Miggy D
War Child
There's a passage in the novel "White Noise," where two of the main characters are talking about the 'world's most photographed barn,' a supposedly 'perfect' barn that thousands upon thousands of tourists have come from around the world to view and photograph. The two men wonder if anyone will ever be able to make an objective judgement on the barn anymore because it has become something so much bigger than life. Meaning - anyone who was going to view the 'perfect' barn already had the whole mythology of the barn in their mind, and therefore was unable to view it as anything other than just that - perfect.
What I'm getting at here - is it possible for us, or anyone for that matter, to listen objectively to a U2 song/album? I LOVE U2, and anticipate every song and album with passion. So I can't help but wonder if, psychologically, I am predisposed to like their songs. I'm not going to lie - I strongly dislike a few of their songs (Grace, Peace on Earth, Playboy Mansion, and select others). But let's take "Stuck in a Moment," for instance. One reviewer said back in 2000 that the song might not be considered that good at all had another band recorded it. And let's be honest here - if some no-name, upstart band had made the song (identically, to a tee, sans Bono's vocals, of course, but let's assume for argument's sake the vocalist did just as good a job) would it have become a smash? Would it have gotten as much radio play? Would this have cut the mustard with a younger band?
Or has that very phrase - 'U2' - become so legendary that songs that would only be considered 'ordinary' or 'good' if they were produced by other bands, are instead considered 'great' or 'classic'? I'm not challenging all of their songs, God no. Pride, One, WTSHNN, etc...those are all undeniable classics, in my opinion. But you have to wonder about some of them. Would 'Walk On' have gotten as much airplay or goodwill had it been made by an indie upstart? Would 'Zooropa' be held in such high esteem if it were the freshman or sophomore album of another, lesser known group?
Don't misread this post - I like SIAMYCGOO (even if I hate typing the damn title) and Walk On, and I really like Zooropa, along with many, many other U2 works. I just wonder sometimes if, when listening to U2, my ears can ever truly be objective. I think they may in fact be irreversably subjective . I don't mind - if it sounds like great music to these ears, who cares? But it's just something to chew on and hopefully, discuss (lest my poor thread be relegated to the annals of history faster than you can say 'Refresh Button.')
-The Migginator
P.S. - Is it just me or did The Hands That Built America accidentally get underlaid throughout parts of The City of Blinding Lights? Man, someone is going to get chewed out big time once U2 finds out!
What I'm getting at here - is it possible for us, or anyone for that matter, to listen objectively to a U2 song/album? I LOVE U2, and anticipate every song and album with passion. So I can't help but wonder if, psychologically, I am predisposed to like their songs. I'm not going to lie - I strongly dislike a few of their songs (Grace, Peace on Earth, Playboy Mansion, and select others). But let's take "Stuck in a Moment," for instance. One reviewer said back in 2000 that the song might not be considered that good at all had another band recorded it. And let's be honest here - if some no-name, upstart band had made the song (identically, to a tee, sans Bono's vocals, of course, but let's assume for argument's sake the vocalist did just as good a job) would it have become a smash? Would it have gotten as much radio play? Would this have cut the mustard with a younger band?
Or has that very phrase - 'U2' - become so legendary that songs that would only be considered 'ordinary' or 'good' if they were produced by other bands, are instead considered 'great' or 'classic'? I'm not challenging all of their songs, God no. Pride, One, WTSHNN, etc...those are all undeniable classics, in my opinion. But you have to wonder about some of them. Would 'Walk On' have gotten as much airplay or goodwill had it been made by an indie upstart? Would 'Zooropa' be held in such high esteem if it were the freshman or sophomore album of another, lesser known group?
Don't misread this post - I like SIAMYCGOO (even if I hate typing the damn title) and Walk On, and I really like Zooropa, along with many, many other U2 works. I just wonder sometimes if, when listening to U2, my ears can ever truly be objective. I think they may in fact be irreversably subjective . I don't mind - if it sounds like great music to these ears, who cares? But it's just something to chew on and hopefully, discuss (lest my poor thread be relegated to the annals of history faster than you can say 'Refresh Button.')
-The Migginator
P.S. - Is it just me or did The Hands That Built America accidentally get underlaid throughout parts of The City of Blinding Lights? Man, someone is going to get chewed out big time once U2 finds out!
Last edited: