The News: Midnight Oil beat U2. An Opinion.

[AlanPARTRIDGE]

sorry, I'm back at Uni... can't write essay responces anymore to STING2's comments. Just bare in mind the title of this thread. An Opinion and opinions aren't facts.

Oh and MBH, I've seen U2 and the Oils live on a number of occasions. The Oils are more intense for a number of reasons.

1. They don't have the same rehearsed speech everynight.
2. They don't use the same "spontaneos" props everynight "Oh look, what have we here! oh it's an Irish flag...again. I better wave it."
3. They mix up their sets everynight.
4. They'll play a song from 25 years back, at a minutes notice by a fan. They have more hits than U2. I mean, that obviously on Australian Radio, there is a larger variety of Oils songs on rotations, than U2 ones.
5. Garrett as a character is far more intense than Bono. (He is double the height, and his very presense is electrifying)
6. The band maintain the energy levels that they had at the start of their career. Where as can you see U2 pulling off stories for boys, today with the same energy as in 1980. 7. The Oils play 25 songs each night.
8. Smaller venues.
9. The whole band are passionate about the same cause as Garrett. (Bono seems to be the only one really concerned with all the issues he talks about, Larry has recently said he is getting fed up with his politics). Where as Rob Hirst, and Jim Moginie write a number of the lyrics Garrett sings which gives the feel that the whole band are behind each song and each topic being dealt with.

BUT it is an opinion. U2 shows have more lights, a heart, more people, bigger budget, more universal lyrics. But to me that does not always equal intensity. I would choose an Oils show over a U2 show. If I only had one show left that I could attend.

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by AlanPARTRIDGE:
sorry, I'm back at Uni... can't write essay responces anymore to STING2's comments. Just bare in mind the title of this thread. An Opinion and opinions aren't facts.

Oh and MBH, I've seen U2 and the Oils live on a number of occasions. The Oils are more intense for a number of reasons.

1. They don't have the same rehearsed speech everynight.
2. They don't use the same "spontaneos" props everynight "Oh look, what have we here! oh it's an Irish flag...again. I better wave it."
3. They mix up their sets everynight.
4. They'll play a song from 25 years back, at a minutes notice by a fan. They have more hits than U2. I mean, that obviously on Australian Radio, there is a larger variety of Oils songs on rotations, than U2 ones.
5. Garrett as a character is far more intense than Bono. (He is double the height, and his very presense is electrifying)
6. The band maintain the energy levels that they had at the start of their career. Where as can you see U2 pulling off stories for boys, today with the same energy as in 1980. 7. The Oils play 25 songs each night.
8. Smaller venues.
9. The whole band are passionate about the same cause as Garrett. (Bono seems to be the only one really concerned with all the issues he talks about, Larry has recently said he is getting fed up with his politics). Where as Rob Hirst, and Jim Moginie write a number of the lyrics Garrett sings which gives the feel that the whole band are behind each song and each topic being dealt with.

BUT it is an opinion. U2 shows have more lights, a heart, more people, bigger budget, more universal lyrics. But to me that does not always equal intensity. I would choose an Oils show over a U2 show. If I only had one show left that I could attend.

Fair enough. That is your opinion. Last Summer my opportunity to see MOil(in a 12,000 seat auditorium w/Men @ Work, INXS) was canceled. Maybe I can catch them this time around.

How many U2 shows have you seen? Did you see the elevation shows? You make a good point about the smaller venue argument. In fact, if I had the choice, I would probably rather see U2 play a club like Irving Plaza b/c of the intimacy factor.

However, I have seen several stadium shows and NOBODY commands an audience like Bono. You mention that Bono is rather small. True. That would make it more difficult for him to be intense(which may be the word that we disagree on here, not the bands). So that said, I think Bono, like U2, does more with little.

