u2 are a victim of their tours

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

akann

Acrobat
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Messages
376
I was just thinking the other day about why u2 is not critically rated as one of the top two or three groups of all time. You always hear the beatles (fair enough) and the stones (can't stand them), but never u2. Why is this?? I think that critics will always judge a group more on its records rather than its tours. This imho is very unfair but it's also the reality unfortunately. The fact that u2 have devoted half their careers to touring obviously has not enabled them to make as many records as they should have based on the time they have been around, and we shouldn't underestimate the sheer energy that is drained from each tour. I personally think that u2 could easily have put out at least a couple more masterpices if they had not toured as much as they have. The Beatles however hardly toured and therefore were allowed to make a lot more records. Most discussions on groups are usually dominated by which band has the better records, and live performances hardly ever come into the equation. I was just wondering what your opinions are on this and whether or not there is any truth to my theory.
 
Last edited:
U2 are best when they're playing Live - no question whatsoever IMHO.

(And to be honest - Fourteen albums isn't bad going)
 
Danny Boy said:
U2 are rich men because of their tours, and their place in history is secure.

there really isn't much difference between 80 million and 200 million dollars in terms of what you're likely to do with it. they would have been rich enough even without touring. I think they have earned enough to last them countless lifetimes and would rather be critically acclaimed.
 
They are critically acclaimed.
Only, they haven't split up yet (or have become a parody of themselves) so many are still reserved with their acclaim. You don't want them to become too comfortable and not hungry anymore for for better material.
 
Ellay said:
U2 are best when they're playing Live - no question whatsoever IMHO.

(And to be honest - Fourteen albums isn't bad going)

I don't think that they are necessarily at their best live. I think that because they are that good live , people tend to underrate their albums. AB and JT are close to perfection for me and not many of the songs from those two records have been improved on in concert. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have toured as much , but am just pointing out that they would possibly be rated more highly ( by critics and general music fans, not u2 fans) if they had produced more records even at the expense of a couple of tours.
 
Last edited:
Its just because the Beatles and the Stones were the first ones to hit, and big. Thats all. Dont fear
They were the first on people's minds, if U2 were from the 60's, everyone would be talking about 'U2 and The Beatles'
So they are like the fathers, and we humans always tend to inmortalize things with time; we are reacious to accept that things could be better in these moment
U2 are certainly the best band ever, no doubt about it
 
I think live is where they really show how good their albums are, IMO.

How many songs on an album have you maybe, overlooked, didn't care for, but when heard live, went back and gave that song a second chance?

I can barely go back to the album version of "Love and Peace or Else" after hearing it live.

It's one thing to record an album, you can fix things, edit, redo a bad take, but live, no room to do that.

U2 even performed a Beatles song live, that even the Beatles didn't do live.

There's maybe 10 or so songs off U2's 11 studio albums, that haven't been played live before. Not to mention b-sides they've done live like "Spanish Eyes" and "A Celebration."

Live is where they live.
 
Oh, yeah, U2 is just sooooo underrated critically. :rolleyes:

For the majority of their career, critics have praised U2 to the skies - both their albums AND their tours.

So what if they aren't in the Top 3 or Top 5 or whatever. They are always going to get mentioned when the Best Bands of All Time are discussed. And 10 or 20 years from now they just might be even more lauded than they are now.
 
akann said:

AB and JT are close to perfection for me and not many of the songs from those two records have been improved on in concert.
I respectfully disagree.
Songs that were clearly improved upon live from those 2 albums:
Joshua Tree: Streets, Bullet, Exit, In God's Country, One Tree Hill
Achtung Baby: UTEOTW, The Fly, Zoo Station, Mysterious Ways, Love is Blindness
 
akann said:
I was just thinking the other day about why u2 is not critically rated as one of the top two or three groups of all time.
Say what? Top 5 isn't good enough for ya?
 
akann said:
AB and JT are close to perfection for me and not many of the songs from those two records have been improved on in concert.
As Hewson pointed out, songs like Streets, UTEOTW, Fly and Mysterious Ways, while all brilliant on the album, are even better when played live!
 
cleazer said:
As Hewson pointed out, songs like Streets, UTEOTW, Fly and Mysterious Ways, while all brilliant on the album, are even better when played live!

