Did You Like It Better When U2 Were "Cool"?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
STING2 said:
If most people think U2 is past their prime, how did the band sell over 11 million albums to become one of the 10 biggest selling albums worldwide of the new century? Why are they the biggest touring act on the planet? Over 11 million people have a different view from a few strange Coldplay fans on a message board. The band didn't win a record 7 grammy awards because ATYCLB was bad. Despite how damn good Coldplay's new album is, its still not as good as ATYCLB.
Some arguments (that I don't necessarily subscribe to):
If most people think U2 is past their prime, how did the band sell over 11 million albums to become one of the 10 biggest selling albums worldwide of the new century?
Many would say it was due to GREAT marketing and the hype of "returning to their roots" etc. Also, the album didn't really hit stride until after Sept. 11th. Suddenly, it became very relevent. Some would call that fluke or chance. Others would call it destiny.
Why are they the biggest touring act on the planet?
Once again, the GREAT marketing of ATYCLB and its encompassing hype, combined with U2's back catalogue and reputation for a great live show would be the argument.
Over 11 million people have a different view from a few strange Coldplay fans on a message board
See above arguments on marketing and hype. Also, it wasn't just a "few" Coldplay fans. At least 50 percent who were posting in that thread were anti-U2. Now, a thread that's titled "U2 Please Stop" would certainly attract those kind of people, I suppose, but considering that most of the pro-U2 types seemed to be even more ignorant than the anti ones, I'm not convinced by the argument. Coldplay would attract a fairly eclectic audience, and therefore one should not see such an anti-any band stance as there is against U2. That's the puzzling aspect for me.
The band didn't win a record 7 grammy awards because ATYCLB was bad. Despite how damn good Coldplay's new album is, its still not as good as ATYCLB.
I agree that ATYCLB wasn't bad. It is technically speaking, very well structured, and very uplifting. 'Walk On', for example, may not be a classic U2 song (in the vein of 'One' 'WOWY' and 'Bad' etc), but it is classic U2, you know what I mean? The fact remains, however, that this album really took off for two major reasons: 1) It was U2's *perceived* return to their classic sound and 2) because of U2's assault on America. They promoted themselves to death, worked extremely hard. If any other band that wasn't called U2 released ATYCLB, I wonder if it would have won 7 grammies? I know it's an absurd question, but I have to ask it. That said, I believe ATYCLB did deserve to win those grammies, as the music scene was pretty dull during that stretch, and ATYCLB is a great album.

As for it being better than Coldplay's new album, that is really merely based on opinion. They are both great albums, but for me, Coldplay's album is more cohesive as a whole. Coldplay also are in a different part of their lives, and are still unsure of their footing, which tends to make things more interesting. Just my opinion of course.:)
 
Michael Griffiths said:
If any other band that wasn't called U2 released ATYCLB, I wonder if it would have won 7 grammies? I know it's an absurd question, but I have to ask it.
true, that is an absurd question
 
I do not think U2 are that "cool" anymore. They are definitely respected, but not necessarily "cool".

I love U2 and I always will. To me, they are very cool. But I have to realize that I don't know too many people that love them and would put them in their favourite bands category. There are people who "don't mind them" and people that just don't really like them. I do agree that a lot of people regard them as "old" now, which is very sad. But it's trendy to be young. Look at Britney Spears and all them. Teens making it big. U2 falls way out of that category.

I agree with Michael that part of ATYCLB's success was amazing marketing. U2 HAD to make this album work- they had to get great reviews. Critics everywhere were anticipating the release saying that if U2 didn't make this cut, they were out. Most fans of the ATYCLB album are either adults (as in, like adult contemporary music fans) or previous U2 fans. They went to extreme measures to make it work, and it did. Can we call it selling out? I don't think so. Business is an art, music is an art, and U2 combined the two and it worked.

As for the Elevation ticket sales, of course they sold tons. I have heard so many people in my life say, "U2 isn't my favourite band, but they are one band I would love to see in concert". People want to experience that part of history because of the respect for the band. They want to be able to say years down the road "I saw U2, one of the biggest bands, in concert".

They may not be the stereotypical term of "cool", but they are so much more than that. They are so deep, so political, and so spiritual. It is too bad that so many young people are missing out on this.

If people want to judge them and disregard them because of their age and political action, fine. But they are really missing out.

PS As much as I love U2...I have to be honest. I don't think that if ATYCLB was release by anyone else, it would have gotten all those grammies.

*ducks and scoots out the room*
 
Remember Bono talking about being "very uncool" in the making of the JT - well all I can say is THANK GOD FOR THAT! not one track sounds like an eighties song - and its always been the same - u2 just do their own glorious thing
However, just to confuse the issue, Adam has to be the coolest man alive - surrounded by uncool!


Pamela
 
Good music is only what sounds good to you. You can't quantify it or make some abstract argument why "band x" is better than "band y". It's all opinion and your opinion will differ from the majority of the people on a wide variety of subjects.

That's one thing that reading message boards has taught me, just how completely I can disagree with someone on so many things, yet we have a common bond, whether it be a band, a sports team, a movie etc.

The problem I see is with people who have an idealogy of what is or isn't 'cool'. If you refuse to listen to "Creed" for example because you don't think it's cool then you are just perpetuating the hypocrisy of those who don't listen to U2 because it's not cool.

If you don't like to listen to something, why do you have to justify it? People who spend their time downgrading U2, rather than just saying "I don't like their music" are often doing it because they don't think it's cool.

Whereas people who love Radiohead and Coldplay are definitely into what is considered 'cool'. I love both of those bands, mostly because it reminds me of the music I wish U2 would play. They are only considered 'cool' beacuse they haven't been around for 20 years and been plastered all over TV and radio for 20 years.

Younger people rebel against the mainstream and at some point you either discover you are a music fan and will like what you like regardless of what's 'cool', or you discover that you are more worried about the image of the band and what they represent and reflect as your personality. It's the precise reason most punk rockers don't sport the same fashion and musical tastes when they are 35. Sure the music is still good to you, but most of them reach a certain point where they either are into it for the music or the image.

If you love music and don't care about what the 'image' is, then being 'cool' has nothing to do with the equation. If you don't like a certain music (like I don't like Creed), it's mostly because I think it's redundant music. Just an opinion on sound, not because it's cool to hate them. I also would say that I love U2, because of their sound, not image, not coolness or anything there of, who gives a fuck about being cool? Good music is timeless, and IMO it should be all about the music not about anything else.

"Cool" is for those who care more about everything else invloved with the music than the music itself.
 
One of the old marketing saying is "You can drag a horse to the lake, but you can't make him drink."

This is the most basic marketing priniciple.In my days as Asst Marketing Manager I had an oppurtunity to promote a campaign for a musical release. I can assure you even if you give out money to customers and say buy this cause I am making it look good or saying it is good, if he doesnt like it., he wont buy it.

So please forget this false notion that U2 marketed the album very well. What you people are confusing with is the oldest concpet in music. Go out to places and play your thing, if people like it they will give you money to live on and appreciation to satisfy yourself. I dont think that U2 needs much money, its more about self respect.I think they went on and played to MTV's etc not cause they wanted to sell extra copies of ATYCLB but to prove a point, a point that they as a band and their music is still relevant when they are not cool.

Although that said marketing now a days has a major role in promotion, but I am convinced that it stretch is very nominal.What I am saying is, you can have a few more people buying the record, but I dont think that anyone, I mean anyone can sell 11 millions copied just by marketing. The music has to appeal to the patrons.

Lastly ATYCLB is a GREAT album that got mass acceptance unlike say POP. If you like the fact you would be happy, if you dont like this fact well you dont have to anyways.(although I wanted to say FOAD)
 
I disagree with your theory on marketing, whether you were a marketing assistent or not.

