Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Bastard beat me to it!
U2 packing it in?
- Thread starter MadelynIris
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Bastard beat me to it!
You know, you have consistently been a belligerent poster since I first noticed you on this board. I can only imagine your life outside of it is very difficult, so I won't worry myself that you are yet again diving in desperate for a fight.
Reading over the last few pages I see more than one poster suggesting they are not in the pantheon with the Beatles, the Stones, etc. There's no straw-man involved in my calling that foolishness what it is.
I have an opinion when it comes to the Stones, and it is that they are the most over-rated band in history. I've lived a long life filled with music and it is my considered opinion that the Stones have maybe 6 songs which are anything above mediocre, and only 2 or 3 great ones. IMO I would take INXS' KICK over the entire Stones catalog 8 days out of 7. That's my opinion. It's not an objective statement. There can be no debate.
(And, strangely, I'm actually NOT embarrassed to share it publicly!)
I don't like The Who. I've been told my who life that they were great, often even by Bono, and I don't get it. They're not for me. I don't hate them. I simply don't see anything interesting about them. They certainly have never written anything I would want to pay money for.
No, I won't limit my comments to "U2 is my favorite band." I will also share any other thoughts I care to, without fear that grumpy ol' Nick might get his feelings hurt by someone expressing an opinion on art which is not the same as his.
That's splendiferous and all that you don't like the Rolling Stones or The Who. Everyone is clearly entitled to their own opinion. It's super duper that you're proud of yourself for having that opinion as well. Hey, good for you!
But you see there buckeroo, your opinion is so much of an outlier compared to common opinion, that it's going to be difficult to take you serious.
Next time perhaps go with "I understand these bands that have sold billions of records worldwide and rank amongst the most successful musical acts of all time HAVE to be liked by someone... I just don't see it myself."
Or perhaps "I respect what they've done, bit it's just not my cup of tea."
That may get you further, and less people will think that you're a crazy person .
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I don't think any of these popular bands need my obsequiousness or bowing, buckeroo.
Lots of people like Bieber. I don't need to couch my criticism of him with a flourish to his millions of fans either.
Not that I equate the Stones with Bieber, certainly not. But I do not see them as anywhere near U2's class when it comes to songwriting. Does that make me a crazy person????? LOL It seems a bit of a stretch, and if someone thinking the Stones is over-rated makes you doubt their sanity, I think that reflects more on you than it does on me.
In any case, all of these buckets of ad hominem attacks aside.
I disagree with any and all "fans" on this thread who claim U2 has somehow failed to be the greatest band in the world. In every way which matters to me, they so clearly succeeded in 1987. If you prefer The Who or the Stones or (blech) even Rush, that's fine. This is a U2 board, and U2 being such a big and popular band there are often many posters here who wouldn't agree on much outside of U2.
Thinking the stones are overrated does not make you a crazy person.
Saying they've had maybe 6 good songs, and The Who have never written a good song, and then arguing with people who say that that's nuts is what makes you a crazy person.
I don't really like Led Zeppelin. That in and of its self doesn't make me a crazy person.
If I were to start saying that they've never written a good song, and then throwing shit at the millions of people who argued against me, that would make me a crazy person.
Saying they've had maybe 6 good songs, and The Who have never written a good song, and then arguing with people who say that that's nuts is what makes you a crazy person.
I don't really like Led Zeppelin. That in and of its self doesn't make me a crazy person.
If I were to start saying that they've never written a good song, and then throwing shit at the millions of people who argued against me, that would make me a crazy person.
According to Rolling Stone these are the top 20 "greatest artists" I guess in terms of "popular music":
20. Bo Diddley
19. The Velvet Underground
18. Marvin Gaye
17. Muddy Waters
16. Sam Cooke
15. Stevie Wonder
14. Led Zeppelin
13. Buddy Holly
12. The Beach Boys
11. Bob Marley
10. Ray Charles
9. Aretha Franklin
8. Little Richard
7. James Brown
6. Jimi Hendrix
5. Chuck Berry
4. The Rolling Stones
3. Elvis Presley
2. Bob Dylan
1. The Beatles
So, regardless of what you think of of Rolling Stone (I think they are shithead burnout hipsters that would slap their mother to sell a copy or get some of their former respect), most of those can't be argued with really....except: The fucking Velvet Underground???? Oh Christ.....give me a fucking break....
Anyway, out of all the bands we've been mentioning, who's on there? Zeppelin, Stones, Beatles.
BTW, U2 was #22.........
20. Bo Diddley
19. The Velvet Underground
18. Marvin Gaye
17. Muddy Waters
16. Sam Cooke
15. Stevie Wonder
14. Led Zeppelin
13. Buddy Holly
12. The Beach Boys
11. Bob Marley
10. Ray Charles
9. Aretha Franklin
8. Little Richard
7. James Brown
6. Jimi Hendrix
5. Chuck Berry
4. The Rolling Stones
3. Elvis Presley
2. Bob Dylan
1. The Beatles
So, regardless of what you think of of Rolling Stone (I think they are shithead burnout hipsters that would slap their mother to sell a copy or get some of their former respect), most of those can't be argued with really....except: The fucking Velvet Underground???? Oh Christ.....give me a fucking break....