:up:
 
Hewson said:
I respectfully disagree.
Songs that were clearly improved upon live from those 2 albums:
Joshua Tree: Streets, Bullet, Exit, In God's Country, One Tree Hill
Achtung Baby: UTEOTW, The Fly, Zoo Station, Mysterious Ways, Love is Blindness

fair enough, but also remember that they have had years to perfect these songs and only had a few months to write and record these on the albums. Don't agree with some of the songs on your list such as streets, I think the effects of the stage and the crowd singing along to it makes it feel that much better live, but Bono's voice was so much more powerful on the album and the album version seems more emotional to me.
 
Re: Re: u2 are a victim of their tours

cleazer said:
Say what? Top 5 isn't good enough for ya?

why should it be?? u2 are the best, if not second best band of all time and should be recocgnised as that. Anything outside the top two is an insult in my opinion.
 
Re: Re: Re: u2 are a victim of their tours

akann said:


why should it be?? u2 are the best, if not second best band of all time and should be recocgnised as that. Anything outside the top two is an insult in my opinion.
In my opinion, the Beatles and U2 are the two best bands of all time. My favorite, of course, is U2.

You simply can't argue with the Beatles. Any attempt to do so would be a waste of time.

As for Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones, well, it's pretty tough to argue with their contributions to rock music. Both have been around much longer than U2, and both played major roles in influencing generations of musicians. Ranking the three, I'd say U2, Zep, and then the Stones, but that's just my opinion.

It's tough for a lot of people around here to get a good handle on the Stones. They've had some fantastic songs, but it was so long ago that lots of folks here probably haven't even heard them. Personally, I'd penalize the Stones a few points just for some of the crap they've put out over the past 15 years. If you want to tour, fine go ahead and tour, but don't put out worthless albums.

Of course, I'm a big fan of Sting, and his last album or three haven't exactly been his best either. He's still a genius, though.

Then again, HTDAAB was far from U2's best too.

It's tough when all of these bands have set the bar so high for themselves. I am consoled by the fact that U2 is clearly better than all the rest RIGHT NOW, and if Mercy is anything to judge by, they still have a lot of great music left in them.
 
U2 is the best live act of all time, in my opinion. Even watching them on tv you get chills. Anyone whoever doubts U2 simply needs to see them live. After that they will never argue or doubt thier greatness ever again. I've seen it happen with 9 different people this year. All who basically had no interest in them but after I persuaded them to see them live with me their opinions are forever changed. Live is what U2 is all about. unlike other bands who tour to promote a record, I believe U2 record, to promote a tour. When all is said and done people will have to take a serious look back and I belive in time U2 will be regarded as one of the top 3 if not the top band of all time. Maybe I'm a bit overly optimistic but that's how I feel.
 
Last edited:
Let's face it -- the Rolling Stones and the Beatles created something out of nothing. U2, respectfully, is taking what they did to a different level, but it's much harder to create something from nothing. So IMHO, the Beatles and Rolling Stones deserve their place.

But I'm not really worried about U2's place in rock history.
 
Re: Re: Re: u2 are a victim of their tours

akann said:
why should it be?? u2 are the best, if not second best band of all time and should be recocgnised as that. Anything outside the top two is an insult in my opinion.

If a critic, or a music lover, or your grandma thinks U2 isn't in the top 2 bands of all time, why should you believe them? It's just their opinion, and the things they use to back up their claim are likely mostly opinion as well.

Critics just make lists and rank stuff because that's what they get paid to do. You don't have to listen to them.
 
"Let's face it -- the Rolling Stones and the Beatles created something out of nothing. U2, respectfully, is taking what they did to a different level, but it's much harder to create something from nothing. So IMHO, the Beatles and Rolling Stones deserve their place."

Out of nothing? was not out of nothing. There were heavily influenced by Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard and all the great american music from those times. The thing is that they did take it to a different level, as has done U2

U2 will go down as the greatest band to ever hit the universe. thats for sure

:wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom