MERGED-->U2 and Eminem clashing + U2 outdoes Eminem

[Flying FuManchu]

Album sales don't mean everything and I personally don't beleive that they reflect the relevance of an artist. Pearl Jam hasn't had an album sell over a million albums since Vitology and I would still consider them extremely relevant.

Pearl Jam is relevant still?

Double standard right there... Under some people's strict defintitions of relevance, Pearl Jam isn't really relevant any more. You could just mean that they are relevant to you as a fan. I'm a fan of Eric Johnson and he is relevant to me, but that doesn't mean much in terms of worldy relevance.

Anyways...

Common, Jurrasic 5, Blackalicous, Aesop Rock, Wyclef, the Roots, Mos Def or Black Star, Outkast, De La Soul.... and thats just off the top of my head...

Look them up... They rap about stuff a little more meanigful then bitches and ho's and gangsta, gangsta - though sometimes even those things are rapped by them, but I guess rap doesn't use metaphors/ analogies either (sarcasm). Hell, Eminem who is being bashed on this thread raps about stuff outside of the gangsta gangsta- bitches and hos topic that we all know and love.

Rap isn't any different than rock in that there is mainstream material and material that is more "artistic." To generalize is crap. Notice I mixed my list of rappers up with mainstream stars and non-mainstream players.

I mean, if I was to listen to current rock radio, I could have sworn that all rock bands talk about are sex, love, and hating themselve (i.e whiny ass topics).

Monotonous music? LOL... you can't get any monotonous than punk rock can get at times.

I've already made my case about Eminem in another thread a while back, and I hate rehashing what I said but there are double standards. I AM NOT A FAN of Em's but I respect and acknowledge his effect on music as well as his skills. He has critical acclaim, he is innovative, he is respected amongst his peers in a fairly race-oriented/ racial genre (sad but true), and he has been around now for 7 years (long time for any "mainstream artist"). As evidenced by ITUNES, he will still be relevant to the mainstream even now, which means another couple of years of Eminem, pushing his shelf life to 10 years (an eternity for an artist).

People who can't stand hip hop, I can accept b/c its a matter of taste (some people like the Beatles or dislike them same with U2- they can't help it) but you cannot deny that hip hop is a significant muscial genre or that it is music.

I've heard the death knell of rap/ hip hop since the late 80s... LOL... whatever... it is one of the most dominating musical genres currently around and has been for a while now. IT IS NO FAD. Boy bands seem to have been a fad considering we haven't heard some groups in a long while (though I would argue Good Charlotte is a boy band ). However we hear hip hop or the stylings of hip hop in the top 10 charts, in commercials, movies, and just around the corner, etc... a fad does not have that kind of staying power and influence. Hell, Snoop Dogg, Puffy, Dr. Dre have been around a while now and they are considered old schoolish. Same with L L Cool J.

Face it... hip hop is the "new rock" the way rock sort of rankled people back in the 50s.

Even if for some reason (which I really doubt), hip hop loses it hold on white surburban America, hip hop is so fully ingrained in the black community (black people love and respect it) and other minority communities, it will never fade. Hell, minorites will dominate the US within a generation or so.

 

[Justified]

Outkast has never put out shitty music.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Hell - Bono's daughter Eve loves her the hip hop...

 

[RademR]

Outkast has never put out shitty music.

Can't agree with that. Their first album "Southernplayalisticcadillacfunkymusik" (yes, most people havent even heard that because it was back when hip hop was great) was their best album, without all the wierd singing and mainstream hip hop marketing B.S. One of best rap debuts ever, since then they are slowly going down, even though compared to the rest of the genre they are still a good group.

I'm a little bias. I would like them a little more but one of the members said something bad about u2 a few years back, so I went the other way with those fools. Dont get me wrong, theres a lot of criticism about u2 I can take (my friends saying rock stars should stick to their day job, rock group shouldnt preach about relgion and politics, etc.), but when someone makes an ignorant statement like he did about my favorite band, I'm got to start hating on you buddy.

