Final Results: Rate the Song Series, 2011-2012

[nielsgov]

Well, I do know actually.

Do tell.

 

[lemonfly]

That's actually a pretty decent top 5 list. More than decent. If it had included BD or Vertigo or Stuck or even Pride, I'd be thinking "Hmmm. They need a little more exposure to U2's catalog". I'm not criticizing anyone here, but there does seem to be an element of snobbery amongst the die-hard faithful when it comes to casuals. I'm a casual Stones fan and my top 5 are 1. Gimme Shelter 2. Jumpin Jack Flash 3. Angie 4. Paint It Black 5. Tumbling Dice. Now, that list would probably be ridiculed by die-hard Stones fans. Does that mean I'm an inbred cretin who knows nothing about the Stones? Some would say so, but they would be snobbish dicks.

 

[Globo14]

The list is decent. Streets and possibly One would be in my top 5 for sure.

Would y'all rather these "idiots" be casual U2 fans, or stereotype-driven U2 haters?

 

[Galeongirl]

That's actually a pretty decent top 5 list. More than decent. If it had included BD or Vertigo or Stuck or even Pride, I'd be thinking "Hmmm. They need a little more exposure to U2's catalog". I'm not criticizing anyone here, but there does seem to be an element of snobbery amongst the die-hard faithful when it comes to casuals. I'm a casual Stones fan and my top 5 are 1. Gimme Shelter 2. Jumpin Jack Flash 3. Angie 4. Paint It Black 5. Tumbling Dice. Now, that list would probably be ridiculed by die-hard Stones fans. Does that mean I'm an inbred cretin who knows nothing about the Stones? Some would say so, but they would be snobbish dicks.

No, it wouldn't mean you're an idiot. It just means that you're a casual fan, and you've likely not heard most of the Stones' material. Same with this U2 list. Sure, they're big hits and it's completely normal for a casual fan to pick these as favourites.

But ask yourself why they were picked?

Because they're singles. They're well known, high radio air play. But does that mean they're immediately U2's best?

To me, it doesn't. I'd say there are plenty of better songs, that the casual fan just doesn't know about because they haven't heard it. They likely have U218, and the two best off albums. How many casual fans have heard Zooropa? How many have heard Pop? I don't think many have. That's why this list is so different, and why I think that it says nothing about what is a good U2 song or not.

 

[Nick66]

That's actually a pretty decent top 5 list. More than decent. If it had included BD or Vertigo or Stuck or even Pride, I'd be thinking "Hmmm. They need a little more exposure to U2's catalog". I'm not criticizing anyone here, but there does seem to be an element of snobbery amongst the die-hard faithful when it comes to casuals. I'm a casual Stones fan and my top 5 are 1. Gimme Shelter 2. Jumpin Jack Flash 3. Angie 4. Paint It Black 5. Tumbling Dice. Now, that list would probably be ridiculed by die-hard Stones fans. Does that mean I'm an inbred cretin who knows nothing about the Stones? Some would say so, but they would be snobbish dicks.

Well said.

+1.





And while it's true that greater exposure to U2's music might 5 mean a die-hards Top 5 choices will be different than a "casual" fans, that's not necessarily the case. I think a LOT of die hard fans would have several of those songs among their favourite by U2. Liking Zooropa, or thinking Acrobat is the best song on AB doesn't make your opinion any better, or more valid, than a fan who only listens to U2 occasionally. Not by even a tiny bit. Nor does it make any of the lesser known songs "better" than the well known ones. The notion that obscurity is somehow connected to quality is one that only the Championship Vinyl set could embrace.

As far as Zooropa and Pop goes, millions and millions of "casual" fans heard those records. I'd call that "many". Casual fans are what drive record sales. The overwhelming majority of U2 fans are "casual" fans. The overwhelming majority don't hang out at places like Interference or @U2, don't obsessively follow (and complain about) the set list from night to night, and speculate as to whether Bono was faking his back injury. To the extent that Zooropa and Pop sold less than some others in U2's catalogue is a direct reflection of how those songs were received by "casual" fans. So the notion that "casual" fans don't like those songs because they haven't been exposed to them is, of course, absurd. U2 is the biggest rock band in the world. One thing their songs don't lack is exposure.

