The News: Midnight Oil beat U2. An Opinion. - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-11-2002, 09:24 AM   #21
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,174
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
[AN OPINION follows]
Lyrically:
The Oil's spur people to action and thought more than Bono. Bono takes people to another planet.


Cool...

Quote:
Musically:
The Oil's are more interesting and better players. Makes for longer term interest. U2 are much simpler musically which appeal to a wider community. which allows their message or lyrics to influence a greater number of people.


I think how U2 arranges music is somewhat complex. U2, lyrically, are not as simple as you make it out to be. Writing a song that does ambiguity, irony, and symbolism well is pretty difficult IMO. Musically, U2 may not be virtuosos but one can make the argument that simplicity not only allows them to reach a wider audience but last longer in the public conscience.



------------------
~ "You can't resist her. She's in your bones. She is your marrow and your ride home. You can't avoid her. She's in the air; in between molecules of oxygen and carbon dioxide." ~ RC
__________________

Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 03-11-2002, 09:19 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Great, another quote taken out of context that you suppose proves every point your attempting to make. Yep, I know the quote. It has to do with Beautiful Day and a guitar part in the song. For your information, every U2 album has parts that may sound similar to other U2 albums. The particular guitar part may sound similar in sound to early stuff, but its not the same. Then its put in the context of a song that has a lot of different stuff going on that you would not find on the first album. So no, that does not support your conclusion.
I'm sorry you fail to notice the beautiful guitar part that Edge has in Stuck In A Moment... and no that is not characteristic of Teen Pop. Like many U2 songs it starts of slow and simple and builds to a grand climax. That is not something you hear in teen pop. The only thing in the song that would resemble teen pop is the refrain which is actually a minor part of the song. But that was inspired a by soul music from the 50s not the teen pop of today. As Edge said " a beautiful rush of Philadelphia soul". So once again, point not proved.
ATYCLB is a great and very original album by U2. The band ventured into area's of music that they had not really pursued before. They did their best to produce the best album possible and have exceeded their expectations. I see no attempt to write something to fit the "times" or to do anything so contrived. Certainly no facts have been given here that can prove otherwise either.
__________________

STING2 is offline  
Old 03-11-2002, 09:54 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
david's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: southern california
Posts: 10,483
Local Time: 02:52 AM
You start a band for all the wrong reasons. - Bono 1993

------------------
The more of these I drink the more Bono makes sense.. - Bean from the KROQ Breakfast with U2.
david is offline  
Old 03-11-2002, 11:21 PM   #24
Babyface
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 16
Local Time: 09:52 AM
STING2: I think you'll find that if you extend that quote, Bono said that the attitude behind that little interchange between Bono and Edge shaped the attitude towards the rest of the album (ie not to be innovative, but to be U2). So, No, the quote was not taken out of context. In fact, it is highly within the context of this little petty argument. This argument has nothing to do with my original point... which is.... um... I forgot. oh yes, it is that U2 sacrificed experimentation, to be popular. And midnight oil are yet to make an album, just to be popular. Sure they're new album is not as innovative as Redneck Wonderland, but it is not mimicking the pop charts at the moment.
AND also. I didn't say that Stuck was a boy band song. I said that there are remarkable similarities between Stuck and boyband songs. Of course they're are differences (such as U2 play and write the song, so its going to have their slant on it) all music is at least slightly different. So No STUCK is not exactly a Boy band song, but it draws on a number of those Pop Boy band sounds. Edge said that in the U2.com quotes that came out with each song snippet in 2000.

FLYING FUMANCHU: I never said U2 were not complex lyrically. I actually believe they are. I said that musically the Oils are more complex and interesting.

I bet if U2 wrote and recorded How Deep Is Your Love (Bee Gees song, covered by Take That)... we would all be saying things like "No but this is not a boy band song, it is is a song that questions. it goes to a deeper level than most boy bands. it is asking how "deep" is your love?" I think we try to find deeper and more profound meanings in simple songs, simply because U2 write them and U2 (to us) are very cool and U2 would never stoop to the simple level of the common mainstream.
AlanPARTRIDGE is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 02:52 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 09:52 AM
How do you actually know that U2 were going to be "innovative" before that Edge thing supposedly changed everything? If you remember, Bono talked a lot about how he was inspired and exhilarated by listening to U2's early catalogue and how he wanted to capture that joy their early music had. That was well before Edge's "fuck off, we're U2" quote, which probably did re-inforce their direction but hardly sent it off along another track altogether.

You don't actually need to go and find any "profound meaning" in "Stuck", because we already know what the song is about. Anyway, I think it's a pretty useless argument to say, well then, would you think the same of this and that song if somebody else has written it, because it would be a completely different song altogether. It's not simply a matter of giving it a "personal slant": the song is not just about the lyrics or the music, it's also about the person or people behind it and what they put into the performance.
Saracene is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 10:57 AM   #26
War Child
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 21 Duke Street Dublin eating a gorgonzola sandwich!
Posts: 604
Local Time: 09:52 AM
I think Midnight Oil and Peter Garret are GREAT!!!!!!!Unfortunately it seems to be, with the state of music these days,that they canlt get much airplay here in the US (on mainstream radio)Garret is a smart guy and seems to be very concerned about his causes.Bono is too though!
u2sangel is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 11:12 AM   #27
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,174
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AlanPARTRIDGE:
FLYING FUMANCHU: I never said U2 were not complex lyrically. I actually believe they are. I said that musically the Oils are more complex and interesting.

I bet if U2 wrote and recorded How Deep Is Your Love (Bee Gees song, covered by Take That)... we would all be saying things like "No but this is not a boy band song, it is is a song that questions. it goes to a deeper level than most boy bands. it is asking how "deep" is your love?" I think we try to find deeper and more profound meanings in simple songs, simply because U2 write them and U2 (to us) are very cool and U2 would never stoop to the simple level of the common mainstream.
My bad, I mis-read what you said. lyrically and musically were pretty close together making it seem like you were saying U2's lyrics weren't complex.

Let me add I like some "boy band crap" and if U2 can make great music inspired by "bad" songs, then all power to them.

------------------
~ "You can't resist her. She's in your bones. She is your marrow and your ride home. You can't avoid her. She's in the air; in between molecules of oxygen and carbon dioxide." ~ RC
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 12:44 PM   #28
Refugee
 
Eliv8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: A Place Called San Diego
Posts: 1,842
Local Time: 02:52 AM
I've heard a lot of good things about Midnight Oil live so I am going to see them on March 20th.

------------------
Imagine
//oo\\
http://eliv8.fws1.com/
Eliv8 is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 01:22 PM   #29
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Mr. Partridge,
With all due respect, do you really think that Midnight Oil is more intense live than U2? I also want to point out that although Bono has been less critical of the US, he has always had a love affair with the US and sometimes criticizes them in public instead of in U2 songs(he did this after the Grammy's, IMO)

I realize that these are all opinions, but U2 has CLEARLY had more of an impact on music over the past 20 years. Just because they are popular, does not mean that they are bad, not innovative or uncreative.

In fact, I feel that U2 succeeded in something that is very difficult with ATYCLB: they made an album that appears to be simple and easy(listening, writing, creating) but yet it is very complex in meaning and continues to grow stronger critically and commercially with time like most great albums do(creatively as well).

IMO that ATYCLB is U2's tightest, most cohesive work since AB. However, I would agree that it certainly is not their most creative, ground-breaking or daring work to date. In fact, it can be said that the public(especially in the US) had too much influence on ATYCLB. Whatever the motivations of the band, only they truly know in their hearts.