 

[Justified]

I am bias and have always supported the duo from the ATL.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

What did specifically did Outkast say about U2? I'm assuming it might have been Dre.... I remember him complaining about something during the Grammies...

 

[HelloAngel]

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.

So are we to assume you feel the same way about the most popular rock bands at the current time too, and what they must appear like to people who think of rock as a dying art?

Let's see, current top-selling rock artists: Good Charlotte, Yellowcard, Hoobastank, Shadows Fall, Switchfoot, Velvet Revolver, Linkin Park, Breaking Benjamin.. on and on. Are these credible enough to encapsulate the entire world of rock? Absolutely not. They do not resemble me, or my taste in rock - they resemble what the kids are buying. And in the case of top selling rap that you have mentioned above - those are albums white suburban kids are buying because it's fun, stupid, crude and speaks to where alot of them are in terms of their life priorities at the moment.

Tell me, is punk a credible rock genre? Back in the day, yes of course it was - because it gave voice to those who dared to loudly question the world around them. The same can be said for rap artists who are giving voice to people in the ghetto who do not have a political voice for themselves, but who matter just as much as all of us.

Artists like Common, Outkast, Blackalicious, Nas, Jay-Z, Mos Def are extremely talented wordsmiths who have a very very credible voice out there as much as any punk rocker who wants their beliefs and experiences heard by a larger audience.

Mainstream success as I've listed before with Hoobastank is in no way reflective of the most credible artists in a genre - it just happens to be what the throwaway loving public happens to buy the most of.

Just because you might not be aware of the immensely intelligent rap artists out there (because they don't garner radio airplay or MTV support) doesn't mean they're not out there trying to break through. Same for lots of wonderful rock bands that also bubble underneath the surface of widespread exposure.

 

[isabelle_guns]

What is a joke: The numbers themselves which are based on sales, or the importance placed on them?

The importance placed on them. You do not need to be number 1 to be sucessful. It is better to have a steady clim than to be #1 for two weeks and then off the charts completely like some of these 1 hit wonders.

 

[isabelle_guns]

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".

I do honestly think that the charts are a joke 'cause numbers on a billboard chart aren't the only thing that determine a sucess of an album and I do not think that pop was a failure at all.

 

[isabelle_guns]

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.

Thank you bonoshades for that comment, at least you know where I am coming from with that comment.

 

[isabelle_guns]

at the last Axver comment in this thread.

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?

I like those bands that you have listed as well which is why I feel the billboard charts are a joke 'cause they didn't get the billboard status but had strong careers and are legends

 

[womanfish]

I hate to say it, but if there wasn't an option between a clean or an explicit copy of Eminem's new song, it would be beating U2. Notice how the "same" (one is just edited for content) song is in spots 2 and 3? Merge them together and they'd knock "Vertigo" into the ground.

Just like U2 would have a MUCH better chance at charting higher with the new album if they didn't have so many versions. It will get all split up and they will not chart as high because of it. What I hope they do is just sell the single disc version for the first couple weeks and then release the special versions after that.

 

[Popmartijn]

Just like U2 would have a MUCH better chance at charting higher with the new album if they didn't have so many versions. It will get all split up and they will not chart as high because of it. What I hope they do is just sell the single disc version for the first couple weeks and then release the special versions after that.

I don't know if the sales will be split up. The music album will have the same configuration (i.e. songs, tracklist, etc.). Especially when the barcode remains the same, then there'll be no difference for the charts. I believe it is the same for other acts. Eminem's last record (The Eminem Show) was also released with an extra DVD. IIRC, there was no difference for the charts.

C ya!

Marty

 

[RademR]

What did specifically did Outkast say about U2? I'm assuming it might have been Dre.... I remember him complaining about something during the Grammies...

Outkast was up for the grammies for record of the year against u2, and in an interview Big Boi said that "they are just going to give it to u2 because they are at the end of their rope."

How ignorant of a statement is that?? They just got done selling over 10 million copies, won 3 grammies the year before, and finished the second largest grossing tour of all time. End of their rope, huh? Sure buddy. I still enjoy some of their music, but Ill never buy another one of their albums again. Im not one of those u2 fans that cant accept criticism about my favorite group, I dont care about stuff like that. But that was just the perfect statement of stupidity.

 

[ShellBeThere]

I can't even read this thread, it's too soul-stealing...but I think Eminem should just fucking apologize. Just to everybody.
All day long. Til he loses his voice. And wants to say it one more time but can't. word.

cheers all!

 

[SkeeK]

I thought Dre's coment was funny. Who knows how serious anyone was being at all anyway? That't he problem with the media these days.. you really can't say anything or someone will turn on you.

BTW, glad to hear people sticking up for hip hop.. i was getting rather insensed at the beginning of this thread. Not a credible genre .. what a load of tripe. It's one of the most socially conscious genres out there, and has some awesome lyricists and musicmakers. You just have to look for it, just like you have to look for good music in any genre.

all i ever wanted was to pick apart the day, and put the pieces back together my way.

 

[AtomicBono]

I don't want the band to gain a new sprinkling of a generation of US teen fans simply by being dragged to the shows--like they started to pop up in the fall leg of Elevation after 9/11. It shouldn't be a "sprinkiling" of new fans from the new generation--it should be a mass horde of new fans, a whole nother layer on the cake, the same way it was in 92 with AB after the band had been gone from the US for 5 yrs. The stratification of radio had not begun and so EVERYBODY heard One and MW. Maybe the industry began to "divide" radio b/c they were scared of Nirvana. I want them to come because they want to hear that cool song on the radio and they think the drummer is hot, even if he's an old fogey. I want here to be arguments in the halls as to whether it's OK to think an old fart like Larry is hot, and for posters to be ripped off of locker doors.

That would be WONDERFUL - I doubt it'll happen, but hey. I'm forever waiting to see Bono and Larry on the cover of YM or Tiger Beat or TEEN People... that'd just be classic. I don't think U2 will gain a huge teenage audience at this point, but they'll probably gain many new fans nonetheless...and they'll always have me!!

Negative comments about U2 - well, they make me lose some respect for a person, but I'm not gonna stop listening to Outkast just because one of them insulted U2, whether he was serious or joking. George Harrison put U2 in the same category as the Spice Girls and said they wouldn't be relevant in a few years (this was back in the early 90's I think) - so should we all stop listening to the Beatles? Some people are just ignorant about things. It's irritating but it doesn't change what pleases my ear

I want U2 to reach #1. That means more money and success for them, and it shows that they're still on top of their game, that even "old Irish geezers" can dominate a world full of whiney pseudo-punkers and angry rappers. However, if it doesn't happen, oh well, y'know? I have no doubt in my mind that HTDAAB will at least do well in the charts, even if it never hits #1. Even if the general music-consuming population doesn't care about U2, there are still millions of fans that DO... it's great if U2 is played on the pop stations and all, but if not it won't matter much. They will still be U2 and they will still rock, with or without chart toppage.

After hearing Eminem's new single, though, frankly I'm not too worried. It blows. I used to be somewhat of an Eminem fan, I even bought the Marshall Mathers LP and saw 8 Mile, which I enjoyed. However, I can honestly say his new song is disappointing - Without Me was alright, Lose Yourself was good, but this is just a crappy rehash of the two. It could possibly be entertaining for a few listens, then it will wear out. Vertigo on the other hand can be listened to over and over again and never get old - then again, I'm kinda biased

 

[xtal]

Outkast was up for the grammies for record of the year against u2, and in an interview Big Boi said that "they are just going to give it to u2 because they are at the end of their rope."

How ignorant of a statement is that?? They just got done selling over 10 million copies, won 3 grammies the year before, and finished the second largest grossing tour of all time. End of their rope, huh? Sure buddy. I still enjoy some of their music, but Ill never buy another one of their albums again. Im not one of those u2 fans that cant accept criticism about my favorite group, I dont care about stuff like that. But that was just the perfect statement of stupidity.

I remember years back, many years back, in an interview when P.Diddy was Puff Daddy, Puff said that he would never do a remix of U2's because somewhat or the other, said U2 sucked. Or something like that, does anyone remember that?
I have a pic of Bono hugging P.Diddy and all is well.
Some people say that Dre doesn't like Bono as well, but they party and hang out together in France.

Nobody can ever really dislike Bono, if they do, that means they don't know him. Bono can disarm a nuclear bomb with his charismatic charm.
Give Big Boi a chance to go and hang with The Big B, then let's see what he says. Bono can outparty-drink-dance-do Outkast on his worst day and still have the decency to back up Outkast. I don't hear Bono ever saying anything mean about other bands, and that's pure class, people.

 

[Teta040]

Look: put this into perspective. I was 15 yrs old in 1985 when the Stones' cover of "Dancing in the Street" came out. I had heard of the Stones, of course (who hadn't?) but even as early as '85 they were a nostalgia act for teens, some Sixties relic. They were in the exact same position as u2 are now..been out for 23 yrs...if radio in the Us had been as stratfied as it is now, would the Stones even be earning any money? Nope.

Radio played everything in 85, Top 40. Clear Channel wasn't around being Big Brother and telling people what to play. Therfore, a whole new generation of kids likeme heard the new Rolling Stones song (i knew it was a cover but I'm sure a lot of kids didn't), they LOVED the cool video, so they went out and bought it, and more imprtantly, went to the shows.

Some people think radio airplay and chart position isn't important, esp this time around when they're in the RR Hallof Fame. But I have this feeling that once you are in the HOF you immediately become a relic and unimportant.

Some people don't care that u2 remain at the cutting edge, that they are SEEN (not invisiable as pearl Jam, Bruce and other rock acts become) but I don't. To me, U2 remaining in the public eye is far more imprtant becuase we can't afford to lose them. They are about so much more than the music, and these acts aren't. It is important to me that u2 break the "old fogey" rules.

I love hip-hop. I don't heat Em, but I am concerned that Clear Channel might have this corporate design to continue to push Em (remember, his #17 debut was based on airplay alone) far beyond what his musical talen tmight be worth (I agree that his new one isn't as good) beicase it wants to keep The Big White Rap Star (remember he was the first) out there to keep "meaningful" rap acts like say Wycelf from getting onto the charts. Theat's why there was such a frantic hunt to find a credible white act that could successfully do rap in the 90's in the first place.

This whole thing is more political than you realize. Esp in the Us with the war going on and young voters developing a political conscrience. They might want to push Em to keep these other black people off the charts. Really doesn't matter chartwise, but they'll be out of the mainstream media's eye. If Wyclef gets on the cover of People it'll be a political threat. Don't forget the list of songs CC successfully banned from the airwaves in the first days of the war. (Like Bridge oVer Troubled Water"?!?!)

It might be in CC's best interest to keep a political act like U2 off its Top 40 (teen ) market too. I wasn't a big fan of conspiracy theories, until the Ban happened. SO what if U2 aren't specific about their politics. The album title might be enough.

 

[RademR]

Nobody can ever really dislike Bono, if they do, that means they don't know him. Bono can disarm a nuclear bomb with his charismatic charm.
Give Big Boi a chance to go and hang with The Big B, then let's see what he says. Bono can outparty-drink-dance-do Outkast on his worst day and still have the decency to back up Outkast. I don't hear Bono ever saying anything mean about other bands, and that's pure class, people.

agree completely. Never heard Puffys comments about u2, though. Probably missed it, but I wouldnt care anyway. Puffy is an incredible businessman who I respect, but I cant respect a music producer who steals every single beat that he releases.