Moreover, a lot of the well known "hits" are well known hits because the songs are just fu**ing great.

 

[LadySpinHead]

I don't see why these songs are being used as somehow an example of the lack of "education" of some U2 fans. Every song on here is incredible. I'm don't know why some are mocking it.

Did someone mock this list? I didn't catch that. My post was sarcastic, that's what the wink means, right?

 

[LadySpinHead]

As a mostly casual fan several years ago, I owned Zooropa and Pop. WOWY was my favorite U2 song. Still is.

 

[ryancoke71]

That's actually a pretty decent top 5 list. More than decent. If it had included BD or Vertigo or Stuck or even Pride, I'd be thinking "Hmmm. They need a little more exposure to U2's catalog". I'm not criticizing anyone here, but there does seem to be an element of snobbery amongst the die-hard faithful when it comes to casuals. I'm a casual Stones fan and my top 5 are 1. Gimme Shelter 2. Jumpin Jack Flash 3. Angie 4. Paint It Black 5. Tumbling Dice. Now, that list would probably be ridiculed by die-hard Stones fans. Does that mean I'm an inbred cretin who knows nothing about the Stones? Some would say so, but they would be snobbish dicks.

What digitize has done is compiled a list on what this forum thinks are the best U2 songs. The more "die-hard" fans will have more exposure to the full catalogue, and that is where opinions start to differ. We were asked to rate songs on whatever criteria we choose. For me, the fact that songs like "One" got so much air play made me tire of listening to them. I don't deny that it is a great song, I just don't rate it in my top 10. Same with SBS. In fact, the reason I enjoy these songs when I see them in concert now is because they are not songs I listen to regularly anymore. Then you have songs like "Streets" that I never tire of hearing. People criticising the die-hard list is what I don't get. This is Interference after all....a fan forum. We voted based on what we thought, and the list reflects the opinion of this forum.

ETA: I am a casual Stones fan myself, and my top 5 list is totally different than yours, but with a catalogue so diverse, it is to be expected!

 

[Nick66]

Did someone mock this list? I didn't catch that. My post was sarcastic, that's what the wink means, right?

That wasn't directed at you.

As a mostly casual fan several years ago, I owned Zooropa and Pop. WOWY was my favorite U2 song. Still is.

I think WOWY is better than anything on either of those records as well. Just because the song is overplayed doesn't take away from the raw power of those lyrics, and the incredible mood and atmosphere that music is able to evoke.

 

[An Cat Gav]

Rateyourmusic's U2 top 5:

1. Sunday Bloody Sunday
2. With Or Without You
3. New Year's Day
4. Where The Streets Have No Name
5. One

This is what casual fans think the best U2 songs are. This is an uneducated opinion, one I'm glad I no longer have to share.

This list could be a lot worse!

I'm only surprised that SBS is in the top 5 and Pride isn't.

 

[Globo14]

U2's catalog is too damn huge for us all to have the same, or even similar, lists. Non-die-hards have only heard a few of U2's songs, so they can only form an opinion based on those. Once you get into die-hard territory, you've heard the songs that Interference thinks are the best (Zooropa, The Fly, etc).

Who gives a fuck what the outside world's opinion is about U2's best songs? We're not part of it. If we were, we wouldn't be here.

 

[Globo14]

I think WOWY is better than anything on either of those records as well. Just because the song is overplayed doesn't take away from the raw power of those lyrics, and the incredible mood and atmosphere that music is able to evoke.

You do realize that it was ranked as Interference's 4th favorite song, don't you?

 

[Scorpionac]

1) Where the Streets Have No Name
2) Zooropa
3) The Fly

34) One

Predictable.

