U2: read this! (it may hurt but it's the truth!)

[HelloAngel]

I don't think you can be a true fan AND criticise them - unless they REALLY screw up somehow, which they haven't.

OK, now you MUST be kidding.

That's like saying you can't be in a loving relationship and not have a problem with your mate.

Members of U2 don't even like certain U2 songs. Does that mean they aren't really members of U2.?

Don't be ridiculous. Don't be so judgemental and start drawing a line in the sand about criteria for what constitutes a U2 fan and what doesn't.

 

[U2mixer]

I own nearly a thousand CD's and not one MP3 - music and sound-quality is too important to me.

Thanks anyway.

I'm sure if I dig hard enough I can acquire those!

They're lossless formats, but what the hey - you have nearly a 1000 already

Don't put your back out digging too hard.
I can lend you a shovel if you get stuck.

 

[twochordcool]

"You left my heeeart eeempty as a vaaaacant lot"- don't tell me that 13 years ago people didn't go WTF??! at this.

Let's see you do better.

 

[indra]

I don't think you can be a true fan AND criticise them - unless they REALLY screw up somehow, which they haven't.

Of course you can.

I know a guy in a band (not a bar band, but no where near as big as U2 either) and the last "proper" studio album his band released was met with both high praise and harsh criticism from various fans. One of the people who criticsed it the most harshly is one of his favourite fans -- he's put her on the guest list for shows, sent her cd's prior to release, shared his pot with her , and given her a very long (over two hours) and involved interview (she writes for some online music magazines).

Did the criticism hurt him? Yeah, I chatted with him online (along with a few others) right after that fan posted her criticisms and his hurt was palpable (and he also mentioned it in another interview -- how often the fans reviews are more insightful than pro reviewers, but how they also hurt more when they are bad). But he realises he can't make everyone happy and there will always be some fans unhappy with a particular effort. It's just part of the deal.

I think a TRUE fan can criticise...in fact I think it is imperative that a TRUE fan looks at his or her favourite band in a critical light and requires them to deliver the goods. If everything a band tosses at it's listeners is met with only the highest of praise pretty soon the fans will only get shit. Why work hard turning out good material if no one notices the difference?

 

[indra]

Main Entry: 3fan
Function: noun
Etymology: probably short for fanatic
1 : an enthusiastic devotee (as of a sport or a performing art) usually as a spectator
2 : an ardent admirer or enthusiast (as of a celebrity or a pursuit) <science-fiction fans>

(straight out of Merriam-Webster online dictionary!)

and this is the definition of fanatic:

Main Entry: fa·nat·ic
Pronunciation: f&-'na-tik
Variant(s): or fa·nat·i·cal /-ti-k&l/
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin fanaticus inspired by a deity, frenzied, from fanum temple -- more at FEAST
: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion <they're fanatic about politics>

The difference is in the intensity. By your description of yourself, you are more of a fanatic than fan.

 

[Lemonfix]

Er, actually fan is just an abbreviated word for "fanatic"!

I think there are people that are U2 "fans" - they love, adore, worship everything U2 - U2 can do no wrong.

Then there are people that simply like U2.

I don't think you can be a true fan AND criticise them - unless they REALLY screw up somehow, which they haven't.

Do you know what I mean?

You, my friend, are the only U2 fanatic in existance. Please give yourself a pat on the back.

(and please send me whatever it is that you have been smoking.)

 

[twochordcool]

OK, now you MUST be kidding.

That's like saying you can't be in a loving relationship and not have a problem with your mate

Most mates would not appreciate the constant nagging and nit-picking from someone that is supposed to love them....in the same way that I don't like to constantly read petty complaints and critiques about an otherwise FLAWLESS "un-criticizable" band.

Members of U2 don't even like certain U2 songs. Does that mean they aren't really members of U2?

First of all I doubt that - even if they have their preferences I am sure they always make sure a certain song is "release-able" before you and I ever hear it. As Bono himself put it, he would "sooner quit than become a crap band"

Don't be ridiculous. Don't be so judgemental and start drawing a line in the sand about criteria for what constitutes a U2 fan and what doesn't.

It looks like you and I have a serious problem with each other, and I predict it will get a lot worse or come to an end.

If I remember correctly, you like/admire/appreciate Guns and Roses.......and you're not a big fan of How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb - and you have the gall/audacity to claim this here!!!



I'm entitled to my opinion - and I'm entitled to be opinionated.

And I suspect that you have a lot of U2 "fans" here that are also fans of Eminem, Guns and Roses, Britney Spears, Aerosmith, Nickleback and Linkin Park -

and I propose to you that a REAL fan of U2 would not appreciate some of those "artists" -

They're INCOMPATIBLE.

And, personally, I don't want to read critiques of U2, from people with such bad taste!

I can understand someone liking one album over another.

I can understand people liking lyrics to one song over another.

But what I have a problem with is petty bickering about a band that continues to put out PHENOMENAL music - deep into their careers - which MUST be extremely difficult to do.

Now, if these people have such a problem with U2, let them go listen to Rolling Stone magazine's top 5 albums of 2005, by Kanye West, The Rolling Stones, The White Stripes, Fiona Apple and Bruce Springsteen!

