When did Green Day became cool in U2's eyes?

[Clawgrabber]

the exact words at the grammies were (upon beating out Green Day for one award) bono: "Wow. I thought this was Green Day's year for sure."

not exact ,but you get the basic idea.

 

[Butterscotch]

The Grammys decide who they want to win regardless of who deserves it. U2 is a pet choice of theirs. U2 is a good choice of course and so is GD but a lot of crap has won the award while a lot of good artists go ignored.

 

[Clawgrabber]

huh?

 

[Butterscotch]

I'm saying I am convinced the men in suits decide whose 'year' it's going to be and that's why we get so many sweeps by the same artist. I'm saying that a lot of good artists are ignored in favor of one person taking home eight. I'm saying U2 is deserving, but not everyone is. It's a good ole boy club, and Bono is their buddy. Think of all the good artists who are never even nominated.

 

[Zoots]

i cant believe they sang with green day,green day are so over rated.bono should be teaming up with the likes of page and plant or R.E.M,not poxy green day

I think you are failing to see the current U2's goal here. They want to reach the widest audience possible. They want to remain in the collective public consciousness for a long long time. I don't think that can be achieved by teaming up with nostalgia acts like Page and Plant. REM has faded into obscurity and far away from the mainstream where U2 want to be. Teaming up with Green Day or The Killers is a good business decision for them right now.

 

[doctorwho]

Green Day pulled off a career reinvigoration without having to drastically alter their core sound. In that respect they did the same thing U2 did, but while still remaining completely true to their punk roots.

This is an exaggeration.

"Dookie" was their break-out album. Huge hit, tons of hit singles, tons of videos, yada, yada.

Follow-up albums didn't go anywhere and it seemed Green Day was falling off the map.

10 years after "Dookie", they produce an album almost exactly the same in sound. Yes, more polished (after all, it has been 10 years), but still the same sound. In fact, one might even think "American Idiot" was a follow-up to "Dookie"! Their political lyrics came out at the perfect time (just as some of U2's songs on ATYCLB were released at the perfect time after 9/11). This helped the album become a hit.

So it's not a true "reinvogoration" or "relaunch" or anything like that. They stayed the same, but 10 years later, the world was ready for their sound again. Will the world stay ready? It's tough to say. Even the mighty U2 slipped a few times.

But with "Saints", U2 and Green Day have helped not only people in need, but their careers tremendously. Fans of one band now have a bit more respect for the other. Fans appreciate the charity side of the work. Fans appreciate the political message side. It's a strong song, true to the punk roots of both bands. It's a rocking song - something where both bands excel. And it keeps both bands in the news without the need to release a full new studio album.

So I think Green Day, this time, will have a far stronger follow-up to AI than they did with "Dookie". And I think U2 will continue to go multi-platinum with any new studio release.

As for the anti-Catholic sentiments... I think there is some misinterpretation of the lyrics. Using a term like "Jesus" or "Saint" doesn't necessarily refer to the real Jesus or any specific Saint. Rather, it's stating how this could be a "savior" of sorts. But if you see anti-religious sentiments in Green Day's lyrics, then how can you rationalize away some of Bono's harsher words (like in "Wake Up Dead Man")?

 

[doctorwho]

I think you are failing to see the current U2's goal here. They want to reach the widest audience possible. They want to remain in the collective public consciousness for a long long time. I don't think that can be achieved by teaming up with nostalgia acts like Page and Plant. REM has faded into obscurity and far away from the mainstream where U2 want to be. Teaming up with Green Day or The Killers is a good business decision for them right now.

I agree with this, as I wrote in my reply above.

But also, keep in mind the goals of this single. It's a charity release. With charity work, one wants the public to be interested and buy it! If the public isn't interested, there won't be a response. So teaming up with an older artist, while arguably more respectable, won't generate the interest needed to get a good response for this single. Now, back in '92, part of U2 did team up with part of REM and did a version of "One". Good stuff and showed support for a changing U.S. But as Zootlesque wrote, REM has since faded (dramatically) and sadly is out of the public's mind. So a charity duet with them might not achieve the desired results.