New Album Discussion (Is Headache Going To The Superbowl?)

[Irvine511]

I agree that Pink Floyd is closer to U2 in this discussion. However, I think the difference between U2 and Floyd is that Floyd gets more respect for their work (because they're better technical musicians) whereas U2 gets more love for their work. Which is why I think Floyd is often put in with the others.

Love vs Respect is an interesting distinction, and a good one.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i think more teenagers in the 1990s preferred LZ to U2, but i think that support was wide but not deep.

LZ kicks ass. they just do. they have two legitimate musical virtuosos, and they never sound wussie. they do, however, sound a bit dated, but that point in time (early/mid-70s) has been painted with enough nostalgia via film and television (think Dazed and Confused) that it feels like a rite of passage. and the music is great. i think part of being a deeper music fan when you are a teenager is to reach back into the past and discover what is now a huge inventory of music, and LZ is a big part of that. but they are very much hard rock, and while everyone's parents like The Beatles, LZ still has enough of an edge that it could upset your parents, there's enough danger and sex and drugs to make it feel like an authentic experience.

i'd put Floyd more along the lines of U2 and Springsteen, actually. certainly not when it comes to their actual sound, but in that Floyd is a band that some people get REALLY into, and some people never go near. me, i've seen The Wall, and i like Wish You Were Here and Comfortably Numb like everyone else, but that's it. but i have friends who knew every word, every lyric, had every poster -- it becomes a part of one's worldview, similar to how Springsteen and U2 seem to represent specific worldviews as well. these bands become much more a part of one's identity -- people identify as a Bruce or Floyd fan, but no one really identifies as a LZ fan. everyone IS a fan, and some people are bigger fans than others, but it really is about the music, whereas these three others (u2, Bruce, PF) seem to use music to explore other themes (god, social justice, reality itself).

so no one's really right or wrong here, but i do enjoy teasing out differences and similarities between these different bands.

and none of these bands will ever have the cultural influence of the Beatles and the Stones. those two are untouchable -- they are only comparable to Elvis and Dylan.

I can agree with pretty much all of this

 

[jeevey]

Led Zep will always have the upper edge over in terms of cool factor, and thus youth-appeal.

U2 will never be cool with the under 18 crowd. we know that! They're four dorks making gauche, dorky music and we fucking love them for it.

Fucking LOVE them for it.

Back to U2 though, I'd put them in another category, and I don't believe U2 aspire to be any of those bands. U2 is still a real, working band that at least aspires to put out new, fresh music and compete on the charts, for awards, etc. U2 wants to be a "contemporary" band in a way I think the Stones and Floyd have long given up on. In this way, I believe U2 are unique...they come close to the world-wide stature of the Stones, and Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd, but unlike those bands U2 are still "in the arena". They aren't a legacy act like the former, at least not quite yet. Yet they can sell out a tour based on their back catalogue alone much like a legacy act. In that way, U2 is peerless because I can't think of another band that quite occupies this space. None of the usual suspects named...Arcade Fire, Radiohead, etc. are really where U2 is at. R.E.M., at one time, may have been close, but U2 passed them a long time ago.

That's the thing, isn't it? U2 is at a place where no one has ever really been before, still working fresh but the the giant legacy resting on their shoulders. It'll be interesting to see if the respect goes up once they are really and truly done. One thing the Beatles, LZ and Floyd have that affects their cool factor is the decade of their breakout. The 60s and 70s have been certified cool, and classic rock has been certified cool, for a very long time. The 80s is a decade that still gets most of its cultural mileage out of irony about the general silliness, and U2 doesn't really fit into that. I wonder that 80s achorage may prevent U2 from ever getting named as one of the best ever, or if that will ease up over time and allow for a better comparison.

 

[Hewson]

WOW! I had forgotten about him, definitely a tragedy.

And spawned the chant "Drive a Porsche Hextall, drive a Porsche" (clap clap) from those classy NYR hockey fans.

 

[Nick66]

That's the thing, isn't it? U2 is at a place where no one has ever really been before, still working fresh but the the giant legacy resting on their shoulders. It'll be interesting to see if the respect goes up once they are really and truly done. One thing the Beatles, LZ and Floyd have that affects their cool factor is the decade of their breakout. The 60s and 70s have been certified cool, and classic rock has been certified cool, for a very long time. The 80s is a decade that still gets most of its cultural mileage out of irony about the general silliness, and U2 doesn't really fit into that. I wonder that 80s achorage may prevent U2 from ever getting named as one of the best ever, or if that will ease up over time and allow for a better comparison.