Familiarity breeds contempt, or at least leads to undervaluing. I think most people here would still agree that One is a great song, though. Personally, I love One. However, I'm not sure there aren't 33 other U2 songs I like more or equally. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate the song. I think it's the collective adoration of a few lesser-known tracks and undervaluing of a few well-known tracks which make the results appear skewed. (Perhaps we should ask everyone to make their own lists and then hunt down the people who do indeed rate One at 34. Or maybe it doesn't matter.)

Liking Zooropa, or thinking Acrobat is the best song on AB doesn't make your opinion any better, or more valid, than a fan who only listens to U2 occasionally. Not by even a tiny bit. Nor does it make any of the lesser known songs "better" than the well known ones.

I don't think anyone thinks the Rate the Song result makes their opinion better or more valid. And of course being a rabid U2 fan who listens to and enjoys their whole catalogue doesn't make lesser-known songs better. There's no way for any song to be "better" than another, other than in the realm of opinion.

Listening habits re: U2 may change a fan's opinions re: their best songs, but that's all that may change. Of course one can argue which songs are their best, but I haven't seen any of that (beyond arguments about different songs' Importance, which don't seem to fly).

The overwhelming majority don't hang out at places like Interference or @U2, don't obsessively follow (and complain about) the set list from night to night, and speculate as to whether Bono was faking his back injury.

It was only a couple people doing that last one.

Moreover, a lot of the well known "hits" are well known hits because the songs are just fu**ing great.

Indeed. U2 also have a lot of great album tracks, too.

I don't understand this Hive nonsense. Yes, you could probably make a little list of songs that die-hard U2 fans rate higher than casual fans, and a little list of songs die-hard U2 fans undervalue relatively. But I don't think anyone gravitates towards the mass die-hard opinion. It's just that familiarity breeds contempt, and U2 do have some genuinely great album tracks. Simple as that. Look at anyone's own personal list of favourites, and you wouldn't find a single list in common. Hell, I think Discotheque deserves a top ten spot. That's my opinion, which I believe. I believe it's one of U2's best songs. But I know very few would agree.

If you want to contest a certain song placing higher than another one, feel free. If you want to actually articulate what the MUSIC does and what it means, and delve into why one song's actuality is better than another's, please go ahead. Otherwise, you're just spitting into the wind.

 

[LemonMelon]

Revealing.

Not at all. In fact, it's entirely logical.

In a world where taste offers no objective criteria for quality, there has to be a filter somewhere. If a list is informed by a limited quantity of information, how seriously can you take it, really? For me, you could take all of U2's singles from 1980-1994, chuck them into a hat, pull out 5 and come up with a list equally good to RYM's, which is a testament to the quality present here (yeah, you could pull out Fire or When Love Comes To Town, but you could also get TUF or AIWIY, which I consider to be among their best material). Of course, they probably didn't do that. Instead, they took 10 songs and pulled out 5. If I want to know about U2, I ask a U2 fan. If I want to know what their best work is, I ask someone who's privy to all of it, not just the portion Clear Channel says is OK to play. I don't see how this is snobbish or hive-minded.

With regards to my Vertigo v. Stateless post, I intake too much music to listen to everyone's opinion. If you've heard 20 U2 songs and take away Vertigo as your favorite, it doesn't have to do with intelligence or pedigree, so much as your taste doesn't align with mine; I'm not sure that your criteria for good music is close enough to my own that your opinion could be useful to me. That's DEFINITELY snobbish, but it's reality. There are billions of people I could take advice from, so, again, it's best to have a filter of some kind, and that for me is to skim over those who enjoy what I perceive to be crap.

 

[digitize]

I think it's also important to keep in mind that, even if casual fans may have heard albums like Zooropa and Pop, Interference people are more likely to understand those records. This may be a snobbish comment, but those are complicated albums, and I think it takes a good amount of knowledge about the circumstances surrounding them to fully enjoy them. Of course, there are Interference people who are not wild about Zooropa and/or Pop (Nick being an example), despite being exposed to that knowledge, and that's fine. They're not everyone's cup of tea. But I think a full appreciation of those albums is easier to reach with a lot of background knowledge about them.

 

[djerdap]

The thing about U2 is, and I'm usually always starting a conversation like this with somebody who hates the band - who is usually ignorant and knows about 5-10 songs - is that I sincerely believe that they are quite possibly the most misunderstood major rock band that I know of. People accuse them (and this is especially true in the post-Beautiful Day era) of being sappy, overblown and repeating the same formula over and over again, when their pre-2000 output proves that they are anything but. Emotional subtlety, unpredictability, ability to connect with the music and the lyrics on a personal level while getting from the songs a multi-layered interpretation, not to mention the constant reinventions and genre-bending (relatively speaking of course) sounds they made, are some of the reasons why I love their music.

I started listening to U2 when I was very young, stealing my brother's cassettes of Achtung Baby, Zooropa, Rattle and Hum and The Joshua Tree and listening to them religiously. Never have I considered U2 to be a "hit" band (I didn't know they were that big in the beginning) and a band that is defined by 10 songs, but an album band, a band that hides so many gems and beautiful tracks in their enormous catalogue, that don't have the huge commercial appeal, which is what they have in common with many of their contemporary rock bands. When it comes to songs like I Still Haven't Found, Desire, Pride or Beautiful Day, I have very little emotional resonance to those songs, which has nothing to do with them being overplayed or worn out. I have rarely listened to the radio or watched television to have this form my opinion (although it wouldn't even if such thing happened). However, songs like Acrobat, Love is Blindness, Lemon and Running To Stand Still are some of my favourite songs in general. Just as With or Without You and New Year's Day are. It has nothing to do with whether these songs are universally loved or not.

The main advantage in this band consists of the fact that there are tons of songs, not as known to the public, that one could connect with, that do not have the slightest bit of the so-called U2 formula that annoys so many people nowadays (which - again - I largely consider to be a direct result of their songwriting approach in the last decade) and that cover so many different colours on a sonic and on an emotional palette. Many of those would rarely appear on some lists voted by the "outside world". And I could care less. It wouldn't surprise me at all that people who are annoyed by the usual U2 anthems would find something impressive in their lesser-known songs that are fan favourites at the same time. In fact, I did manage to "convert" at least one friend precisely by doing this.

Does this make someone who prefers the well-known songs and the hits as having "inferior taste" or "uneducated opinion"? Far from it. There are tons of different tastes out there, which is why I am a bit annoyed with this generalisation of the "outside world" as well.

 

[trevgreg]

The thing about U2 is, and I'm usually always starting a conversation like this with somebody who hates the band - who is usually ignorant and knows about 5-10 songs - is that I sincerely believe that they are quite possibly the most misunderstood major rock band that I know of. People accuse them (and this is especially true in the post-Beautiful Day era) of being sappy, overblown and repeating the same formula over and over again, when their pre-2000 output proves that they are anything but. Emotional subtlety, unpredictability, ability to connect with the music and the lyrics on a personal level while getting from the songs a multi-layered interpretation, not to mention the constant reinventions and genre-bending (relatively speaking of course) sounds they made, are some of the reasons why I love their music.

I started listening to U2 when I was very young, stealing my brother's cassettes of Achtung Baby, Zooropa, Rattle and Hum and The Joshua Tree and listening to them religiously. Never have I considered U2 to be a "hit" band (I didn't know they were that big in the beginning) and a band that is defined by 10 songs, but an album band, a band that hides so many gems and beautiful tracks in their enormous catalogue, that don't have the huge commercial appeal, which is what they have in common with many of their contemporary rock bands. When it comes to songs like I Still Haven't Found, Desire, Pride or Beautiful Day, I have very little emotional resonance to those songs, which has nothing to do with them being overplayed or worn out. I have rarely listened to the radio or watched television to have this form my opinion (although it wouldn't even if such thing happened). However, songs like Acrobat, Love is Blindness, Lemon and Running To Stand Still are some of my favourite songs in general. Just as With or Without You and New Year's Day are. It has nothing to do with whether these songs are universally loved or not.

The main advantage in this band consists of the fact that there are tons of songs, not as known to the public, that one could connect with, that do not have the slightest bit of the so-called U2 formula that annoys so many people nowadays (which - again - I largely consider to be a direct result of their songwriting approach in the last decade) and that cover so many different colours on a sonic and on an emotional palette. Many of those would rarely appear on some lists voted by the "outside world". And I could care less. It wouldn't surprise me at all that people who are annoyed by the usual U2 anthems would find something impressive in their lesser-known songs that are fan favourites at the same time. In fact, I did manage to "convert" at least one friend precisely by doing this.

Does this make someone who prefers the well-known songs and the hits as having "inferior taste" or "uneducated opinion"? Far from it. There are tons of different tastes out there, which is why I am a bit annoyed with this generalisation of the "outside world" as well.

I agree with pretty much most of what you said. Even here, you see examples of different tastes all the time. There's songs by the band that I can't stand while others here think they're amazing and vice versa. When you think of all the bands we've gotten to before in the past, it usually started like you did. We steal and album or two and give it a listen, and a lot of non-singles naturally would hit home more than some of the singles. Then sometimes that leads to trying to find more material by the band or something similar-sounding It's just a matter of putting time into doing that, and unfortunately if you already have an opinion the band after a few songs, then that might not change in the future.

 

[Galeongirl]

Well said Djerdap. +1.

 

[lazarus]

+2

Looks like The Hive is now going to overrate djerdap's post.

 

[Nick66]

I think it's also important to keep in mind that, even if casual fans may have heard albums like Zooropa and Pop, Interference people are more likely to understand those records. This may be a snobbish comment, but those are complicated albums, and I think it takes a good amount of knowledge about the circumstances surrounding them to fully enjoy them.

You know, I find most of your comments to be pretty salient Dig, and you've done yeoman's work on these polls, but I have to say, based on observing this band for quite sometime, anyone in U2 (especially Bono) wold be agast to see what you wrote there, particularly the last sentence. Pop, in particular, was specifically designed to be a very accessible album to the general listening public. If U2 didn't succeed in delivering that, then they failed as artists (and the band certainly feels that way). What you've described here, in fact, is the exact opposite of what U2 aspires to with their music. More than anything, they want their music to be accessible.

If you have to "good amount of knowledge about the circumstances" of an album to appreciate, understand, or "fully enjoy" it, the artist has already failed. The music should speak for itself.

And yeah, it was kind of a snobbish comment. Sorry man.

 

[cobl04]

I can't imagine too many people really comprehending or understanding Tom Waits' Swordfishtrombones after a couple of listens (hell, I like the album but I still discover something fascinating about it with every listen). That doesn't mean it's a failure. I suspect you've put me on ignore though.

Some Albums Are More Accessible Than Others

 

[gvox]

 

[cobl04]

Missing apostrophe + unnecessary extra "y" = fail

 

[Nick66]

I can't imagine too many people really comprehending or understanding Tom Waits' Swordfishtrombones after a couple of listens (hell, I like the album but I still discover something fascinating about it with every listen). That doesn't mean it's a failure. I suspect you've put me on ignore though.

Some Albums Are More Accessible Than Others

Well, that's a different point. I agree completely that some albums take their time to reveal themselves to you, and that many can take repeated listenings before you really get a handle on what's going on.

But that's an organic process in discovering the music through the music...and is very different than saying you have to know the circumstances surrounding the record to fully appreciate it. Knowing the circumstances certainly may enhance your listening experience; but if the music doesn't work on its own merits, the artist hasn't succeeded in reaching you.

And no, I haven't put you on ignore. I've just been ignoring you.

I actually don't put anyone on ignore here...that would mean I actually cared enough about the insults thrown my way here to bother me. Sorry.

