Linkin Park, Green Day, ColdPlay, NiN the Next U2???

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
None of those bands are going to be the next U2. You know why? Because U2 started out as a really small thing. They didn't find true radio and mainstream success until their 4th or 5th album. All these bands were famous upon first listen. Plus, they are all different. You have an industrial band, a sortof punk band, a numetal band, and a pop band with U2 flourishes (coldplay) but still no one with the integrity nor the passion of U2. And they never will be. You know why? Because U2 got there by trying to break thru to the world. None of those bands have that fire, because they are already successful. So therefore, they will not be the next U2. You know who the next U2 is? RADIOHEAD.
 
Dusty Bottoms said:

Radiohead doesn't have the desire to be the biggest band in the world that U2 always had.

Neither does NIN. Or Linkin Park. Or Coldplay. Or Green Day. I only recall Bono ever stating that, because he's a fucking egomaniac. But most people wouldn't admit to that. As far as U2 comparisons go, I think Radiohead is a better choice. They overcame a one hit wonder (creep) and became a critically and universally acclaimed band.
 
doctorwho said:


I recall an article where the Edge relayed a comment from his daughter after she heard HTDAAB. She said that it doesn't sound like anything that's on the radio, in a worried tone.

When I heard that, I was estatic. JT was nothing like the other music on the radio, when pop music (like Timberlake and Clarkson) and big hair metal bands dominated. AB was nothing like other music on the radio, when grunge quickly dominated the scene. "Pop" was nothing like other music on the radio, which was dominated by Spice Girls, early N'Sync, Hanson and the like. So once again, U2 produced an album nothing like anything on the radio, and once again, they came away with a hit album and some hit songs.

Ok... you really confused me. Are you seriously trying to say HTDAAB wasn't a super accessable traditional rock album? It was. In every way. It wasn't avant guard, it wasn't unlike anything on the radio, and it wan't hard to get on the first listen.

The reason this albvum produced some hits is because it did conform too much to the climate of popular music today. Uninventive, super-accessible and honestly kind of boring. It might not sound like Green Day or 50 Cent, but it's certainly nothing new to anyone who has a miniscule knowledge of music.

I REALLY hate sounding like one of those annoying music elitest asses, but so many people in this thread don't know what they're talking about.
 
Last edited:
I hate when magazine, people... say next U2, there will never be one more band like them just like there will never be another Pink floyd, Beatles...

Linkin Park, Green Day, ColdPlay, NiN, well Linkin Park is out in two albums. Green Day will contniue, but 50% of their fans is 12-15 years old(I work in a record store) and often start to listen to other artist after a while. And they will lose some fans. Nin, no. Coldplay is an hard one. But none of these will never be big like U2.
 
Well, they will never be as big as u2.
What do you mean by 'the next U2'?
Are they the next u2 when:

- They sell 160M albums
- They play big stadiumtours like Popmart, Zoo tv or Vertigo
- They also release more experimental albums like zooropa or pop
- They have as much impact on the world, musically but also politically (live aid, sarajevo) as U2
 
ozeeko said:


Neither does NIN. Or Linkin Park. Or Coldplay. Or Green Day. I only recall Bono ever stating that, because he's a fucking egomaniac. But most people wouldn't admit to that. As far as U2 comparisons go, I think Radiohead is a better choice. They overcame a one hit wonder (creep) and became a critically and universally acclaimed band.

Coldplay has already stated (and acted) as an aspiring biggest band. Linkin Park and Green Day doesn't seem too very disturbed with all their big commercial success/status.
 
shart1780 said:


Ok... you really confused me. Are you seriously trying to say HTDAAB wasn't a super accessable traditional rock album? It was. In every way. It wasn't avant guard, it wasn't unlike anything on the radio, and it wan't hard to get on the first listen.

The reason this albvum produced some hits is because it did conform too much to the climate of popular music today. Uninventive, super-accessible and honestly kind of boring. It might not sound like Green Day or 50 Cent, but it's certainly nothing new to anyone who has a miniscule knowledge of music.

I REALLY hate sounding like one of those annoying music elitest asses, but so many people in this thread don't know what they're talking about.

I think there is a confusion about what people mean by like nothing on the radio. If you listen to predominately wide ranging stations like classic rock, in other words stations that are playing songs from a wide time period, then no HTDAAB is nothing new. But if you are listening to Top 40 current hit style radio that is only playing what is coming out currently, then yes I think HTDAAB is different from everything else. Also the last two albums have been intentionally targeted towards bringing in new and younger fans who probably don't have even a miniscule knowledge of music. Yes they were easily accessible but they also were enough of a stretch that they lead into new territory and those that were lured in by Beautiful Day and Vertigo then had the entire back catalogue of U2 to continue their explorations with. Many of these kids might never have discovered AB or JT without being hooked in by the easily accessible ATYCLB and HTDAAB. But for me personally even listening to classic rock I find U2 still very different. It's not really anything you can pin down into sound, or subject or whatever, they just stand out somehow, like the Beatles, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Queen all tend to stand out from the crowd.

Lately I've been thinking that everything up to the end of the 90's was U2 learning and growing musically and performance wise and the last two albums and tours have been about putting everything learned over the first 20 years or so to very good use. Now that they've done that, the news from the current sessions seems to indicate that they are back into the learning and experimenting mindset. Back to getting out of their comfort zone and stretching again. Like the transitions between War and TUF and between R&H and AB. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for that.

Dana
 
shart1780 said:


Ok... you really confused me. Are you seriously trying to say HTDAAB wasn't a super accessable traditional rock album? It was. In every way. It wasn't avant guard, it wasn't unlike anything on the radio, and it wan't hard to get on the first listen.

That said, HTDAAB might sound conservative, but it still sounds unlike any other band that exists today. No other band could compile a similar sounding album that encapsualtes the range of musical avenues that U2 explored on HTDAAB
 
Aygo said:


Coldplay has already stated (and acted) as an aspiring biggest band. Linkin Park and Green Day doesn't seem too very disturbed with all their big commercial success/status.

right on about Coldplay :up:


they have stated they want to be the next big thing
 
shart1780 said:
Ok... you really confused me. Are you seriously trying to say HTDAAB wasn't a super accessable traditional rock album? It was. In every way. It wasn't avant guard, it wasn't unlike anything on the radio, and it wan't hard to get on the first listen.

The reason this albvum produced some hits is because it did conform too much to the climate of popular music today. Uninventive, super-accessible and honestly kind of boring. It might not sound like Green Day or 50 Cent, but it's certainly nothing new to anyone who has a miniscule knowledge of music.

Haha exactly! It may not be horrible. But it's still straight forward highly accessible pop/rock music.
 
intedomine said:


Sound nothing lke U2. More like REM if anything and even that's a stretch.

Gin Blossoms sound as if they are in a genre of their own.

musical sludge?
 
We live in a world where there is internet and a wide variety of choices. What is mostly likely is that people will have less and less in common with movies, music, literature, politics, religion than ever before. It's hard to get a large group of people into 1 band or one anything.

U2 made lots of great albums, (and I would include the last 2), and the next big band has to be able to do that as well before it's decided. Melody and lyrics are the most important part of music, and I think music today is starting to lose that power. Music has to be beautiful. So much music is boring. I'm glad U2 are going in another direction. So much variety is what sustains them.

There will never be another U2. In fact I think the only time when a new band will come and replace U2 is when U2 stop becoming relevant or quit. When there is an abscence of U2 we will see bands trying to fill it. The Arcade Fire excites me so far, but it will probably be some band out of nowhere that will ignite something, or maybe rock 'n roll will die a slow death. I think people should pop in some classical music once in a while or some ambient music to cleanse their palates and re-energize about rock 'n roll again. I can't listen to one style all the time. Variety is the spice of life.
 
This whole issue kind of reminds me of an 'arf-parody Coldplay site a few friends and I made sometime when XYZ was released. Mostly the fan section, the only section I made (and undoubtably the least explicit).


(and if you ask me, there ain't gonna be another of nobody).
 
Last edited:
Coldplay too silmilar to U2 to succeed? There once was a band called The Rolling Stones who were similar to the Beatles & who in fact covered Beatle songs in their early days.
I'll go for Green Day because they can play arenas well & they are real working class heroes.
 
Re. the statement that all these bands were famous from their 1st album... Greenday were certainly not & had a couple of albums before Dookie.
Muse are great but I can't see them having that level of mass appeal. I like The Killers - they might get there if their next albums are very good.
 
socceroo said:
Coldplay too silmilar to U2 to succeed? There once was a band called The Rolling Stones who were similar to the Beatles & who in fact covered Beatle songs in their early days.
I'll go for Green Day because they can play arenas well & they are real working class heroes.

I'd like to think the Stones went the route of full on R&B and blues-style rock than full-on psychedelia like the Beatles (other than Their Satanic Majesty's Request, which is a half-assed attempt to be Sgt. Pepper, but anyway)
 
Dookie sounds unlike American Idiot. There's no mini-rock opera, a 'Broken Dreams or Wake Me Up When September Ends on it, for example.
 
Last edited:
LemonMacPhisto said:


I'd like to think the Stones went the route of full on R&B and blues-style rock than full-on psychedelia like the Beatles (other than Their Satanic Majesty's Request, which is a half-assed attempt to be Sgt. Pepper, but anyway)

That is not relevant to the original discussion. Coldplay will prob. end up sounding quite different to U2.
 
Back
Top Bottom