I have heard people complain that some of the U2 shows seem scripted b/c of the flag waving, similar sets, etc...(the Stereophonics made mention of this when they opened for U2 last fall). You must realize, at least here in the US, the "schtick" that Bono does is exactly what the crowd wants(generally). In the US, you have to sell yourself and give more of yourself. A U2 crowd expects Bono to run around, pick people out of the audience, make a political statement, talk to the crowd....I saw them twice on the Elevation tour and am happy to say that:
the sets were different
the emotion was incredible
Bono's antics were not the same

My point is that I think(and many people, critics, fans, casual fans would agree) that U2 is the best/most passionate/emotional/exhilirating band out there today, possibly ever.

If Midnight Oil works better for you, than enjoy it. However, Bono and U2's track record speaks for itself, especially during the largest shows which they have participated in such as Live Aid, Amnesty INternational and the Super Bowl.

I doubt MO would have captivated the audience like U2 did.....to each his own

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

The Oils are a good band. I'm a fan. I've seen 'em live a couple of times. I own several of their albums. The Oils are not even in the same universe as U2 in the songwriting category and if you want to talk "intensity" than Henry Rollins trumps Garrett in that department. Physical intensity doesn't equal great performance. I've been to jazz gigs where the intensity of musical phrasing from a musician or singer seated on a stool has blown the roof off. Again, the Oils are a great live band. I don't question that but I would never pick an Oils gig over a U2 show. Not ever.

Of course it's all a matter of opinion and entirely subjective. And having said all this it IS nice to hear from other Midnight Oil fans.

MAP

p.s.- The Oils have more "hits" than U2?? Only in their native Australia. Everywhere else on earth they're remembered for two or three songs.
p.p.s.- U2 don't pull out 25 year old songs from their hat because the thoughts and emotions of the teenagers they were don't really apply anymore. Bono has said countless times that they have to "feel" a song to make it work live. Otherwise it comes off as utter wank.
p.p.s.- I've tried to be nice here because I like the Oils but if some idiot posts a thread about how Creed are better live than U2 because Scott Stapp stap is taller than Bono I'm going to disembowel the idiot with a dull spoon.

 

[STING2]

Sorry about the facts, but at least it shows my opinion is an informed one.

As far as playing live goes:

1. About talking during the show, I went to 5 Elevation shows and did not here BONO repeat anything! Even on back to back nights.

2. Spontaneos props, yes the fans always love to bring Irish flags and BONO entertains them sometimes. Flag waving did not happen at every show I went to.

3. Mix up their sets-U2 have had mixed sets on this tour. In fact, only the Lovetown tour has had more mixed sets.

4. Garret more intense because he is taller? Its whats inside that counts, but hey, at least Bono's head doesn't look like a golf ball.

5. U2 sure does maintain their energy level, I Will Follow is played just as past and I would argue is made more intense in some ways then the boots Video's I have from 1981. I'd think I would take the Boston June 6, 2001 I WILL FOLLOW over November 4, 1981 Berlin I WILL FOLLOW

6. More hits than U2. I think not. Here in the USA, Midnight Oil is a ONE hit wonder. Worldwide U2 blow the Oils out the water when it comes to hits.

7. Smaller Venues. Well the amazing thing about U2 is that they can play a Stadium and seem just as intense to a person at the back as they would in a small venue. U2 played the tiny Irving Plaza before Elevation started, a great show! Bottom line, size of venue does not matter, the band does!

8. How intense U2 is not dependent on what Larry thinks about debt relief for Zambia. Again, its about the band playing live!

9. Oils play 25 songs a night, great U2 have done this as well. Volume does not equal intensity.

The great thing about U2 live is that most of their songs live are superior to the studio recordings unlike other artist. Steve Lillywhite always said he wished they would record their albums after having been on tour for 6 months. The Edge is incredible guitar player and the sounds he uses in concert are great. The band are really tight, and no one can match Bono's voice let alone Garrett.

