Is This It?

[mikal]

Wow, this sounds like Bono, or the band's manager. "look gents, there's no such thing as bad press. sure most people hate me because yeah I am the most annoying man alive, but that just proves we're relevant. hey you - Ryan Tedder - get back to work!!!"

I really doubt that conversation goes on.

 

[U2girl]

I would still argue that the Stones are more relevant than U2. No one hates the Stones. A lot of people hate U2. Definitely think U2 are (by a fair way) the better band, and they've put out extremely good music for a much longer period of time than the Stones - and that's really admirable, but outside of us and maybe one or two critics, no one gives a shit.

The Stones may have long ago gone the dinosaur route but it's paid off for them handsomely

Yeah...no.

No one cares about new Stones tours or music , unlike U2 which still gets, for better or worse, talked about.

 

[Nick66]

Take it easy, Stan.

REM weren't as big at their peak as U2 at Pop? What the fuck kind of idiocy us that? Automatic sold 18 million copies! That's as many as Achtung. Pretty sure Out of Time sold a bit more than Zooropa too. REM were U2's equals in the early 90s


Record sales, cultural impact, musical impact & influence. Are you seriously going to dispute that Pearl Jam, Nirvana, GnR and Oasis weren't as big or bigger than U2 at their peaks? Be serious for a second. In the MCIS era, Smashing Pumpkins had more I escapable hits than U2 had off an album, and more than U2 have had in the last 20 years combined. REM and Depeche are more influential over all, DM played similar sized gigs at their peak and had several monstous hits. I live U2 but this place overestimates Thierry "size" so much it's a joke. Stans abound.

Oh I forgot about RHCP at the turn of the millennium.

Ah, so this is what the new version of Red Hill sounds like!

 

[Hollow Island]

Blue & Lonesome got a more positive reception than the last 2 albums by the U, and they're the biggest live draw in the world. Sure, people go see them for their old stuff but the same is true of U2, and the Stones are just a little more revered.

 

[Hollow Island]

Ah, so this is what the new version of Red Hill sounds like!

Resorting to ad hominems when you lose an argument us a bad look.

 

[Hollow Island]

Nope, not sure how you read that, gathered that, or comprehended that.

Once again, I have to just walk away and wash my hands from another HI conversation that drifts into oblivion.

Once again you say "that's not what I was saying" multiple times without clarifying what you were saying.

 

[Hollow Island]

yes. holy shit.

trying to compare a band that writes its own music and plays its own instruments and strives for a mature artistic vision to sell to adults against a boy band that sings songs written for it by producers and does choreographed dances on stage for the primary purpose of making teenage girls scream is fucking stupid.

it's like trying to make a comparison between a south african diamond mine and verizon and claiming that it's perfectly valid and useful simply because they're both corporations.

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment if the artistic merits of the two bands but that has nothing to do with the popularity of them. Nobody ever says "U2 are the biggest band that write their own tunes." There were never qualifications before and I do that see why there should be now.

 

[mikal]

Resorting to ad hominems when you lose an argument us a bad look.

No shit! Is redhill your cousin? Your brother? Is the good Hollow Island in the Black Lodge?

 

[Hollow Island]

Well, if you want to talk about relevance, it's not foolishness. The Stones have been irrelevant culturally for quite some time.

I never said anything about relevance. But I think that the Stones were so important that they're always relevant. They created an archetype and are the second most revered band after the Beatles. But if the Stones have been irrelevant for a long time then so have U2.

 

[BVS]

Once again you say "that's not what I was saying" multiple times without clarifying what you were saying.

It's not just my posts, you don't seem to get the overall crux of the conversation; you argue one corner, and then you go argue the other corner, but you don't seem capable of backing up to see the entire box.

You brought in NKOTB and Rush into the conversation, that should tell you something.

 

[Hollow Island]

It's not just my posts, you don't seem to get the overall crux of the conversation; you argue one corner, and then you go argue the other corner, but you don't seem capable of backing up to see the entire box.

You brought in NKOTB and Rush into the conversation, that should tell you something.

Dude there were two corners and I made clear arguments for both:

There are other bands (including Rush) U2's age orlder that made records as good or better than SOI.

There are other bands (including NKOTB) who were almost as big, as big as, or bigger than U2 over the last 30 years. They've not been alone at the top.

It's 2 conversations, and I'm not the one moving the goal posts

 

[BVS]

Dude there were two corners and I made clear arguments for both:

There are other bands (including Rush) U2's age orlder that made records as good or better than SOI.

There are other bands (including NKOTB) who were almost as big, as big as, or bigger than U2 over the last 30 years. They've not been alone at the top.

It's 2 conversations, and I'm not the one moving the goal posts

But it's only one conversation. This is the part you didn't understand, dude.

 

[Hollow Island]

And I'm the one playing with semantics? I don't see how U2's popularity is related to their being the best old band.

Nevertheless, I get the crux of the conversation and make points for both parts of it, and I'm not moving the goal posts. I'm consistent.

 

[kabigon]

 

[Hollow Island]

But it's only one conversation. This is the part you didn't understand, dude.

And please explain how Rush dont belong in a conversation about good old band, or NKOTB about big bands of the late 80s.

 

[Hollow Island]

What goal posts have I moved to suit my argument and where was I inconsistent?

I'm not the one saying, "U2 are the best old band. Oh, you say the last Stones album is as good as SOI? Doesn't count, covers! Nick Cave & TBS? Doesn't count, only a few Seeds write music, not a democracy! Mission of Burma? They had a break!"

 

[kabigon]

I posted a Simpsons clip without comment because use of the word 'dude' stuck in my mind, and it's related to music. As for the current conversation, it looks like a bunch of people talking past each other who can't remember what the topic is.

 

[BVS]

And I'm the one playing with semantics? I don't see how U2's popularity is related to their being the best old band.

Nevertheless, I get the crux of the conversation and make points for both parts of it, and I'm not moving the goal posts. I'm consistent.

No, you don't get it, not if you're arguing all the points separately.

 

[Hollow Island]

Can a band with a flop album with no hits and a commercial failure of a tour be the unquestioned biggest band in the world? Talking about Pop-era U2 and how it's spoken of by many here. And we're they the biggest band when they released OST 1? You'd think a side project of the biggest band would have been pretty successful. Maybe even as successful as Blur?

 

[Hollow Island]

No, you don't get it, not if you're arguing all the points separately.

Please explain how the quality of their last album is related to their being the unchallenged biggest band for 30 years.

And again,you say I don't get it over and over while explaining nothing or making a point.

 

[mikal]

Can a band with a flop album with no hits and a commercial failure of a tour be the unquestioned biggest band in the world? Talking about Pop-era U2 and how it's spoken of by many here. And we're they the biggest band when they released OST 1? You'd think a side project of the biggest band would have been pretty successful. Maybe even as successful as Blur?

That's like saying the Chicago Bulls weren't the best team in the 90's because they only won 6 titles during that decade.

 

[Hollow Island]

They were the best team of the decade but at times other teams were better.

But the analogy doesn't work because Pop and Popmart are (wrongly) regarded as commercial and artistic failures.

Re. U2's size: there have been bands who sell as much or more, have a comparable number of hits or more, a get better reviews, are more influential and have comparably profitable tours. It's true that none have sustained the popularity aside from the Stones, and that's remarkable. But it's absurd to say that U2 have been alone at the top for 30 years when all factors by which such a claim can be proven say otherwise.

 

[mikal]

They were the best team of the decade but at times other teams were better.

But the analogy doesn't work because Pop and Popmart are (wrongly) regarded as commercial and artistic failures.

Re. U2's size: there have been bands who sell as much or more, have a comparable number of hits or more, a get better reviews, are more influential and have comparably profitable tours. It's true that none have sustained the popularity aside from the Stones, and that's remarkable. But it's absurd to say that U2 have been alone at the top for 30 years when all factors by which such a claim can be proven say otherwise.

The Bulls weren't the best team of the 90's because that 95 team was widely considered a failure.

 

[mikal]

What I'm proving here is that this conversation is pointless. There are no baselines for measuring biggest band in the world. Everyone is talking in circles.

 

[gvox]

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment if the artistic merits of the two bands but that has nothing to do with the popularity of them. Nobody ever says "U2 are the biggest band that write their own tunes." There were never qualifications before and I do that see why there should be now.

Of course there is a qualifier, it's called "boyband". No one calls those kind of groups "bands", because they simply are not bands.

 

[cobl04]

Blue & Lonesome got a more positive reception than the last 2 albums by the U, and they're the biggest live draw in the world. Sure, people go see them for their old stuff but the same is true of U2, and the Stones are just a little more revered.

Yep!

Yeah...no.

No one cares about new Stones tours or music , unlike U2 which still gets, for better or worse, talked about.

You're a fucking idiot, Blue & Lonesome was more well-received than the last two U2 albums by a mile.

 

[Hollow Island]

Something just occurred to me:

Have U2 really sustained their popularity? The late 90s are regarded as a commercial failure, their last two albums were critical and commercial failures, and people go to the shows for the old stuff. And if the Stones can't be considered big because they're trading on former glories then the same is true if U2, right?

Just a thought.

 

[kabigon]

their last two albums were critical and commercial failures

You've forgotten all about Apple giving U2 a lot of money for SOI?

 

[cobl04]

You're not seriously calling that a success are you? They were too scared to release it of its own (with good reason because it wasn't very good, but I digress) and let the market at it, Apple paying them ridiculous $$ to host it for free is nowhere near a commercial success.

 

[kabigon]

I should've struck out the critical bit from that quote. I meant that as soon as an album is foisted upon people for free, commercial (money) success is of course not going to happen.