Exactly. U2 was founded in, what, 1976. So next year they will have been around for 38 years. THIRTY EIGHT YEARS. And still competing, still putting out new, fresh music. Still trying, to varying degrees of success, to be part of the contemporary music "scene".

Pink Floyd, on the other hand, was 38 years into their career about 10 years ago...and even then were very firmly established as a legacy act. That's not a knock on Pink Floyd, I love them. But it's just demonstrative of the fact that that U2 is really at a very unique place, and again in a certain way really are peerless. How many other bands that have been around almost four decades occupy the space U2 does?

 

[iron yuppie]

I wonder that 80s achorage may prevent U2 from ever getting named as one of the best ever...

I'd say not, if only because the general post-punk scene U2 came out of is highly critically regarded, with a few bands from it (Joy Division for example) among the most lauded bands ever. I'd say the 80s in general right now are experiencing a resurgence in terms of critical praise and artistic appeal, in the indie scene at least. I mean, just look at how thoroughly Pitchfork praised the reissues of the albums Boy through JT.

 

[Nick66]

U2's legacy is secure. They could never put out another thing and today would be considered one of the greatest bands ever (though I wouldn't call them one of the most influential in the way the other bands we're talking about were).

As time goes on their legacy will only grow.

 

[YBORCITY]

And spawned the chant "Drive a Porsche Hextall, drive a Porsche" (clap clap) from those classy NYR hockey fans.

Oh man, that's awful - I somehow missed all of this! I do remember the HEX-Tall! chants though..... also how many time can we hear "Potvin Sucks?"

 

[mama cass]

That's the thing, isn't it? U2 is at a place where no one has ever really been before, still working fresh but the the giant legacy resting on their shoulders.

it's nuts too when you think that The Beatles and Led Zeppelin really weren't around for very long in comparison with U2...

 

[U2girl]

Maybe not. What if Abba did a tour?

Would be a great reunion but they don't want to do it. Another massive one - but not happening - would be Paul McCartney and Ringo teaming up with Julian Lennon and Dhani Harrison.

I think Guns'n'roses - if Slash and Axl ever get reasonable enough again - would be the biggest plausible rock band reunion.
At this point Stones are U2's only competition and potential 360 rivals, assuming they will do another worldwide tour.

As for as comparisons, Springsteen is the only one that qualifies. Not a 60s act like the other bands, still actively touring and recording. Also has a rabid fanbase, and is a renowned live act.

 

[Nick66]

I think Guns'n'roses - if Slash and Axl ever get reasonable enough again - would be the biggest plausible rock band reunion.

Hmmmm. While I agree such a "reunion" would get quite a bit of attention, I think you might be overestimating GNR's appeal today just a tad. IIRC, there was a rather muted and underwhelming "so what" response to Chinese Democracy when it finally came out.

Not saying that such a tour wouldn't do quite well, but I don't think it would be the earth shattering event that a Zeppelin reunion tour would be. Which I actually do believe is still plausible (though not for 2014).

I do agree about Springsteen, and I think he's the closest to occupying the same space that U2 is right now.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

I'm not a huge Springsteen fan, but history will show he put on better shows then u2 ever did. Not for me personally. But the e street band live reputation is bigger then other bands entire reputation. Period.
Pink Floyd has alot of great stuff commercial radio never plays. So that makes their legacy not only great but somehow underrated at the same time.
U2 will never be on the level of those older baby Boomer bands. Because those bands came from the blues. U2 is based in punk. They don't have that "sound" . Alternative rock is alternative. For a reason. Even when alternative is mainstream its still not the same.

 

[Irvine511]

But it's just demonstrative of the fact that that U2 is really at a very unique place, and again in a certain way really are peerless. How many other bands that have been around almost four decades occupy the space U2 does?

which is also why they have more detractors than these bands, and people who get annoyed by Bono are still annoyed by him. he hasn't gone away so people can forget the bad things.