Marketing works. If it didn't companys wouldn't spend billions of dollars a day on marketing. (Proctor & Gamble spends 5.5 million dollars PER DAY on marketing)

If Britney Spears was ugly and wore jogging suits, here album sales would be much, much, lower.

Yes, the music is at the heart of it, but marketing has a lot to do with everything, even in music. Sure, the music is the heart of it, but the marketing is everything else. I agree that U2 marketed it well, especially when they stated they were returning to their old sound.
 
ishkash said:
One of the old marketing saying is "You can drag a horse to the lake, but you can't make him drink."

This is the most basic marketing priniciple.In my days as Asst Marketing Manager I had an oppurtunity to promote a campaign for a musical release. I can assure you even if you give out money to customers and say buy this cause I am making it look good or saying it is good, if he doesnt like it., he wont buy it.

So please forget this false notion that U2 marketed the album very well. What you people are confusing with is the oldest concpet in music. Go out to places and play your thing, if people like it they will give you money to live on and appreciation to satisfy yourself. I dont think that U2 needs much money, its more about self respect.I think they went on and played to MTV's etc not cause they wanted to sell extra copies of ATYCLB but to prove a point, a point that they as a band and their music is still relevant when they are not cool.

Although that said marketing now a days has a major role in promotion, but I am convinced that it stretch is very nominal.What I am saying is, you can have a few more people buying the record, but I dont think that anyone, I mean anyone can sell 11 millions copied just by marketing. The music has to appeal to the patrons.

Lastly ATYCLB is a GREAT album that got mass acceptance unlike say POP. If you like the fact you would be happy, if you dont like this fact well you dont have to anyways.(although I wanted to say FOAD)

I agree with everything you said, esp. the last paragraph! As a girl who has been a telemarketer and salesperson, having had to depend on commission that never came, I can tell you that your first line is true. Some people who are trained to train people in marketing and sales tell you things that I disagree with:

1. People are like sheep. They want you to put a rope around their neck and lead them, and they will follow.

:tsk: This is not only not true, it is insulting.

2. People WANT this product, they just don't know it yet! It's up to YOU to show them that they do, and if they still don't buy it, it's your fault, not the product's!

:yuck: Again, false, and insulting to both the sales rep and the potential consumer.

3. There's money out there, if you know how to get it.

:eyebrow: I think sometimes this means stooping to low levels, cheating and lying.

There are more, but I will not bore you. You get the idea. My point is, if someone doesn't like something, and they don't want to spend their money on it, all the marketing in the world is not going to convince them they do! Maybe a few real 'sheep' exist but certainly not enough to make the difference in any product, or album's sales. Bottom line: if someone doesn't want something, you can't force it down their throat. It just doesn't work.


I think what happened with ATYCLB is that, besides the fact that it was an excellent record, is that the band was presented to the public in a much more appealing way. True, they were EVERYWHERE and I admit the exposure did help. Hey look, U2's back, they're not trying to be something they're not anymore, it's just us, doing what we do best, and aren't we soft and cuddly! That might sound like a marketing tool, but I believe they were sincere. They bared their souls to us, as Bono said, walking on stage with the lights on is only for the most ardent of lovers. I don't believe millions of people would have found them, their CD and their concerts to be a good thing unless they really were. People bought it because they wanted it, not because any marketing convinced them they did.
 
Last edited:
U2DMfan said:
Good music is only what sounds good to you. You can't quantify it or make some abstract argument why "band x" is better than "band y". It's all opinion and your opinion will differ from the majority of the people on a wide variety of subjects.

That's one thing that reading message boards has taught me, just how completely I can disagree with someone on so many things, yet we have a common bond, whether it be a band, a sports team, a movie etc.

The problem I see is with people who have an idealogy of what is or isn't 'cool'. If you refuse to listen to "Creed" for example because you don't think it's cool then you are just perpetuating the hypocrisy of those who don't listen to U2 because it's not cool.

If you don't like to listen to something, why do you have to justify it? People who spend their time downgrading U2, rather than just saying "I don't like their music" are often doing it because they don't think it's cool.

Whereas people who love Radiohead and Coldplay are definitely into what is considered 'cool'. I love both of those bands, mostly because it reminds me of the music I wish U2 would play. They are only considered 'cool' beacuse they haven't been around for 20 years and been plastered all over TV and radio for 20 years.

Younger people rebel against the mainstream and at some point you either discover you are a music fan and will like what you like regardless of what's 'cool', or you discover that you are more worried about the image of the band and what they represent and reflect as your personality. It's the precise reason most punk rockers don't sport the same fashion and musical tastes when they are 35. Sure the music is still good to you, but most of them reach a certain point where they either are into it for the music or the image.

If you love music and don't care about what the 'image' is, then being 'cool' has nothing to do with the equation. If you don't like a certain music (like I don't like Creed), it's mostly because I think it's redundant music. Just an opinion on sound, not because it's cool to hate them. I also would say that I love U2, because of their sound, not image, not coolness or anything there of, who gives a fuck about being cool? Good music is timeless, and IMO it should be all about the music not about anything else.

"Cool" is for those who care more about everything else invloved with the music than the music itself.
Wow - *amazing* post. I completely agree with everything you've said (and that just makes the post even more amazing!;))

I would also like to add something that is pretty obvious, but I guess I should spell it out. There should be a distinction between a "cool" band in and of itself (the band acting, embracing "cool"), and a "cool" band to like (which is really more about the fans embracing "cool"). In my original post the distinction is blurred. As examples, U2 were part of the first definition as well as the second during the ZooTV era, but only part of the second during the War era. Interesting stuff.
 
UltravioletU2 said:
I disagree with your theory on marketing, whether you were a marketing assistent or not.

Well thanks but thats an Old Chinese saying (Guanxi, Art of War {I think ref 23 not too sure on this}), though I should have quoated it.


Who is saying that marketing doesnt work, it certainly does, but not so much in making a substantial sales differene in the long run.Product has to be better than the campaign.Cause one tool that runs fater than campaign is word of mouth from the active users to phase 2 users.

Now lets have a closer look at PnG
Antiperspirants
Colognes
Cosmetics
Deodrants
Hair Care
Healthcare
Householdcleaners
Laundary
Personal Cleansing
Health and Nutirtion
Skin Care
Snacks and Beverages

So whats the common thing.They are the neccessity of the customer.So brand awareness is very crucial.Customer needs to be aware of the brand and its existence.He has to buy any of the above mentioned product irrespective of the brand.Since the unit consumption is so much that margin of profict can increment very quickly, hence companies force their product onto the market.

Can same be said about music.Music is based on "taste" not the "neccessity" hence forcing music onto the customers can have a negative impact. Thus its a very delicate affair. You can have the greatest of reviews, the best of appearaces, but it has to satisfy the "taste" of the customer.Britney Spear is very popular not because she has a great marketing manager, but because she has a manager who knows whats the taste of 12-20 year olds.She is a package than say an artist.

So basically the rules of the game change 180 degrees for different product, demographic and culture.
 
Last edited:
ishkash said:
One of the old marketing saying is "You can drag a horse to the lake, but you can't make him drink."

This is the most basic marketing priniciple.In my days as Asst Marketing Manager I had an oppurtunity to promote a campaign for a musical release. I can assure you even if you give out money to customers and say buy this cause I am making it look good or saying it is good, if he doesnt like it., he wont buy it.

So please forget this false notion that U2 marketed the album very well. What you people are confusing with is the oldest concpet in music. Go out to places and play your thing, if people like it they will give you money to live on and appreciation to satisfy yourself. I dont think that U2 needs much money, its more about self respect.I think they went on and played to MTV's etc not cause they wanted to sell extra copies of ATYCLB but to prove a point, a point that they as a band and their music is still relevant when they are not cool.

Although that said marketing now a days has a major role in promotion, but I am convinced that it stretch is very nominal.What I am saying is, you can have a few more people buying the record, but I dont think that anyone, I mean anyone can sell 11 millions copied just by marketing. The music has to appeal to the patrons.

