Taking A Break From U2/U2's Biggest Musical Weakness

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Layton: Fair enough! It's not like any of us have any proof of what's going on in U2's collective minds anyway. Besides I really am tired of this topic.. for now.

Can't believe I read thru all the replies! :crack:
 
Snowlock said:



I wish the Bomb hadn't been dismantled. I was it had been left alone and detonated all over the music industry in it's raw glory. Back in 1986, Hair Metal was king. In 1987 The Joshua Tree changed that culture. In a matter of a few months, after the stripped down With or Without You and the following, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For went to #1, metal bands changed or died. The makeup and power cords were suddenly gone. Red leather was exchanged for black. Even the fledgling band Guns N Roses radically changed their style from their first video to their second.

sorry but U2 did not kill hair metal:lmao: :lmao:
 
Really been seeing this same thread 500 times since Interference existed and before. If you don’t like the new album as much as past efforts that is your prerogative but honestly I have heard the same thing said about every U2 album that has came out so I wasn’t at all shocked by the backlash of putting out a new album, same things will be said about next album and the one after that.
 
Bono's shades said:


Second of all, as much as I wish I could believe U2 was responsible for killing hair metal, that just isn't the case. I remember 1987 vividly. They'd play a U2 video every hour, but the rest of the hour was mostly hair metal videos. And although it wasn't quite as huge after 1987, hair metal was still popular until Nirvana and Pearl Jam and all the other grunge bands got big and finally killed it off, thank God.

No, I didn't say they killed hair metal; but they did seem to change it. I don't think it was any coincidence that when U2's big sound coupled with stripped down fashion - the leather vests, pony tails, hats, country flair - hit the scene, the metal guys followed suit. The hair spray and makeup was gone, exchanged for very bono-esque tight pulled back straight hair, lots of vests with no shirts underneath instead of flamboyant leather get ups. And musically, metal seemed to change to incorporate an acoustic/country sound, and the dark chunky power cords were abandoned for melody instead. Look at the change in Poison between 1986 and 1988; way different. I'd say U2 had a huge impact on that music because it seemed they were right in the middle of it, competing against it for the same dollars, and stomping it into the ground.
 
Last edited:
How many U2 fans would rank "Grace" as one of the worst U2 songs?

That, to me, is subtle U2, now, I like it, but most people at least here, don't.

If it were up to the U2 fans, I don't think 'Grace' would've been seen the light of day on a U2 album. Not even a b-side on a single but on the studio album.

It's a quiet, sorta meditative song, no bombast, no epic big sound.

"A Man & a Woman" doesn't have that big epic sound. It's not a big hit on this forum, at least from a jokey thread I saw I'm lead to think that.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I wonder if part of the reason RHCP is so fresh, is because you listen to U2 a lot more.

Have you spent considerable amounts of time re-working a tracklist for the Chili Peppers previous album? Creating the perfect setlist for a Peppers gig?

Immerse yourself in anything and at some point, whatever isn't that thing will sound new and fresh.

Perhaps it's partly on your end Jras that makes you feel like U2 is missing something.

I've heard "Danni California" a number of times on the radio, it's good, but ye know, U2 could come up with a song like that with little effort.

U2's lyrics speak to me more than most, so often I like other bands for their music, whereas the lyrics, sometimes I listen to them sometimes not really.

I don't listen to U2 all the time, but I do listen to them more than any others, sometimes just listening to the radio brings me back.

Their biggest musical weakness may be self-restraint.

I dunno, for once I'd like to hear Edge really go for it, like the solo on "Bullet" from ZooTV, but on an album. He can, but too modest to do it?

Adam actually said he was a little bored with playing standard 4/4 rock as early as 1985, I'd like to see him really show what he can do with those 4 strings. It'd be a little uncharacteristic for him to to just, bust out into a mad solo but after a year working with a top bass instructor, he could probably do something that would make his harshest critics reconsider his abilities.

Larry, well he probably can't because of his tendonitis but from his early work, he could go all out.

But that's just me.

Guess I want them to show off a little bit but not sure it's something they'd bother doing.
 
ImOuttaControl said:





It's such a bad arguement saying "RHCP could NEVER come close to writing...ect by U2" because U2 could NEVER come close to writing a song like "By The Way," "Can't Stop," "Give It Away," "Dosed" or "Dani California."

and thank the creator of Bono, Edge, Larry and Adam for that:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:
 
LemonMelon said:


I sure hope you mean that they could never SOUND like that, and that you're not referring to quality...:huh:


Ahh thats right, every song U2 has written is superior to all other songs written by all other bands. :rolleyes:

I know this is all opinion, but saying RHCP has never recorded any "quality" material is like saying U2 doesn't know how to write ballads or write political songs. U2 is my favorite band and have accomplished much more than RHCP ever have, but to say that RHCP have never recorded anything of quality makes no sense. Go listen to Under The Bridge, Give It Away, Scar Tissue, Can't Stop, Venice Queen, Snow, Wet Sand(my new personal favorite RHCP song--amazing)--a dynamic mix of funk rock, ballads, rock, and epic songs.
 
