makes you want to listen to it over and over again. And there's just something to Album B that makes you want to cringe everytime you give it a spin. It's unexplainable and probably a waste of time discussing on a message board.
So yeah, not sure which case it is. Leaning towards CASE I. What do you guys think?
I never got into the Chili Peppers for their lyrics anyway. Anthony has never been good at lyrics. The Chili Peppers have possibly one of THE tightest rhythm sections in rock music today (and rock music in the past) and that is primarily the reason why I'm such a fan. Has anyone ever sat down and just listened to Flea and Chad in Blood Sugar Sex Magik? It's unbelievable. Those two guys blow my mind. Every song, every fucking song on that album flows perfectly from start to finish. And they've still got it, as is evident in Stadium Arcadium. Anthony's lyrics, while they don't always work on a purely lyrical basis, interweave so well with the rhythm section. And, of course, you've got John who's just awesome. The best thing that ever happened to the band. His harmonies with Anthony are just brilliant.
!!!
i even end up switching the radio when they're on!