Either way, it all comes down to the music. ATYCLB is a great album. Enough Said.
MBH is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 05:03 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Well, if Edge did say he thought STUCK might sound like a boyband song it was more of a joke or a sudden realization. Edge has also stated on MTV that what they have done with this album "DOES NOT FIT THE TIME PERIOD". I have this on video! Edge is of course right and this is part of the reason for the lack of radio airplay that the band has recieved in the USA. Again, Walk On failed to crack the HOT 100 as did Elevation, and Stuck... which you considered a contrived attempt to write a boyband song, only made it to #52! Only Beautiful Day had any meaningful airplay and that peaked at #21!
Do you have a particular song in mind that you think Stuck... sounds like? I certainly can't think of any, and again the only part of the song that one can entertain this absurd notion is the refrain which is a minor part of the whole song. In an over generalized way, you might be able to make and arguement, but look at the point and detail and any arguement the song is through and through boyband inspired falls flat.
The band have never sacrificed experimentation or the normal writing and recording process in order to be popular. They have approached the writing of this album like any other, to write the best songs possible. People unfortunately think that only Achtung,Zooropa, and POP equals experimentation. Another false assumption is this idea that something that is musically simpler is automatically inferior to a more complex recording. Nothing could be further from the truth. The most difficult thing in music is to write something that is simple yet original and have that power running through it. Complexity itself is not really that difficult, having the parts connect in a certain way is. Otherwise you are simply left with bits and pieces of music that are put together, but really don't truly fit.
Midnight Oil is good, but certainly not more complex or interesting than U2. Again this idea that U2 sacrificed experimention to be popular is pure rubbish! Where was the rap/metal song? Or the duet with Britney Spears? How about Joshua Tree II!? The fact is that there are hundreds of things U2 could have done on the album to make a quick buck, but they did not do them.
When you listen to ATYCLB your not listening to mainstream radio by any means. Its like night and day. The band have had to fight tooth and nail to get the songs some radio airplay. Songs from POP recieved just as much or more airplay.
This album is against the grain of mainstream music today as the Edge said! The songs may be lighter in sound and slower in tempo than on other albums, but that does not mean the band has "soldout" as you would suggest.
The band experiment going into every album just as they did for ATYCLB. Only in a very vague way does "Beautiful Day" or its father"Always" sound like U2. BONO has been quoted has saying that this is not a roots record. The fact that you find a small part here or there that sounds like old U2 does not constitute the band attempting to repeat itself to become popular. If so, then POP is guilty as well.
But I guess if they had some loops and computer generated sounds in the background and perhaps or did the same thing on POP or ZOOROPA that would constitute experimentation. But if you put four people in a room, a singer, a drummer, guitar player, bass player, how could that be experimental or innovative? While its certainly not U2s most experimental or innovative, it is certainly one of U2s best albums ever! Probably #3 and if you ask Edge its the second best thing the band has ever done. The quality of the music is amazing, and that will always trump grade B experimentation or innovation which the band dumped this time in favor of the BEST music!
As BONO has said before "their #1 goal is to be the best band in the world, not the most popular". Thats goal #2, because to them, to have the #2 goal with out the #1 goal would be pointless.
So Midnight Oil does not want to be popular. Well then why don't they distrubute their own records out of the back of their cars or at the PUBs they play instead of being signed to Columbia Records! That mega corporation dwarfs in size Island Records or the current interscope. My point is that Midnight Oil play the music business game just as much as U2 does by being with such a large record label. Why do you think Midnight Oil makes video's?
To sum up, you have provided very little evidence to support your opinion that U2 sacrificed experimentation on ATYCLB to be popular. What has been said would not constitute evidence because it has consisted of mainly quotes that are agrueable at best and then rebutted easily by other quotes or info.
A real attempt by U2 to be popular while giving up everything else would be a Joshua Tree II which has certainly not happened here. There has always been someone that has attempted to make the same statement about U2s albums starting with Joshua Tree. Some people are resistent to the idea that great music can actually be popular as well but at the same time different from the mainstream which is what we have with ATYCLB.
Again it appears that you want to paint ATYCLB and the band into this corner of giving up things in order to be popular because the facts you give to support your conclusion are so thin.
ATYCLB is an amazing album and as Rolling Stone Magazine said "A Masterpiece". The band put out an album of material that they new was their best material from the 100 songs they had recorded. Sure the band would like to sell a lot of albums, but if that had been the #1 goal, ATYCLB would not have been released.
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 06:15 PM   #31
Babyface
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 16
Local Time: 09:52 AM
sorry, I'm back at Uni... can't write essay responces anymore to STING2's comments. Just bare in mind the title of this thread. An Opinion and opinions aren't facts.

Oh and MBH, I've seen U2 and the Oils live on a number of occasions. The Oils are more intense for a number of reasons.

1. They don't have the same rehearsed speech everynight.
2. They don't use the same "spontaneos" props everynight "Oh look, what have we here! oh it's an Irish flag...again. I better wave it."
3. They mix up their sets everynight.
4. They'll play a song from 25 years back, at a minutes notice by a fan. They have more hits than U2. I mean, that obviously on Australian Radio, there is a larger variety of Oils songs on rotations, than U2 ones.
5. Garrett as a character is far more intense than Bono. (He is double the height, and his very presense is electrifying)
6. The band maintain the energy levels that they had at the start of their career. Where as can you see U2 pulling off stories for boys, today with the same energy as in 1980. 7. The Oils play 25 songs each night.
8. Smaller venues.
9. The whole band are passionate about the same cause as Garrett. (Bono seems to be the only one really concerned with all the issues he talks about, Larry has recently said he is getting fed up with his politics). Where as Rob Hirst, and Jim Moginie write a number of the lyrics Garrett sings which gives the feel that the whole band are behind each song and each topic being dealt with.

BUT it is an opinion. U2 shows have more lights, a heart, more people, bigger budget, more universal lyrics. But to me that does not always equal intensity. I would choose an Oils show over a U2 show. If I only had one show left that I could attend.
AlanPARTRIDGE is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 06:44 PM   #32
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AlanPARTRIDGE:
sorry, I'm back at Uni... can't write essay responces anymore to STING2's comments. Just bare in mind the title of this thread. An Opinion and opinions aren't facts.

Oh and MBH, I've seen U2 and the Oils live on a number of occasions. The Oils are more intense for a number of reasons.

1. They don't have the same rehearsed speech everynight.
2. They don't use the same "spontaneos" props everynight "Oh look, what have we here! oh it's an Irish flag...again. I better wave it."
3. They mix up their sets everynight.
4. They'll play a song from 25 years back, at a minutes notice by a fan. They have more hits than U2. I mean, that obviously on Australian Radio, there is a larger variety of Oils songs on rotations, than U2 ones.
5. Garrett as a character is far more intense than Bono. (He is double the height, and his very presense is electrifying)
6. The band maintain the energy levels that they had at the start of their career. Where as can you see U2 pulling off stories for boys, today with the same energy as in 1980. 7. The Oils play 25 songs each night.
8. Smaller venues.
9. The whole band are passionate about the same cause as Garrett. (Bono seems to be the only one really concerned with all the issues he talks about, Larry has recently said he is getting fed up with his politics). Where as Rob Hirst, and Jim Moginie write a number of the lyrics Garrett sings which gives the feel that the whole band are behind each song and each topic being dealt with.

BUT it is an opinion. U2 shows have more lights, a heart, more people, bigger budget, more universal lyrics. But to me that does not always equal intensity. I would choose an Oils show over a U2 show. If I only had one show left that I could attend.
Fair enough. That is your opinion. Last Summer my opportunity to see MOil(in a 12,000 seat auditorium w/Men @ Work, INXS) was canceled. Maybe I can catch them this time around.

How many U2 shows have you seen? Did you see the elevation shows? You make a good point about the smaller venue argument. In fact, if I had the choice, I would probably rather see U2 play a club like Irving Plaza b/c of the intimacy factor.

However, I have seen several stadium shows and NOBODY commands an audience like Bono. You mention that Bono is rather small. True. That would make it more difficult for him to be intense(which may be the word that we disagree on here, not the bands). So that said, I think Bono, like U2, does more with little.

I have heard people complain that some of the U2 shows seem scripted b/c of the flag waving, similar sets, etc...(the Stereophonics made mention of this when they opened for U2 last fall). You must realize, at least here in the US, the "schtick" that Bono does is exactly what the crowd wants(generally). In the US, you have to sell yourself and give more of yourself. A U2 crowd expects Bono to run around, pick people out of the audience, make a political statement, talk to the crowd....I saw them twice on the Elevation tour and am happy to say that:
the sets were different
the emotion was incredible
Bono's antics were not the same

My point is that I think(and many people, critics, fans, casual fans would agree) that U2 is the best/most passionate/emotional/exhilirating band out there today, possibly ever.

If Midnight Oil works better for you, than enjoy it. However, Bono and U2's track record speaks for itself, especially during the largest shows which they have participated in such as Live Aid, Amnesty INternational and the Super Bowl.

I doubt MO would have captivated the audience like U2 did.....to each his own
MBH is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 06:56 PM   #33
War Child
 
Matthew_Page2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 873
Local Time: 02:52 AM
The Oils are a good band. I'm a fan. I've seen 'em live a couple of times. I own several of their albums. The Oils are not even in the same universe as U2 in the songwriting category and if you want to talk "intensity" than Henry Rollins trumps Garrett in that department. Physical intensity doesn't equal great performance. I've been to jazz gigs where the intensity of musical phrasing from a musician or singer seated on a stool has blown the roof off. Again, the Oils are a great live band. I don't question that but I would never pick an Oils gig over a U2 show. Not ever.

Of course it's all a matter of opinion and entirely subjective. And having said all this it IS nice to hear from other Midnight Oil fans.

MAP

p.s.- The Oils have more "hits" than U2?? Only in their native Australia. Everywhere else on earth they're remembered for two or three songs.
p.p.s.- U2 don't pull out 25 year old songs from their hat because the thoughts and emotions of the teenagers they were don't really apply anymore. Bono has said countless times that they have to "feel" a song to make it work live. Otherwise it comes off as utter wank.
p.p.s.- I've tried to be nice here because I like the Oils but if some idiot posts a thread about how Creed are better live than U2 because Scott Stapp stap is taller than Bono I'm going to disembowel the idiot with a dull spoon.
Matthew_Page2000 is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 07:02 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Sorry about the facts, but at least it shows my opinion is an informed one.

As far as playing live goes:

1. About talking during the show, I went to 5 Elevation shows and did not here BONO repeat anything! Even on back to back nights.

2. Spontaneos props, yes the fans always love to bring Irish flags and BONO entertains them sometimes. Flag waving did not happen at every show I went to.

3. Mix up their sets-U2 have had mixed sets on this tour. In fact, only the Lovetown tour has had more mixed sets.

4. Garret more intense because he is taller? Its whats inside that counts, but hey, at least Bono's head doesn't look like a golf ball.

5. U2 sure does maintain their energy level, I Will Follow is played just as past and I would argue is made more intense in some ways then the boots Video's I have from 1981. I'd think I would take the Boston June 6, 2001 I WILL FOLLOW over November 4, 1981 Berlin I WILL FOLLOW

6. More hits than U2. I think not. Here in the USA, Midnight Oil is a ONE hit wonder. Worldwide U2 blow the Oils out the water when it comes to hits.

7. Smaller Venues. Well the amazing thing about U2 is that they can play a Stadium and seem just as intense to a person at the back as they would in a small venue. U2 played the tiny Irving Plaza before Elevation started, a great show! Bottom line, size of venue does not matter, the band does!

8. How intense U2 is not dependent on what Larry thinks about debt relief for Zambia. Again, its about the band playing live!

9. Oils play 25 songs a night, great U2 have done this as well. Volume does not equal intensity.

The great thing about U2 live is that most of their songs live are superior to the studio recordings unlike other artist. Steve Lillywhite always said he wished they would record their albums after having been on tour for 6 months. The Edge is incredible guitar player and the sounds he uses in concert are great. The band are really tight, and no one can match Bono's voice let alone Garrett.
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 10:22 PM   #35
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:
The Oils are a good band. I'm a fan. I've seen 'em live a couple of times. I own several of their albums. The Oils are not even in the same universe as U2 in the songwriting category and if you want to talk "intensity" than Henry Rollins trumps Garrett in that department. Physical intensity doesn't equal great performance. I've been to jazz gigs where the intensity of musical phrasing from a musician or singer seated on a stool has blown the roof off. Again, the Oils are a great live band. I don't question that but I would never pick an Oils gig over a U2 show. Not ever.

Of course it's all a matter of opinion and entirely subjective. And having said all this it IS nice to hear from other Midnight Oil fans.

MAP

p.s.- The Oils have more "hits" than U2?? Only in their native Australia. Everywhere else on earth they're remembered for two or three songs.
p.p.s.- U2 don't pull out 25 year old songs from their hat because the thoughts and emotions of the teenagers they were don't really apply anymore. Bono has said countless times that they have to "feel" a song to make it work live. Otherwise it comes off as utter wank.
p.p.s.- I've tried to be nice here because I like the Oils but if some idiot posts a thread about how Creed are better live than U2 because Scott Stapp stap is taller than Bono I'm going to disembowel the idiot with a dull spoon.

I agree. Some good stuff here.
As someone who seems to have an objective opinon on this site Matthew_2000, I would like to read your thoughts on Henry Rollins.

I want to start a thread on this.
I have read some of his stuff recently and I am curious as to where his fascinatin with hating, dispising of U2 originates from. Is he jealous b/c u2 is bigger than the clash? Did U2 ever say or do anything against him?I am not a Rollins fan, but I am intrigued by him because he says what is on his mind and says many true things.

That said, I lost much respect for him when he wished Bono dead last year on the Howard Stern show....we understand that he hates u2, so why doesnt he just get on with it?

There is no reason to wish anyone dead(maybe Bin Laden).....but really, whats the deal....if you have any info. on this please let me know...I am curious....the reason why I am interested in this is b/c Rollins seems to influence a lot of weak minded individuals out there and that is not good...look forward to your reply.

MBH is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 10:53 PM   #36
War Child
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: PA, USA
Posts: 672
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Please stop fighting. Both bands kick ass. And U2 fans, please remember that taking cheap shots and putting another band down does not elevate U2. Unless, of course, that band is Creed. Then it's ok.

btw, some Aussies might be aware of this. Ben Lee puts U2 and Midnight Oil to shame when it comes to intensity.
barlowdog is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 11:04 PM   #37
New Yorker
 
brettig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: heehee, ask george
Posts: 3,194
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2:
at least Bono's head doesn't look like a golf ball.
Got anything against golf balls?
brettig is offline  
Old 03-13-2002, 02:18 AM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 09:52 AM
I think we can at least agree that both Bono and Peter Garrett have about the same amount of dancing abilities,

"Apart from the small height, he radiates largeness." (Bono's description from the Q article)
Saracene is offline  
Old 03-13-2002, 05:29 PM   #39
War Child
 
Matthew_Page2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 873
Local Time: 02:52 AM
MBH,

Henry Rollins. Hmm...
I've read 3 of his books and heard all of his solo albums with Rollins Band and I'm pretty sure I've heard all of his material with Black Flag. I've even seen a couple of movies he's starred in. I've seen him live once but it was on a spoken word performance, not a rock show.

Having said that, there's a great deal about Rollins I don't understand and his preoccupation with U2 is one of those things.
I do know that a former Black Flag band mate was president of the record company that put out the infamous Negativeland-U2 release. This bandmate (Greg Ginn maybe??) is the man who came up with the idea for the "Kill Bono" t-shirt. He's also the man who actually bankrupted Negativeland when HE sued them on behalf of the record company (Negativelands, not U2's.) But that's another story and it's much easier to blame U2. And Rollins' hatred for U2 preceded the Negativeland debacle anyway.
I like Rollins for his wit. I enjoy his clearheaded take on some issues. I enjoy some of his poetry and a bit of his prose. I don't think he's much of a singer but I admire his energy. But the man is hyperbolic to an exreme. He doesn't like U2. That's fine. He doesn't think Edge is a good guitarist. That's fine too. He thinks Bono is a corny singer. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But when he says things like, "U2 doesn't make music. They're the opposite of music. They're the definition of what is wrong with music..." or when he publically responds to Bono's interviews I get a bit confused. Why does he care so much? Why does he wish Bono was dead? Is it possible to whine this much about another artist without it being jealousy? It's reached the point where I see Rollins as more of a cultural critic than an artist and that's just sad considering he's a poet, a writer, a singer, an actor and a stand up commedian.
And yet when I read interviews with Rollins these days I skim them first for the inevitable criticism of U2 and Bono. To a certain extent he's allowed himself to be defined by his dislike of a rival band. That's unforgivable for an artist. It can't possibly be what he intended for himself when he started his solo career.
My other criticism of Rollins has nothing to do with U2 and that's his reactionary sense of what quantifies masculinity. I also think he considers the physicality associated with masculinity as a good thing in and of itself. (He's a big Sylvester Stallone fan.)
Have U2 ever made ANY public statements about Rollins? Not to my knowledge, and I've researched it a bit.
Does Rollins hate them because they're a corporate band? Nah, he just hates the music. Rollins has done advertisements for Gap Jeans, Apple Computers and MTV. He's worked as a MTV VJ. He's signed to a major label. He's stated in his books that he wishes he was MORE popular and had more money.

MAP
Matthew_Page2000 is offline  
Old 03-13-2002, 06:23 PM   #40
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:
MBH,

Henry Rollins. Hmm...
I've read 3 of his books and heard all of his solo albums with Rollins Band and I'm pretty sure I've heard all of his material with Black Flag. I've even seen a couple of movies he's starred in. I've seen him live once but it was on a spoken word performance, not a rock show.