Last edited:
thrillme said:

Have you spent considerable amounts of time re-working a tracklist for the Chili Peppers previous album? Creating the perfect setlist for a Peppers gig?

I'll even take that one step farther. Have they spent years analyzing a handful of alternate versions of album tracks?

If RHCP were to release alternate versions of SA tracks, you could bet your house that many fans would be saying 'why didn't they go this direction' or 'why not that direction'.

I wonder if U2 curses the decision to release a bunch of alternates to ITunes. So many people use those alternates as some sort of evidence that U2 have lost their balls. Of course, those same people forget to consider that maybe U2 didn't feel like it was the true thing to do by following the thematic trail those alternate vibes were taking them down.

The reality of it is that those alternates are a gift, not a free gift mind you, but a gift nonetheless. It's kind of bizarre to use those gifts as the beacon of U2 going soft. They're just alternate versions. Everybody has them, including RHCP. It's just that not everybody chooses to expose them. Probably for reasons such as these.

Remember the ammunition people are using to make their 'too safe' claims has been given to them by U2. Obviously, U2 aren't hiding anything or trying to pull a fast one on anybody. Can you say the same about RHCP, or most other bands for that matter?
 
Last edited:
ImOuttaControl said:
It's such a bad arguement saying "RHCP could NEVER come close to writing...ect by U2" because U2 could NEVER come close to writing a song like "By The Way," "Can't Stop," "Give It Away," "Dosed" or "Dani California."

I'm sorry, is this meant to be a criticism or just a statement saying that U2's style is not like the RHCP's? Because I agree that their styles are different, I mentioned that before. U2 could not write a RHCP song, and vice versa. But the way I read that was U2 could never come close to writing a song as good as Dosed, Give it Away, etc.

Please explain. :huh:
 
the bottom line is that while U2 is still my favorite band, they just take their music too seriously. while RHCP, my second favorite band (no I'm not a new fan) doesn't really care and they just let everything loose.

I think Anthony Kiedis said that it's amazing that the mainstream like their music even though their music don't really conform to the current trends in rock.

Oh SA debut in number 1 and I think Dani California also debut number 1.

Hopefully, U2's next album would be a "fun" one
 
Why all the comparisons to RHCP? Since when did they become God's answer to rock? Sorry, but can we start a new comparison please?
 
U2 probably do think more about what they put on an album now than they did when they released October
probably because 20+ years later they are more aware of what they want and how to do it
all bands are like that, I would even say every human being is like that

(and though the RHCP comparison makes no sense to me I would like to point out that even though I like them a lot and am going to see them in concert next week it´s hard if not impossible to deny that Stadium Arcadium is 600 times more calculated than Blood Sugar ..., which was already 500 times more calculated than anything they released before that one)
 
ozeeko said:
Why all the comparisons to RHCP? Since when did they become God's answer to rock? Sorry, but can we start a new comparison please?

Wow, I actually agree with you on something.

I think RHCP have become a more watered down version of themselves than U2 has.
 
COBL_04 said:


I'm sorry, is this meant to be a criticism or just a statement saying that U2's style is not like the RHCP's? Because I agree that their styles are different, I mentioned that before. U2 could not write a RHCP song, and vice versa. But the way I read that was U2 could never come close to writing a song as good as Dosed, Give it Away, etc.

Please explain. :huh:

Yeah you have it right. They are two totally different styles. RHCP could not, in my opinion, write a song in the style of U2, and I think I would vomit to hear U2 trying to create a song like "Give it Away."

Basically, they're both fantastic groups but with different styles so it is hard to compare them.
 
ImOuttaControl said:


Yeah you have it right. They are two totally different styles. RHCP could not, in my opinion, write a song in the style of U2, and I think I would vomit to hear U2 trying to create a song like "Give it Away."

Basically, they're both fantastic groups but with different styles so it is hard to compare them.

you ever heard Especially in Michigan? The song is pretty U2-y to me. Some people said the guitar was sort of Edge-like, but I actually thought the bass sounded like something Adam would do, and just the general vibe of the song. Even the vocals sound like Bono at some point.

but anyway, yeah, I'm getting sick of the RHCP/U2 comparisons. I guess it's because they are contemporaries. They both have been around since the 80's and have shown incredible growth, so I suppose it makes sense to compare them. But really, their styles are, for the most part, very different. Personally I get sick of people comparing U2 to <insert band here> all the damn time anyway. Can't I just love U2, Radiohead, RHCP, and whoever else without having to compare them all the time? I don't want U2 to be more like Radiohead or RHCP. I love these bands for different reasons. I think U2 are still making good music and I think RHCP are still making good music :shrug:

And as others have pointed out, of course the new RHCP album sounds fresh, it's new. We haven't been analyzing it for the past year and a half. If you listen to U2 all the time it makes sense to take a break every once in awhile, it doesn't mean that U2 are suddenly inferior to everything else out right now. It's natural to get a little sick of something if you listen to it often enough.
 
