U2, classified as Pop/Rock

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
1980's - mainly rock

early 1990's - mainly rock, but Zooropa/Passengers are neither rock nor pop but are closer to 'ambient'

current U2 - pop
 
1980's = rock, some bluesy stuff on Rattle & Hum.

1990's = rock, though Zooropa could be called electronic/experimental rock and Original Soundtracks 1 is ambient, as financeguy said. POP is not pop mind you.

2000's = Pop/rock.
 
God Part III said:
POP is not pop mind you.
Click to expand...

Indeed, POP is more rock than pop, with some dance influences though it is not a dance album as such. I couldn't really imagine dancing to most of the tracks on it. :wink:
 
This thread is just screaming for an argument whether they're more pop now or less! Seriously, it doesn't matter to me as long as they produce quality material.
 
Zootlesque said:
This thread is just screaming for an argument whether they're more pop now or less! Seriously, it doesn't matter to me as long as they produce quality material.
Click to expand...

What if they became the all time, greatest polka techno band of all time?
 
They've always been equally pop and rock in my eyes.

Well actually, the first 3 albums were more rock and the last 2 have been more pop, but the rest have a good balance of the two. :yes:
 
Looking at today's music scene, they're still a rock band. There's no one out there like them, and I'm sorry, but when I think of pop these days, U2 doesn't come to mind. Pop is Good Charlotte, Simple Plan, Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys. U2 is one of the true rock & roll bands still remaining.
 
I personally don't think they fall into either catagory. They don't necessarily rock like a Greenday, Foo Fighters, Led Zeppelin, etc. Likewise, they definitely aren't poppy like the boy bands and the "Britney-Lindsay-Jessica-Ashley" crap, or even the Beatles for that matter.

To me, I think U2 does something totally unique. I don't even think there's a catagory at all that they fit into. They're like a catagory unto themselves that other bands are influenced by, imitate, whatever. In the end, that's what makes them what they are: the best band in the world for at least the last 20 years...and forward.
 
I guess their first 3 albums were rock, certainly not hard rock though. Joshua Tree is definitely a pop album. Even though AB had a harder edge in some songs, I still see it as a pop album.
 
the idea that U2 isnt Pop is rediculus.....any music that sells can be classified as Pop...after all thats what it stands for Popular...and certainly U2 are that.
 
You can be Pop and Rock as well as many other things at the same time and thats what U2 have managed to achieve over their career.
 
There first 3 albums can be described as rock, possibly even punk to some people (Like a song, rejoice, elec co ect) Maybe even a little new wave,

the next 3...hard to say, UF is very much its own sound,
Tree is rock
Hum...blues
AB-Rock/Pop
Zoo-Experimental/Electronica
Pop-Rock/Dance
ATYCLB-Pop/Rock (more pop then rock)
HTDAAB-Rock/Pop (more rock then pop)
 
Originally posted by Yahweh
You can be Pop and Rock as well as many other things at the same time and thats what U2 have managed to achieve over their career.
Click to expand...

Well said!

Pop is an abbreviation of 'popular' & rock is an abbreviation of 'Rock & Roll'.
Click to expand...

How true.
I remember Chris de Burgh's Lady In Red being number 1 in 1986. I said in disgust to my mother, "It's not exactly POP MUSIC is it?!"

She pointed out that of course it was - pop meant 'popular'.

The word 'pop' has developed other connotations over the years, it seems.

I get thoroughly irritated with all this attempting to squeeze music into one little box - it has to be labelled X or Y, pop, indie, rock, AOR, blah blah blah. How do you define these terms in a way that accommodates everyone's different ideas of these genres? Balls to that... it's virtually impossible.
 
Last edited:
Haha, that's the greatness of U2, they're everything. Labeling bands sucks! That's one of the worst things you can do to a band in my opinion. Even though it feels good to say "I'm in a rock n' roll band" :cool: They are everything: rock n' roll, pop, heavy metal, funk, eletronic, garage rock, hard rock, punk rock, soul, industrial. And that's why I LOVE THEM!

But I think they are mainly rock n' roll. I mean most of their influences comes from rock n' roll bands. So, here it is ---> :rockon:
 
TheBrazilianFly said:
Haha, that's the greatness of U2, they're everything. Labeling bands sucks! That's one of the worst things you can do to a band in my opinion. Even though it feels good to say "I'm in a rock n' roll band" :cool: They are everything: rock n' roll, pop, heavy metal, funk, eletronic, garage rock, hard rock, punk rock, soul, industrial. And that's why I LOVE THEM!

But I think they are mainly rock n' roll. I mean most of their influences comes from rock n' roll bands. So, here it is ---> :rockon:
Click to expand...

Yes! Totally agree!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Reggie Thee Dog
Are we NOT discussing the Dolby Atmos Mix of Achtung Baby?
Replies
13
Views
1K
count rushmore
count rushmore
Digital Spy 2
I am back
Replies
2
Views
271
Digital Spy 2
Digital Spy 2
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
748
lazarus
lazarus
Z
Hello!
Replies
3
Views
824
zoo skis
Z
dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
83
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom