Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back a page or two to re-sync the thread and this will then show latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
U2 Appreciation Thread:
Comments
-
stooge wrote:Sorry, I kinda went off on one I know..
No need to be sorry at all, good rants make good discussion.
0 -
This one's mostly for you Stooge...
Now, lets review as you didn't seem to understand...Kharn wrote:There are an awful lot of people who can't tell how bad U2 are (from a technical POV), but they love the music they write. These people aren't wrong or anything like that.....They have fun listening to the music, but it's the day out they're interested in. This is the same the world over. Band like U2 are the perfect headliner to these events, they're relatively mindless, easy enough on the ear, and for some, they're cutting edge musically. These are the people who don't and may never understand music.
U2 are not now cutting edge in music (some of the ZooTV era stuff was quite impressive), but these casual listeners (as I have described) don't understand that, they really don't. Most of them never will. Asking someone who isn't musical, but who likes to listen to pop music to analyse music isn't on. It's like asking a patient to give a review of a surgeon's performance whilst it's happening. They have no proper frame of reference or ability to understand the process.
100% of people do not understand music, they might like listening to it, but they don't understand it. I'm a musician, so I listen to music for much more different reasons and I will appreciate good structure of a song or something clever with a guitar etc. I don't listen to it because it sounds easy on the ear. Metal is a very, very technical musical form, that's one of the reasons I love it so. Pop music is not - it's for the most part aural diarrhoea. U2's more recent offerings fall dangerously close to this, but their earlier stuff most definitely doesn't. This is also one of the reasons I'm so dissappointed in them, they've given up. They're in the same gang as RHCP, Metallica and Moby for me: the "we're getting bloody old and not fit for all this touring, lets make some pop rubbish that'll sell millions and retire" gang. Cynical yes and not everyone will agree with me there. People are free to spend their money on whatever they want, I rejoice in the fact that we live in such a society! They're free to listen to whatever they want and they're free to enjoy it. People going on about what a savage guitar player The Edge is when they've never once played a guitar is somewhat retarded though. These are the people I refer to when I say These are the people who don't and may never understand music.
And also, I'm not trying to force an opinion on anyone, I'm offering mine for the world to read. Music is something I'm extremely passionate about and so I will write and defend my biased opinions with venom!!!
I agree with a lot of your post btw, you need to read properly though (and p'raps I need to clarify my points better). I also feel we may be starting a bigger debate that isn't limited to U2, but it's a debate I'm happy to continue with as long as the mods aren't stressed about OT0 -
Kharn wrote:100% of people do not understand music, they might like listening to it, but they don't understand it. I'm a musician, so I listen to music for much more different reasons and I will appreciate good structure of a song or something clever with a guitar etc. I don't listen to it because it sounds easy on the ear. Metal is a very, very technical musical form, that's one of the reasons I love it so. Pop music is not - it's for the most part aural diarrhoea. U2's more recent offerings fall dangerously close to this, but their earlier stuff most definitely doesn't. This is also one of the reasons I'm so dissappointed in them, they've given up. They're in the same gang as RHCP, Metallica and Moby for me: the "we're getting bloody old and not fit for all this touring, lets make some pop rubbish that'll sell millions and retire" gang. Cynical yes and not everyone will agree with me there. People are free to spend their money on whatever they want, I rejoice in the fact that we live in such a society! They're free to listen to whatever they want and they're free to enjoy it. People going on about what a savage guitar player The Edge is when they've never once played a guitar is somewhat retarded though. These are the people I refer to when I say These are the people who don't and may never understand music.
Nicely put, to me u2 are the forefathers of generic, yes the old stuff is great but they've slumped to their level of mediocre. I just think back to the book american psycho, Patrick bateman listens to bands like genesis, Huey lewis and the news, u2, etc because it's the done thing (there is also the humorous part where he's at a u2 gig). At many times he says he does things to fit in (though obviously he isnt talking about killing prostitutes or the poor)
from looking around places like bebo you will see thousands of people with bands like the killers, u2, snowpatrol, etc as their favourite bands. to me this is normal, they are un-threathening rock. it's like whenever my brother is playing music on my pc he will play 1 or 2 songs from an artist and then move on, eg listening to "whole lotta love" by led zepplin, or "under pressure" by David bowie. Now i have hours and hours of stuff from both, but why would he listen to certain songs instead of embracing a back catalogue? Because these songs are generic but extremely well known.
i was at a battle of the bands tonight in college as i had friends playing. There was a metal band playing before them, and even though they sounded like a slipknot tribute band everyone assumed id like them. They weren't my style, but even if they had the (dare i say avant garde
) stylings of a band like Ulver people would still give out and make sarcastic comments as they dont understand the genre.
