Are U2 taking the Piss?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Zootlesque said:

......TRYING desperately to become the biggest band in the world like U2 is, now.


U2 has always wanted to be the biggest band in the world. Why does no one else seem to acknowledge this? They say it themselves---many, many times. Perhaps accepting that they have always sought that will help us all take them off the unbelievably high pedastal that we seem to place them--and no other band--upon.
 
Utoo said:
U2 has always wanted to be the biggest band in the world. Why does no one else seem to acknowledge this? They say it themselves---many, many times. Perhaps accepting that they have always sought that will help us all take them off the unbelievably high pedastal that we seem to place them--and no other band--upon.

Do you have a quote pre-2000 to prove this? I've been hearing this biggest band thing only since 2000. Wanting to be the biggest in the world is not something very attractive, in my opinion, because..

Wanting to be the biggest = trying to please everybody = compromising on own personal creative instincts.

Example: U2 of the 00's is like the popular kid in school that everybody likes. Pearl Jam and Radiohead are like the kids that don't have a lot of friends because they're interestingly unique and don't necessarily feel like conforming to everyone's expectations. :wink:
 
Zootlesque said:


I disagree. I think the type of pop/rock that U2 are displaying on their latest venture sells much much more than Chemical Brothers electronika did even at it's peak!

But think of the context and the way music was in 97. Rap was huge, grunge was dead, electronika was the closest there was to anything rock and mainstream.


Zootlesque said:

No. I did not say U2 are trying to be part of a mainstream that 'they' created. More like it seems they're trying to be part of a mainstream that they never were a part of!

Well I find that to be a ridiculous comment. When were they never part of the mainstream?

Zootlesque said:

:huh: I don't think the Beatles were TRYING desperately to become the biggest band in the world like U2 is, now. It just happened! I don't think Lennon/McCartney gave a fuck if Sgt. Peppers' experimentation cost them a bunch of fans.

"Bigger than Jesus", yeah sounds like they didn't care...:|



Zootlesque said:

Fair enough. But I disagree with Corgan's ridiculous viewpoint if what you're saying is indeed true. ;)

Yeah, I just go around making this shit up


Zootlesque said:

What? It was even discussed right here in this very forum by many posters about how Yahweh's lyrics of 'take these shoes/hands/soul' etc. is reminiscent of DYFL's 'take these hands/shoes...' The resemblance to OTH may be a stretch but you can clearly see where the lyrical connection to DYFL is.

Well of course the lines are familiar...

Zootlesque said:

If that's true, I can't believe he said that. Radiohead seems so far from ever releasing a song like Stuck that it's not even funny.

:shrug:

Zootlesque said:

Gimme some examples. I don't believe that it was anywhere near as 'reminiscent of the past' as the guitar work on Sometimes, COBL, Yahweh etc.

One could have easily fit on JT. Acrobat reminds me of portions of UF, especially the drumming. Salome definately has some God Part 2 in it...

Zootlesque said:

side note: I don't know how much more time I can waste on this. BVS argues like a mofo! :crack:

I'm not arguing. I'm having a debate, if this is just an argument with you, than I'm wasting my time.
 
Zootlesque said:


Do you have a quote pre-2000 to prove this? I've been hearing this biggest band thing only since 2000. Wanting to be the biggest in the world is not something very attractive, in my opinion, because..

Wanting to be the biggest = trying to please everybody = compromising on own personal creative instincts.

I'm not big on remembering or collecting quotes, but there were early quotes about how "we thought we could change the world" etc. No they weren't as vocal as they were when they did the whole "we're reapplying for the biggest band again" thing, but their actions were always pretty obvious.


Zootlesque said:

Example: U2 of the 00's is like the popular kid in school that everybody likes. Pearl Jam and Radiohead are like the kids that don't have a lot of friends because they're interestingly unique and don't necessarily feel like conforming to everyone's expectations. :wink:

I don't buy this analogy, based on the fact that PJ could have easily given U2 a run for their money if they hadn't hid from the media like they did. It wasn't a matter of conforming it was a matter of exposure. Eddie was the guy wearing his old t-shirts and flannels in HS, while Bono wore the chain from his earring to his fake lip ring(or nose ring I can't remember the story). Bono was a great PR guy from the beginning.:wink:
 
Okay I don't really have any more time to spend on this. :lol: It's not like your opinion or mine is ever going to change what U2 chooses to do anyway. What's the point in debating this, except for the entertainment value, which is a welcome respite from the boring workday I have to say. :crack: Still, we're now pretty much down to different ways of seeing the same thing I think. So let the on-topic discussion continue. :wave:
 
U2 have been saying they wanted to be the biggest band in the world since 1980 and their manager said the same thing. Try reading a bit of the early years in U2 by U2 and you will see this, and to be honest they wouldnt be around today if they didnt have that attitude, and still kicking most everybodies ass when it comes to music quality.
 
Zootlesque said:
I rip on it because I care. :sigh: If I didn't like the album, I wouldn't spend hours here analzing and overanalyzing it as to what aspect of it I don't like or how they could have made it better. :shifty:

Wait... what? You're saying you like HTDAAB?

You know, I didn't like the album, and I actually sold my copy. I've moved on. Personally, it bores me to sit around for hours, ripping on stuff I don't like. But I guess you rip on it because... you like it? Okay. I'm not trying to be a smartass - it's just that none of this is really making any sense.
 
SpaceOddity said:
Wait... what? You're saying you like HTDAAB?

You know, I didn't like the album, and I actually sold my copy. I've moved on. Personally, it bores me to sit around for hours, ripping on stuff I don't like. But I guess you rip on it because... you like it? Okay. I'm not trying to be a smartass - it's just that none of this is really making any sense.

You don't like the album? In your posts, you always come off as the total opposite! :scratch:

Anyway, yes... I do like HTDAAB. Not as much as I liked it on first listen. But yes, I enjoy listening to it whenever I'm in the mood for that type of music. At the same time, I don't worship it as this flawless masterpiece either. It's definitely got it's flaws which I enjoy debating about every now and then.

Lemme put it this way... I rip on it cos I like it and often debate about what changes could have made it even better in order to make me love it. On the flip side, I hate something like Linkin Park or System Of A Down and see no merit in ripping it to shreds and wasting my time. At least in the case of HTDAAB, I can make an alternate mix or something. :drool: :wink:
 
Zootlesque said:

You don't like the album? In your posts, you always come off as the total opposite! :scratch:

Yup, I don't have a lot of love for HTDAAB. I enjoyed the Vertigo concert I went to, but the album itself? Not so much. I just thought it was a total borefest and actually sold my copy to a friend for $5. LOL. In my posts, maybe I come off as the opposite because I am against the constant ripping on the album... intelligent debate is fine, but when people keep whining about the silliest things (like how the new "Saints are Coming" video isn't exciting enough), it just seems so absurd to me. It's like, no matter what "post-2000" (the magical time period!) U2 does, they can never get it right! To me, I just think these people need to move on. How can it be fun to spend so much time ripping on things you've become so disenchanted with? That's what I don't understand. I almost think of U2 as film directors. I didn't like their latest movie, but I moved on and look forward to their next project with an open mind.

With me, I take one thing at a time. In the current era of U2, I loved the concert I went to, I've really enjoyed various tv performances here and there, and I'm looking forward to what the new album will bring. I just don't like people who dismiss everything U2's done (yes, post-2000) as rubbish or bemoaning the fact that they're not making Achtung Baby Part II, or whatever. Anyway, I'm probably not making any sense. lol.

Thanks for your explanation... even though I'm still confused. LOL. Each to their own, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
Zootlesque said:


Do you have a quote pre-2000 to prove this? I've been hearing this biggest band thing only since 2000. Wanting to be the biggest in the world is not something very attractive, in my opinion, because..

Wanting to be the biggest = trying to please everybody = compromising on own personal creative instincts.

"I believe there is something special about our band, like the Beatles or the Stones or The Who." - Bono, early 80s (pre War)

"We want to fight the music on the charts because I do think we're better." Bono - War album

"Our first pop song." Bono - on Pride

I'm sure you heard the "we're number 1 in America and we worked for this very hard" speech on JT tour on bootlegs before.

The only difference is rules have changed and they have to work harder to be inside the mainstream. (in US)

As for sprinkes of U2's past, please. On every U2 album you can find a song connecting the current music to their past work.

And most definitely listen to their first 4 album, then JT and tell me they didn't make a hit album with that. Tell me they didn't know they were going for a worldwide stardom status.
 
Back
Top Bottom