Are U2 rip-off artists ?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

EvolutionMonkey

Acrobat
Joined
May 9, 2003
Messages
489
Location
Vancouver, Canada
It never ceases to amaze me the amount of negativity I see about U2. The crux of the following article someone wrote is that U2 are rip off artists.

"It?s a new year, and yet another one where U2 is still a huge band of international renown: their second ?greatest hits? package and DVD collection are riding high on the charts as the accolades and awards pile up. Let?s think about this, though: aren?t U2 records just big piles of crap? Often they are. Isn?t lead singer Bono?s self-righteousness and nudge-wink irony (re: pop music) just getting a little tiresome? Indeed it is. (I for one can?t stand the fact that when some punk-rock legend dies, the media quotes Bono?s feelings on it like he is the only living expert on the matter.) Don?t you hate what U2 has done to rock?n?roll? I know I do.

Initially, I was going to Compare and Contrast U2 and David Bowie. Both are iconic rock figures that, in my humble opinion, have achieved little musically except for re-packaging the work of relatively obscure and mainly interesting artists, and serving it up hot for average teenagers and suburban housewives alike. Both have a talent for getting the mass media to champion (or, at the very least, publicize) a brand of music heretofore an underground phenomenon, and having said media outlets pass it off as their own innovation (anybody remember Tin Machine?). I decided to leave Bowie alone, though. After all, he brought the music of Iggy Pop and Lou Reed to a much greater audience. U2 gave us Sinead O?Connor and the rather execrable Hothouse Flowers. Yikes.

U2 formed in Belfast, Ireland in 1978, inspired by punk-rock but having a big ol? soft spot for classic rock of the Who/Led Zeppelin variety. The great similarity they have to Led Zep is their ability to make something that doesn?t look great on paper sound amazing and new. Throughout their career, U2 looked around and stole from the best; lately they are stealing verbatim from ?80s Top 40 hits.

Initially, U2 appropriated the work of such post-punk gods as Public Image Ltd., Joy Division and the Gang of Four. Scratch someone who thinks The Edge is anything more than a technically adept pedal-stomper, and you will find someone who has never heard the above. Like many great classic-rock artists from John Lennon onward, U2 steal from the brilliant yet obscure, and pass it off as their own. U2?s 1980 debut (and probably their best record, as it is the least pretentious), Boy, was their most punk-influenced and easily relatable as its theme was growing up in an unhealthy and often dangerous environment. The rhythm section rocked like a less doom-laden Joy Division and the sound engineer on it didn?t turn up those ?passionate? moments where Bono says something ?deep? under his breath ? usually a grunt or the word ?yeah?.

Subsequent records, like October, War and (the Eno/Lanois-produced) The Unforgettable Fire piled on the pretention and atmosphere stolen from the era?s goths. Like Zeppelin before them, they were there era?s epitome of Album-Oriented Rock ? singles being irrelevant and unnecessary (the early ?80s Top 40 was rather sunny and un-self-conscious, and U2 didn?t quite fit in to the mold of Culture Club and Wham!). At this point, Bono started his fascination with Americana, especially the music of classic blues artists and Bruce Springsteen. The Boss? 1982 LP Nebraska was a huge influence on 1987?s The Joshua Tree (the OK Computer of the ?80s), with its emphasis on storytelling and air of intimacy. This album made U2 international rock stars, and since the rock music world of the time had little else to offer (hair metal, ?geezer? rock, the ?alternative? rock that U2 was stealing from already), they picked up the ball and ran with it.

Next came the Rattle and Hum movie and soundtrack, where U2 came off as major self-righteous dicks and told the world for the very first time about such underground artists as Billie Holliday and B.B. King.

After successfully licking their wounds from such a fiasco, U2 unveiled Achtung Baby! in 1991. This was U2?s first ?dance? album (in a way, they have been making those ever since), as it was a clever re-working of ideas nicked from the Madchester dance-and-drug scene of the time, with some My Bloody Valentine-esque guitar action thrown in.

Since then, U2 records have been released in conjunction with some publicity stunt or irony-laced ranting on the part of Bono, who is still trying to save the world through PR. What has struck me as odd is that U2 is stealing from the Top 40 that they thought they were so above. Their 2000 hit ?Beautiful Day? is verrrrrry similar to A-ha?s 1985 single ?The Sun Always Shines On TV.? Their recent number, ?Electrical Storm,? is stolen almost verbatim from Bryan Adams? 1984 smash ?Run to You? ? with a little of ?This Time? thrown in.

Smokey Highly Recommends: Selling your U2 records and giving the money to Negativland."
 
Where's this guy live? I wanna talk to him in person. Oh, and he's wrong on all points. The greats don't live in vacums, they absorbe and learn. Then make it their own. Negativland are the real rip-off artists.
 
MrBrau1 said:
Where's this guy live? I wanna talk to him in person. Oh, and he's wrong on all points. The greats don't live in vacums, they absorbe and learn. Then make it their own. Negativland are the real rip-off artists.

I agree with you and theres alot of errors which makes me think maybe he just made the article to piss people off. Last time I checked U2 are from Dublin not Belffast and Electrical Storm sounding like Run To You shows that his ears are obviously broken ! :eyebrow:
 
It would help if this person knew anything about music. U2 sounding like P.I.L. and Joy Division!?!? What a tool.
 
Whata load of rubbish :coocoo:

If he was gonna start on Bowie as well then what music does this guy actually like? :scratch:
 
celia said:
Whata load of rubbish :coocoo:

If he was gonna start on Bowie as well then what music does this guy actually like? :scratch:

I think he's probably the typical fan of 80's punk and new wave stuff(Cure, Black Flag, etc.) He probably used to like U2, but then they "sold out".
 
MrBrau1 said:


I think he's probably the typical fan of 80's punk and new wave stuff(Cure, Black Flag, etc.) He probably used to like U2, but then they "sold out".

haha yeah that sounds about right.
 
Ok so U2 are from Belfast? They gave us Sinead? Why because they are from the same fuckin country. AB is a "dance" album? People really shouldn't write when on CRACK.

Yes there are some arguments that I've heard before and maybe some on this board would even agree with, but the other 95% is pure rubbish...
 
It's fine it you don't like U2, but you should at least get your facts straight. U2 are not from Belfast and formed before 1978, nor did they discover Sinead O'Connor, she was already a rising star before u2 ever did any work with her, not to mention that their relationship with her has been shakey at best. I wanna run to you sounds nothing like electrical storm,....and he thinks that David Bowie is crap :wink:
 
This writer is a moron. All artists have influences, even the great ones. And U2 has always been forthright about who their influences are. If anything, they probably got some of their fans interested in some of the more obscure bands they were influenced by. How it that a bad thing?

I seem to remember some other article slamming U2 that was posted here some time ago that claimed the band is from Belfast. I wonder if it could be the same person.
 
This article in some form was posted here before, and we all slammed it, and rightfully so..

So, let's not waste our energy on this article!

Let's just think about kitties and ice cold water.
 
just one more funny part - They got The Joshua Tree from Nebraska!?!? Nebraska is an acoustic album. Need I say it again? This guy is a complete tool.
 
the guy who wrote this article has been drinking way too much....

1742hatorade.jpg
 
What's the big deal? U2 definitely borrow lyrics, quotes and melodies from other bands. U2 admits it with their lyric "every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief." I think its too much to call it "rip-off" - influence is a better word.

Cheers,

J
 
J, you are correct!! I love critics and music lovers who point their fingers at the big rock stars and cry "Sell Out"!! If you don't want to sell out, don't get signed and record and album.

And tell me who isn't ripping of whomever these days. Are rappes and hip-hop artists who sample older songs in that same 'rip-off' box? Some people find their target and shoot at it, but rarely do these critics ever really hit the target.
 
Hmmm... sounds alot like someone I've read before who has always been envious (because he'd not as talented) of Bono. He lives to slam U2. They just can't get over..what ever it is that makes them so bitter aganist U2. Whatever, it doesn't matter. People who believe it, have never mattered anyway. Not likely too, either - in the future.
 
Just another pseudo-intellectual punk. Bryan Adams? Holy crap.

Probably why it sound so much like Rollins. Ignorance disguised as intelligent critique.

U2 have borrowed from all elements of popular music and culture. I think U2 have been guilty over indulgence or over-doing it.

The Joshua Tree and Tour was brilliant
The Rattle and Hum Movie and Lovewtown was indulgent and uneccessary.

Achtung Baby and ZooTv were brilliant.
POPmart was over indulgence at it's finest and the quality of the music on POP was sacrificed because of greed. They had signed the tour before they were done recording.

They just don't know when to put on the breaks when they've got a good thing going. We will know within 6 or 8 months of U2 has decided to move into a new area of creative energy or just get indulgent again.

All i am saying is the band and namely Bono, have doen a few things that do deserve criticism, they are not above reproach.

The guy who wrote this has lost sight of the fact that they are a very mainstream band who gets critical praise and fans who are not often mainstream. Why? Because they are good and have given nods to artistic influence while making mainstream rock, or even pop.

He holds the grudge from the 80's. He probably would write the same about REM but hasn't because they aren't as popular, not as easy of a target.

U2 are the Beatles for the rock and roll fan of the modern era. Some fans and critics worship the ground they walk on and some are contrarian, and just criticize not really understanding.

how many of you had friends, co-workers, or relatives who totally did not understand the pop culture/irony statemnt of ZooTv thru Popmart?

It was easily explainable before 1996. In fact it was quite brilliant for a band in their position. So what did they do with that? They over indulged. And the critics were shown the same thing that they thrive on. They think U2 are egomaniacs who aren't original. They thought it was comical, and in truth some of that was.

How beautiful and powerful is a song like Mofo, which was about Bono and his mother whom he lost at a young age, and how much was it affected by the manner in which it was presented live and on a album over underproduced material?

This is something that a U2 fan can easily understand but to a Joe Schmoe music critic, who is already predispositioned to criticize them, he will take it and add it to his list if supposed negative evidence about the band. Some of it is warranted, but not much.

In actuality they are just artists who make statements, some original and some borrowed from other good artists. They write songs, good songs, they are great peformers and you get your money worth when you see them live.

What makes them so special? They have done it for 25 years, with the same 4 members, and the only thing that has really changed about them personally is that they've gotten older. The music has changed, but that is just a sign of progression.

Some bands aren't going to progress with their sound because it goes against what they are about. AC/DC is a fine example.

U2 is all about progression. It's music that is meant to be alive, with vitality, spirituality and creativity. They don't always get the credit they deserve and they get unfairly railed against by some of the ignorant, but in truth that's why they are where they are.

Because they are basically the standard for modern bands. It is only natural that everything they've done to be ripped apart only to remain intact. Because the standard is the music itself, not the image that has gone along with it.
 
EvolutionMonkey said:


Someone posted it at a musicians board I goto but never posted the source but sounds like Henry "I hate U2" Rollins in some way.


no, too many words and not enough slagging of the fans, the country, the people in the country that have nothing to do with the band or aren't possibly even fans, the road pavement, the grrass in the fields, the oxygen in the air, etc.

and even mr rollins knows they're from dublin...
 
Back
Top Bottom