Clapton can't tell the difference between U2 and Coldplay

[LMP]

I think we call it an oxymoron, n'est pas?

oui

 

[Zoots]

And if you actually thought Bono "looked cool" in the Disco video then maybe you should examine what you consider cool.

Yes. Bono looked cool in the Discotheque video.

Opinion.

 

[asr]

The Edge actually inducted Eric Clapton as a Yardbird in the 1992
Rn'R Hall of Fame. What irony!! BTW, what I meant to say earlier,
before my computer crashed, was another irony. The Edge's guitar playing is more European and less black American Blues than Clapton's, yet I haven't heard E.C. give back to the very city that was responsable for his career (New Orleans and it's victimized musicians). I bring this up because Clapton also criticised U2 once for not being in touch with the roots of Rn'R. So I guess Music Rising is the work of just some post-punk guitarist who's clueless about his heritage. I also guess that Edge and the other three just experimented with BB King because they ONLY idolized the Sex Pistols. What an ignorant remark Clapton made.

A technical guitarist, however "slowhand", fast, or entertaining, does not always make a great songwriter necassarily. Writing a good tune is a more admirable feat than running your fingers up and down the fret board at 100mph. As The Edge himself once asked, why not just be an athlete instead of a musician if your gonna do that?

 

[BVS]

Yes. Bono looked cool in the Discotheque video.

Opinion.

But here's my point...

I see so many posters in here post these very strong opinions and make statements as strong as "cheapening not only his image but U2's entire legacy" but have absolutely no context to it. You started listening to U2 right around Pop, so that's your context. And that's cool, just be careful with such bold statements.

But for many, JT Bono was an embarassment to some fans of flag waving Bono. And Zoo TV was an embarassment to a lot of U2 fans, Pop Bono looked ridiculous to many long time fans...

 

[The Sad Punk]

Can't we all just be friends and agree that Bono has always looked pretty ridiculous?

 

[GibsonGirl]

The Edge actually inducted Eric Clapton as a Yardbird in the 1992
Rn'R Hall of Fame. What irony!! BTW, what I meant to say earlier,
before my computer crashed, was another irony. The Edge's guitar playing is more European and less black American Blues than Clapton's, yet I haven't heard E.C. give back to the very city that was responsable for his career (New Orleans and it's victimized musicians). I bring this up because Clapton also criticised U2 once for not being in touch with the roots of Rn'R. So I guess Music Rising is the work of just some post-punk guitarist who's clueless about his heritage. I also guess that Edge and the other three just experimented with BB King because they ONLY idolized the Sex Pistols. What an ignorant remark Clapton made.

A technical guitarist, however "slowhand", fast, or entertaining, does not always make a great songwriter necassarily. Writing a good tune is a more admirable feat than running your fingers up and down the fret board at 100mph. As The Edge himself once asked, why not just be an athlete instead of a musician if your gonna do that?

Eric Clapton did not get to where he did by simply running his fingers up and down a fretboard at 100mph. He got there by writing extremely good music.

Also, when Eric Clapton says that the current music scene is detached from its roots, he means just that. Current. He does not mean 1988 when U2 were playing the blues with B.B. King. Christ, he probably doesn't even remember or know that they played with B.B. King almost twenty years ago. His comments are based entirely on what is being written in the present. There's absolutely nothing on HTDAAB or X&Y that would appeal to a blues enthusiast, so I don't blame him for saying he wouldn't want to listen to them. Anyway, it seemed to me that he was being more critical of Chris Martin than he was of U2 when he made that roots comment.

And how on earth do you know that he hasn't done anything for the musicians in New Orleans? Do you keep track of his personal charity transactions? Maybe he hasn't done anything for them, I don't know, but you can't accuse someone of that sort of thing unless you have proof.

 

[gvox]

Actually ASR has some very valid points in his first paragraph, don't want to start arguing again but that site I linked to seemed fairly up to date and complimentary of his charitable efforts, so if he was in some way associated to the extent that Edge has been with Music Rising, I think it just *might be noted? And not to rush to ASR's defense but he did quantify his opinion with 'yet I haven't heard' - so if there is evidence, let's hear it, perhaps he'd be able to stand corrected.

The point is, EC made accusations of a group of musicians, of which he included U2, of not being in touch with (and, if I may extrapolate, paying due respect to?) their roots. Just because you write an album (by way of your example HTDAAB) that doesn't necessarily sound like American blues doesn't mean that you don't know your roots. As for whether or not a blues enthusiast would want to listen to it, I can accept that, fine, but I happen to LOVE Bob Marley and roots rock reggae, like on almost the same level as U2, but I sure as hell don't listen to HTDAAB thru the lens of reggae, so why should anyone else listen to it thru the lens of blues?? Pretty one dimensional! Doesn't he like any other types of music, and if not, what does that say about his potential credibility in the context of making sweeping generalisations of popular music today, if all he can stomach listening to is music that overtly references classic blues?

Let's face it, if he doesn't remember that a. friggin Edge inducted him and his band into the Hall of Fame or that b. U2 played with and toured with BB King (cmon thats almost universally known), then really I have to agree with ASR, his comments with U2 lumped in were extremely ignorant (not in the meaning of rude, in the meaning of without knowledge so better not to have included U2 at all) and crass. The awards show comment? Cmon, that's just spiteful and uncalled for, and hardly even factual, given that they just came off tour!

 

[JessicaAnn]

So let me just understand this. If someone doesn't think that the last two albums don't live up to earlier albums, that is a perfectly valid point of view and that person is not less of a fan.

So far so good.

But if someone happens to like the last two albums and enjoys the entire catalogue, they are blindly celebrating U2?

That is not what I said. I don't have anything against people who liked the last two albums. It's your opinion.

I also happen to think that there is some good material on the last two albums ...

What I was trying to say is that there are fans of bands, be it U2 or some other band, that can not or will not criticize what they produce. They think absolutely everything a band puts out is without flaw.

I have seen those kind of U2 fans around here and in other places.

 

[gvox]

But here's my point...

I see so many posters in here post these very strong opinions and make statements as strong as "cheapening not only his image but U2's entire legacy" but have absolutely no context to it.

heh

my context began at the checkered pants



and in the context of U2's career, yes his comments as they apply to U2 in specific cheapen his image to that of a cranky and maybe jealous? old elitist. And yes also would give the impression that he is dismissive of their legacy, at least to these ears.

 

[gvox]

I wonder what music people hear these HTDAAB songs have the strongest roots in:

A Man And A Woman
Love and Peace
All Because of You

and maybe a little less obviously

Original Of the Species
Sometimes You Can't Make It

and even more subtly in the rhythm

Yahweh
Crumbs




Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they are out and out 100% blues based songs. But I definitely hear references ranging from obvious influence to little subtleties, hardly "incredibly detached.. from its roots" as he put it.

 

[ramblin rose]

That is not what I said. I don't have anything against people who liked the last two albums. It's your opinion.

I also happen to think that there is some good material on the last two albums ...

What I was trying to say is that there are fans of bands, be it U2 or some other band, that can not or will not criticize what they produce. They think absolutely everything a band puts out is without flaw.

I have seen those kind of U2 fans around here and in other places.

This is what you said:

So if someone here feels that the last two albums don't live up to earlier albums, that is a perfectly valid point of view and doesn't make someone less of a fan than someone who blindly celebrates their entire catalogue and thinks everything they touch turns to gold.

My confusion was why is someone who celebrates their entire catalogue doing this "blindly". Both are valid opinions, so I was confused as to why the negative connotation of "blindly" on the fan who happens to enjoy the entire catalogue.

 

[ramblin rose]

And how on earth do you know that he hasn't done anything for the musicians in New Orleans? Do you keep track of his personal charity transactions? Maybe he hasn't done anything for them, I don't know, but you can't accuse someone of that sort of thing unless you have proof.

I think his main charity work is related to the crossroads rehab center he set up in Antigua.

 

[JessicaAnn]

This is what you said:



My confusion was why is someone who celebrates their entire catalogue doing this "blindly". Both are valid opinions, so I was confused as to why the negative connotation of "blindly" on the fan who happens to enjoy the entire catalogue.

Neither is an invalid opinion, but the people who think U2 is without flaw have serious issues with those of us who do, from time to time, offer criticism.

People who have criticized U2 (i.e., members of this board, other musicians, music critics, radio DJs, TV personalities, etc.) are flamed on this board and on other U2 message boards for holding opinions that may be critical of U2.

I have seen it happen here and elsewhere.

 

[gvox]

By far the majority of the people in this thread and others have no issues with healthy critique of U2 that's rooted in fairness, fact and objectivity.

We (if I may use the term loosely) feel Eric Clapton's comments as they pertain to U2 do not fall into that category, so they are being flamed as such.

If you'd care to counter that opinion with some facts or other substantive arguments, by all means, but anything else ie discussion of fans who think U2 is perfect and fans who don't think U2 is perfect is really just a deflect from the topic at hand, but then again that's just an opinion too

 

[JessicaAnn]

Someone was calling me out for defending Clapton's right to critique U2, so I was just defending that and everyone else's right to do so.

But, seeing as my thoughts aren't welcome in this thread, I shall no longer post in this thread.

 

[gvox]

You've got me all wrong.

Your thoughts on what aspects of U2's music or conduct cause you to think Clapton is right, as opposed to why certain Interferencers post certain things, I for one would most welcome in the thread!

 

[asr]

As a die hard U2 fan for 25 years, I myself have have criticised their career from time to time. While the band members are not sacrosanct, neither are Eric Clapton, George Harrison (may he rest in peace) or any other legend who has pissed all over U2 from his/her high horse throught the years. At least when I criticise U2 it has some validity. Whereas, when I read of high profile detractors like the above mentioned, Henry Rollins, and certain members of the Chicago press, I've noticed that they are either factually-challenged, full of contradictions, or full of death wishes(see Rollins). If any of these naysayers had CONSTRUCTIVE
criticism, we would not be having threads such as this.

 

[GibsonExplorer]

for example, it could be argued that BB King is far and away a better musician than any of the individual members of U2, and arguably Clapton, but you don't see him slagging U2. It's called class and mutual respect as musicians, regardless of where you come from.

Like I pointed out before, U2 has been known to diss boy bands in the past. Am I to understand that U2 is exempt from your rules of class? Saying this only supports the belief that U2 fanatics are blind followers.

 

[gvox]

Look, unless you want to quote the diss and discuss those bands and their merits, how is this relevant? Start your own freakin thread on it! lol

I was talking to the assertion that because EC is apparently a more technically skilled musician than anyone in U2, he somehow is some authority to be listened to when he talks shite.

Using BB King as an analogy, while apparently lost on you, is quite relevant as he is 100X the player Clapton is, and in a very similar genre...thus reducing the argument that Clapton's prowess somehow entitles him to be a jackass towards my favorite band.

Besides, you think if Bono came out and dissed someone who I thought was talented...say...I dunno...well I can't think of a name on the spot - EDIT: Fine, I'll get extra personal - let's say Bono came out and said K-OS, one of my favorite newer artists, was shite and that he couldn't tell the difference btwn K-OS and Gym Class Heroes (sorry if this is lost on you but that would be an equally annoying and ridiculous assertion imo) but trust me, if you think I wouldn't say Bono's opinion was bs complete bollocks if it was as fucking ridiculous as Claptons? then you truly dont know THIS U2 fanatic.

I still don't get how respect for Clapton's music, which I have, means I can't believe that an opinion he expressed is utter bullshit and makes me wonder about him. I think the problem is more with the people who worship EC, not U2.

 

[gvox]

As a die hard U2 fan for 25 years, I myself have have criticised their career from time to time. While the band members are not sacrosanct, neither are Eric Clapton, George Harrison (may he rest in peace) or any other legend who has pissed all over U2 from his/her high horse throught the years. At least when I criticise U2 it has some validity. Whereas, when I read of high profile detractors like the above mentioned, Henry Rollins, and certain members of the Chicago press, I've noticed that they are either factually-challenged, full of contradictions, or full of death wishes(see Rollins). If any of these naysayers had CONSTRUCTIVE
criticism, we would not be having threads such as this.