U2's legacy is secure. They could never put out another thing and today would be considered one of the greatest bands ever (though I wouldn't call them one of the most influential in the way the other bands we're talking about were).

As time goes on their legacy will only grow.

hmmm ... i've always wondered about the influential thing. i think it's true that, aside from a few notable bands (*cough*Coldplay*cough*), there aren't legions of U2 imitators. it could partially be because of their unique sound, it could also be because people who grow up playing in a band may naturally be drawn to more traditional virtuosos (Clapton, Page, etc.) than to the Edge. it could also be that lots of people find Bono annoying, and the U2 sound really only works for U2.

however, i would say that U2, along with REM, are the architects of what became known as Alternative Rock in the late 80s/early 90s. one could say that genre is over, and also that today's "indie" is a reaction to AR, but it really did exist. what U2 and REM provided in the 1980s was a genuine alternative to the REO Speedwagon/Bon Jovis of the era, while always remaining accessible. they proved that there was a big market out there for stuff that wasn't fluff and dealt with big, heavy emotions, and like it or not, record contracts get signed when labels see opportunities to make money off of bands that sound like something that is already successful. in the early 90s, i feel like every "alternative" band, from Pearl Jam on down, talked about the influence of REM in the 1980s.

it's nuts too when you think that The Beatles and Led Zeppelin really weren't around for very long in comparison with U2...

and neither of them were around long enough to really fuck it all up, or get old and pathetic. John and Paul's musical sins were committed solo.

I'm not a huge Springsteen fan, but history will show he put on better shows then u2 ever did. Not for me personally. But the e street band live reputation is bigger then other bands entire reputation. Period.

it kind of is. i've seen 6 Bruce shows and 13 U2 shows, and while i personally would prefer to see U2 if i had to choose, i think for your average fan of both a Bruce concert comes across as more impressive, if only because he really sweats it out, and the concerts are always 3+ hours. granted, the "i'm working so hard up here" is part of the showmanship, he knows exactly what he's doing, but it's still a sight to behold. and the E Street Band can play anything.

what Bruce and U2 do share is an overwhelming sincerity, and the ability to make you smile in such a way that it feels like it's bursting out your chest -- they're trying to make us all better people, in a way, and some people don't like that. and fair enough. if you don't buy that men with 9-figure bank accounts care about the working class or Africa or saving our collective soul with the redemptive power of rock and roll, that's understandable. but it's also why the passion of their respective fanbases is so intoxicating. i haven't seen a Stones concert, but i'm guessing that people aren't usually moved to tears the way i've seen people weep with joy at U2 and Bruce. (i could be wrong ... anyone seen that?)

 

[iron yuppie]

however, i would say that U2, along with REM, are the architects of what became known as Alternative Rock in the late 80s/early 90s.

Add The Smiths to this and I would agree.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

I must live up to my gimmick. Its time for Madonna. Lol. And from I've seen Madonna displays more confidence at times then u2 does. As was said before about doin. g a deep cut and not sounding that great. When Madonna does a remix or a experimental rearrangement she does it with confidence. Good or bad. Bono gets up their and is like " um mabey this might work lol. I dunno. Good luck to all of us " . I saw u2 do stay on the 360 tour in NJ. And just that awkward moment when Bono forgot where he was. Lol.

 

[Irvine511]

Add The Smiths to this and I would agree.

Agreed. There are probably lots of other bands, but U2 and REM were/are the biggest.

 

[Hewson]

. John and Paul's musical sins were committed solo.

John's musical sin wast most definitely not solo;

Spoiler

yoko ono sings horribly - YouTube

 

[nbelcik]

No. There is no groundswell of Led Zeppelin fanaticism amongst teenagers, period. Where is this idea coming from? The few that think the tshirts are cool and wear them? The odd guy/girl learning to play guitar?

I'm 18 and in college and most of my friends are familiar with Led Zeppelin and like their songs. Even the ones that mainly listen to pop music know who Zeppelin is and massively respect them. I'm a big Zeppelin fan and would definitely go see them, but even the ones that aren't huge fans would still go see them simply because of how important they are in the history of rock music. One of my friends knows maybe three Rolling Stones songs but still went to see them because they're one of those bands you have to see in your life. Zeppelin is in that same category.

 

[YBORCITY]

U2's legacy is secure. They could never put out another thing and today would be considered one of the greatest bands ever (though I wouldn't call them one of the most influential in the way the other bands we're talking about were).

As time goes on their legacy will only grow.

 

[Mountain Dew Ma]

One of my friends knows maybe three Rolling Stones songs but still went to see them because they're one of those bands you have to see in your life. Zeppelin is in that same category.

U2 are in that category too, of bands you have to see in your life. I am in my mid 20s (though on Space Moon, there are no ages, but for the sake of argument, let's say I'm a human on planet Earth), and all my friends know a handful of U2 songs, and would like to see them next tour just to see them.

Not arguing lasting musical impact or whatever because I don't really care to, but if the argument is Zeppelin and the Stones are on a short-list of bands you have to see when they tour, U2 are certainly on it too. The statistics of the last three tours certainly back that up as well.

 

[nbelcik]

U2 are in that category too, of bands you have to see in your life. I am in my mid 20s (though on Space Moon, there are no ages, but for the sake of argument, let's say I'm a human on planet Earth), and all my friends know a handful of U2 songs, and would like to see them next tour just to see them. Not arguing lasting musical impact or whatever because I don't really care to, but if the argument is Zeppelin and the Stones are on a short-list of bands you have to see when they tour, U2 are certainly on it too. The statistics of the last three tours certainly back that up as well.

I agree completely. I went to go see U2 in Seattle in 2011 and I went with a friend who only knew Beautiful Day. But he knew that U2 is one of those bands you have to see (he loved the show and is now a big fan.) Many of my friends also want to go see them on the next tour simply because they're one of the last absolutely huge rock bands that are still around.

 

[Hollow Island]

In this way, I believe U2 are unique...they come close to the world-wide stature of the Stones, and Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd, but unlike those bands U2 are still "in the arena". They aren't a legacy act like the former, at least not quite yet. Yet they can sell out a tour based on their back catalogue alone much like a legacy act. In that way, U2 is peerless because I can't think of another band that quite occupies this space. None of the usual suspects named...Arcade Fire, Radiohead, etc. are really where U2 is at. R.E.M., at one time, may have been close, but U2 passed them a long time ago.

Rush occupy this space. They can sell out a tour based on their back catelogue, but they still try to sound current, and the crowd was just as into the Clockwork Angels and mostly-80s sets on the last tour as they were the encore of a few hits. And Rush are massive. I know a lot of people don't like to recognize that or think it's not true, but they are. They can't sell out stadiums around the world, but the can in some places. Depeche Mode also belong in this group. They seem to be much more popular in Europe than North America though.

 

[Galeongirl]

DM I would agree. Rush? Only in America. I think they might sell out an arena concert here perhaps, but they are not well known at all.

 

[Irvine511]

DM I would agree. Rush? Only in America. I think they might sell out an arena concert here perhaps, but they are not well known at all.

Maybe in North North America.

 

[Hollow Island]

U2's legacy is secure. They could never put out another thing and today would be considered one of the greatest bands ever (though I wouldn't call them one of the most influential in the way the other bands we're talking about were).

As time goes on their legacy will only grow.

It depends on what their next few records are like. The stature of their recent work has already fallen, and REM are prime example of what a string of mediocre records can do to a legacy. Had they stopped in 1997 when Berry left they would be held much higher than they are now. The only way to avoid this is to be the Rolling Stones and to have put out so much unfuckwithable music that 30 years of mediocre to bad music and embarrassing tours can't dent it. They're unique in that respect.

 

[Hollow Island]

DM I would agree. Rush? Only in America. I think they might sell out an arena concert here perhaps, but they are not well known at all.

Where do you live? They don't have a bunch of radio staples? I'm in Toronto, so maybe we love them a bit more here. I just took a look at the page for their last tour an it looks like they played half arenas in most cities. Here they played two nights with the full arena! They're big in South America too. I guess they're not as big as I thought. Being in Toronto skews things a bit.

I hate to say this, but Bon Jovi are in the same category as U2 and DM. I don't know why they're so big...though Bad Medicine is one of the best songs ever.

 

[gvox]

For fucks sake. Not this again.

 

[mikal]

For fucks sake. Not this again.

Hopefully we have some news in a couple weeks.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm in Toronto

now i see.

 

[standrums]