How good is U2?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
BANZAI

BANZAI

War Child
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
575
Of course, everybody on this forum LOVES U2. But try to be as realistic and honest as possible when answering the next question: How good is U2?

I'm not talking about the magic between the band members but purely their music. Is it up there with The Beatles, The Stones, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan, The Doors etc.? Or has U2's music less quality than the above mentioned bands? When so, with which other bands do you compare the quality of U2's music? Bands like R.E.M. or Red Hot Chili Peppers for example?

Although U2 is the only band I'm really a fan of, I think the quality of their music falls into the second category. In that case, what makes me a U2 fan? For me it's not only the music, it's the band itself, their live concerts, and a whole lot more!
 
I think the quality of the music is up there with the best (beatles, stones, pink floyd). Their sound is unique but u2 had different styles. I'm not saying all of the albums are as good as music from the beatles or so, but when I look at u2's catalogue and for example the beatles's, I think it's maybe better.

I think this is the 1st category (quality of music, not my taste):
- Beatles
- Rolling Stones
- Pink Floyd
- Led Zeppelin
- U2

The second category:
- REM
- The Doors
- The Kinks
- The Police
- Queen

3rd category:
- Oasis
- Coldplay
- Red Hot Chili Peppers
- Nirvana
- Pearl Jam
- The Killers

Maybe U2 is in between the 1st and the second...
 
Aside from their studio work I think they're certainly the best live band on the planet, and definitely one of the most interesting bands.
 
BANZAI said:
Of course, everybody on this forum LOVES U2. But try to be as realistic and honest as possible when answering the next question: How good is U2?

I'm not talking about the magic between the band members but purely their music.
Click to expand...

Hmm. In a purely technical sense, U2's frankly not very good at all. My first level would include bands such as Porcupine Tree, Pure Reason Revolution, Dream Theater, and Orphaned Land, and in comparison, U2 just doesn't register on the radar, or if they do, it's due to riding on Edge's back. Larry's been bland since Rattle And Hum (with October and War his only truly notable outings), and Adam's only true moment of quality was the Pop album.

However, sticking to how good they are in a purely musical sense but broadening the definition to cover not just the technical aspects but also the use of the music in creating atmosphere and soundscapes, I would rate U2 (at least eighties U2 plus Zooropa and Passengers anyway) up with the best of them. The Unforgettable Fire and The Joshua Tree are especially strong statements of the band's ability to use music very powerfully.
 
U2 is a classic case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. If you were rating individual members (best drummer, bassist etc) you'd never mention anyone in U2 (possibly Edge, but guitar people don't give him love, maybe because he doesn't do ridiculous 20-minute solos). But the band itself is great.

I know the whole comparison/top 10 bands thing has been done to death here, but I like to look at it in terms of eras (I think comparing across time is pretty pointless, like trying to decide who's better between Wilt Chamberlain & Shaquille O'Neal), and U2 is definitely THE band of the last 25 years, which is pretty impressive. And there really isn't anybody close to them in their time.
 
To me, there are the "untouchable" group of legendary bands like Zeppelin and Floyd (some would say the Beatles,maybe the Stones).

then there's a secondary group of incredible bands right under them but don't touch them. For me, it's bands like the Who, The Clash, Radiohead, Pearl Jam....etc etc.

I feel u2 are better than anyone in the second group, but just can't get into that "upper" group. I don't know if they ever will, maybe 10 more years have to go by to see how their music stands.

That's how I see it. u2 are my favorite band, too, as much as I love floyd and zeppelin. I would say I love their music as much as the "upper tier" but if someone told me I'm fucking crazy for thinking u2 are as good as Zeppelin, I would say "can't argue with that."
 
Last edited:
CTU2fan said:
U2 is a classic case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. If you were rating individual members (best drummer, bassist etc) you'd never mention anyone in U2 (possibly Edge, but guitar people don't give him love, maybe because he doesn't do ridiculous 20-minute solos). But the band itself is great.
Click to expand...

:yes:

Or at least the band was great and is now pretty decent.
 
Musically, they are not the best. I've talked to a friend of mine that is a drummer, and he told me Larry was a really bad drummer to be in a band as good as U2. However, he doesn't know much of the early 80's, when I think Larry was a lot better.... but it has to do with what kind of music they want to do as well..... anyway, Larry did a really good job on the Saints song.....
I still believe that as a band they are damn strong and at the top top top 3-4 bands of all time..... up there with the Beatles, Stones, Pink Floyd..... it's hard to know who is better than who..... we will anyway remember U2 in 50 years....... that's important. Sunday Bloody Sunday is still played a lot 23 years after it went out....... I don't hear that much Led Zep on the radio.....
 
led zep is all over the radio, i guess it depends on what city you're in...
larry mullen jr. has always been the weak link in the band. he did do some good stuff back in the old days though.
 
I don't think Larry is a weak link. I think he's not a typical rock and roll drummer. That's part of the reason their music sounds like it does. He's got a very different style so the songs come out much differently than they would with a pure rock, drum solo, shaggy haired shirtless drummer. Larry is a military band drummer.
 
It's so subjective.

But I have to say, I think the Stones are MASSIVELY overrated. Yes, they had a period of ten years when they knocked out some great tunes, but since the late 70s, none of their music has done anything for me (apart from Anyone Seen My Baby).
 
The best band currently on earth in terms of songwriting talents...not sure about the past. I guess I would put them up in the top three; right behind the Beatles and Zeppelin. :drool:
 
If you look at it in terms of classic albums, U2 with only two masterpeices are well behind The Beatles, Stones and Led Zepplin. I think they are getting close to Pink Floyd and The Who in terms of greatness though. Totally subjective I know...
 
BANZAI said:

I'm not talking about the magic between the band members but purely their music. Is it up there with The Beatles, The Stones, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan, The Doors etc.?
Click to expand...

If we're speaking technically then some(actually all except maybe Floyd and Zeppelin) of these bands don't even place on the list.
 
it's hard to truly measure this considering the other bands in the 1st tier are all retired or should be retired. 10 years after U2 is done, then i think we'll truly be able to soak in their career.

with that said, i think down the road, most top 100 rock & roll bands lists will have U2 in their top 10, if not top 5.
 
roy said:
If you look at it in terms of classic albums, U2 with only two masterpeices are well behind The Beatles, Stones and Led Zepplin. I think they are getting close to Pink Floyd and The Who in terms of greatness though. Totally subjective I know...
Click to expand...

If you're referring to whether or not albums are "classic" or "masterpieces", you're getting into a subjective area that's impossible to gauge.

The first Doors album is not a masterpiece.

Piper At The Gates of Dawn is not a masterpiece.

Achtung Baby is not a masterpiece. :wink:
 
poem set to music = song

examples: heartland, running to stand still, promenade, one tree hill etc..
 
can you imagine how totally uninteresting and boring those songs you just mentioned would be without the great poetry?

that's because they are all musically rather dull.
 
LemonMelon said:


If you're referring to whether or not albums are "classic" or "masterpieces", you're getting into a subjective area that's impossible to gauge.

The first Doors album is not a masterpiece.

Piper At The Gates of Dawn is not a masterpiece.

Achtung Baby is not a masterpiece. :wink:
Click to expand...

Thanks, I was afraid my post would be misinterpreted...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
288
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
MrsSpringsteen
Atomic City
Replies
11
Views
1K
HeartlandGirl
HeartlandGirl
Z
Hello!
Replies
3
Views
822
zoo skis
Z
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
746
lazarus
lazarus
N
Hello!
Replies
2
Views
824
Hewson
Hewson

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom