What band should U2 pass the torch to?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The reason there isn't going to be another band to pick up that mantle is because it's very unlikely another band will come along with both European and American sensibilities. U2 became the aberration that they are because they began as post-punks, hooked into to Eno's European experimental vibe, and then got turned onto American R&B and Blues. Who else will go follow that kind of roundabout path?

U2 grabbed inspiration from both sides of the Atlantic AGAIN in the 90's when they took grooves from hip-hop AND elements of industrial techno, as well as more experimental rock outfits like My Bloody Valentine.

The suggestion of lightweights like Coldplay make me laugh. A band like that with no balls and no soul (in the R&B sense) has no chance in hell of becoming 1/5 as big as U2. What propelled U2 into the stratosphere is that they learned not to take it too seriously and to shake their asses a bit. It's sadly something that will keep many bands from reaching that level.

Radiohead are brilliant, there's no doubt, and Thom Yorke can write a tremendously moving song when he wants to (Fake Plastic Trees, Let Down). But again, rock and roll without the R&B influence is too arty to reach the kind of mass appeal that U2 has. And as said before, Radiohead don't want it anyway.

Conversely, Dave Matthews Band clearly understands the black heritage of Rock and Roll, but they simply aren't artistic enough to ascend to the Pantheon of Rock. The Rolling Stones weren't necessarily that artistic, but they were also the first "dangerous" band and didn't need to. Pearl Jam was a good candidate because they had the "groove" and the artistic ambition to try different things. But both of the above bands really don't have any kind of European leanings. It's hard to think of American bands that DO, aside from The Velvet Underground. It's no coincidence that they're the only U.S. band that even gets mentioned among the best groups of all time. All the others are from the UK--The Who, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, and the Stones are the big 5. R.E.M. is the only other candidate I can think of (heavily VU-influenced), but their peak popularity has long passed and won't return.

I'm rambling a bit, but I hope some of that makes sense.


laz
 
Last edited:
I can't think of anyone.

One, there isn't anyone wanting the title of being the biggest band in the world and second, it's way too hard for a rock band to be big in UK and US, with the charts and music trends changing so much.
What record label would wait 7 years and 5 albums to make it, or dare to have a band trying out so many different things like U2 has?
 
^
Too I don't know, can't connect with the common man, a man on the street can connect with One not Plug In Baby or Citizen Erased, not human enough I guess:wink: p.s I love Muse
 
Axver said:


Just checked them out, and I want to know why the hell crap like The Killers and Kings Of Leon are getting fame and attention while bands like Evermore are being overlooked.

They seem like a great band. :up:

A good friend of mine lent me her Evermore CD to listen too, I thought they were pretty cool and i checked out their website and it was cool to see that they say they are influenced by U2.
Anyhow, they have some good songs and they are still only 17-19 yr old. It seems some good things do come out of the 'Sleepy Isles' apart from their Rugby Team...they suck at Cricket at the moment...lol:p
 
lazarus said:
The reason there isn't going to be another band to pick up that mantle is because it's very unlikely another band will come along with both European and American sensibilities. U2 became the aberration that they are because they began as post-punks, hooked into to Eno's European experimental vibe, and then got turned onto American R&B and Blues. Who else will go follow that kind of roundabout path?

U2 grabbed inspiration from both sides of the Atlantic AGAIN in the 90's when they took grooves from hip-hop AND elements of industrial techno, as well as more experimental rock outfits like My Bloody Valentine.

The suggestion of lightweights like Coldplay make me laugh. A band like that with no balls and no soul (in the R&B sense) has no chance in hell of becoming 1/5 as big as U2. What propelled U2 into the stratosphere is that they learned not to take it too seriously and to shake their asses a bit. It's sadly something that will keep many bands from reaching that level.

Radiohead are brilliant, there's no doubt, and Thom Yorke can write a tremendously moving song when he wants to (Fake Plastic Trees, Let Down). But again, rock and roll without the R&B influence is too arty to reach the kind of mass appeal that U2 has. And as said before, Radiohead don't want it anyway.

Conversely, Dave Matthews Band clearly understands the black heritage of Rock and Roll, but they simply aren't artistic enough to ascend to the Pantheon of Rock. The Rolling Stones weren't necessarily that artistic, but they were also the first "dangerous" band and didn't need to. Pearl Jam was a good candidate because they had the "groove" and the artistic ambition to try different things. But both of the above bands really don't have any kind of European leanings. It's hard to think of American bands that DO, aside from The Velvet Underground. It's no coincidence that they're the only U.S. band that even gets mentioned among the best groups of all time. All the others are from the UK--The Who, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, and the Stones are the big 5. R.E.M. is the only other candidate I can think of (heavily VU-influenced), but their peak popularity has long passed and won't return.

I'm rambling a bit, but I hope some of that makes sense.


laz

excelent post. great analysis.

i do believe however that coldplay have soul, and more than that i think they have the spark that u2 had in the early 80's. they still have a lot to grow and will surely explore other musical territories and. as chris martin often says, u2 are a reference to them not in terms of sound but in terms of atittude.
 
bedouin fire said:


excelent post. great analysis.

i do believe however that coldplay have soul, and more than that i think they have the spark that u2 had in the early 80's. they still have a lot to grow and will surely explore other musical territories and. as chris martin often says, u2 are a reference to them not in terms of sound but in terms of atittude.

This puzzles me. I don't sense much spark or soul at all in Coldplay. Just compare U2 in the Boy/October era to Coldplay - there's a HUGE difference in attitude. Early U2 had a ton of energy and charisma. Can you honesty say the same about Coldplay? I'm not saying I don't like them - there's certainly a place in the world for mellower bands - I just don't see the U2 similarities aside from the echoey guitar sound.
 
I dont see a lot of simularities between the structure itself of the first 2 Coldplay albums and the first 2 U2 albums other then one thing, and its called melody which is the most important part of the music to begin with, lots of bands with lots of energy have come out but they dont have any melody in their music so they quickly disappear.

I will make a further judgement when I hear Coldplays 3rd album before deciding if they are worth passing the torch too
 
Back
Top Bottom