Having said that, there's a great deal about Rollins I don't understand and his preoccupation with U2 is one of those things.
I do know that a former Black Flag band mate was president of the record company that put out the infamous Negativeland-U2 release. This bandmate (Greg Ginn maybe??) is the man who came up with the idea for the "Kill Bono" t-shirt. He's also the man who actually bankrupted Negativeland when HE sued them on behalf of the record company (Negativelands, not U2's.) But that's another story and it's much easier to blame U2. And Rollins' hatred for U2 preceded the Negativeland debacle anyway.
I like Rollins for his wit. I enjoy his clearheaded take on some issues. I enjoy some of his poetry and a bit of his prose. I don't think he's much of a singer but I admire his energy. But the man is hyperbolic to an exreme. He doesn't like U2. That's fine. He doesn't think Edge is a good guitarist. That's fine too. He thinks Bono is a corny singer. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But when he says things like, "U2 doesn't make music. They're the opposite of music. They're the definition of what is wrong with music..." or when he publically responds to Bono's interviews I get a bit confused. Why does he care so much? Why does he wish Bono was dead? Is it possible to whine this much about another artist without it being jealousy? It's reached the point where I see Rollins as more of a cultural critic than an artist and that's just sad considering he's a poet, a writer, a singer, an actor and a stand up commedian.
And yet when I read interviews with Rollins these days I skim them first for the inevitable criticism of U2 and Bono. To a certain extent he's allowed himself to be defined by his dislike of a rival band. That's unforgivable for an artist. It can't possibly be what he intended for himself when he started his solo career.
My other criticism of Rollins has nothing to do with U2 and that's his reactionary sense of what quantifies masculinity. I also think he considers the physicality associated with masculinity as a good thing in and of itself. (He's a big Sylvester Stallone fan.)
Have U2 ever made ANY public statements about Rollins? Not to my knowledge, and I've researched it a bit.
Does Rollins hate them because they're a corporate band? Nah, he just hates the music. Rollins has done advertisements for Gap Jeans, Apple Computers and MTV. He's worked as a MTV VJ. He's signed to a major label. He's stated in his books that he wishes he was MORE popular and had more money.

MAP
Thank you!!! Another informative, objective point of view for the 2000 man!

My thoughts:
I discovered Rollins hatred for U2 on vh1 last year during the greatest hard rock band countdown when he said that "the clash is the band U2 wished they could be." I then heard him mock U2(mostly Bono) on the Howard Stern show twice and argue with many U2 fans.
I have recently read about one of his rants taken from one of his spoken word albums.

It is usually the same stuff: he thinks that U2 are bad musicians, he wants Bono to die, Larry cant drum, Clayton cant play bass, Edge plays the same riffs over and over, he thinks their fake, ....on and on...


At first, I just became pissed and said "fuck him." Then, I decided to read up on him, think about what he said and draw my own conclusions.

Conclusion:
U2 are not Great musicians. I did not need Rollins to point that out. BOno and the rest of U2 have been saying for the past 22 years that they are amazed by their success and that they are not great alone or in the studio---but when they are together and live, they are great. I agree with this.
I am fairly certain that Rollins(like many others) is frustrated with the fact that U2 is soooo popular(arguable, next to the Beatles, they are number 2!).
Rollins is a Clash fan and the Clash influenced U2---another reason for jealousy and frustration is the fact thatU2 have kept it together for over 22 years and the clash barely 10(I think the Clash is great, but have a different message than Bono, which hurts Rollins' argument).
Rollins thought that U2 were trying to be someone else on RAH and hasnt forgiven them for this(they made a mistake, they learned from it---I think people are just pissed because U2 sounded better than half the people they were trying to sound like anyway).
He than hated the POPMART stuff and the Kmart stuff(I wasnt thrilled with this either, but for different reasons).

Rollins says many true things. Some of which are very obvious, some not so obvious.
I think what Rollins lacks in talent, he makes up for with passion. I am not a fan of his music and I think he has become quite a hypocrite by shilling for corporate America so much, more than u2(he now does a voice for GMC trucks, movies.....)
I should probably just ignore him, but he is very intriguing. At this point he is predictable when it comes to U2 to wish someone dead and act so biased kills one's credibility. Can't wait to hear what he says next.

Thanks for the discussion.
If anyone else has some insight on this(besides the usual, "Rollins can kiss my ass" "Rollins could drop dead"), please feel free to opine....

__________________

MBH is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×