U2 In The Mind of Ignorance: Why Many Will Never Get 'It'

[spanisheyes]

Guitarist (Issue 225 July 2002)

U2 #22 in The Top 50 Rock bands of all time - as voted for by readers of 'Guitarist' magazine.

#22 U2

Pompous Irish twats or spirited saviours of rock: discuss. Whatever you think, U2's continued presence is all about rejuvenation. From their new wave beginnings to the mega selling rediscovery of American roots rock, via modernistic disco dance to forty-something gents growing up responsibly; U2's standing - sometimes overshadowed by Bono's flag-waving(literally) for the worthy causes of the world - is hard to dispute. The Edge's delay and effects-laden soundscapes, not to mention minimalist note content, easily elevate him into Guitar God category. The 2000 album All That You Can't Leave Behind returned to the classic guitar-driven formula and is chasing The Joshua Tree in terms of sales; Achtung Baby is essential listening too.

Rock Rating:
Attitude: 9/10
Style: 6/10
Drugs: 4/10
Riffs: 6/10

Formed: 1978
Classic Guitarist Line-up: The Edge
Favoured Axes: Fender Strat/Tele, Gibson Explorer, Gibson Les Paul Goldtop
Amps: Vox AC30
Essential Listening: The Joshua Tree (1987)

I try and not get too upset when I see polls like this, considering what this magazine used for their rock rating: drugs? This magazine proved to me once again how much substance U2 has that what others see as minimal, U2 fans, or just fans of music see as substantial.

I see a lot of indifference, or just plain hate for U2, because in many instances, the word saviors are used in conjunction with their music and message on a whole. Maybe bands with substance are just a thing of the past. It's now all about promoting the persons above the music. So above, you get a good glimpse of where rock music, or just music in general is. Especially when the first 4 out of 5 sections on the rock rating our about lifestyle, as opposed to musicianship and consistency.

So please, don't get upset, many people will never get U2, because U2 is unwilling to play the game, or play by the rules that other band are expected to play, and willingly do so, but you have to asked yourselves, where will many of these bands be in 10 years? U2 is about 4 men who allow themselves to take a back seat to a music that they know is bigger than themselves, and yet, are realistic to know that to get an ego ahead of this 'big music' would be suicide for U2 and any other band for that matter.

So U2, I'm proud of the fact that your #22 in the mind of many ignorant rock fans, but we know that you stand head and shoulders above them all. Discuss.

Chris

 

[HelloAngel]

News submission

Thank you for the news.

If you see that U2NEWS.COM or U2 News in the Forum does NOT have an article/news blurb, please PM me so that I can add it.


Thank you.


~HA

 

[oliveu2cm]

I think many people are used to pigeon-holing rock and roll bands into the cliched sex, drugs & r&r category. Therefore, U2 make them confused and sort of uncomfortable. They slap on U2 the label of being "pompous" or "pure" since they don't understand them.

I like them b/c of the same reasons others don't!

 

[Mulholland Drive]

Maybe some people don't like U2 because, well...they just don't like the music. People aren't necessarily "not getting it." I think if we start assuming that attitude, we've become more pompous and arrogant than the people who came up with this list.

 

[oliveu2cm]

Totally true Mulholland Drive!

I was commenting on fiting them into the categories of "drug" rating or whatever and the obvious difference some people look for in music- some artists don't have fans that ask a lot of them~ I think U2 does and I think U2 asks a lot of themselves, which is why they didn't quite fit the mold this poll was looking for.

Chris said it perfectly:

Especially when the first 4 out of 5 sections on the rock rating our about lifestyle, as opposed to musicianship and consistency.

if that's what people are voting on- of course U2 won't rank high. And I'm proud of that.

 

[Discoteque]

ex-squeeze me???

*steps up to the rant podium*

Chris, I've thought this same thing for YEARS. But you know what? Music, like art, is in the "ear" of the beholder. It's the same way I'll never "get it" when it comes to country music, opera, rap, Britney, or boy bands (save ONE, of course). They're weird, they're foreign, they don't "trip my trigger" so to speak, so because I don't know much about them, perhaps I've formed opinions that may not be true. Same goes for U2. They're probably the most unusual rock band ever, and because (which I've said before) they're the type you almost have to study up on to really *understand* where they're coming from (as far as they let us anyway), most people definitely will not "get it."

I also think "intelligent" music/rock scares people because it's so foreign....the music mainstream audience just wants entertainment they don't want to have to think about too deeply. U2 really is almost a music genre of its own making, to the point that they completely throw the typical music critic for a loop....so then critics have nothing more intelligent to do than to either pigeon-hole them into another style of music (a square peg in a round hole), or to make up some inane explanation to why they don't "get it" without actually owning up to the fact, and giving them props for being the great band they are!

 

[spanisheyes]

I was commenting on fiting them into the categories of "drug" rating or whatever and the obvious difference some people look for in music- some artists don't have fans that ask a lot of them~ I think U2 does and I think U2 asks a lot of themselves, which is why they didn't quite fit the mold this poll was looking for.

Well put Carrie, and yes, by saying that some people won't get it was in no way a put down, or sounding pompous. I was simply stating this so that many U2 fans who seem to think the band doesn't get its fair share of kudos will realize that U2 just doesn't fit the mold of many other bands out their, and for this reason, people don't seem to take them seriously, when in fact, U2's music is some of the most serious music both lyrically and musically I've ever heard.

Chris

 

[bono-vox]

Pompous Irish twats or spirited saviours of rock: discuss.

Sorry but i read that in the music lib last week and i laughed

 

[adamswildhoney]

I think that a lot of people get their panties in a bundle over how well U2 does with their music. I never pay ne attention to polls like this because they arent very important to me because I know what I like and polls wont change my mind.

 

[follower]

I think many people are used to pigeon-holing rock and roll bands into the cliched sex, drugs & r&r category. Therefore, U2 make them confused and sort of uncomfortable. They slap on U2 the label of being "pompous" or "pure" since they don't understand them.

I like them b/c of the same reasons others don't!

What olive said.

 

[daisybean]

I think it is for the most part of matter of taste. For me, the draw of U2 was the sound: The music was just fun to listen to. The more I got into them, the more involved I became with their messages. The deeper I got the more I fell in love with not only the music but the whole persona of the band as a whole and the members.

So my thinking is (and yes I do have a point ) is that most likely the U2-haters didn't like the music to begin with, and thus disregarded all things about them. For someone who initially does not like the music they are going to find ways to take pot shots at them. Like those morons in Rolling Stone who in their column make sure to say something bad about Bono. I noticed that they are always making the comments to the effect of him being pompous windbag, however, the column has no real substance to it.

 

[Giant Lemon]

Re: ex-squeeze me???

U2 really is almost a music genre of its own making, to the point that they completely throw the typical music critic for a loop....so then critics have nothing more intelligent to do than to either pigeon-hole them into another style of music (a square peg in a round hole), or to make up some inane explanation to why they don't "get it" without actually owning up to the fact, and giving them props for being the great band they are!

I completely agree, Disco. U2 is incredibly unique as a rock band- I can't think of any other band that has such a diverse collection of albums. Some people enjoy this kind of uniqueness while others don't (I once had a friend tell me that she hates it when bands try to have really different sounding albums, and I was thinking "but that's what I love about U2!"). I guess it just boils down to a matter of opinion, but it makes me wonder why some people "get it" and some don't.

 

[verte76]

Some people are uncomfortable with stars that won't stay in what I call a "guilded cage", i.e, a gold cage. Rock stars or movie stars are supposed to be strictly that, and they're assigned very scripted roles as such. The second they step out of that role, they're doing something "wrong" because it's not in the script. It's not even particularly in the script for them to have brains or to have anything meaningful to say or do. They're just supposed to look at you and smile or whatever. In that sense, Britney is the perfect star. She fits the "guilded cage" stereotype to the core. She's *just* a star. And they are supposed to stay *just* stars, in their particular place on the social stratum. U2 don't do that, they're not afraid to step outside of the guilded cage and show brains and intentions beyond fame, fortune and glamor. This scares some people. They can't handle this kind of nonconformist behavior. This behavior is actually very rock 'n roll because it breaks the rules and gets under peoples' skin. But--to hell with them, if you stereotype people you pay a price in the cultural stakes. I don't pay any attention to these people because quite frankly I consider them idiots.

 

[Saracene]

I didn't really see anything terribly offensive about that poll. Most of these parametres have very little to do with U2's merits and style. And I agree that U2 and Bono especially can be terribly pretencious and even pompous sometimes, I just don't see that as a reason to dislike them,

 

[verte76]

I didn't really see anything terribly offensive about that poll. Most of these parametres have very little to do with U2's merits and style. And I agree that U2 and Bono especially can be terribly pretencious and even pompous sometimes, I just don't see that as a reason to dislike them,

Oh, I don't care about the poll, either. It's just an article. Hell, when you're famous, people will write good, bad and indifferent opinions about you. I don't sweat it but I do sometimes have opinions on what they write. It's apples and oranges: what do you like? I love apples but personally I don't give a damn if someone else hates them.

 

[Mulholland Drive]

I find this post to be offensive. Calling people ignorant because they "don't get" U2? There's nothing to get. You either like them or you don't. The fact that they do something for me is all I need. I couldn't care less if they do that for anyone else.

 

[U2girl]

Hmmm well with that kind of categories no wonder they aren't recognised.

Like others said, what is probably puzzling about U2 is the un-clicheness (is that a word?) of the band: yes, there's the attitude and the ego, but also, there are messages and causes they fight for.

I mean, maybe one of the things (along with Bono's activism which so many use as an excuse to not listen to U2) about U2 that is preventing them from getting even more acclaim is the (compared to most popular bands) relative high complexness of the lyrics and messages - there are still U2 songs where i'm not sure i know what Bono's trying to get across.

 

[spanisheyes]

I find this post to be offensive. Calling people ignorant because they "don't get" U2? There's nothing to get. You either like them or you don't. The fact that they do something for me is all I need. I couldn't care less if they do that for anyone else.

ig?no?rance
The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

I'm sorry you find this post so offensive. It wasn't meant to be. I was simply stating that what we have hear is ignorance in the most positive of state Mulholland Drive. I still stick with my original opinion, and it is only an opinion at that, that the criteria that makes a great rock band went unnoticed. Now I would have been ill advised to use the word stupid as opposed to ignorance, but again it wasn't meant to sound or be belittling. But there is some ignorance involved when you pigeonhole a band like U2 with the criteria mentioned above, that is all I was stating.

Chris

 

[wertsie]

Guitarist (Issue 225 July 2002)
So U2, I'm proud of the fact that your #22 in the mind of many ignorant rock fans, but we know that you stand head and shoulders above them all. Discuss.

#22? That's blasphemy if you ask me!

There was a really good essay on atu2.com a few months back called "Keeping the U2 Secret Again." I really related to that one. Have you read it?

 

[Mulholland Drive]

ig?no?rance
The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

I'm sorry you find this post so offensive. It wasn't meant to be. I was simply stating that what we have hear is ignorance in the most positive of state Mulholland Drive. I still stick with my original opinion, and it is only an opinion at that, that the criteria that makes a great rock band went unnoticed. Now I would have been ill advised to use the word stupid as opposed to ignorance, but again it wasn't meant to sound or be belittling. But there is some ignorance involved when you pigeonhole a band like U2 with the criteria mentioned above, that is all I was stating.

Chris

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[verte76]

I find this post to be offensive. Calling people ignorant because they "don't get" U2? There's nothing to get. You either like them or you don't. The fact that they do something for me is all I need. I couldn't care less if they do that for anyone else.

I object to the "pigeonholing" and what I call "celebrity stereotypical" kind of stuff some people write about U2. That stuff bothers me. I understand not everyone is going to like them. In fact, hell, I'm the only U2 fan in my own family. They thought I was absolutely nuts to go to two Elevation shows in Atlanta. I've been home watching U2 videos and my mother will say "you don't like them, do you?" I'm just glad they tolerate this madness of mine!

 

[oliveu2cm]

Re: Re: U2 In The Mind of Ignorance: Why Many Will Never Get 'It'

#22? That's blasphemy if you ask me!

There was a really good essay on atu2.com a few months back called "Keeping the U2 Secret Again." I really related to that one. Have you read it?

No! I'd love to read it if you know the link!!! if not i'll try and search their site......

thx wertsie!

 

[wertsie]

Re: Re: Re: U2 In The Mind of Ignorance: Why Many Will Never Get 'It'

No! I'd love to read it if you know the link!!! if not i'll try and search their site......

thx wertsie!

Here you are, Olive! (and anyone else who's interested)

Keeping the U2 Secret Again by Matt McGee

 

[oliveu2cm]

Re: Re: Re: Re: U2 In The Mind of Ignorance: Why Many Will Never Get 'It'

Here you are, Olive! (and anyone else who's interested)

Keeping the U2 Secret Again by Matt McGee

Thanks Wertsie!! I liked this article's ideas a lot!!

I don't care about the sales charts. I don't care about media approval. I don't care if U2 ever shows up on MTV again. It's pretty cool to think that I'm starting to get this band back to myself again. Yep. I've got a secret again, and the know-it-alls aren't in on it. Shhhhhhh. Don't anybody tell them.

 

[spanisheyes]

Yes, that was a great article...I remember feeling like this in 1984 when U2 really started to get the recognition they deserved, and like other bands who have similar success as U2 has, people get bored, and they move on, looking for that next great band. But those of us who love U2 have stopped looking, and have just sat down and enjoyed this band for what they have accomplished and will accomplish, and can care less if everyone doesn't get it.

Chris

 

[STING2]

Thats funny what that person at atu2.com wrote in that article from 1999. He said the next studio album would not be as big as Joshua Tree, Acthung or Zooropa. He said he was happy U2 was no longer popular and that they were his band again. I wonder how he feels now. ATYCLB is one of the largest selling albums of the past 3 years with over 11 million copies sold worldwide! Elevation tour has broken records everywhere and was the biggest tour worldwide and in the USA last year. ATYCLB won 7 grammy awards out of 10 nominations! Again, I wonder how he feels now?

 

[spanisheyes]

(Only short mention of U2, but within the context of this interesting opinion piece it is a real compliment to the band)

The Boston Globe
July 2, 2002

Life in the Pop Lane
Who are you? Today's bands are faceless

By Renee Graham, Globe Staff


Just a guess here, but it's probably safe to assume that when the
bassist for Nickelback dies, he won't be eulogized by Peter Jennings and Charles Osgood.

Nor will his passing likely inspire the lengthy newspaper appreciations or television features which accompanied the sudden death last week of the Who's legendary bassist John Entwistle. That's not meant as a slight against Nickelback's bass player (who, by the way, is Mike Kroeger), the same could be said about Creed's drummer, Hoobastank's guitarist, Default's lead singer, or Linkin Park's turntablist.

Of course, all the attention paid to a 57-year-old musician whose band, despite countless tours, hadn't released an album of new material since 1982, could be blamed on a cultural spasm by time warped news editors and producers who probably haven't purchased an album since Led Zeppelin called it quits. (Although if Entwistle had contributed nothing more to rock history than his sputtering, funky bass solo on the Who classic "My Generation" he still would have deserved a moment of silence in his honor.)

This isn't a lambasting of self-absorbed baby boomers; it's a lament about today's faceless brand of modern rock.

Entwistle's death marked not only another lost link to rock's thrilling past (yes, kids, rock was once thrilling), but recalled those days when a band's members were as distinct and recognizable as their songs. Even casual music fans could distinguish between Mick and Keith, John and Paul, Roger and Pete. There was no more confusing Ringo Starr and Charlie Watts, any more than you'd mix up "Hello Goodbye" and "Sympathy for the Devil."

If a song or album infatuated a fan, then it was the boys in the band that often made fans for life. They didn't just buy a record, they were invested emotionally in the band itself.

But where's the love today? Perhaps the modern rock's target demographic (which I've most certainly outgrown) feels the same soul connection to Drowning Pool and Puddle of Mudd, as others once felt for Cream and the Jimi Hendrix Experience. But, the fact remains that many rock bands are now as anonymous as gas station attendants.

They're not only sonically similar -- Default sounds like Creed, Earshot sounds like Tool -- but as personalities, they're as dull as ditch water. To illustrate the point, MTV once sent a correspondent to a Train show, and most of the concertgoers interviewed didn't even know the lead singer's name.

Or was it a Vertical Horizon show? Does it even matter? Can anyone (without cheating with the Web) easily name a single member of either band?

Devotion to a band, not just a single song or album, is what blesses a band with longevity. As kids, you buy the T-shirt, you plaster your bedroom wall with glossy photos clipped from magazines, and you know the band members' birthdays. Such fan loyalty carries a band beyond its first splash of success. Without it, a band could quickly find themselves in the cut-out bin next to the Spin Doctors and Hootie and the Blowfish.

Bands such as U2 and the Red Hot Chili Peppers have lasted more than 20 years because their fans feel as connected to the members as to the music. As long as they stay together there will always be people eager to buy the next U2 or Chili Peppers record, whether they have a top-selling single, and regardless of the latest form or fashion.

Now visually, as well as aurally, rock has been boiled down to an undistinguishable mass, an assembly line of sameness and namelessness. Once, when rock was still dangerous and grand, it meant Keith Moon's ribaldry, Joey Ramone's nerdy swagger, Jim Morrison's unpredictability, Kurt Cobain's insouciance, and Keith Richards' cadaverous cool.

And, for nearly 40 years, it was also the bearded Entwistle thundering out a world of sound, and even while standing as still as a lawn jockey, emitting more personality than just about all of today's modern rock acts combined.


? 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.

 

[oliveu2cm]

That was a really interesting article, Chris- and oddly enough it reminds me of something I was considering yesterday.

Is intense touring (i.e. sharing of their music) by a band necessary to ensure longevity and loyalty by fans?

For example, Radiohead and REM do not tour frequently. Yet from what I understand they have a fairly intense (although perhaps smaller) fan base. On the more pop side, Jennifer Lopez does maybe one live show a year, yet (despite her quality of music, etc) she does have a dedicated following.

U2 however, well we know how much they tour (for themselves as much as for us!) Like the article stated, perhaps this availabilty to their fans is what will keep U2 interesting to us. I wonder how fans of REM would compare their feelings towards their band to ours based on the fact we have much more access to our band and feel they want to us as much!

 

[spanisheyes]

That was a really interesting article, Chris- and oddly enough it reminds me of something I was considering yesterday.

Is intense touring (i.e. sharing of their music) by a band necessary to ensure longevity and loyalty by fans?

For example, Radiohead and REM do not tour frequently. Yet from what I understand they have a fairly intense (although perhaps smaller) fan base. On the more pop side, Jennifer Lopez does maybe one live show a year, yet (despite her quality of music, etc) she does have a dedicated following.

U2 however, well we know how much they tour (for themselves as much as for us!) Like the article stated, perhaps this availabilty to their fans is what will keep U2 interesting to us. I wonder how fans of REM would compare their feelings towards their band to ours based on the fact we have much more access to our band and feel they want to us as much!

You bring up some good points Carrie, points that I have wondered about for years. I will admit that at times it is discouraging to see bands or individuals getting the recognition with little or no hard effort or work on their part. U2 have toured incessently since their early inception, and like you said, mostly for themselves, then just simply for their fans. I have concluded that it will always be this way for U2, that they will always have to bring in a new fan base through hard and diligent effort on their part. However, the results when it is all said and done, is a career filled with recording and tours that most bands only dream of, so maybe it has been the best way for U2, and to the benefit of their fans who have remained loyal to them all these years.

Chris

 

[U2junkie]

Chris: In short, I completely agree with you on this issue. I'm surprized, actually, that U2 did not rank into the top 10. However, as you noted, it depends on "who" is taking the poll. I think the same can be said for "who" is writing the articles on Rock Bands, music etc. I also think that it is true, that a lot of people "don't get it". By that, I don't mean, that they don't get the "music", but rather, they do not "get" WHO U2 really are.....as a band. Some, I think, link derrogatory "adjectives" to U2, because, they're looking to get a rise out of people, they don't know what they're talking about, are jealous that "their" favorite band isn't "all that", etc. As for musical journalists? Some want to stand up and be noticed. I remember reading, upon the Joshua Tree release, that the album was not going to "make it", was a failure in comparison to U2's prior work. I wonder where "That" musical editor, journalist is today?? What's written in articles such as the one you noted doesn't really get to me to the point of making me angry.....My neighbor has been telling me for the past 1o years that U2 is "all washed" up, their too old, nobody is listening to their music, their albums aren't selling.....I just laugh and say: "Where have you been?" Same can be said for the individuals who write articles such as the one you noted.

What other band, other than the Stones, draws an age group between 15 and 45? That's one BROAD age span. Course, we won't see that printed in articles such as this one, now will we.