The News: Midnight Oil beat U2. An Opinion. - Page 3 - 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 03-13-2002, 07:18 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:08 AM
U2 are great musicians, Rollins is just a child with a bad temper.
__________________

STING2 is offline  
Old 03-13-2002, 07:34 PM   #42
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 05:08 AM
Quote:
Garrett as a character is far more intense than Bono. (He is double the height, and his very presense is electrifying)
::rolls eyes::

Yeah, I always pick my heroes by their height.

What would many of you agree to have been the biggest rock band of all time? The Beatles, probably. Does their music suck? Even the most obscure, crabby, independent artists have been influenced by the Beatles. U2 is similar: popular, even a bit populistic music that is nonetheless intricate, influential, and high quality.

------------------
If you cannot live together in here, you cannot live together out there, let me tell ya. --Bono

You've got to cry without weeping, talk without speaking, scream without raising your voice... --Bono
__________________

pax is offline  
Old 03-13-2002, 09:12 PM   #43
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 03:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MBH:


Conclusion:
U2 are not Great musicians. I did not need Rollins to point that out. ---I think people are just pissed because U2 sounded better than half the people they were trying to sound like

Your post contradicts itself and generally makes me feel uneasy, even though it was well written.

U2 not Great Musicians? HuH?
z edge is offline  
Old 03-13-2002, 09:51 PM   #44
Babyface
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 16
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2:
Sorry about the facts, but at least it shows my opinion is an informed one.
Hey STING2, Aggression in your arguments does not make them any more convincing. You keep talking about you knowing the facts, and I don't. You might as well say that U2 is the best band on the planet as a fact. In that case we cannot argue.

I have shown you facts, and our interpretation of them differ. (ie the BD riff interpretation, Stuck similarities).
Am I the first to draw similarities between Stuck and Boyband songs.... no, I am not. The very fact that there is and has been discussion of this is testament to their similarities.

I think you need to go away and work out what you mean by the word "facts". If you think I haven't provided you with any "facts" to support my argument, then you are wrong. I have provided plenty. You may interpret them differently to me, but that is an OPINION on the facts. Just like my original post is an OPINION on the facts.

Your arrogance that you have the facts, and that I don't is the reason that I don't write a thesis length responce. You don't deserve it...

If you recall, the original post. U2 and Midnight Oil are my two equal favorite bands.

Oh and No... Size of a lead singer does not equal intensity. But if any one sees a Midnight Oil show, you'll know what I mean. There is such a thing as physical stage presence. It does exist.

STING2 alot of your responces are not based on facts. They simply say stupid comments like "peter garrett has a head that looks like a golf ball" didn't larry say to bono "If I had a head like yours I'd bury it!" gee there's even division in the band now! Your comments most of the time are basically saying "No that doesn't make a show more intense"... that is simply disagreeing you are not providing many facts either.
AlanPARTRIDGE is offline  
Old 03-13-2002, 10:40 PM   #45
War Child
 
Matthew_Page2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 873
Local Time: 02:08 AM
MBH,
Thanks for the compliment. I'm the 2000 man huh? This sort of confirms my suspicion that I haven't done anything with my life for two years. I really need to change my screen name to something more interesting.

Alan,
Sorry for hijacking your Midnight Oil thread with my long as Henry Rollins essay.

MAP

p.s.- Rollins is doing voice-overs for GMC trucks? Weird.
Matthew_Page2000 is offline  
Old 03-14-2002, 05:47 AM   #46
War Child
 
zoomerang II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: melbourne, terra australis
Posts: 657
Local Time: 08:08 PM
People here seem to make antagonistic statements for no other reason than they are bored or have nothing relevant to say.

The oils are great. I would probably prefer to see U2 if it came to the crunch, but midnight oil are incredible. They are the best pub band around today without a doubt, and in my opinion U2 have no contamporary peers live like midnight oil.

Where U2 can be introspective and personal, the oils are often "in your face". It is just a differnet approach, but it all comes down to great rock music.

Midnight Oil are still completely relevent in Australia, even though they are now approaching their fifties. They are a band that I would recommend to any U2 fan, and if you get a chance to see them live, it is a MUST.

zoomerang II is offline  
Old 03-14-2002, 11:24 AM   #47
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by z edge:
Quote:
Originally posted by MBH:


Conclusion:
U2 are not Great musicians. I did not need Rollins to point that out. ---I think people are just pissed because U2 sounded better than half the people they were trying to sound like

Your post contradicts itself and generally makes me feel uneasy, even though it was well written.

U2 not Great Musicians? HuH?
Z-Edge,
How does my post contradict itself? By saying that U2 are not great musicians than by stating that they are great together? Yeah, if that is your perception, than we agree. However, I needed to mention that to get to my ultimate point.

There are so many great musicians out there who do not do anything with themselves and that is a shame. The fact that U2--who are not great musicians in my opinion and in the members of the bands opinions as well--have succeeded for so long despite not being great musicians, is just another credit to them.

I feel that U2 are good musicians and make up a great band(contradicting myself again, huh?) Bono = great lyricist, decent voice
Edge = good guitarist, very creative
Clayton = decent bassist
Mullen = decent drummer
Clayton + Mullen = excellent rythem

Bono + Edge + Clayton + Mullen = great band!

Sorry to carry on and create threads within a thread, but this is one of the more interesting discussions I have had in some time....thanks...look forward to all replies.
MBH is offline  
Old 03-14-2002, 04:16 PM   #48
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 03:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MBH:

Conclusion:
U2 are not Great musicians 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.

How can they not be great musicians if you say they are great live and together. I agree they are much better live than in the studio, 90% of the time. But GREAT is GREAT. You are not gonna convince anyone here that out of their 10 studio albums none are GREAT. And the 100 million+ that have sold dosen't indicate them being "not great".

z edge is offline  
Old 03-14-2002, 04:23 PM   #49
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,044
Local Time: 11:08 AM
how can it be that every band in the world is supposed to have better musicians than U2???

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it
Salome is offline  
Old 03-14-2002, 04:30 PM   #50
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: 04:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome:
how can it be that every band in the world is supposed to have better musicians than U2???

Well thats not true, the Ramones weren't great musicians nor the Sex Pistols. I'm sure Green Day and Blink 182 don't compare in terms of musicianship to U2.


------------------
~ "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 03-14-2002, 05:08 PM   #51
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by z edge:
Quote:
Originally posted by MBH:

Conclusion:
U2 are not Great musicians 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.

How can they not be great musicians if you say they are great live and together. I agree they are much better live than in the studio, 90% of the time. But GREAT is GREAT. You are not gonna convince anyone here that out of their 10 studio albums none are GREAT. And the 100 million+ that have sold dosen't indicate them being "not great".

Some good points there, Z-edge. I don't wanna continue to contradict myself or make an argument against U2 not being great as musicians.

However, let me explain a little further what I intended to get across.

Not all great studio work sounds great live(someone talented singer who lip syncs is an example of this).

Not all great live musicians are not great in the studio.

Moreover, U2 take a long time with their albums(usually), they are constantly "screwing around," and, most notably as Bono stated, "we brought in a new engineer who was a fan for 20 years and he couldn't believe how bad we were behind closed doors."

Maybe this sports analogy will make it easier to understand:
The 1998 Yankees did not have any great players. However, when they took the field and played the games, they were by far the best team out there.

I think the same can be said about U2, especially live. I can find a more talented musician at each position(although I would put Bono's lyric writing up there with the best of them). But individuals do not make up and entire band. The comaraderie between U2 is what makes them great. 22 years going strong....here's to another 22, at least!!!!
MBH is offline  
Old 03-14-2002, 06:47 PM   #52
Refugee
 
scatteroflight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: a dream landscape
Posts: 1,736
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Bringing this back to the original subject--I just found out Midnight Oil is playing Vancouver again and this time I hope I will be seeing them!!

YEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!



------------------
Your sun so bright it leaves no shadows, only scars
Carved into stone on the face of earth
The moon is up and over One Tree Hill
We see the sun go down in your eyes
scatteroflight is offline  
Old 03-14-2002, 06:53 PM   #53
Babyface
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 16
Local Time: 09:08 AM
If any one wants to hear any of the Oils new stuff in Real Audio Streaming go to www.midnightoil.tv or www.midnightoil.com for some essays and background on the new album and the band.
AlanPARTRIDGE is offline  
Old 03-14-2002, 07:08 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Alan,
You asserted that U2 dropped expermentation to make ATYCLB a popular album yet provided so little "facts" to support your conclusion that I felt I needed to respond. Usually when such a statement is made, one would expect something to back up it up, but you provided so little. What was provided is most likely not evidence that could really support your opinion.
If you think I'm arrogant because I claim that I think your wrong then I'm sorry. I'm not angry at all and find the topic very amusing. I stand by all my conclusions though and am still dismayed at the lack of material to support your opinion.
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-14-2002, 08:40 PM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:08 AM
If you look back at the 9 points that you made, you'll see that at least 5 of your assumptions are actually factually wrong. Yep, some of my stuff is opinion but you tip the scales a little to much in favor of opinion instead of fact. By the way, how many shows did you see on the Elevation tour?
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-14-2002, 08:47 PM   #56
Babyface
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 16
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2:
I stand by all my conclusions though and am still dismayed at the lack of material to support your opinion.
Dismayed? I think you are treating this topic with a bit too much angst. I get dismayed when I see levels of crime rising in my country, or youth suicide, NOT for the lack of evidence to support an argument which states that I personally prefer Midnight Oil at the moment to U2, as an opinion. I provided numerous quotes , which you obviously disagree with. But i have provided ample evidence to support an opinion, which usually, by the definition of "an opinion", requires no evidence. Because it is an OPINION. You on the other hand have provided NO evidence to support your claims. You just disagree with mine. I obviously accept your opinion that you disagree, but I feel that I am more informed on this one since you actually do not follow midnight oil. I would not enter into a debate about the merits of U2 vs Dave Matthews Band, why? Because I don't follow DMB, I know a couple of songs. I don't know the history of them. But you seem to have this all conclusive authority on the comparisons of U2 to midnight oil when you know very little about the band which I am comparing them to.

I reckon if we got the people who followed U2 and Midnight Oil together, people would agree to the points I have made.

AlanPARTRIDGE is offline  
Old 03-14-2002, 09:26 PM   #57
Babyface
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 16
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2:
By the way, how many shows did you see on the Elevation tour?
I only saw one Elevation show, Madison Square Garden (leg three). (sorry that I am not made of cash like a lot of people on this board)

But the real question is, how many midnight oil shows have you seen at all? I have seen plenty of both U2 and Midnight Oil.
AlanPARTRIDGE is offline  
Old 03-14-2002, 09:38 PM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Perhaps dismayed is to strong a word. I have to agree with you that you know more about Midnight Oil than I do. You are right that because of that your better at making a comparison between the two.
What you are wrong on though or lacking in material to support your opinion, is on things pertaining to just U2, such as "giving up experimentation and creating an album that would match the charts", this idea that U2s promotion for this album is radically different than what they have done for every album before this, Bono says the same thing EVERY night(every Elevation, POPMART show, and ZOO TV show that I saw this was not the case), The energy level of the band today as compared to say 1981, The use of the Irish flag at every concert, and two other points that have slipped my mind at the moment from that list. As far as Midnight Oil is concerned, I can tell you that by U2s standards, the number of fans they have compared to U2 is TINY. I'm not saying that means something, but it would be incorrect to say that Midnight Oil have a large following outside of Australia.
So to sum up, when it comes to Midnight Oil vs U2, you are right because you first know more about Midnight Oil and as you say it is only your opinion. Where you are wrong though is on several statements made either directly about U2 or indirectly about U2, and one small point about Midnight Oil.
Perhaps I will now buy or burn the rest of Midnight Oils catalog as this discussion has certainly increased my interest in the band.
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-14-2002, 10:07 PM   #59
Babyface
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 16
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Here's the deal. Let's forget Midnight Oil for the moment, I made a number of assumptions about U2.

1. "they sacrificed popularity for the sake of sales." (we both agree that I assumed this).

The point is, that you can not say I am decisively "wrong" on this point. Why? Because there is no way we can be absolutly sure that U2 sacrificed popularity for the sake of sales, unless we were there in the studio when the discussions about the album actually took place. All we have is the information before us. A number of quotes, some stylistic differences and similarities between the pop charts. This is enough information for me to make an "opinion" on their motivations behind ATYCLB. It is not a fact that they made an album for this reason. NOR is it a fact that they didn't. I don't think you understand that inconsistancy in your reasoning. I made a judgement on the information that I have on ATYCLB. Of which of these quotes have I made up?

2. U2 do not deliver as intense a show as midnight oil.

Again, you can not say decisively that I am "wrong" on this. I have given my evidence for why I find the oils more intense. This evidence forms MY opinion on intensity. It is not a falsely grounded opinion. I have been to both U2 and MO shows. Intensity is a very personal thing. What is intense for one person, is pure annoyance and frustration for another.

3. the Oils are more interesting and better players than U2.

How can I be wrong on this point?

they are definitly technically better players. And the depth of songwriting talent in the Oils, to ME make them more interesting than U2. Of course I can not be decisively right or wrong on this one.

4.
Band togetherness:
The Oils: 5 Members, 2 changes (they have had 3 bass players) for 27 years
U2: 4 Members, No changes for 26 years
Touring.

Again how is this a wrong statement?

5.
Midnight Oil: When they tour play about 4 dates a week small venues for increased intesity (IRVING PLAZA size)
U2: When they tour play 2 - 3 dates a week.
small venues for increased intensity (MADISON SQUARE GARDEN SIZE).

I think you'll find that U2 on average on tour, actually do not do more thab 2- 3 dates a week.

AGAIN, this is irrelevent to whether either band are good. This is just a factual average of their touring schedule over the last 15 years.


6.
The Oils: 10 full length studio albums
U2: 10 full length studio albums (if you include R'nH)

I think you'll find I am right on this one as well.

CONCLUSION. You can disagree, but you can't say I am decisively wrong on any of these points.

AlanPARTRIDGE is offline  
Old 03-15-2002, 02:47 AM   #60
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: 04:08 AM
[quote]Originally posted by z edge:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by MBH:


Conclusion:
U2 are not Great musicians. I did not need Rollins to point that out. ---I think people are just pissed because U2 sounded better than half the people they were trying to sound like

Your post contradicts itself and generally makes me feel uneasy, even though it was well written.

U2 not Great Musicians? HuH?
Technically they are soso, mebbe the Edge is above average, but together they do amzing things for sure.

[This message has been edited by Flying FuManchu (edited 03-14-2002).]
__________________

Flying FuManchu 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 04:08 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
×