The thing that was the start of the slippery slope...

[AtomicBono]

Or maybe you were hoping for a 10 page thread where people write essays on the subject and include statistics, charts and graphs and cite sources.

Oh jick, where are you?

 

[Axver]

Of course, U2 has also been going for about three times as long as the Beatles were together

And, unlike the Beatles, U2 are actually good.

 

[UnforgettableLemon]

I John, Paul, Ring and George

 

[U2_Muse]

If you don't want U2 to sound like U2, who do you want them to sound like?

And why aren't you listening to that, instead?

 

[UnforgettableLemon]

I want U2 to sound like a cross between Cher, Nine Inch Nails, Hank Williams Jr, and Tchaikovsky

 

[Axver]

I want U2 to sound like a cross between two men speaking backwards in Russian and a monkey cracking open a coconut.

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

Of course, U2 has also been going for about three times as long as the Beatles were together

Well I don't think longevity means much, look at Bon Jovi, Status Quo, for instance.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I don't think ABOY has the coke riff of Beautiful Day. Same with COBL. Miracle Drug doesn't sound like it unless your definition of coke riff is different from mine.

 

[Yahweh]

It is much harder to reinvent the wheel when youve done as many albums as U2 have done....The Beatles themselves only had 2 real distinct periods.

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

It is much harder to reinvent the wheel when youve done as many albums as U2 have done....The Beatles themselves only had 2 real distinct periods.

Huh? you might want to listen to the Beatles a few more times

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

um...

what the hell is a coke riff?

 

[biff]

U2 aren't The Beatles, they aren't going to constantly come up with fresh sounds every time.

But the Beatles never did that either. They always sounded like the Beatles. I am one of the oldest people here at Interference; I actually saw the Beatles on Ed Sullivan, and my spouse actually saw them live (we still have the ticket stub). I loved the Beatles, but they had a huge amount of crap and filler on their albums, even the later ones. But the myth is so large that other bands can never "beat" them. But I honestly believe that U2 have surpassed them many times over. They just will never get the credit for it, ever. We will never again see a time when three quarters of the North American population will watch a single TV performance. It's all too fractured now, so no band will ever have that kind of extraordinary impact ever again. I was there, I remember the excitement, but the music was only a part of it. The mood and the time and the place were more impartant than you could imagine, if you hadn't been there!

 

[Lisa71]

I want U2 to sound like a cross between Cher, Nine Inch Nails, Hank Williams Jr, and Tchaikovsky

I've been waiting for that record! Well, there's always hope with the next one!


How many "new" sounds can Edge come up with? A lot of the guitar greats play the same style all the time but Edge trys new sounds and techniques a lot. I guess he should have never started because now some people are going to expect him to be different with every song. Maybe he likes the way it sounds and it's what inspires him now? Afterall, their music is their own personal expression.

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

But the Beatles never did that either. They always sounded like the Beatles. I am one of the oldest people here at Interference; I actually saw the Beatles on Ed Sullivan, and my spouse actually saw them live (we still have the ticket stub). I loved the Beatles, but they had a huge amount of crap and filler on their albums, even the later ones. But the myth is so large that other bands can never "beat" them. But I honestly believe that U2 have surpassed them many times over. They just will never get the credit for it, ever. We will never again see a time when three quarters of the North American population will watch a single TV performance. It's all too fractured now, so no band will ever have that kind of extraordinary impact ever again. I was there, I remember the excitement, but the music was only a part of it. The mood and the time and the place were more impartant than you could imagine, if you hadn't been there!

Yeah The Beatles retained the essence of their sound throughout their musical experimentation, but Sgt. Pepper doesn't sound all that similar to Revolver, Rubber Soul and it sounds especially different compared to the likes of Help, Hard Days Night etc...I mean look at Revolver, it takes some of what made R. Soul great, and yet it sounds so different coming only a year after! I don't agree that their albums were stuffed with filler, well, the first few had their share but Rubber Soul, Revolver, Abbey Road, White Album Sgt. Pepper were quality all the way through.

 

[typhoon]

Even certain 90s songs sound like old-school Edge to me; Ultraviolet, elements of Until the End of the World, and especially If God Will Send His Angels

After listening to the Salome demos, all of Edge's Achtung, Baby riffs sort of blend together.

Well I don't think longevity means much, look at Bon Jovi, Status Quo, for instance.

100,000,000 Bon Jovi Fans Can Be Wrong?

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

Yes they can!

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

I love U2, and think the new albums great. To put things into perspective though during the same timeframe that took U2 to get from Pop-HTDAAB or Boy-TJT the Beatles recorded everything they ever did-from She Loves you to In My Life to Tommorrow Never Knows to the Sgt peppers album to the White album to Abbey Road-Thats alot of styles in 7 years. And for the first 3 years they toured constantly, recording albums in weeks. Sgnt pepper took only 3 MONTHS.
Like I said U2 are amazing but as far as I'm concerned noone is even close to the Beatles

 

[biff]

Sleep Over Jack, sorry, but I can't agree: "For the Benefit of Mr.Kite"; "Lovely Rita",
"Octopus's Garden", "Maxwell's Silver Hammer", "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da", just to name a few. These are weak efforts, filler.
With regard to your other point, that the Beatles' albums sounded "especially different" compared to each other, and this is somehow unique and superior to U2, are you honestly trying to say that the distinctions between Beatles albums is greater than that between U2 albums? The Beatles never had such a range as is evinced by Unforgettable Fire and Achtung Baby, or Pop and ATYCLB, just to name a few.

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

If you go through the U2 albums there is plenty of filler there as well- But give u2 7 years-I don't think they could give us 200 quality songs like the beatles did? I doubt it-35-40? yes, 200+ ? I don't think so.
Just my opinion

 

[biff]

With respect, I don't see that the Beatles did 200 quality songs. Their early albums especially were riddled with poor covers and limp original efforts. Please, go through the song lists one by one. I have, and it's disappointing. As well, and I feel in particular, they were often really let down by their lyrics, which in many cases did not seem to be the efforts of mature men. Their lyrics often lack depth. I have thought a lot about this, as someone who was actually around when the Beatles first hit it big, and as someone who really loved them (and who still does in some ways!)

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

When did this become a Beatles discussion?

The "coke riff".....clever. I prefer "pepsi" myself, so don't give me just any "pop"...please. I prefer my riff to be completely done.

 

[biff]

When did this become a Beatles discussion?

Yes, let's please return to the straightforward, unadulterated U2 bashing that we've all become accustomed to, as opposed to, say, an actual exchange of views. Wouldn't want to disrupt the natural order of things, would we?

 

[Axver]

If you go through the U2 albums there is plenty of filler there as well

Hmm, yeah, Red Light and Wild Honey, that's a lot of filler. Every other U2 song fits onto its respective album. Say what you will about other songs, you couldn't have Pop without Miami and I'll even concede you couldn't have Achtung Baby without Ultra Violet.

I don't think releasing a whole bunch of albums in a short period of time really says anything. U2 craft their work and don't just accept the first few songs they record. Everything I've heard by the Beatles is tremendously disappointing and I cannot comprehend the massive hype that exists around them to this day.

 

[achtung y'all]

Fucking hell, these constant negative threads are boring...

 

[Aardvark747]

Fucking hell, these constant negative threads are boring...

...but interesting to read different opinions all the same!

 

[rjhbonovox]

100,000,000 Bon Jovi Fans Can Be Wrong?

My point exactly, U2 are becoming like Bon Jovi. And if you like that then thats fair enough but to me they were always better than that crappy American rubbish.

 

[Aardvark747]

and I'll even concede you couldn't have Achtung Baby without Ultra Violet.

Steady on Axver!! You'll be declaring your love for it next!

 

[Aardvark747]

My point exactly, U2 are becoming like Bon Jovi.

No.No.No

 

[ZeroDude]

U2 would kick the shit outta Bon Jovi, U2 have done alot for music, maybe we should be glad we all still care enough to have these arguements btw Ultraviolet is a great tune.........

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

My point exactly, U2 are becoming like Bon Jovi.

Please explain to me how they are becoming like Bon Jovi? I'd like to hear this.