Music is a tricky concept, not in the actual playing aspect, but in the apreciation aspect. Obviously some people will enjoy music on a different level to that of someone else. I dont like u2, but who am i to say what's god and what's crap music0 -
Thank you sir, you've added a lot to my point, especially the American Psycho referenceJIZZLORD wrote:Nicely put, to me u2 are the forefathers of generic, yes the old stuff is great but they've slumped to their level of mediocre. I just think back to the book american psycho, Patrick bateman listens to bands like genesis, Huey lewis and the news, u2, etc because it's the done thing (there is also the humorous part where he's at a u2 gig). At many times he says he does things to fit in (though obviously he isnt talking about killing prostitutes or the poor)
from looking around places like bebo you will see thousands of people with bands like the killers, u2, snowpatrol, etc as their favourite bands. to me this is normal, they are un-threathening rock. it's like whenever my brother is playing music on my pc he will play 1 or 2 songs from an artist and then move on, eg listening to "whole lotta love" by led zepplin, or "under pressure" by David bowie. Now i have hours and hours of stuff from both, but why would he listen to certain songs instead of embracing a back catalogue? Because these songs are generic but extremely well known
Un-threatening rock also works well, but it already has a name - pop music! Not to be confused with the Pop Music Industry (the Louis Walshes and Simon Cowells of the world), but that's a point I've made before. Pop music isn't necessarily bad, it's popular! It's popular amongst the masses as they just like the sound of it and they're not having their tastes challenged. The majority of people are happy with this (baaaaaa... ). It's partially human nature though. However, fair play to them, they're happy and who am I to try take that away, but *I* need my tastes challenged. 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Anyone can replicate what he does obviously but can you write music as good as he can? He rates as a guitar player in the sense he can create good melodies and unique sounds. Yes, he can be copied easily enough, but so can any guitar player.Kharn wrote:Bollix. Give me enough Marshalls and a heap of FX boards and I'll give you athmosphere. It's not difficult, anyone who's been playing the guitar for a year (hell, 3 months if you're trying) can replicate most of what he does - it's a case of learning the fx as much as the guitar. Now remember, I respect U2 and The Edge but he simply doesn't rate as a guitar player. I don't think he shouldn't be using these fx, it's his style. Metal can work without distortion btw, you can use Over Drive
There is sheep in every genre. Metal gigs are full of long-haired goths who probably don't know anything about structure and just appreciate the music coz its heavy and they can head-bang, etc.Why do U2 sell out stadia? Because they are a massive band who have massive following amongst the more "casual" music listener. By this I mean the GAA wearing rednecks that frequent the "festivals" of this hole of a country. They live all over the world these kinds of people. There are an awful lot of people who can't tell how bad U2 are (from a technical POV), but they love the music they write. These people aren't wrong or anything like that, but they might be labeled sheep. 70% of the time you wouldn't be wrong for such a label. I have friends who would go to one of these events simply cause it's something to do. I go to gigs for the music. They don't get that. They have fun listening to the music, but it's the day out they're interested in. This is the same the world over. Band like U2 are the perfect headliner to these events, they're relatively mindless, easy enough on the ear, and for some, they're cutting edge (see what I did there) musically. These are the people who don't and may never understand music.
Of course they're are people who go to these events who don't understand music in a technical or theoretical sense, but that doesn't make their opinion any less valid. I think the problem a lot of musicians and songwriters make is they make music which only other musicians can appreciate, rather than music you can dance to or sing along with. Thus, they are never very successful.
Lots of people go to gigs for music and enjoy U2. You obviously don't like the fact they're successful just because you don't like them and are trying to rationalise it to yourself, instead of admitting they're might actually be people who could like music you don't like. There are a lots of successful bands I don't like but I don't try to come up with some reason as to why people would go see a band I hate, just put it down to musical taste. Personally, I hate their last couple of albums but I know a lot of people, whose musical taste I respect, who like them. I'd still go see them because they still play a lot of their older stuff, which I love.
Why are you so harsh then. You admit you like at least some of their music. They've been going for over 25 years, you can't expect to like every album. I certainly don't, but every band should be judged by their best material, not their worst.That said, ZooTV was a show worth seeing and I wish I had. U2 at that time were at their peak and were making very interesting music.None of the above mentioned friends would go to a metal gig, but year in and year out they ask if I'm going to whatever. I laugh in their faces. What's wrong with some people? They'd expect me to go to something I know I won't enjoy but won't even think about going to a metal gig. That's another debate however.
Maybe they do know something about music but genuiney don't like metal, is that hard to believe?
Incidentally, I remember reading where Zakk Wylde was saying he loved Jimmy Page in spite of the latter's poor technique,notably on songs like Heartbreaker. You could also argue Jimi Hendrix had scrappy technique. I still consider them two of the best ever as do many people, so is technique all that important?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Karl Hungus wrote:The singer was just, ugh, worse than LaBrie.
And with all respect to DT, it's hard to be worse than LaBrie 0 -
Sofaspud wrote:And with all respect to DT, it's hard to be worse than LaBrie
My point exactly. She managed it! :eek:0 -
Sofaspud wrote:And with all respect to DT, it's hard to be worse than LaBrie
My mammy likes his voice.0
Advertisement