 

[Windmilllane]

U2 has become too contemporary. They will never be a top 40 band anymore. They care more about being critically-acclaimed, so they can show up at the Grammys all the time.

 

[twochordcool]

U2 has become too contemporary. They will never be a top 40 band anymore. They care more about being critically-acclaimed, so they can show up at the Grammys all the time.

Do you see what I mean???

I think U2 could care less if they ever went to the Grammys again.

They write and play the music THEY want to and if people like it, fine!

 

[Windmilllane]

Why hasn't U2 become a "hit" band anymore. What happened to City of Blinding Lights, Sometimes You Can't Make it on Your Own, ABOY. They all flopped on the charts. Everybody thought that COBL was the next Streets and SYCMIOYO was the next One.
Wrong.
How come Streets and One were hits, and not COBL and SYCMIOYO?

 

[indra]

Most mates would not appreciate the constant nagging and nit-picking from someone that is supposed to love them....in the same way that I don't like to constantly read petty complaints and critiques about an otherwise FLAWLESS "un-criticizable" band.

I suspect most of your mates don't have girlfriends either. ...or at least not for very long. I certainly wouldn't put up with your bullshit.

And U2 is FLAWLESS and "un-critscizable"? Since fucking when?

 

[Zoots]

Most mates would not appreciate the constant nagging and nit-picking from someone that is supposed to love them

what?



hahahahahhahahaha.

that's all I have to say here.

 

[twochordcool]

How come Streets and One were hits, and not COBL and SYCMIOYO?

Maybe because the former were great songs and the latter were just good songs that were not quite as obvious, and not quite as "pushed" on the radio.

But Vertigo and Beautiful Day more than made up for it!!!

Dude, I have my favorites too -

It took me a long time to like and appreciate the last 2 CD's - they did not hit me right away.

But I still refrained from nit-picking because of my overall respect for the group.

Besides that, I ended up loving the new CD's more with each and every listen.

But it CAN'T be that easy to continue to write amazing lyrics -

some people can't write A song, let alone dozens and dozens!

I guess what I am trying to say is that what any of the new music lacks in "creative / artistical" lyrics, it MORE than makes up for as a WHOLE.

 

[twochordcool]

I suspect most of your mates don't have girlfriends either. ...or at least not for very long. I certainly wouldn't put up with your bullshit

?

And U2 is FLAWLESS and "un-critscizable"? Since fucking when?

They're as close to perfect as a band can get.

You can mention them in the same breath as The Beatles, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd.

I think they're probably the greatest, but I'd be willing to concede to The Beatles, MAYBE, ONLY because they were the first!

 

[yimou]

Boring

 

[Meghan]

But I still refrained from nit-picking because of my overall respect for the group.

Most of the people who critisize some of U2's work have loads of respect for the band, and I think it's a bit rude to say/imply that they don't.

I'm only guessing, but I think that U2 would appreciate and take into account constructive criticism from fans -- Remember Bono's stories about pulling people off the street to have a listen to their new album before it's released, just to see what they think of it? Their job would be very, very boring if all fans refused to admit that U2 are capable of making a bad album.

 

[indra]

?





They're as close to perfect as a band can get.

You can mention them in the same breath as The Beatles, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd.

I think they're probably the greatest, but I'd be willing to concede to The Beatles, MAYBE, ONLY because they were the first!

You don't listen to much other music do you?

Broaden your horizons a bit.

 

[Lemonfix]

I think Patsy Cline said it best....

 

[Bono'sTyee]

You said "Anyway, 8 out of 11 songs have major problems!"
And then that 85% of the songs were bad. Actually if you do the math it's about 70%. I know you had a point but I lost it in all the recycled crap you said...

 

[Bono's shades]

I think U2 could care less if they ever went to the Grammys again.

They write and play the music THEY want to and if people like it, fine!

Oh, if only this were true.

 

[onyourkneesboy]

Most of the people who critisize some of U2's work have loads of respect for the band, and I think it's a bit rude to say/imply that they don't.

I'm only guessing, but I think that U2 would appreciate and take into account constructive criticism from fans

That's what I meant by my initial post. I have a tremendeous respect and affection for this band! That's why the post is the way it is!
(But o.k., one can nit-pic about if I sound a little too harsh or too long...) That's my way of caring.

I just think they can do better. Every fan (and U2 themselves) knows U2 is able to do magical things if they're uncertain, searching, grasping for something...
With HTDAAB the tendency was: ..."we wrote some very good songs and we're pretty comfortable with it.." "..we think we nailed it.." They said so themselves!
Here lies the problem I think with HTDAAB!

On former albums they we're reaching for something, not knowing if they would ever grasp it. They we're struggling, going off to someplace not knowing where or what it was. And down that path they had Eno and Lanois to nail down the magical U2 moments and at some time hand them a searchlight if they might drift off completely.
This resulted in albums like UF, JT, AB, Zooropa...(o.k. there were still traces of this on ATYCLB) where 80% of the songs were absolute from "Somewhere-else"! 20% o.k. or good songs...
This was a band working at the top of it's toes! Reaching for something that was maybe beyond their reach. But by wanting this they drifted into magical atmospheres, a Musical Highness that only a band like U2 manages to achieve!