Hear hear!

recent example of my abiltity to critique: Mercy.

See also: The Hands That Built America

See also: Miami

See also: Big Girls Are Best

kthxbye

 

[asr]

As I have mentioned before, U2 are no more gods than their 'enemies.' Remember the whole Negativeland scandal at the dawn of the Nineties. If you don't, Google it. Rebuttals go both ways though. Though some of us like Eric Clapton, we can refute his statements as well.

 

[gvox]

See also: my initial reservations at moving the U2 tax base off Ireland.


Have I proven enough that I'm not a blind U2 fanatic? Why the fuck exactly does ANYONE on a fucking U2 forum HAVE to prove that?? If you don't want to talk to U2 fans who love their band, some unconditionally, why come here? You're on the wrong forum! How bout the EC forum, maybe it's better over there? Or are the EC fans any less fanatical? I bet they ate up his idiotic comments about U2 and nodded sagely and said oh yeah, U2 sux major azz. And then some person went on there and said omg all you EC fanatics are weird, don't you think EC could be wrong? In the end, who cares? On this forum, I have the right to say HIS OPINION WAS UTTER SHIT. And I have the right to state that without being labelled a blind U2 fanatic, don't you think?!?!

Ridiculous.

I'm so done with this, I've stated and re-stated why I think EC's opinion in reference to U2 was absurd, I've used facts and perspectives which for some reason the Supremely Intelligent and Balanced U2 Fans Who Do Not Worship U2 Unswervingly conveniently ignore while they prattle on and on about semantics. You know what we call that? Trolling! y'all can believe whatever you want, I need to catch my beauty sleep for a morning flight

 

[gvox]

PS I use "fuck" in the most innocent uninsulting Bono-esque manner possible, because I'm excitable and I think that copying his every manner of speech makes me soooo cool.

Plus I'm drinking again



K now I gotta go bow down and say my prayers in front of my U2 shrine!
ray:

 

[david]

As I have mentioned before, U2 are no more gods than their 'enemies.' Remember the whole Negativeland scandal at the dawn of the Nineties. If you don't, Google it. Rebuttals go both ways though. Though some of us like Eric Clapton, we can refute his statements as well.

Negativeland were pretty dumb in that case. They themselves even admitted they would have done things differently.

 

[asr]

Let's end it here shall we?

 

[U2girl]

It's not the "critisism from time to time" that is the problem.

It's more the relentless bashing of the last (two) album(s) and the equally relentless defense of their 1997 album, or should I say, relentless defense of that whole decade. If U2's music is subject to critisism, let's apply that to all albums equally.

Another problem is the gleeful commenting of pretty much any Bono and/or U2 critique combined with almost crusade/holy war-like defense of the people making the critique. Apparently "no one is beyond criticism" doesn't apply to everyone equally.

I don't see how unconditional defense (extremely rare, hands down) is better than unconditional attack, it's just the other side of the coin. I can understand the former better, since this is a U2 fan site.

 

[u2wildhoney]

Larry likes Westlife, which is an insult to music itself.

Are you entirely sure that this "news" is true??...

I hardly can believe it!!

When and where did he mention he enjoys Westlife songs???, Give me a proved example...

As far as I know, he likes Elvis Presley's songs, The Pogues, The Hives, the music style of these bands is very different from Westlife's ....

 

[JessicaAnn]

You've got me all wrong.

Your thoughts on what aspects of U2's music or conduct cause you to think Clapton is right, as opposed to why certain Interferencers post certain things, I for one would most welcome in the thread!

I don't believe I ever said Clapton was right.

In fact on June 27 I said:

I never said I hated U2. Nor did I give my opinion on Clapton's assessment of modern music -- which, if you must know, I don't necessarily agree with.

I was defending his right to critique U2.

Please don't misrepresent what I have said.

 

[socceroo]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2007/08/10/4408725-ap.html

 

[ramblin rose]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2007/08/10/4408725-ap.html

Maybe it was Eric Clapton's grand daughter.....