 

[LemonMelon]

You know, I find most of your comments to be pretty salient Dig, and you've done yeoman's work on these polls, but I have to say, based on observing this band for quite sometime, anyone in U2 (especially Bono) wold be agast to see what you wrote there, particularly the last sentence. Pop, in particular, was specifically designed to be a very accessible album to the general listening public. If U2 didn't succeed in delivering that, then they failed as artists (and the band certainly feels that way). What you've described here, in fact, is the exact opposite of what U2 aspires to with their music. More than anything, they want their music to be accessible.

I would argue that they weren't reaching out to audiences with lead singles like The Fly and Numb. As a matter of fact, I've heard dozens of people say that U2 "lost them" in the 90s. This isn't because U2 got too commercial for them, I can assure you. They wanted to "fuck up the mainstream" by taking advantage of their position (which they also didn't earn by pandering), not by reflecting the rest of top 40 radio.

Pop was an ironic title. I've never heard U2 say once that they were hopping onto musical bandwagons of the era in order to make their music more accessible, or anything about accessibility, really. This is a tag that others have retroactively attached to the album via hindsight. Miami and Wake Up Dead Man aren't pandering. Nor is Mofo. And that inaccessibility isn't an example of an artistic shortcoming, it was a specific choice they made. It's not like they went in trying to make a Lionel Ritchie record and wound up with a PIL record because they suck at making music.

 

[digitize]

Pop, in particular, was specifically designed to be a very accessible album to the general listening public.

I really, really don't think so. The album is largely an irony-fest, and pretty much a parody of what it copies.

It's still an accessible album in that it is very human below all of the layers of irony and electronica. But, for better or for worse, there is a lot of irony in that album that does take more than a casual listen to pick up on. Some people may like that, some people may not. I do, and it's fine that you don't.

 

[cobl04]

I didn't see that comment before. I think you've got a different copy of Pop than the rest of us nick. I vehemently disagree.

 

[Nick66]

I think people here really need to brush up on their U2 history, particularly where Pop is concerned. Here's something to get you started (and there are LOTS of comments about Pop from them along these lines, but don't expect me to do all the research for you):

Imagine if "Discotheque" was a No. 1 pop song? Now that record makes sense. We didn't have the discipline to screw the thing down, and turn it into a magic pop song. We didn't have the discipline to make "Mo Fo" into a loud concoction of rock 'n' roll, trance crossover. We learned from that album. We'd become progressive rock! Ahhh! It's on us!...It didn't communicate the way it was intended to....it was supposed to change the mood of that summer [1997]. An album changes the mood of a summer when you walk out of a pub and you have those songs in your head. And you hear them coming from a car, an open window. It changes the mood of the season. Instead it became a niche record...but that's not what it was intended to be.
-Bono, 2005

Now, I'm not sure how anyone reading this can say that U2 didn't intend for Pop to be widely accessible to the public, but I'm sure there are many here on Interference who know U2 better than U2 will try.

 

[LemonMelon]

If U2 had been given an extra 3 months with Pop, it wouldn't have sounded like ATYCLB. The major complaint that they have about the record is that it was rushed. They weren't shooting for accessibility and missed, they simply weren't allotted enough time to properly flesh out some of their ideas.

 

[digitize]

I think people here really need to brush up on their U2 history, particularly where Pop is concerned. Here's something to get you started (but don't expect me to do all the research for you):

Now, I'm not sure how anyone reading this can say that U2 didn't intend for Pop to be widely accessible to the public, but I'm sure there are many here on Interference who know U2 better than U2 will try.

Here's the thing, though. There's more to it than that. I suppose you are right; they probably did have some hit intentions. But part of the reason why that failed is because there was always more to it than that. There is a lot of really deep irony on that album, and I don't think that anyone could ever really argue that songs like Wake Up Dead Man, Miami, and The Playboy Mansion would ever have any hit potential in any form. To really fully enjoy the album, you have to realize that it is not earnest. There are also hit intentions, but it's also a very dark album of self-mockery, and the songs are pretty obviously that way by design, not as a result of some production accident. And I don't think the album can be fully appreciated without that. Without realizing that, it comes across as a bit of a lame attempt at connecting with the "club crowd". But I love the album because there is so much more to it than that.