Unfortunately, I'm not going for credibility on this site or trying to win the 'most popular' or 'best debater' award. That stuff means nothing to me. And as you said, I don't have the time or the will to edify you on my stance. I come on this site maybe once a day to briefly read things, and if you look at my posts per day for how long I have been here, I don't do much.
And if I came across as a Homer, I don't care.
Because it's my opinion, it doesn't mean it's a fact or a correct statement. It's just that - an opinion. And because it's an opinion, and we all have them, that person tends to believe their opinion is correct. We all do it.
I'll try to explain why I feel the way I do because I know I'm not the only one on this site who feels this way.
First of all, the most obvious thing - listen to all the songs from the 90's and all of the songs from the 00's. There is a drastic style change in both music and lyrics. The 90's were darker, lyrically and musically. The 00's have been more uplifting, hopeful, and are more friendly to the ear.
Because of this, I have many friends who believe U2 is nothing but shit. I take the time to defend U2 about pre-00's, since that is really all they know, but agree with them that the music from the 00's suck ass.
Take for instance the Billboard Charts. For the most part, in my opinion, everything on the Billboard Charts is based off of popularity - how many fans are buying the albums and single and how many people are requesting the songs on the radio stations and the frequency of spins. In 00's, U2 experienced a HUGE influx in charts that they hadn't really since Joshua Tree. U2 was all over the radio. It was because of U2, and U2 alone, that I got sick of radio in 2000/2001 when I heard Beautiful Day all of the fucking time. I actually called my local radio station and begged them to stop playing that song. Then I just stopped listening to radio. Popularity doesn't equate to quality. We all know this. And we know that mainstream and quality don't really go hand-in-hand.
Is it not fact, or maybe it's just theory, that after Pop and what U2 called a disastrous tour that followed, that they got scared and wanted to win their fans back? To me, wanting to win fans back as opposed to just creating music for music, is borderline selling out and borderline making music that is mainstream, that is accessible to the ear. Zooropa and Pop aren't exactly accessible to the ear - with their dark musical sounds and lyrics overall unfriendly sounds. Therefore I never hear Zooropa and Pop on the radio, now that I'm listening to it since Beautiful is not played 50 million times a day anymore. All I hear are Beautiful Day, Walk On, Stuck, Vertigo, All Because Of You, HMKMKMKM (if the DJ is feeling generous that day), Mysterious Ways, One and then all of the singles from the 80's.
And finally, Grammy Awards. I used to be interested in this and excited when U2 won, but then a few years ago I discovered that the Grammy voters are biased and a lot of it, while not being based off sales or charts, is curiously related to sales and charts. Maybe the Grammy voters had class at one point, especially since Zooropa won Best Alternative Album, which to me is a shocker, cause that's clearly not based off of charts or sales. But they hadn't won a Grammy (aside from ZooTv Sydney) since then until the 00's with the last two albums. Then they win 12 combined on those two albums. That's when I said, ya know what, the Grammy voters truly aren't voting on the best songs or albums, the Grammy's are nothing but a popularity contest on mainstream music based off of charts and sales. I see it year after year now, because clearly, ATYCLB was not the best rock album of the year, and HTDAAB surely was not album of the year, when you look at quality. I suppose if you look at charts and sales, then yes, maybe it was.
But had U2 won a grammy for a quality album, like they did with Zooropa, an album that was different, instead of winning with ATYCLB and HTDAAB, both of which are friendly to the ear, Adult Top 40 regurgitation, then I wouldn't have an issue with the grammy's.
You've got high school kids going out and buying U2 There's been a huge influx of new U2 fans, a lot under the age of 18, since 2000. I really doubt you saw that when Zooropa and Pop came out. The majority of this population, especially in America, don't want to give the time to different music. They buy what is on the radio. And suddenly album sales shoot up because the radio stations belt out single after single of U2 for ATYCLB and HTDAAB. After Discotheque, I only heard other Pop songs on college radio.
I really can't think of any more to say, but this is why I think U2 are starting to sell out and are regurgitate mainstream music. I have not been happy with the last two albums. And if the next commercially released album, and this rumored digital-only released album are in the same vein, third time is the charm, I'm done with U2. But that's a different topic of conversation.
This is why I feel the iPod application would be a bad idea for U2. To me, it seems like their musical decisions for the last 8 years are being based off of the best way to get more fans and make more money instead of just being about the music.
haha, yeah, it's been that way since "U2 3", they would still play in the garage or some basement after work if it was just about the music...
I don't have a major issue with it, I just don't like to see people expressing opinions so harshly, like LMJ is the "shittiest person in rock".
