U2- cool or not

lordgoat

king-stew wrote:

how can anyone say whats a bad lyric or not, sure you have no idea what it could mean, it could be a metaphor for something and its ridiculous sayin that ya couldnt find a bad lyric from neil young, that maybe your opinion but you say it like its gospel!

lordgoat ya havent a breeze about music yourself, ya might not like them for whatever reason but that dont mean they are not great, they sold millions of albums so they are doin somethin right no doubt!

im not a huge fan of u2 but ya gotta respect what they done, not all their songs are amazing but theres definitly a few great ones in there!

Where does one even start with this?

First of all how i say things doesn't really matter, they're my opinions - take them how you will.

No such thing as a bad lyric? Do you know how to form an opinion??? You listen to the words in the songs, see if it makes any sense, how it is delivered etc and then if it's **** you are allowed say so. Did you really need this spoon fed to you? I'm betting alot of your music doesn't have many words and lots of BPM...

Record sales does not equate to good music, for **** sake daniel o donnell has platinum albums right through to all the boy/girl bands.

Now toddle back and listen to your dance music. Out of sheer wonderment give me a methaphoe for the mole diggin in a hole lyric...


Millers.

That's a fair point about rocking a crowd but i just can't see any other string to the u2 bow except the stadium rock band, i put them in their with RHCP and Bon Jovi.

NoQuarter

haha your givin me dance music?? now i know your full of ****e, as i said the mole thing could be about anything, it could be something personal to himself, who are you to say theres anything wrong with it

so i ask ya then, whats so amazing about this lyric and is this so much better than the mole lyric?? :

I'm gonna ride my llama
From Peru to Texarkana
I wanna ride him good


from neil youngs "ride my llama"!!

JC 2K3

lordgoat wrote:

I'm betting alot of your music doesn't have many words and lots of BPM...

The problem with that being?


In any case, I dislike U2 because any of their numerous hits I've heard has been utter crap and on this basis I haven't been arsed trying to get into them.

lordgoat

king-stew wrote:

haha your givin me dance music?? now i know your full of ****e, as i said the mole thing could be about anything, it could be something personal to himself, who are you to say theres anything wrong with it

so i ask ya then, whats so amazing about this lyric and is this so much better than the mole lyric?? :

I'm gonna ride my llama
From Peru to Texarkana
I wanna ride him good


from neil youngs "ride my llama"!!

Yes maybe you're right, a metaphor for.... i don't know i'm not even going to try OR maybe it's not a metaphor at all, maybe bono and the boys once say a mole diggin in a hole and thought; hang on, there could be a song in here, if i can just get the right words. Now i better not dress it up in too many layers or the message could be missed...

Because Neil Young wrote it, do you know who the person in the song riding the llama is? No? Of course you don't

The thing is, you are allowed to say you don't like things after hearing/listening to them, this is called expressing an opinion. You as a human being living in a country that allows you to do this may, if you have the mental capacity for free thought, form an opinion.

And if it's not dance you listen to, i don't know what you could manage, maybe afternoon radio? Tony Fenton?

JC 2K3

But much Dance Music is good man....

A lot better than U2 in any case.

NoQuarter

haha and do you know the mole that dug the hole!?!?! didnt think so!
besides your backin up my point, no i dont know who rode the llama, nor do i care, but just in the same way as you havent a clue what elevation could be about!

if ya look at one of my previous post i say that i know its your opinion but the way ya say it youd swear its fact!

yeah tony fenton, great isnt he...

lordgoat

After this i'm done. Neil Young song is actually about a particular story, the u2 one is not. elevation is a pop song, it has no meaning and that to me is garbage/tripe/ and you can't dress some things up in metaphor. I don't think anyone (except you) would try and defend that lyric. You can interpret it any way you want and it will always be s-h-i-t.

I have nothing against dance music, i was using it as a reference as kingy-y here has trouble with words.

shatners basoon

Personally i don't mind U2 too much, they are really over-rated by a lot of people calling them the best band in the world comparing them to bands like the Beatles (who are also over-rated but in fairness did a hell of a lot more for music than U2), imo no band or musician of the last 100 years really deserves so much success- should be spread around a bit more evenly- there's lots more good music than whats played on the radio kiddies!:P

Good bits about U2-
Music evolved rather than sticking to the same formula
Very well produced (Thanks to Brian Eno mainly)
Good live (or at least they were with all the stage shows- very Floydesque)
Pop (great raw album which is oddly enough underrated in my opinion

Bad Things about U2
Have evolved to create incredibly formulaic, drab and pedestrian music (past 2 albums are awful)
Bono and the general ego of the band.
They're very poor musicians (bar the Edge who is only remotely salvaged by the fact that he gets a good tone by using loads and loads of delay.

tech77

lordgoat wrote:

If they are cool or not, (sorry "cool" or not) really matters only slightly less than this thread.

Didn't think my query mattered a whole lot myself either TBH. More a casual musing really.
Got nearly 2 pages of responses though so it matters to some people at least I suppose.

You've made several contributions yourself though to a thread that you say doesn't matter to you.
Maybe it does matter somewhat to you afterall. :eek:

That comment about Elliot Smith being 'above' the other poster was classic though.

ntlbell

lordgoat wrote:

After this i'm done. Neil Young song is actually about a particular story, the u2 one is not. elevation is a pop song, it has no meaning and that to me is garbage/tripe/ and you can't dress some things up in metaphor. I don't think anyone (except you) would try and defend that lyric. You can interpret it any way you want and it will always be s-h-i-t.

I have nothing against dance music, i was using it as a reference as kingy-y here has trouble with words.

so because i's about a story it gives the lyric more weight? surley if the lyric is not delivered correctly or wrapped correctly how is one to know if it's just a crap lyric or a "story"

taking lines from a song in isolation and calling it bad is pretty dumb and the snobbery in this thread is sickening...

Nirvana - about a girl
I need an easy friend
I do... with an ear to lend
I do... think you fit this shoe
I do... won't you have a clue

there's not a singer/song writer or band in the world you can't do this to

Froot

There has been at least 5 version of this thread in the last 10 months.

U2 are ****. Stop f*cking talking about it!

Mr Alan

shatners basoon wrote:

They're very poor musicians (bar the Edge who is only remotely salvaged by the fact that he gets a good tone by using loads and loads of delay.

This is nonsense, drummers ,music fans and anyone who has ever worked with U2, most of them agree that Larry is a great drummer.

Also Bono is an amazing singer. Edge, as you conceded is fairly talented.

So in actual fact, 3 out of 4 of them are very musically talented.

Mr Alan

Lordgoat;
if you think U2 only have a appeal when perform 'stadium rock', or thats all they can do, i'd advise you open your mind somewhat.

Check out tracks like;

Original of the Species
So Cruel
Running to Stand Still
Trying to Throw your Arms Around the World
The Ground Beneath Her Feet
Stay (faraway, so close)
Mother Of The Disappeared
In A Little While (Joey Ramones Favourite Song)
If God Would Send His Angels
October
The Wanderer (Johnny Cash)
She's a Mystery Girl (Roy Orbison)
Wake Up Deadman

To be honest, i know exactly the kind of person you are, a music snob, and proud of it, you probably thought Whiskeytown were great - but think Ryans Adams (more successful) solo stuff is crap, probably raved about Arcade Fire until they made it big, now think they lost it since the they 'sold out man'...and you lump U2 in with other Stadium Rock like Bon Jovi, because you like to think you are special and different, that your opinion is more important than the millions and millions of fans U2 appeal to all over the world, that your opinion means more than Bruce Springsteens who called U2, the last great rock group,called Edge one of the most important guitarists of all time - or paul gambachini (sp?) who called Joshua Tree the greatest rock album of all time.

But no, instead of giving U2 a chance-actually listening to them and making up your mind, you've written them off cause of their success. sad to be honest.

skeegan

I've paid to U2 perform live 4 times.. Joshua Tree, (87) ZooTV, (91) Popmart (97), Elevation (2005). They put on a great show. I own many of their albums. Some of their albums and songs are good: My favourite U2 tracks are are "So Cruel" (Zooropa) and "Mothers Of The Disappeared" (Joshua Tree). I would classify myself as a fan.

On the other hand, it's ridiculous to compare U2 with the Beatles (as others on this thread and elsewhere have done). I think the real test of a great band is longevity. In 7 years, the Beatles wrote dozens of songs, many of which are timeless. Can the same be said of U2 material (produced over a 30 year period)?