Don't get me wrong. I like HTDAAB, but it's U2 too down to the ground. A band being very comfortable with an album with just good songs. And it is... Apart from A Man And A Woman and Yahweh, it lacks the U2-Highness from former albums.

Anyway, I want them off their "royal" butts again, and feeling uncomfortable what to do now. And it will be harder now to get on the tip of your toes with more age, being hailed by almost everyone, and the sense of time Bono spends on the good cause. Which of course is a great thing.
I would like to see them leaving the "yellow-brick-road" again and wander of to places not knowing where to end up. Flapping arms when they tend to fall down, clutching at straws, swimming with no life-belt, and along this road collecting all kinds of gems! (Man, this sounds like an episode of Lord Of The Rings!)

O.k., but knowing some of you guys here, I will probably get crusified again for my well-intended concern..!

 

[KUEFC09U2]

onyourkneesboy during the Zoo/Pop days, what did you used to say to people who critised U2, for being to experimental?

and why be concernd? there are many people that dont like some U2 albums, but they dont turn around and say "they must change because i dont like it", and i hate to brake it to you, but some 80's fans thought the same as you do now, when the band broke into AB. Zooropa, and pop

 

[unoscatorce]

?





They're as close to perfect as a band can get.

You can mention them in the same breath as The Beatles, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd.

I think they're probably the greatest, but I'd be willing to concede to The Beatles, MAYBE, ONLY because they were the first!

They're up there for sure.

Beatles led the way though, of course, so I think they'll always be #1.

U2 has the longevity though; how many other bands have had the same lineup for 25 years?

 

[LMP]

there never will be a perfect band, because there will always be a group of people that won't like them and try to keep them down

maybe in some aspects U2 are perfect, and the same could be said for The Beatles, Zeppelin, Stones, etc...

but like I said, there will never be a perfect band

 

[twochordcool]

You don't listen to much other music do you?

Broaden your horizons a bit.

Who would YOU call their "peers"?

What current band is ANYWHERE NEAR as good as U2, as far as quality, consistency and longevity is concerned?

But you're right - I have given up on most other rock artists because their albums have been a disappointment and a waste of money.

 

[chickadee]

U2 has become too contemporary. They will never be a top 40 band anymore. They care more about being critically-acclaimed, so they can show up at the Grammys all the time.

I guess you mean in America, where sure, it's important, but over here they've been in the top 4 with every single from HTDAAB, even after it was out for almost a year. I don't think they're doing too badly chart-wise, even though to me singles don't really matter.

I'm not a fanatic, I don't think, but it's true I mostly listen to U2. I find that I can't get from any other band what I get from them and I get so bored with other music around. I just like them the best. It doesn't mean I can't criticise them, but I tend not to simply because there's not much they've done that I don't like.

 

[xaviMF22]

Who would YOU call their "peers"?

What current band is ANYWHERE NEAR as good as U2, as far as quality, consistency and longevity is concerned?

But you're right - I have given up on most other rock artists because their albums have been a disappointment and a waste of money.

Radiohead is just as good, if not better

 

[GibsonGirl]

I rate this thread one star!

Really, what the hell? It is perfectly okay for U2 to be your favourite band and it's perfectly okay for you to be able to criticise them at the same time. The sun does not shine out of U2's collective arse. They are not the human form of perfection and they are very capable of writing poor music (every U2 album ever released has ALWAYS had three or four songs that are of lesser quality than the others. Whether or not you hate them is subjective, but you have to admit that some songs are considerably better than others.) To suggest that it is simply impossible for U2 to write poor music is a clear sign of delusion...or LSD, either one.

Constructive criticism is healthy for a band. Do you think that if people hadn't shat all over Rattle & Hum, we would have seen the likes of Achtung Baby? Probably not. We might have seen something similar, but I'm willing to bet it wouldn't have been anywhere near as good.

 

[chickadee]

Radiohead is just as good, if not better

I disagree wholeheartedly. But I respect your opinion.

See? I can be a grown up sometimes.

 

[darbyZ]

This thread can go like this endlessly... I'm very pleased how Indra developed and explained my initial idea that fan shouldn't be a fanatic.What I cannot stand about fanatics is their idolatry bereft of any degree of emotional detachment.Have they ever heard of fair criticism? I think that any band won't ever need that kind of public.Love is not just giving in ...and worshipped without constant reexamining the work of your "beloved" is idolatry and I'm simply not prone to this kind of love...U2 STAY MY FAVOURITE BAND,even there are some lyrics of Nick Cave,Patti Smith,REM...I prefer to some U2 LYRICS...........Excuse me,even I can listen to ONE night and day ,it doesn't mean I don't have the right to experiment with different genres from RNR and punk to French chanson,blues and jazz....What I cannot stand are fans reminding me of some totalitarian party......Have they ever heard of aesthetics?Diversity is beautiful! PS Hope not being lynched for this PPS Maybe,this is more for FREE YOUR MIND threads