YAAAAAAAWWWWWNNNN. Let me get this straight. I leave for a few months and you losers are still rehashing the same arguments over and over again.
Let's make this clear. If you're going to post something along the lines of,
"Post 2000 U2 just isn't as good" or "Pop sucks" it doesn't matter if you preface your argument with a "lets not let this degenerate into the same 'ole arguement" protestation. It will PROMPTLY, PREDICTABLY and GRUESOMELY degenerate into the same old crap. If you've posted 200 to 5,000 times about your love/hatred for Pop, HTDAAB or ATYCLB it's time to stop. You've turned into a fucking bore.
 
AtomicBono said:
I think U2 are still making good music and I think RHCP are still making good music :shrug:

I understand where you're coming from, but it just surprises me that someone like you who is very open about their complete love and adoration of 'Pop' can still turn around and say that Bomb is a 'good' record too. It sounds as if you're putting the two on equal ground. If I'm wrong, tell me so.

And as others have pointed out, of course the new RHCP album sounds fresh, it's new. We haven't been analyzing it for the past year and a half. If you listen to U2 all the time it makes sense to take a break every once in awhile, it doesn't mean that U2 are suddenly inferior to everything else out right now. It's natural to get a little sick of something if you listen to it often enough.

Yeah, but BloodSugarSexMagic(from 1991), One Hot Minute(from 1995), and Californication(from 1999) all sound fresher to me than Bomb does right now.
 
namkcuR said:


but it just surprises me that someone like you who is very open about their complete love and adoration of 'Pop' can still turn around and say that Bomb is a 'good' record too. It sounds as if you're putting the two on equal ground. If I'm wrong, tell me so.


And we all know that's illegal here in interference.:rolleyes:
 
namkcuR said:


I understand where you're coming from, but it just surprises me that someone like you who is very open about their complete love and adoration of 'Pop' can still turn around and say that Bomb is a 'good' record too. It sounds as if you're putting the two on equal ground. If I'm wrong, tell me so.


Equal ground? No, I wouldn't say that. Pop is my absolute favourite album by anyone ever. Period. HTDAAB I'd put somewhere in the middle of U2 albums. I still think it's very good - great even - but it's nowhere close to Pop in my heart.

Yeah, but BloodSugarSexMagic(from 1991), One Hot Minute(from 1995), and Californication(from 1999) all sound fresher to me than Bomb does right now.

Yeah, but how many times have you listened to those albums? Did you listen to them continuously when they came out (or whenever you bought them)? Have you been listening to them a lot now, or did you just recently (re?)discover them?

Honestly, I got sick of Bomb too. I don't know what it is, but I just haven't felt like listening to it at all lately. I think one of my main issues with it is the production. I know people say it over and over again, but the production on HTDAAB annoys the hell out of me. It didn't at all when I first listened to it. When I first listened to it I thought the album was full of magic. I still think it is, but now I notice all the little irritating things. I think part of it was hearing the live versions, which I generally prefer.

I haven't listened to Bomb from start to finish in awhile now, but I figure that if I do sometime, I'll probably realize why I loved it so much in the first place. It does have some great songs; I know that much. It's not U2's best album by any means, but it's not nearly as bad as people here make it out to be, imo. I just get tired of people bashing it over and over again, even if I do agree with many of the criticisms. When I got tired of Bomb, I didn't post about how much I hated it (which isn't what you're doing, but some people do), I just stopped listening to it and didn't think about it :shrug:
 
namkcuR said:


I understand where you're coming from, but it just surprises me that someone like you who is very open about their complete love and adoration of 'Pop' can still turn around and say that Bomb is a 'good' record too.

Dear oh dear... lol.

Someone who loves Pop can't also love HTDAAB :huh:

Is everything really so black and white in your teenage world?
 
roy said:


Dear oh dear... lol.

Someone who loves Pop can't also love HTDAAB :huh:

Is everything really so black and white in your teenage world?

You assume far too much.

I'm no teenager. I'm 22 in September. And no, nothing is that black and white. I actually really fucking hate black-and-white mindsets, but that's another thread. Grey is the color of the world.

I didn't mean they it's impossible to love both albums. I meant that I wouldn't expect someone who loves x album to also like y album. I wouldn't expect it, but that has nothing to do with whether it's possible or not. Of course it's possible, as possible as it gets. To say otherwise would be silly.

Don't make assumptions.
 
This thread is still here? :crack:

nam: Just let it go, man! :wink: If people don't see the weakness in the Bomb or in the last 2 albums, it's their opinion.. however wrong it may be. ;) j/k.
 
namkcuR :wave:, i think of another reason you feel the songs in HTDAAB sound too simple. it's that the melody line of the songs are too much in harmony with the instrumental part. (i don't know it's the correct way to say it :slant: ) for example the guitar chord in the chorus of ABOY goes D-A-D-A-D-A-E. along with it Bono sings the chorus in the same notes as the chords. so it virtually sounds like we are listening to a simple chord in any point in the chorus. and the same thing for Vertigo. i think this happens too many times in HTDAAB, so it gives you an impression that the music is too simple.

this is just my opinion, i'm not sure it's right :uhoh: i still like the album, COBL is a great song i think :rockon: but i agree with you that it's kind of too simple :yes:
 
Back
Top Bottom