Lastly ATYCLB is a GREAT album that got mass acceptance unlike say POP. If you like the fact you would be happy, if you dont like this fact well you dont have to anyways.(although I wanted to say FOAD)
Ishkash, I completely agree. I said that ATYCLB had GREAT marketing (which it did) and that ATYCLB is a GREAT album (which it is). So we agree.:) I do, however, stress that ATYCLB did benefit a LOT by its great marketing. What sense would it be to have great music without great marketing? None. But if I answered the question, "Would ATYCLB have won *7* grammys if it had been marketed differently?" I would probably say *maybe*, but I couldn't give a definite answer. That's the point.
 
Last edited:
Michael Griffiths said:

I do, however, stress that ATYCLB did benefit a LOT by its great marketing. What sense would it be to have great music without great marketing? None. But if I answered the question, "Would ATYCLB have won *7* grammys if it had been marketed differently?" I would probably say *maybe*, but I couldn't give a definite answer. That's the point.

Exactly, marketing is about making people aware of something which exists and is consumable or usable. Irrespetive of the profession I think its not a bad exercise if followed with ethics. U2 certainly marketed and promoted ATYCLB to the ways which are a taboo if you are a rock band.It certainly worked for them.

Rush of a Blood (are you happy The Wanderer) is an exceptional album, there is no doubt about that.But I think its not fair to compare them to U2.Let them be Coldplay and they will go distance (I hope...)
 
I'd argue that U2 have only been "cool" during the ZooTV era. The rest of the time I think they've been popular at different levels, but not "cool".

That's what I loved about ZooTV. Sure, it was all an act, and U2 were making fun of themselves, but whether or not it was an act was irrelevant. They were cool.

That's why I think it has been hard on those who joined up with U2 during the 90's (like myself) to see U2 as they have been since ATYCLB. We jumped on board when U2 was "cool", but they were putting on an act, and we didn't really realize it at the time. We just thought they had changed. In 2000 when they went back to "wearing their heart on their sleeve" as they had prior to AB, we didn't really get it.

Now, I think I can see the bigger picture. U2 never changed what they were all about, they just decided to be silly, or ironic, or whatever you want to call it, during the better part of the 90's. Make fun of themselves. Play devil's advocate for a while.

Do I want them to be "cool" right now? That's tought to say. I mean, I'd like it, because their "cool" stage is what caused me to fall in love with the band. But, I'm content with them realizing their age and moving forward with stuff like ATYCLB. I guess it would look pretty ridiculous for a band their age to be trying so hard to be "cool" again.

U2 did something brilliant starting with ATYCLB. I dare say that even ZooTV II wouldn't have done as much for them as what they did at that point. They realized their age and a new level of maturity that gained them the respect of their peers. Sure, they may come off as old or "uncool" compared to todays newer bands, but I think the past three years have pretty much sealed their status in the R&R hall of fame, and as the idols and inspiration for countless other musicians.

They may not be cool now, but what they have become is relevant.
 
Hey how does marketing look like for music albums?

Here in Europe i don't remember much talk before ATYCLB came out. (except two reviews in local press before it came out, and commercials for BD single on MTV Europe)

IMO the reason for ATYCLB's success is partially the excellent first single and its "push" to the album, partially the more "classic" U2 sound of the album, partially all the promotion gigs and, well, its always easier to sell good if you're a big name in music.
 
good point U2girl

I don't think the marketing strategy surrounding ATYCLB was that special or ingenious
a lot of bands try to get in the picture the way U2 did
the main difference being that other bands who do this are just starting out
bands who have been around for a while usually don't like to work that hard
 
Well, maybe if they're "uncool" again I won't have so much trouble getting tickets for the next tour.

Ha, just kidding. :happy:

You gather a pile of people in any room, and you'll find people who love something, and others who hate it. Fine by me, I'll listen to U2 as long as they keep making new music because I love their music and it speaks to me. Music is a personal thing. If someone can get that same thrill listening to Britney Spears - hey, more power to them. Just don't play that crap in my house.