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:
The Oils are a good band. I'm a fan. I've seen 'em live a couple of times. I own several of their albums. The Oils are not even in the same universe as U2 in the songwriting category and if you want to talk "intensity" than Henry Rollins trumps Garrett in that department. Physical intensity doesn't equal great performance. I've been to jazz gigs where the intensity of musical phrasing from a musician or singer seated on a stool has blown the roof off. Again, the Oils are a great live band. I don't question that but I would never pick an Oils gig over a U2 show. Not ever.

Of course it's all a matter of opinion and entirely subjective. And having said all this it IS nice to hear from other Midnight Oil fans.

MAP

p.s.- The Oils have more "hits" than U2?? Only in their native Australia. Everywhere else on earth they're remembered for two or three songs.
p.p.s.- U2 don't pull out 25 year old songs from their hat because the thoughts and emotions of the teenagers they were don't really apply anymore. Bono has said countless times that they have to "feel" a song to make it work live. Otherwise it comes off as utter wank.
p.p.s.- I've tried to be nice here because I like the Oils but if some idiot posts a thread about how Creed are better live than U2 because Scott Stapp stap is taller than Bono I'm going to disembowel the idiot with a dull spoon.

I agree. Some good stuff here.
As someone who seems to have an objective opinon on this site Matthew_2000, I would like to read your thoughts on Henry Rollins.

I want to start a thread on this.
I have read some of his stuff recently and I am curious as to where his fascinatin with hating, dispising of U2 originates from. Is he jealous b/c u2 is bigger than the clash? Did U2 ever say or do anything against him?I am not a Rollins fan, but I am intrigued by him because he says what is on his mind and says many true things.

That said, I lost much respect for him when he wished Bono dead last year on the Howard Stern show....we understand that he hates u2, so why doesnt he just get on with it?

There is no reason to wish anyone dead(maybe Bin Laden).....but really, whats the deal....if you have any info. on this please let me know...I am curious....the reason why I am interested in this is b/c Rollins seems to influence a lot of weak minded individuals out there and that is not good...look forward to your reply.

 

[barlowdog]

Please stop fighting. Both bands kick ass. And U2 fans, please remember that taking cheap shots and putting another band down does not elevate U2. Unless, of course, that band is Creed. Then it's ok.

btw, some Aussies might be aware of this. Ben Lee puts U2 and Midnight Oil to shame when it comes to intensity.

 

[brettig]

Originally posted by STING2:
at least Bono's head doesn't look like a golf ball.

Got anything against golf balls?

 

[Saracene]

I think we can at least agree that both Bono and Peter Garrett have about the same amount of dancing abilities,

"Apart from the small height, he radiates largeness." (Bono's description from the Q article)

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

MBH,

Henry Rollins. Hmm...
I've read 3 of his books and heard all of his solo albums with Rollins Band and I'm pretty sure I've heard all of his material with Black Flag. I've even seen a couple of movies he's starred in. I've seen him live once but it was on a spoken word performance, not a rock show.

