MERGED-->U2 and Eminem clashing + U2 outdoes Eminem
- Thread starter Dr_Macphisto
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
What does the fact there are two copies of Eminem's song say about the quality (or lack thereof) of his lyrics?
Also, if U2 released two versions of a song, I bet a lot of people here would buy both. I don't think it's right to simply add the numbers of both versions of Eminem's song together and say he'd beat U2.
Also, if U2 released two versions of a song, I bet a lot of people here would buy both. I don't think it's right to simply add the numbers of both versions of Eminem's song together and say he'd beat U2.
AussieU2fanman
Refugee
Eminem is repeating himself. I think his new song, which is extremely crap for a rap song (which is not a credible genre in the first place) is almost the same as the Slim Shady stuff he released when he was starting out? Seriously, how much can you sing (talk with poor English\Grammar in a hurried manner more like it) about in this genre. Drugs? Sexual Harrasment against women? Commiting suicide? I think Eminem's new album is going to suck balls, like the first single. The same old negative messages have all been said before.
Anyway, while we are talking about rap. I hate it, I dislike M+M strongly and have no respect for this 'music' which represents everything that is bad in the world. Why any of you would encourage such music which promotes such terrible themes is beyond me. I hope his career is over, I've had enough of his bullshit, and all the other rappers like him! (There are some rappers which promote positivity and actually has listenable music to it, which is good, but virtually unknown unfortunately).
Anyway, while we are talking about rap. I hate it, I dislike M+M strongly and have no respect for this 'music' which represents everything that is bad in the world. Why any of you would encourage such music which promotes such terrible themes is beyond me. I hope his career is over, I've had enough of his bullshit, and all the other rappers like him! (There are some rappers which promote positivity and actually has listenable music to it, which is good, but virtually unknown unfortunately).
Homerpalooza
Acrobat
Axver said:
...why not? Look, I abhor Eminem, but this is a fact: Pretend there's no option between an edited version or an explicit version; "Just Lose It" would be in the #1 spot.
And "Wake Up Dead Man" would have had to be edited if it had been released as a single, so I don't understand your argument that just because Eminem has an edited single out there it automatically means his song isn't quality (it isn't, but it's a flawed argument).
starsgoblue
Blue Crack Addict
I would hope U2 has a larger fanbase than that no-talent ass clown (sorry, I watched Office Space tonight)
Homerpalooza said:
Possibly could be. In fact, probably would be. But as I said, some people are probably buying BOTH versions so directly adding the numbers for both doesn't provide the whole truth on how many individual people are actually buying the song.
My other comment was just a snide attack on Eminem because I have an intense dislike for him.
AussieU2fanman
Refugee
What's not to understand? I'm sure if U2 released two versions of any song, I'd buy both of them, irrespective of the minute differences. It's only 95 cents! So, you would definately NOT add up both the total sales so they beat U2, because many many people will buy both versions.
MadelynIris
Refugee
Don't forget guys, they are on the same label.
So, the label is looking out for both artists, and I sure they have a plan as to get both records to #1.
Perhaps they only think Eminem will hold #1 for 1 week and U2 for only one week (tis the trend now a days).
?
http://www.interscope.com
So, the label is looking out for both artists, and I sure they have a plan as to get both records to #1.
Perhaps they only think Eminem will hold #1 for 1 week and U2 for only one week (tis the trend now a days).
?
http://www.interscope.com
Dr_Macphisto
War Child
Wo wo... this post got a little out of hand! heh
Ok, I wasn't saying that U2 can only be relevant if they get #1, I am just saying that it sucks Eminem will probably get the top spot and not them.
Ok, I wasn't saying that U2 can only be relevant if they get #1, I am just saying that it sucks Eminem will probably get the top spot and not them.
HelloAngel
ONE love, blood, life
Dr_Macphisto said:
Out of hand? I think this has a been a very lively discussion full of great insights
You'll know a fight when you see one.Zoocoustic
War Child
Of course Eminem, etc are relevant; that's why they are atop the charts!
Look, I personally like U2 whether they are #1 or #100 on a chart...however chart position does speak to how relevant you are in the eyes of the general public. It is important. U2 are in a business, pure and simple. That business is to sell records and put people in seats at concerts. The charts reflect on those two objectives.
Again, it doesn't matter to me because I will like the album regardless. However, it does matter and will matter 20 years from now when the discussion is had as to how relevant U2 were "back during the time of HTDAAB."
Look, I personally like U2 whether they are #1 or #100 on a chart...however chart position does speak to how relevant you are in the eyes of the general public. It is important. U2 are in a business, pure and simple. That business is to sell records and put people in seats at concerts. The charts reflect on those two objectives.
Again, it doesn't matter to me because I will like the album regardless. However, it does matter and will matter 20 years from now when the discussion is had as to how relevant U2 were "back during the time of HTDAAB."
I have to second IWB's viewpoint. Whether or not Eminem hits #1 bears very little relevance to me, and no, we should not all be concerned about it.
Quite frankly, bragging rights about having a #1 album should should not be anywhere close to the first thing on anybody's mind, including U2's. Putting out the best album they can should be #1, and if it hits number one, so be it. If not, well, they and we will still know that it's a great album. It's the music that counts. Not all the glory that might come from it's sales.
Relevancy is such a fickle thing anyway. If we're going to be going by chart position, then Creed was relevant for a while. Hell, even Milli Vanilli was relevant for a while. None of these bands are going to be remembered for much 20 years down the road, except as small blips on the musical radar. Staying power is what determines success. Being able to consistently put out quality music over a period of years (or decades) is far more important than hitting #1 on the charts.
Quite frankly, bragging rights about having a #1 album should should not be anywhere close to the first thing on anybody's mind, including U2's. Putting out the best album they can should be #1, and if it hits number one, so be it. If not, well, they and we will still know that it's a great album. It's the music that counts. Not all the glory that might come from it's sales.
Relevancy is such a fickle thing anyway. If we're going to be going by chart position, then Creed was relevant for a while. Hell, even Milli Vanilli was relevant for a while. None of these bands are going to be remembered for much 20 years down the road, except as small blips on the musical radar. Staying power is what determines success. Being able to consistently put out quality music over a period of years (or decades) is far more important than hitting #1 on the charts.
Last edited:
Paul McGuinness is the person that cares about #1. But it's his job to do that.
ATYCLB debuted at #3 - never reached #1. Yet its first week sales were around 428,000, which was greater than AB, "Zooropa" and "Pop"! ATYCLB produced the best first week sales for U2 in the SoundScan era, yet failed to get to #1. In contrast, "Pop" did reach #1 - but as we all know, it had a pretty quick descent from the charts. ATYCLB spent nearly 2 years in the Top 200 on the Billboard charts - "Pop" spent something like 4 months! So a #1 debut (or ranking) doesn't always mean a hit album.
What sells albums is how long HTDAAB can linger in the upper echelons of the Top 100. During the holidays, albums sell by the boatloads. U2 is wise to release an album at that time - it's worked well for them so many times in the past (R&H, AB, ATYCLB and both "Best Of" albums). HTDAAB may not stay in the Top 10 long. ATYCLB was only there for 2 weeks (it later hit a third week in the Top 10 after it won 4 Grammy awards). But the strong holiday sales will keep it afloat for quite some time. If you look in the "Peeling Off the Dollar Bills" forum, Doctor Who and Sting2 have quite a few posts about charts and sales - and one can see how the two don't always relate. During Christmas week, sometimes the entire Top 50 sells over 90,000 copies - and that's not including huge catalog sales!
So don't be worried about #1. Rather, keep a watchful eye on how long HTDAAB lingers in the Top 100 - that's what really determines how successful an album is.
ATYCLB debuted at #3 - never reached #1. Yet its first week sales were around 428,000, which was greater than AB, "Zooropa" and "Pop"! ATYCLB produced the best first week sales for U2 in the SoundScan era, yet failed to get to #1. In contrast, "Pop" did reach #1 - but as we all know, it had a pretty quick descent from the charts. ATYCLB spent nearly 2 years in the Top 200 on the Billboard charts - "Pop" spent something like 4 months! So a #1 debut (or ranking) doesn't always mean a hit album.
What sells albums is how long HTDAAB can linger in the upper echelons of the Top 100. During the holidays, albums sell by the boatloads. U2 is wise to release an album at that time - it's worked well for them so many times in the past (R&H, AB, ATYCLB and both "Best Of" albums). HTDAAB may not stay in the Top 10 long. ATYCLB was only there for 2 weeks (it later hit a third week in the Top 10 after it won 4 Grammy awards). But the strong holiday sales will keep it afloat for quite some time. If you look in the "Peeling Off the Dollar Bills" forum, Doctor Who and Sting2 have quite a few posts about charts and sales - and one can see how the two don't always relate. During Christmas week, sometimes the entire Top 50 sells over 90,000 copies - and that's not including huge catalog sales!
So don't be worried about #1. Rather, keep a watchful eye on how long HTDAAB lingers in the Top 100 - that's what really determines how successful an album is.
Basstrap
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2000
- Messages
- 10,726
AussieU2fanman said:
that is an misguided opinion
I would like to put a widespread misconception about rap and hip-hop to rest.
It IS a credible genre.
JessicaAnn
ONE love, blood, life
Basstrap said:
And I think U2 would be the first "rock" band to admit that.
They have tremendous respect for rap artists (ie, Public Enemy, etc).
Now I am by no means what you would consider a fan of rap music (at heart I am a rock and roll gal). However as a fan of music in general, I will admit that Eminem actually has done some interesting work ... whether it stands the test of time has yet to be determined.
As a casual observer of the genere, I think that sometime in the 90s rap music underwent a huge transformation and got away from it's roots and the messages we were hearing were getting really repetitive (it seemed almost every song was about one or more of the following topics: money; drinking and/or drugs; hoes and/or nailing hoes; cars; bling; violence toward someone who dissed you, etc).
