"People are fed up with us and so are we"

[GibsonGirl]

This is a chance for everyone who's never listened to Echo and the Bunnymen to cleanse themselves of their sins. Off be you! And get a bite of Turquoise Nights, Rescue, The Cutter, With a Hip, The Killing Moon, and Ocean Rain. Or I will plagiate your asses.

Yup. Heaven Up Here, Ocean Rain, Crocodiles and Porcupine are essential albums that everyone should own. I'm sure most U2 fans would enjoy them.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=rZfpqFpM12c
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=06TIDkqd380 (simply amazing)
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCfIZ6jl40Y
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=NS1EN1z4ow4
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=r7xWAKmHRZw
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=w1B6LrOmNsg
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=OjP9L6HLefw
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=aX1PwkgwsG0
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=q3M6HonQSe4
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=seDfPlgkurM
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=EPxtt1_jrko
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=oozHfqtSXAU

I have to stop. I could keep on posting video after video.

 

[tomtom]

Heaven Up Here (the album) is simply

I get tingles when that slidey bass in With A Hip kicks in.

 

[gvox]

It doesn't matter if you weren't around to see it for yourself.

If people make statements that contradict fact, other people will call them out on it.

Point taken, however the only way you know about that fact is because someone else told you or you read it somewhere, written by someone else. Imo to fully understand the scene and the climate in which music was out when it first came out you had to be there to experience it. There is a difference between living something and reading about it 20 years later, of course there is. Hence I think it's a little funny to laugh at someone in that case...

 

[Zoots]

Point taken, however the only way you know about that fact is because someone else told you or you read it somewhere, written by someone else. Imo to fully understand the scene and the climate in which music was out when it first came out you had to be there to experience it. There is a difference between living something and reading about it 20 years later, of course there is. Hence I think it's a little funny to laugh at someone in that case...

Yeah you're right. Unless you live thru an era or a cultural event, how can you get the full grasp of it? Reading about it and watching videos cannot come close to actually living thru it!

 

[Salome]

if U2 really had aspired to be like Echo then we would never have had more than just the 80s best of
so what would we have bitched about then?

 

[Rob33]

ah, ok, I stand corrected

it's amazing how many sites have totally wrong U2 lyrics

k enough! I'm done!



i think.....

 

[GibsonGirl]

if U2 really had aspired to be like Echo then we would never have had more than just the 80s best of
so what would we have bitched about then?

I don't think anyone here is implying that U2 aspired to "be" the Bunnymen, at least not in terms of hiring the same producers and that sort of thing. I was merely pointing out that U2's early sound isn't quite as unique as some fans would like to believe it is. People always bring up U2's early originality in these Coldplay vs. U2 threads (including this one) in order to criticise Coldplay, and I find it quite ironic. If you're going to criticise Coldplay, take shots at their abysmal song lyrics or something.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

I think what bends some U2 fans' brains out of shape is the fact that U2 is now very famous. More famous than other bands. So they assume that if they are more famous than other bands, they are really really BETTER than other bands. Now I know as U2 fans we tend to think that as a given, but if you look at U2 and compare them to their contemporaries in the 80s, 90s, and 00s, it is not necessarily that they were BETTER than these other bands, it's just that U2 worked harder and longer at getting famous.

Echo and the Bunnymen could have been world famous, they either couldn't be bothered and/or were too drug fucked to be bothered. U2 slogged their arses off in the early 80s, in particularly in the US, to get famous. So, now more people know about U2 than they do the Bunnymen.

This is not a criticism of U2's work ethic. Or the Bunnymen's. It's just how history is. And now people are getting bent out of shape cos Coldplay also want to be famous, and are out there slogging their arses to be famous.

It's the comment in the Flanagan book. U2 work harder than other people, people want to believe otherwise, but that's all it is. So Coldplay are doing the same and being honest about it.

 

[gvox]

take shots at their abysmal song lyrics or something.

NOW you're talkin!

 

[U2387]

I think what bends some U2 fans' brains out of shape is the fact that U2 is now very famous. More famous than other bands. So they assume that if they are more famous than other bands, they are really really BETTER than other bands. Now I know as U2 fans we tend to think that as a given, but if you look at U2 and compare them to their contemporaries in the 80s, 90s, and 00s, it is not necessarily that they were BETTER than these other bands, it's just that U2 worked harder and longer at getting famous.