Having said that, there's a great deal about Rollins I don't understand and his preoccupation with U2 is one of those things.
I do know that a former Black Flag band mate was president of the record company that put out the infamous Negativeland-U2 release. This bandmate (Greg Ginn maybe??) is the man who came up with the idea for the "Kill Bono" t-shirt. He's also the man who actually bankrupted Negativeland when HE sued them on behalf of the record company (Negativelands, not U2's.) But that's another story and it's much easier to blame U2. And Rollins' hatred for U2 preceded the Negativeland debacle anyway.
I like Rollins for his wit. I enjoy his clearheaded take on some issues. I enjoy some of his poetry and a bit of his prose. I don't think he's much of a singer but I admire his energy. But the man is hyperbolic to an exreme. He doesn't like U2. That's fine. He doesn't think Edge is a good guitarist. That's fine too. He thinks Bono is a corny singer. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But when he says things like, "U2 doesn't make music. They're the opposite of music. They're the definition of what is wrong with music..." or when he publically responds to Bono's interviews I get a bit confused. Why does he care so much? Why does he wish Bono was dead? Is it possible to whine this much about another artist without it being jealousy? It's reached the point where I see Rollins as more of a cultural critic than an artist and that's just sad considering he's a poet, a writer, a singer, an actor and a stand up commedian.
And yet when I read interviews with Rollins these days I skim them first for the inevitable criticism of U2 and Bono. To a certain extent he's allowed himself to be defined by his dislike of a rival band. That's unforgivable for an artist. It can't possibly be what he intended for himself when he started his solo career.
My other criticism of Rollins has nothing to do with U2 and that's his reactionary sense of what quantifies masculinity. I also think he considers the physicality associated with masculinity as a good thing in and of itself. (He's a big Sylvester Stallone fan.)
Have U2 ever made ANY public statements about Rollins? Not to my knowledge, and I've researched it a bit.
Does Rollins hate them because they're a corporate band? Nah, he just hates the music. Rollins has done advertisements for Gap Jeans, Apple Computers and MTV. He's worked as a MTV VJ. He's signed to a major label. He's stated in his books that he wishes he was MORE popular and had more money.

MAP

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:
MBH,

Henry Rollins. Hmm...
I've read 3 of his books and heard all of his solo albums with Rollins Band and I'm pretty sure I've heard all of his material with Black Flag. I've even seen a couple of movies he's starred in. I've seen him live once but it was on a spoken word performance, not a rock show.

Having said that, there's a great deal about Rollins I don't understand and his preoccupation with U2 is one of those things.
I do know that a former Black Flag band mate was president of the record company that put out the infamous Negativeland-U2 release. This bandmate (Greg Ginn maybe??) is the man who came up with the idea for the "Kill Bono" t-shirt. He's also the man who actually bankrupted Negativeland when HE sued them on behalf of the record company (Negativelands, not U2's.) But that's another story and it's much easier to blame U2. And Rollins' hatred for U2 preceded the Negativeland debacle anyway.
I like Rollins for his wit. I enjoy his clearheaded take on some issues. I enjoy some of his poetry and a bit of his prose. I don't think he's much of a singer but I admire his energy. But the man is hyperbolic to an exreme. He doesn't like U2. That's fine. He doesn't think Edge is a good guitarist. That's fine too. He thinks Bono is a corny singer. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But when he says things like, "U2 doesn't make music. They're the opposite of music. They're the definition of what is wrong with music..." or when he publically responds to Bono's interviews I get a bit confused. Why does he care so much? Why does he wish Bono was dead? Is it possible to whine this much about another artist without it being jealousy? It's reached the point where I see Rollins as more of a cultural critic than an artist and that's just sad considering he's a poet, a writer, a singer, an actor and a stand up commedian.
And yet when I read interviews with Rollins these days I skim them first for the inevitable criticism of U2 and Bono. To a certain extent he's allowed himself to be defined by his dislike of a rival band. That's unforgivable for an artist. It can't possibly be what he intended for himself when he started his solo career.
My other criticism of Rollins has nothing to do with U2 and that's his reactionary sense of what quantifies masculinity. I also think he considers the physicality associated with masculinity as a good thing in and of itself. (He's a big Sylvester Stallone fan.)
Have U2 ever made ANY public statements about Rollins? Not to my knowledge, and I've researched it a bit.
Does Rollins hate them because they're a corporate band? Nah, he just hates the music. Rollins has done advertisements for Gap Jeans, Apple Computers and MTV. He's worked as a MTV VJ. He's signed to a major label. He's stated in his books that he wishes he was MORE popular and had more money.

MAP

Thank you!!! Another informative, objective point of view for the 2000 man!

My thoughts:
I discovered Rollins hatred for U2 on vh1 last year during the greatest hard rock band countdown when he said that "the clash is the band U2 wished they could be." I then heard him mock U2(mostly Bono) on the Howard Stern show twice and argue with many U2 fans.
I have recently read about one of his rants taken from one of his spoken word albums.

It is usually the same stuff: he thinks that U2 are bad musicians, he wants Bono to die, Larry cant drum, Clayton cant play bass, Edge plays the same riffs over and over, he thinks their fake, ....on and on...


At first, I just became pissed and said "fuck him." Then, I decided to read up on him, think about what he said and draw my own conclusions.

Conclusion:
U2 are not Great musicians. I did not need Rollins to point that out. BOno and the rest of U2 have been saying for the past 22 years that they are amazed by their success and that they are not great alone or in the studio---but when they are together and live, they are great. I agree with this.
I am fairly certain that Rollins(like many others) is frustrated with the fact that U2 is soooo popular(arguable, next to the Beatles, they are number 2!).
Rollins is a Clash fan and the Clash influenced U2---another reason for jealousy and frustration is the fact thatU2 have kept it together for over 22 years and the clash barely 10(I think the Clash is great, but have a different message than Bono, which hurts Rollins' argument).
Rollins thought that U2 were trying to be someone else on RAH and hasnt forgiven them for this(they made a mistake, they learned from it---I think people are just pissed because U2 sounded better than half the people they were trying to sound like anyway).
He than hated the POPMART stuff and the Kmart stuff(I wasnt thrilled with this either, but for different reasons).

Rollins says many true things. Some of which are very obvious, some not so obvious.
I think what Rollins lacks in talent, he makes up for with passion. I am not a fan of his music and I think he has become quite a hypocrite by shilling for corporate America so much, more than u2(he now does a voice for GMC trucks, movies.....)
I should probably just ignore him, but he is very intriguing. At this point he is predictable when it comes to U2 to wish someone dead and act so biased kills one's credibility. Can't wait to hear what he says next.

Thanks for the discussion.
If anyone else has some insight on this(besides the usual, "Rollins can kiss my ass" "Rollins could drop dead"), please feel free to opine....

 

[STING2]

U2 are great musicians, Rollins is just a child with a bad temper.

 

[pax]

Garrett as a character is far more intense than Bono. (He is double the height, and his very presense is electrifying)

::rolls eyes::

Yeah, I always pick my heroes by their height.

What would many of you agree to have been the biggest rock band of all time? The Beatles, probably. Does their music suck? Even the most obscure, crabby, independent artists have been influenced by the Beatles. U2 is similar: popular, even a bit populistic music that is nonetheless intricate, influential, and high quality.

------------------
If you cannot live together in here, you cannot live together out there, let me tell ya. --Bono

You've got to cry without weeping, talk without speaking, scream without raising your voice... --Bono

 

[z edge]

Originally posted by MBH:


Conclusion:
U2 are not Great musicians. I did not need Rollins to point that out. ---I think people are just pissed because U2 sounded better than half the people they were trying to sound like

Your post contradicts itself and generally makes me feel uneasy, even though it was well written.

U2 not Great Musicians? HuH?

 

[AlanPARTRIDGE]

Originally posted by STING2:
Sorry about the facts, but at least it shows my opinion is an informed one.

Hey STING2, Aggression in your arguments does not make them any more convincing. You keep talking about you knowing the facts, and I don't. You might as well say that U2 is the best band on the planet as a fact. In that case we cannot argue.

I have shown you facts, and our interpretation of them differ. (ie the BD riff interpretation, Stuck similarities).
Am I the first to draw similarities between Stuck and Boyband songs.... no, I am not. The very fact that there is and has been discussion of this is testament to their similarities.

I think you need to go away and work out what you mean by the word "facts". If you think I haven't provided you with any "facts" to support my argument, then you are wrong. I have provided plenty. You may interpret them differently to me, but that is an OPINION on the facts. Just like my original post is an OPINION on the facts.

Your arrogance that you have the facts, and that I don't is the reason that I don't write a thesis length responce. You don't deserve it...

If you recall, the original post. U2 and Midnight Oil are my two equal favorite bands.

Oh and No... Size of a lead singer does not equal intensity. But if any one sees a Midnight Oil show, you'll know what I mean. There is such a thing as physical stage presence. It does exist.

STING2 alot of your responces are not based on facts. They simply say stupid comments like "peter garrett has a head that looks like a golf ball" didn't larry say to bono "If I had a head like yours I'd bury it!" gee there's even division in the band now! Your comments most of the time are basically saying "No that doesn't make a show more intense"... that is simply disagreeing you are not providing many facts either.

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

MBH,
Thanks for the compliment. I'm the 2000 man huh? This sort of confirms my suspicion that I haven't done anything with my life for two years. I really need to change my screen name to something more interesting.

Alan,
Sorry for hijacking your Midnight Oil thread with my long as Henry Rollins essay.

MAP

p.s.- Rollins is doing voice-overs for GMC trucks? Weird.

 

[zoomerang II]

People here seem to make antagonistic statements for no other reason than they are bored or have nothing relevant to say.

The oils are great. I would probably prefer to see U2 if it came to the crunch, but midnight oil are incredible. They are the best pub band around today without a doubt, and in my opinion U2 have no contamporary peers live like midnight oil.

Where U2 can be introspective and personal, the oils are often "in your face". It is just a differnet approach, but it all comes down to great rock music.

Midnight Oil are still completely relevent in Australia, even though they are now approaching their fifties. They are a band that I would recommend to any U2 fan, and if you get a chance to see them live, it is a MUST.

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by z edge:

Originally posted by MBH:


Conclusion:
U2 are not Great musicians. I did not need Rollins to point that out. ---I think people are just pissed because U2 sounded better than half the people they were trying to sound like

Your post contradicts itself and generally makes me feel uneasy, even though it was well written.

U2 not Great Musicians? HuH?

Z-Edge,
How does my post contradict itself? By saying that U2 are not great musicians than by stating that they are great together? Yeah, if that is your perception, than we agree. However, I needed to mention that to get to my ultimate point.

There are so many great musicians out there who do not do anything with themselves and that is a shame. The fact that U2--who are not great musicians in my opinion and in the members of the bands opinions as well--have succeeded for so long despite not being great musicians, is just another credit to them.

I feel that U2 are good musicians and make up a great band(contradicting myself again, huh?) Bono = great lyricist, decent voice
Edge = good guitarist, very creative
Clayton = decent bassist
Mullen = decent drummer
Clayton + Mullen = excellent rythem

Bono + Edge + Clayton + Mullen = great band!

Sorry to carry on and create threads within a thread, but this is one of the more interesting discussions I have had in some time....thanks...look forward to all replies.

 

[z edge]

Originally posted by MBH:

Conclusion:
U2 are not Great musicians BOno and the rest of U2 have been saying for the past 22 years that they are amazed by their success and that they are not great alone or in the studio---but when they are together and live, they are great. I agree with this.

How can they not be great musicians if you say they are great live and together. I agree they are much better live than in the studio, 90% of the time. But GREAT is GREAT. You are not gonna convince anyone here that out of their 10 studio albums none are GREAT. And the 100 million+ that have sold dosen't indicate them being "not great".

 

[Salome]

how can it be that every band in the world is supposed to have better musicians than U2???

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Originally posted by Salome:
how can it be that every band in the world is supposed to have better musicians than U2???

Well thats not true, the Ramones weren't great musicians nor the Sex Pistols. I'm sure Green Day and Blink 182 don't compare in terms of musicianship to U2.


------------------
~ "You can't resist her. She's in your bones. She is your marrow and your ride home. You can't avoid her. She's in the air; in between molecules of oxygen and carbon dioxide." ~ RC

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by z edge:

Originally posted by MBH:

Conclusion:
U2 are not Great musicians BOno and the rest of U2 have been saying for the past 22 years that they are amazed by their success and that they are not great alone or in the studio---but when they are together and live, they are great. I agree with this.

How can they not be great musicians if you say they are great live and together. I agree they are much better live than in the studio, 90% of the time. But GREAT is GREAT. You are not gonna convince anyone here that out of their 10 studio albums none are GREAT. And the 100 million+ that have sold dosen't indicate them being "not great".

Some good points there, Z-edge. I don't wanna continue to contradict myself or make an argument against U2 not being great as musicians.

However, let me explain a little further what I intended to get across.

Not all great studio work sounds great live(someone talented singer who lip syncs is an example of this).

Not all great live musicians are not great in the studio.

Moreover, U2 take a long time with their albums(usually), they are constantly "screwing around," and, most notably as Bono stated, "we brought in a new engineer who was a fan for 20 years and he couldn't believe how bad we were behind closed doors."

Maybe this sports analogy will make it easier to understand:
The 1998 Yankees did not have any great players. However, when they took the field and played the games, they were by far the best team out there.

I think the same can be said about U2, especially live. I can find a more talented musician at each position(although I would put Bono's lyric writing up there with the best of them). But individuals do not make up and entire band. The comaraderie between U2 is what makes them great. 22 years going strong....here's to another 22, at least!!!!

 

[scatteroflight]

Bringing this back to the original subject--I just found out Midnight Oil is playing Vancouver again and this time I hope I will be seeing them!!

YEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!



------------------
Your sun so bright it leaves no shadows, only scars
Carved into stone on the face of earth
The moon is up and over One Tree Hill
We see the sun go down in your eyes

 

[AlanPARTRIDGE]

If any one wants to hear any of the Oils new stuff in Real Audio Streaming go to www.midnightoil.tv or www.midnightoil.com for some essays and background on the new album and the band.

 

[STING2]

Alan,
You asserted that U2 dropped expermentation to make ATYCLB a popular album yet provided so little "facts" to support your conclusion that I felt I needed to respond. Usually when such a statement is made, one would expect something to back up it up, but you provided so little. What was provided is most likely not evidence that could really support your opinion.
If you think I'm arrogant because I claim that I think your wrong then I'm sorry. I'm not angry at all and find the topic very amusing. I stand by all my conclusions though and am still dismayed at the lack of material to support your opinion.

 

[STING2]

If you look back at the 9 points that you made, you'll see that at least 5 of your assumptions are actually factually wrong. Yep, some of my stuff is opinion but you tip the scales a little to much in favor of opinion instead of fact. By the way, how many shows did you see on the Elevation tour?

 

[AlanPARTRIDGE]

Originally posted by STING2:
I stand by all my conclusions though and am still dismayed at the lack of material to support your opinion.

Dismayed? I think you are treating this topic with a bit too much angst. I get dismayed when I see levels of crime rising in my country, or youth suicide, NOT for the lack of evidence to support an argument which states that I personally prefer Midnight Oil at the moment to U2, as an opinion. I provided numerous quotes , which you obviously disagree with. But i have provided ample evidence to support an opinion, which usually, by the definition of "an opinion", requires no evidence. Because it is an OPINION. You on the other hand have provided NO evidence to support your claims. You just disagree with mine. I obviously accept your opinion that you disagree, but I feel that I am more informed on this one since you actually do not follow midnight oil. I would not enter into a debate about the merits of U2 vs Dave Matthews Band, why? Because I don't follow DMB, I know a couple of songs. I don't know the history of them. But you seem to have this all conclusive authority on the comparisons of U2 to midnight oil when you know very little about the band which I am comparing them to.

I reckon if we got the people who followed U2 and Midnight Oil together, people would agree to the points I have made.

 

[AlanPARTRIDGE]

Originally posted by STING2:
By the way, how many shows did you see on the Elevation tour?

I only saw one Elevation show, Madison Square Garden (leg three). (sorry that I am not made of cash like a lot of people on this board)

But the real question is, how many midnight oil shows have you seen at all? I have seen plenty of both U2 and Midnight Oil.