Peace
 
I don't care what other ppl think about U2. And in any case, comparing U2 to Coldplay, what a big puff fart. I don't listen or love U2 because they are cool or uncool. I have always had a connection with them than any other group have given me. Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of other music, but this is a more personal feel. Coldplay has not been there long enough to know what it is like to be in a group for as long as U2. When Coldplay's music grow's cold I would be glad to see them try to sell out to t get just one media personnel to give them even a second look. I've seen too many of these U2 bashers, and where are they now? Maybe that would be a great skit for VH1.
 
This guy needs help.

Originally posted by Michael Griffiths

their songs no longer invoke emotion like they may have like 10 years ago. now its all junk that is merely bla, its not terrible, but its not good.

OMC.....SOMEBODY needs to take this guys Creed CD's away.

retire already. music is supposed to make you feel something, not just fill a void of silence. which is what their music does.
:shocked: :coocoo:
Apparently this guy simply does not have a soul, and I think he needs our prayers.

what's even worse is that some of the U2 fans who are defending U2 (how embarrassing) are actually more ignorant than the people who hate U2!!

Am I supposed to be offended by that? HA! Hahahahhhahaahah. :lmao:

I don't even know what to say. :silent:

*Tries to make sense of this guys opinion*
BRAIN: *Explodes*
 
U2DMfan said:
Whereas people who love Radiohead and Coldplay are definitely into what is considered 'cool'. I love both of those bands, mostly because it reminds me of the music I wish U2 would play.

I don't have time to properly express my thoughts on this very interesting topic that, of course, Michael Griffiths (shock ;)) created. However, I do want to comment on the above quote.

I enjoyed early Radiohead, but I did not buy "O.K. Computer" in '97 until AFTER everyone raved about it. Having liked earlier Radiohead, I happily bought this album and couldn't believe I hadn't bought it earlier (I guess I was too wrapped up in "Pop" at the time). I couldn't wait to hear it.

Of course, as many here know, I was horribly disappointed by it. I won't elaborate upon my views as I feel I would just be redundant and I do not wish to offend Radiohead fans. Let me just say that ss far as I'm concerned, the Radiohead I once enjoyed died in 1997.

I am not that familiar with Coldplay, but from what I have heard, they are similar to early Radiohead - far more than they are to U2. Will Coldplay ultimately go the route of Radiohead or will they turn to what I believe is the more solid writing of U2 remains to be seen.

Regardless of my personal views of these bands, I found the above comment stunning for one reason. Most people complain that ATYCLB was too mellow. They wanted harder, noisier songs. Yet, then I read the above comment. Granted, Radiohead is not exactly Adult Contemporary, but I would not call Radiohead or Coldplay (who's "Yellow" did WONDERFULLY on the AC charts in the U.S. by the way) upbeat, rocking music either.

Therefore, which is it? We can't have U2 making cerebral, drifting type of music (which they already do this on OS1) yet be hard-rocking. We can't complain about them being too AC then insist they are more like Coldplay who had one of the biggest AC hits of all time. We can't demand more upbeat tunes and then state that we want them to write like these other bands.

The contradiction is too great...
 
Since when are Radiohead and Coldplay cool? Most people I hang out with think they're dorks. U2 are cool.
 
Judging by the picture underneath your name, Sapphire, one might argue that Bono is the dork! :lmao: :D

:wink: Just kidding, of course.

Shame on me for even thinking that about my favourite rock star! :reject:
 
Lets see here. Chicago in Oct. last year was semi-cool.Las Vegas in Nov. was un-cool.St. Louie was cool and Miami in Dec. was just plain hot. I call the band stabelized.
After 22 years of listening to the band, yes, they are definately :censored: stable:mad: :up:
 
Re: This guy needs help.

Ali Rose said:

OMC.....SOMEBODY needs to take this guys Creed CD's away.


:shocked: :coocoo:
Apparently this guy simply does not have a soul, and I think he needs our prayers.



Am I supposed to be offended by that? HA! Hahahahhhahaahah. :lmao:

I don't even know what to say. :silent:

*Tries to make sense of this guys opinion*
BRAIN: *Explodes*
Just wanted to point out that the first quote that appears in your original post is misleading: it says "Originally Posted By Michael Griffiths," but as we know it wasn't posted by me. This quote was taken from one of the sample posts from the Coldplay forum. (Just clearing my name!)

And oh yes - no, you aren't supposed to be offended by that. Should you be? Did I call you ignorant? No - I said that some of the people defending U2 were being ignorant. And they were - check it out for yourself.:)
 
Last edited:
Coolness is nothing but what kids want to emulate/worship/become on MTV.

Case in point:
Creed &
Linkin Park


Rocknroll doesn't mean what it used to mean anymore....




































:wave:
It's sad really... about democracy... In communism, everyone's forced to be the same... In democracy, everyone WANTS to be the same.
 
doctorwho said:

Regardless of my personal views of these bands, I found the above comment stunning for one reason. Most people complain that ATYCLB was too mellow. They wanted harder, noisier songs. Yet, then I read the above comment. Granted, Radiohead is not exactly Adult Contemporary, but I would not call Radiohead or Coldplay (who's "Yellow" did WONDERFULLY on the AC charts in the U.S. by the way) upbeat, rocking music either.


Doctorwho, I love your posts I thought you at least deserved a response.

I think what I am saying here is a personal opinion or taste.
When I hear the song Daylight by Coldplay, it moves me like the way U2 used to. There are a handful of other songs by Coldplay that do evoke those same feelings. As for Radiohead, to me they are about the only band around, that has made 'somewhat traditional rock' and is now trying push the envelope a little bit.

I was head first into ZooTV/Achtung Baby/Zooropa, and Pop to a certain extent, I love that album more now than I did in 97, but anyhow, this is the type of music I personally love, great rock bands who arent afraid to challenge their own image and 'reinvent' themselves. There arent many around who are doing it. I am talking about bands who have proven they can write he Beatlesesque stuff and now are on to experiment with different sounds.

Coldplay is much more like U2 than Radiohead, Coldplay arent pushing the envelope as much as they are writing good songs that are reminiscant of U2, when they moved me a lot more. This is just my opnion.

All in all it's just what you like, the newer Radiohead reminds me of U2 pushing boundaries in rock, and Coldplay reminds me of U2 pushing emotional music into rock. It's just my opinion, but ATYCLB was very much like 'Yellow', I liked both, but somehow I like Yellow better than probably 7 of the tracks from ATYCLB. Just a personal opinion on the music itself.

Also maybe I am not representing my opinion well when I say that Radiohead and Coldplay are "cool", perhaps I mean they are "critical darlings" and ATYCLB was recieved very well critically too, but this music lover and critic, I suppose would rather listen to Coldplay-AROBTTH or Radiohead-Kid A then ATYCLB, at least this week ;).

It's all about what you like and you can't change the minds of others, I think it's more positive to say what went right with something (Beautiful Day) than what went wrong (Stuck) JMO.

Cool to you is not the same to cool to me or anyone else.
The Chili Peppers, REM and U2 are probably the only remnants of rockers from the 80's still making meaningful music in the mainstream 2002. I love Depeche Mode too, but they aren't really mainstream to me. The Chili Peppers are cool, REM arent as cool as they are 'critical darlings', and U2 are somewhat of an anamoly in popular music, not necessarily cool, but powerful and meaningful, pertinent, relevant and mostly I think, they are timeless.
 
That thing that was posted on the first page in the first post (the long thing from the Coldplay board) was so not true.

I've always thought U2 was a cool band, with great lyrics, great musicianship, great songs, and really nice, respectable men who aren't afraid to speak their minds on things.

They were cool. They are cool. And they always will be cool.

And that is that.

Angela
 
Back
Top Bottom