Echo and the Bunnymen could have been world famous, they either couldn't be bothered and/or were too drug fucked to be bothered. U2 slogged their arses off in the early 80s, in particularly in the US, to get famous. So, now more people know about U2 than they do the Bunnymen.

This is not a criticism of U2's work ethic. Or the Bunnymen's. It's just how history is. And now people are getting bent out of shape cos Coldplay also want to be famous, and are out there slogging their arses to be famous.

It's the comment in the Flanagan book. U2 work harder than other people, people want to believe otherwise, but that's all it is. So Coldplay are doing the same and being honest about it.

Yes, but you dont hear the critics hailing coldplay as having a new unique sound and being true pioneers/rising leaders of the next generation of music. Also, U2's energy and resonance as a live band was unique and noticed immediately. As was the fact that their cohesion as a band was where they derived their brilliance from- everyone contributed to the overall sound and no one could be replaced. Bono's stage presence and vocals, Edge's ringing guitar, Adam's self-taught base style, and Larry's massive, militaristic drum beats were all unique for a rock band. I disagree, they were better- in terms of originality, brilliant lyric writing, that sweeping sound and ability to convey emotions to large audiences, people knew very early on U2 would be special. Look at Boy era critical reviews. As for echo, please, they use a drum machine and can not even stay together. They are in no way comparable to U2, and whats to say they did not work their asses off. I could work my ass off to be famous, but unless I had the talent, the industry would not take the risk with me. Work and dedication are essential, vital ingredients, no doubt, but without the talent and ability, it will only go so far. Besides, even if its just the fact that U2 works their asses off, they do so as a means to an end- to get better. They dont work just to self promote, they work to push themselves artistically and do the best work possible with each album and tour. They are never satisfied, they always want to take it to the next level. That is why they are both more hardworking and better than Echo and the bunnymen, Coldplay, REM or any other various and assorted groups that have come and gone since 1980.

 

[Zoots]

U2 is not better than REM, sorry! They are both 2 of my all-time fav bands and I like them both for different reasons.

 

[the tourist]

U2 is not better than REM, sorry! They are both 2 of my all-time fav bands and I like them both for different reasons.

It's a matter of opinion and personal taste, of course, but I can't stand REM. I tried to like them because, as a U2 fan, I've been told I'm supposed to. But I do not. Not one iota.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

asses off.

Excuse me, it's ARSE, not ass!!!

 

[AtomicBono]

REM = Boring
U2 = Not Boring

that's my insight

 

[the tourist]

REM = Boring
U2 = Not Boring

that's my insight

 

[Zoots]

To each their own.

 

[pepokiss]

4 1/2

come on guys, I know you can make it...

 

[thrillme]

4 1/2

come on guys, I know you can make it...

More Michael interrupting you while you try to eat?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arr2x9VGDX4

RIP Michael.

 

[U2girl]

Bunnymen fans keep repeating how Bunnymen were oh so much better and U2 constantly ripped them off. The "band ____ should be there instead of this huge band" game can be done into infinity, as well as "this guy sounds like _____".

It would explain why McCulloch hates the band...(wasn't he a big jerk to the US audiences, as Brau posted once?)

It's not about Coldplay working hard and being famous or U2 being the peak of originality (tell that to all the "U2 innovators" posts), and I'm sure plenty U2 fans enjoy their music too. It's just that there are, to say the least, lots of similarities in their sound, and the way they operate - and it goes beyond borrowing. I think people are saying any band, certainly the "biggest band on the planet/next U2", should get called out on it. And it possible to like both bands.

 

[GibsonGirl]

As for echo, please, they use a drum machine

Uh, no. Pete de Freitas was not a drum machine.

 

[gvox]

I don't know how all this Echo talk started, and the sound is similar and I LOVED Echo, but Echo were by no means out or even hugely popular before U2. They barely had a full band until 1980 (their first single WAS recorded and released using a drum machine), and U2 had been practicing and recording for what, 2 years before that? Cmon!

Also, let's just use charts for a minute: comparing both of their first albums, which were ironically released right about the same time, U2 did better on a worldwide scale. On this side of the water, we were more aware of U2 before were Echo. Pictures on My Wall, did that even chart? If barely? I Will Follow sure as hell did, and solidly. I think Echo didn't even get a chart position over here until their 2nd or 3rd single, Rescue. Comparing albums, yes Crocodiles charted higher than Boy, but only in the UK. U2 had a position with Boy in the US, which was a major accomplishment.

I'm not diminishing the contribution of Echo, but to suggest that they were somehow better or more popular than U2, even in the early years, is not really accurate at all and it certainly isn't what I remember. Maybe they were in the UK, but not here. They were good, they had a good following, but U2 was the band that was *going* if you know what I mean.

Also, U2 was able to do what Echo could not: follow up. And that had nothing to do with their late 80s troubles, their pinnacle was 1984. U2 followed 1984/5 with Joshua Tree. Nuff said

 

[scottyT]

viva la vida is a fucking awesome song.

 

[U2387]

Uh, no. Pete de Freitas was not a drum machine.

GVOX summed it all up, I have to say. Yes, echo did have a drum machine for their early days, that was what I was referring to. Still, point stands that they are in no way comparable to U2. You will find plenty of people who have not heard of echo and the bunnymen- can you say the same for U2?

 

[Zoots]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB_I1qK2CO8

No way does that even remotely remind me of U2.

 

[veber]

I'm STILL laughing over Aygo's comment! If only fate had been a little kinder to Mac and Co in the late 80s...

Fate had nothing to do with it. Mac did that to himself. He hated the crowds he was singing to. It was obvious. Especially the American crowds.

 

[veber]

I was born in 1987. Even I know that Echo and the Bunnymen were more popular than U2 were in the early 80s. So Aygo is incorrect in stating "they don't have not even half the worldwide projection that U2 does (even that U2 did at the time)."

Yeah, you're completely wrong.

Look at the worldwide album charts from 1981 on.

U2 cracked America. Mac couldn't.

 

[luna_lovegood]

viva la vida is a fucking awesome song.

Thank god for Eno!

 

[GibsonGirl]

Yeah, you're completely wrong.

Look at the worldwide album charts from 1981 on.

U2 cracked America. Mac couldn't.

Don't exaggerate. "Completely wrong"? I was agreeing with blueeyedgirl's comment about Echo and the Bunnymen in 1981. Fact is, they were more popular than U2 in Europe at that point. No, they didn't have a successful single like I Will Follow, but they were never really a "singles" kind of band. Their strength lay in their albums. U2 may have cracked the American charts early on, but they didn't make a significant impact until the release of War.

You remind me of someone who used to post here.

 

[GibsonGirl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB_I1qK2CO8

No way does that even remotely remind me of U2.

The new Coldplay songs don't remind me of U2 either. So I really don't know why people are getting their knickers knotted over Eno's involvement with the band. Coldplay could release a thrash metal album and people would still accuse them of ripping off U2.

 

[gvox]

Fact is, they were more popular than U2 in Europe at that point. No, they didn't have a successful single like I Will Follow, but they were never really a "singles" kind of band. Their strength lay in their albums. U2 may have cracked the American charts early on, but they didn't make a significant impact until the release of War.

Well that seems a departure from your earlier assertion that they were more popular globally or worldwide. The North American market is pivotal for any band. Europe is a big place. Echo's main strength early out was the UK. However when you factor in the North American audience, U2's first ALBUM was stronger, and October was even stronger than Echo's second.

There are alot of reasons for this, one of which was the fact that U2 had more material going into Boy than Echo did going into Crocodiles likely because they had a more 'solid' band lineup for a longer period of time. Also, Bono was a more appealing frontman and there was more energy to the performance. Echo were from Liverpool, and had lots of local support from the UK crowd before U2, which would be natural.

Honestly I think you need to defer to people who were old enough to know what was what when all this was going down GibsonGirl. U2 hit North America in a bigger way, and it wasn't necessarily singles that did it for them. Boy made a 'college' impact, and October made a significant impact. I knew more of U2's music before I did Echo's, at age 12 in a big city where alternative was very popular and everyone was trying so hard to be 'indie'. When I moved out into the country? Noone knew who Echo and the Bunnymen were, whereas a good number had heard something of U2.

And again, U2 followed their fourth brillant album with an even more brilliant masterpiece. Echo just started to get mediocre, sorry.