 

[STING2]

Perhaps dismayed is to strong a word. I have to agree with you that you know more about Midnight Oil than I do. You are right that because of that your better at making a comparison between the two.
What you are wrong on though or lacking in material to support your opinion, is on things pertaining to just U2, such as "giving up experimentation and creating an album that would match the charts", this idea that U2s promotion for this album is radically different than what they have done for every album before this, Bono says the same thing EVERY night(every Elevation, POPMART show, and ZOO TV show that I saw this was not the case), The energy level of the band today as compared to say 1981, The use of the Irish flag at every concert, and two other points that have slipped my mind at the moment from that list. As far as Midnight Oil is concerned, I can tell you that by U2s standards, the number of fans they have compared to U2 is TINY. I'm not saying that means something, but it would be incorrect to say that Midnight Oil have a large following outside of Australia.
So to sum up, when it comes to Midnight Oil vs U2, you are right because you first know more about Midnight Oil and as you say it is only your opinion. Where you are wrong though is on several statements made either directly about U2 or indirectly about U2, and one small point about Midnight Oil.
Perhaps I will now buy or burn the rest of Midnight Oils catalog as this discussion has certainly increased my interest in the band.

 

[AlanPARTRIDGE]

Here's the deal. Let's forget Midnight Oil for the moment, I made a number of assumptions about U2.

1. "they sacrificed popularity for the sake of sales." (we both agree that I assumed this).

The point is, that you can not say I am decisively "wrong" on this point. Why? Because there is no way we can be absolutly sure that U2 sacrificed popularity for the sake of sales, unless we were there in the studio when the discussions about the album actually took place. All we have is the information before us. A number of quotes, some stylistic differences and similarities between the pop charts. This is enough information for me to make an "opinion" on their motivations behind ATYCLB. It is not a fact that they made an album for this reason. NOR is it a fact that they didn't. I don't think you understand that inconsistancy in your reasoning. I made a judgement on the information that I have on ATYCLB. Of which of these quotes have I made up?

2. U2 do not deliver as intense a show as midnight oil.

Again, you can not say decisively that I am "wrong" on this. I have given my evidence for why I find the oils more intense. This evidence forms MY opinion on intensity. It is not a falsely grounded opinion. I have been to both U2 and MO shows. Intensity is a very personal thing. What is intense for one person, is pure annoyance and frustration for another.

3. the Oils are more interesting and better players than U2.

How can I be wrong on this point?

they are definitly technically better players. And the depth of songwriting talent in the Oils, to ME make them more interesting than U2. Of course I can not be decisively right or wrong on this one.

4.
Band togetherness:
The Oils: 5 Members, 2 changes (they have had 3 bass players) for 27 years
U2: 4 Members, No changes for 26 years
Touring.

Again how is this a wrong statement?

5.
Midnight Oil: When they tour play about 4 dates a week small venues for increased intesity (IRVING PLAZA size)
U2: When they tour play 2 - 3 dates a week.
small venues for increased intensity (MADISON SQUARE GARDEN SIZE).

I think you'll find that U2 on average on tour, actually do not do more thab 2- 3 dates a week.

AGAIN, this is irrelevent to whether either band are good. This is just a factual average of their touring schedule over the last 15 years.


6.
The Oils: 10 full length studio albums
U2: 10 full length studio albums (if you include R'nH)

I think you'll find I am right on this one as well.

CONCLUSION. You can disagree, but you can't say I am decisively wrong on any of these points.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Originally posted by z edge:

Originally posted by MBH:


Conclusion:
U2 are not Great musicians. I did not need Rollins to point that out. ---I think people are just pissed because U2 sounded better than half the people they were trying to sound like

Your post contradicts itself and generally makes me feel uneasy, even though it was well written.

U2 not Great Musicians? HuH?

Technically they are soso, mebbe the Edge is above average, but together they do amzing things for sure.

[This message has been edited by Flying FuManchu (edited 03-14-2002).]