It seems that rap is rediscovering its roots and therefore we are increasingly seeing rap music that IS relevant and that WILL stand the test of time. I think that we can all admit that some of the early rap music from the late 70s and early 80s has turned out to stand the test of time.
isabelle_guns
Refugee
No I am not pissed off 'cause U2 and Eminem are two completely different artists and in the end, the fans will speak for whoever is best. To be honest, the billboard stats are all a joke anyway.
isabelle_guns
Refugee
100% agreeBasstrap said:
HelloAngel
ONE love, blood, life
isabelle_guns said:
What is a joke: The numbers themselves which are based on sales, or the importance placed on them?
Zoocoustic
War Child
See, it's comments like this that, to me, are just reflective of people trying to fool themselves.
Look at this website...what is the most controversial, worn-out topic of all time? It's whether or not Pop was a failure. Seems almost every week someone starts another thread about why Pop did/didn't suck.
That in itself, proves the point that the charts, the sales, the relevancy in the eye of the general public, are all very important. Whenever we find an album that was even marignally criticized, we become so defensive that we can't even think reasonably, and we regress to comments such as "who cares" or "the charts are a joke".
Bono's shades
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I don't think anyone is being defensive when they say the charts aren't the be all and end all when it comes to musical relevance. It's just an observation based on some pretty solid reasoning that doesn't have anything to do with U2. Lots of great and influential bands and artists never made it anywhere near the top of the charts, while tons of crap artists have.
Homerpalooza said:
I disagree.
If there were two versions of "Vertigo" out, fans would buy both - not split their $$ between the two. Given Eminem's enormous popularity, I think the fact tha "Vertigo" is still outselling his songs on iTunes says something.
Also, I'm not impressed at all by his latest single. I'm not really a fan of his, but I've always enjoyed his hit singles - they are catchy and fun, reminiscent of rap in the late 80's. But this song is one of the worst rap songs I've ever heard. I was really looking forward to the single as I felt it would shake up the rap and R&B worlds (as the most popular songs seemed to all sound the same) and was sorely disappointed.
AussieU2fanman
Refugee
Basstrap said:
Why is it a credible genre? The absolute overwhelming majority of rap repeated similar messages of drug abuse, sexual abuse, losing hope, and so many other terrible things. I have listened to a lot of rap (like I have a damn choice) and that's what it is! (and to a similar extent RnB). It promotes all the negative qualities in people. Hey kids, lose hope, speak English incorrectly, don't get an education, take those drugs, smack that bitch up!!!!! And I disagree that these genres have changed significantly for the better recently, I am very familiar with what is popular right now in the rap genre, and it's strikingly similar to what I am describing. Why is it credible? Am I totally blind again?
Compare these genres to what U2 promotes. Spot the difference!
Sorry, I don't want to be aggresive, but please tell me why I am so wrong.
(I do realise that there are some decent rap\R'n'B artists that do promote good qualities and have some decent music, however this is all too rare. And it pisses me off that good artists from this genre are being overshadowed by tools like Eminem.)
Last edited:
AussieU2fanman
Refugee
Okok, I'll show you just the titles of the most popular rap artist out there. It would be fair to say that the majority of 'artists'(shudders) in this genre would be virtually identical. I'm not going to post any lyrics, because they are probably too offensive!
Murder Murder
Just Don't Give A Fuck
Brain Damage
Bad Meets Evil
Still Don't Give a Fuck
Kill You
Drug Ballad
Bitch Please II
Under The Influence
Criminal
That's it I'm not going any further. I think you people get the idea. Like I said in my last post, there are always outliers that do not fit the mould, but let's face it people, these genres are not credible at all.
Murder Murder
Just Don't Give A Fuck
Brain Damage
Bad Meets Evil
Still Don't Give a Fuck
Kill You
Drug Ballad
Bitch Please II
Under The Influence
Criminal
That's it I'm not going any further. I think you people get the idea. Like I said in my last post, there are always outliers that do not fit the mould, but let's face it people, these genres are not credible at all.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
So not a fan of "smake-ma-bitchup-hoe-girl-jive-talking-on-crack-nigga-whateverthefuckgoeshere-groove-music" then? Because I couldnt agree more.
AussieU2fanman
Refugee
Axver said:
United through our hatred of rap\r'n'b
at the last Axver comment in this thread.I think that U2 does care how their albums do, in US - just think of the promotion they did for ATYCLB. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing more actual bands (and no, not the nu-metal or wannabe punk legions) on the charts over the instant pop and rap that is flooding MTV, and I admired the band to still be so ambitous and competitive. (I don't think rock bands should frown upon popularity like the indie mentality says)
Of course a good artist isn't necessarily popular, I think bands like Smiths, Velvet underground or Joy division weren't exactly chart toppers but achieved legendary status through their work.
That said, why not do both of those things? Have meaningful music and be popular?
AussieU2fanman
Refugee
A_Wanderer said:
After summing it up so well, it's hard to understand why it doesn't appeal to me isn't it?
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
I know, I mean how is that music not relevant to your average Austalian, it was a question that I know I grappled with.
Similar threads