Anyway, out of all the bands we've been mentioning, who's on there? Zeppelin, Stones, Beatles.
BTW, U2 was #22.........
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Very debatable. Led Zeppelin are important, but their influence is narrow in scope. I don't think it's fair to make any comparisons to MJ, death has a way of erasing a lot of the bad.
I think like U2, Madonna and Prince have made some moves and releases that have taken them off the radar. Especially Prince, Madonna and U2 have had some moments in the 2000s, I think it's hard to say that of Prince.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
No. None of that happened. Don't be butthurt simply because someone disagrees with your opinion of art.
IMO The Stones have only written maybe 6 songs which are better than mediocre and 2 or 3 which are great. I'm saying this to break your widdle heart. It's simply my opinion, which I express in defense of those people who make the (crazy to my mind) statement that U2 is not at their level.
IMO The Who are not interesting. Again, I'm not trying to offend or hurt your feelings. This is simply a band which I've been told my whole life long was important and great and yet I can't name a song of theirs which would be worth spending money on. To restate: I don't hate them. But to think they are in some way above U2 beggars reality IMO
IMO I don't think arguing that I'm not crazy for expressing my subjective opinions regarding these bands which I find less exciting than some people do counts as solid evidence for my being crazy. (We'll ignore how circular your logic is.) IMO
Let me know if I have used the abbreviate "IMO" enough times in this post to suggest that I am aware that my subjective opinions on art are subjective. I would hate for there to be confusion on this point.
I must have missed the sentence in which I threw shit at millions of people.. How rude of me!
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Frankly most of those artists wouldn't make my top 50..... But that's what its like living in a world with people with wildly divergent musical taste.
Well, I would take on that debate. "Narrow" is hardly a word I'd use to describe their influence. They've influenced pretty much everything after them in terms of "popular" music in some small, or large, way or another. You don't have to like or love them, but there's no denying Zeppelin's shadow they cast.
Edit: if you think U2 has had a bigger impact on popular music, or music in general, than Led Zeppelin, we are not going to agree.
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Modern music could actually use a little more of Zeppelin's influence if you ask me.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Dude...all I did was call out your straw man argument and question your musical knowledge on a, um, message board about music. And you're starting on my "life outside"? And I'm the one "desperate for a fight"?
Get some perspective.
How rude of me!
Yes.
In any case, all of these buckets of ad hominem attacks aside.
Irony.
ozeeko
Refugee
I love INXS but do you really think they are more popular/influential than the Rolling Stones?
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Influential? No. Absolutely not. Did they write better songs? Are they more important to me? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
IMO Kick is one of the greatest albums ever recorded. It's up there with JT,AB, Dark Side of the Moon, the White Album, and Disintegration.
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Absolutely.
I suspect everyone is deeply frustrated with our favorite band. They've given us 3 albums in the last 14 years. Most of us even disliked at least one of them! And to make it worse, Bono keeps promising 2,3,32 new albums in the near future.
It's rough being a U2 fan.
prbiker15
Blue Crack Addict
Fascinating. 
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
You called me crazy. You called me ignorant and you told me that I wasn't knowledgeable enough to know what my opinions regarding popular music were, you inaccurately accused me of making a straw man argument (and therefore being "foolish"), and then you told me that I should limit my comments to, "U2 is my favorite band."
AND THAT'S why I rightly pointed out that you were being belligerent.
ozeeko
Refugee
So you think "Guns in the Sky" trumps "Baba O'Reilly" and "Sympathy for the Devil"?
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
Quick question. What do you all think of the album "Pop"?
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
ozeeko
Refugee
ozeeko
Refugee
just kidding, Niceman. It's totally your right. KICK was one of my first cassettes.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I agree. I was speaking more of a direct influence.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Sympathy is a better song than Guns in the Sky, although I do love both.
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Mine too. Still one of my favorite albums of all time.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Never called you crazy. Never even used that word. So we can add that to the list of things you're making up. Yep, you just made it up.
In fact, it's you who called other people's opinions "crazy":
Thanks for you honesty. Shall we continue? Lets.
You said:
That's a straw-man. As far I know, no one is saying that U2 isn't AT LEAST one of the greatest bands in history.
No, that's when you started talking about my "life outside". It's one thing to criticise someone's musical knowledge on a message board about music, we call all take it (except, perhaps, you). It's another thing to start talking about people's personal lives.
Is that you applauding your own argument?
No need to respond. You might want to quit while you're behind.
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
You're correct. It was Headache who accused me of being crazy. My bad. However, it is still the case that You called me ignorant and you told me that I wasn't knowledgeable enough to know what my opinions regarding popular music were, you inaccurately accused me of making a straw man argument (and therefore being "foolish"), and then you told me that I should limit my comments to, "U2 is my favorite band." And now you're telling me that you have a list of things I'm making up (Although that's a good trick considering we're discussing opinions!)
AND THAT'S why I rightly pointed out that you were being belligerent.
I hope that my accidentally accusing you of a fifth attack in your initial post to me didn't cause you undue pain.
Obviously, attacking a person in four ways for expressing a different opinion than yours when it comes to art is polite and peaceful and kind and in NO WAY belligerent!
You poor victim, you!
ozeeko
Refugee
I'd go back in time and wipe out Zeppelin to be spared Stand Up Comedy.