It's annoying to see somebody put on U2s Greatest Hits Volume 17 at a party-it's just lazy and boring. So much great music out there-from the past and present. I think alot of Irish people are obsessed with U2. There are so many interesting and talented Irish artists out there.

NoQuarter

millersangel wrote:

To be honest, i know exactly the kind of person you are, a music snob

absolutely! a person who picks out relatively unheard of bands that are up and coming and jumps on the bandwagon before their famous such as the national(nothing wrong with them btw their v.good!) and gives mainstream bands stick because maybe your jealous of their success compared with some of your favourite bands??

JC 2K3

millersangel wrote:

Lordgoat;
if you think U2 only have a appeal when perform 'stadium rock', or thats all they can do, i'd advise you open your mind somewhat.

Check out tracks like;

Original of the Species
So Cruel
Running to Stand Still
Trying to Throw your Arms Around the World
The Ground Beneath Her Feet
Stay (faraway, so close)
Mother Of The Disappeared
In A Little While (Joey Ramones Favourite Song)
If God Would Send His Angels
October
The Wanderer (Johnny Cash)
She's a Mystery Girl (Roy Orbison)
Wake Up Deadman

To be honest, i know exactly the kind of person you are, a music snob, and proud of it, you probably thought Whiskeytown were great - but think Ryans Adams (more successful) solo stuff is crap, probably raved about Arcade Fire until they made it big, now think they lost it since the they 'sold out man'...and you lump U2 in with other Stadium Rock like Bon Jovi, because you like to think you are special and different, that your opinion is more important than the millions and millions of fans U2 appeal to all over the world, that your opinion means more than Bruce Springsteens who called U2, the last great rock group,called Edge one of the most important guitarists of all time - or paul gambachini (sp?) who called Joshua Tree the greatest rock album of all time.

But no, instead of giving U2 a chance-actually listening to them and making up your mind, you've written them off cause of their success. sad to be honest.

Actually man, you're rather closed minded in your own way by assuming that anyone who listens to U2 and tries to get into them will like them.

Also, I'd be willing to bet a lot that you've written off dozens off bands before actually listening to them properly.

And FYI, one's personal opinion should, to them, mean more than anyone else in the world's opinion. I mean, I couldn't give a fúck what Bruce Springsteen or anyone else thinks.

JC 2K3

king-stew wrote:

absolutely! a person who picks out relatively unheard of bands that are up and coming and jumps on the bandwagon before their famous such as the national(nothing wrong with them btw their v.good!) and gives mainstream bands stick because maybe your jealous of their success compared with some of your favourite bands??

While there are some people like this, I think it should be acknowledged that many bands DO sell out when they become famous.

The type of people I hate more are those who call people who don't like new albums by bands they used to like, who've only recently become popular, music snobs. I mean, ever think they might just not like the new album?

lordgoat

millersangel wrote:

Lordgoat;
if you think U2 only have a appeal when perform 'stadium rock', or thats all they can do, i'd advise you open your mind somewhat.

Check out tracks like;

Original of the Species
So Cruel
Running to Stand Still
Trying to Throw your Arms Around the World
The Ground Beneath Her Feet
Stay (faraway, so close)
Mother Of The Disappeared
In A Little While (Joey Ramones Favourite Song)
If God Would Send His Angels
October
The Wanderer (Johnny Cash)
She's a Mystery Girl (Roy Orbison)
Wake Up Deadman

To be honest, i know exactly the kind of person you are, a music snob, and proud of it, you probably thought Whiskeytown were great - but think Ryans Adams (more successful) solo stuff is crap, probably raved about Arcade Fire until they made it big, now think they lost it since the they 'sold out man'...and you lump U2 in with other Stadium Rock like Bon Jovi, because you like to think you are special and different, that your opinion is more important than the millions and millions of fans U2 appeal to all over the world, that your opinion means more than Bruce Springsteens who called U2, the last great rock group,called Edge one of the most important guitarists of all time - or paul gambachini (sp?) who called Joshua Tree the greatest rock album of all time.

But no, instead of giving U2 a chance-actually listening to them and making up your mind, you've written them off cause of their success. sad to be honest.

You know nothing about me. I will tel you two things:
I don't make sweeping generalisations about people.
I always give music a proper listen to before forming an opinion.

If you infact read my original posts in this thread you would be more informed. I'm hate repeating myself, i'm not doing it now.

I know most of the songs in your little list up there. They do nothing for me. Also Ground beneath her feet is not their song. Well lyrically anyway it isn't.

I have no problem with bands selling out, as long as the music is good, in fact i'd love some bands that write decent stuff to be more popular. And if you are going to quote people you at least should give the year they said things in, it gives things a better perspective.


Having to type replies to people that are ill informed is as bad as listneing to u2.

Shoo.

lordgoat

king-stew wrote:

absolutely! a person who picks out relatively unheard of bands that are up and coming and jumps on the bandwagon before their famous such as the national(nothing wrong with them btw their v.good!) and gives mainstream bands stick because maybe your jealous of their success compared with some of your favourite bands??

Actually my favourite musicians and artists are all quite old and i've been listening to the for many years. So you are both incorrect. The national are a good band though.

Mr Alan

JC 2K3 wrote:

Actually man, you're rather closed minded in your own way by assuming that anyone who listens to U2 and tries to get into them will like them.

Also, I'd be willing to bet a lot that you've written off dozens off bands before actually listening to them properly.

And FYI, one's personal opinion should, to them, mean more than anyone else in the world's opinion. I mean, I couldn't give a fúck what Bruce Springsteen or anyone else thinks.

No, i am only presuming he has not listened to them property for the simple reason that he said they can only do Stadium rock (beautiful day, pride, where the streets have no name etc etc) when in actual fact they have numerous beautifully crafted songs that would not even nearly fall into that catagory.

i agree on ones opinion being the most important thing to them, but developing an opinion on them and writing them off as he did, when he obviously isnt familiar with a lot of their material is stupid

Mr Alan

lordgoat wrote:

You know nothing about me. I will tel you two things:
I don't make sweeping generalisations about people.
I always give music a proper listen to before forming an opinion.

If you infact read my original posts in this thread you would be more informed. I'm hate repeating myself, i'm not doing it now.

I know most of the songs in your little list up there. They do nothing for me. Also Ground beneath her feet is not their song. Well lyrically anyway it isn't.

I have no problem with bands selling out, as long as the music is good, in fact i'd love some bands that write decent stuff to be more popular. And if you are going to quote people you at least should give the year they said things in, it gives things a better perspective.


Having to type replies to people that are ill informed is as bad as listneing to u2.

Shoo.

is your first point for real?
did you not say elliot smith is above me?
or the other fella must only like dance music cause he doesnt agree with you?
you make HUGE generalisations and sweeping statements when you dont know the people you are conversing with, to pull other people up on it just adds hypocrite to the list of things you seem to be.

Not really sure the relevence, but the boss said the thing about U2 last year, and Gambachini said it in in the last 5 years.

I'm aware that Salmon Rushdie wrote the lyrics to ground beneath her feet (god, aren't you so clever?!), my point remains the same, the above songs are not stadium anthems, which you claimed was all U2 could do.

SligoBrewer

u2 are terrible

the same regurgatated crap again, again and again.
bono's an arrogant prick who has bought into the hype himself.


overrated guff.. and anyone who says the best rock band in the world are u2 deserve to be shot. because there are at least 1000 bands who are further up the queue than them

Martly

I think their recent stuff hasnt been great but their early stuff was really good, i particularly like the "Live from red rocks" ep and "Boy"..

I think Bono has caused them to become laughing stocks tho with his constant crusades for humanity. I really like the guy but he antagonises people

aidan24326

I think it has definitely become sorta fashionable to slag off U2. Not saying that's the case with all the posters in this thread but it's something I've noticed here for a while now. Going by the general attitude towards U2 on boards you'd think everybody in Ireland hates them now, yet next time they play a gig in Croke Park it'll be sold out in 10 minutes. Add a second date and that'll sell out too. So something doesn't quite add up.

Cool or not, I think they've written some very good songs over the years, even if their newer stuff is a bit lame by comparison. But what about New Year's Day, Bullet The Blue Sky, I still haven't found what I'm looking for, One, Trying to throw your arms around the world, Stay(Faraway so close),etc Even if I'm no big U2 fan I can't deny the quality of songs like that.

lordgoat

millersangel wrote:

is your first point for real?
did you not say elliot smith is above me?
or the other fella must only like dance music cause he doesnt agree with you?
you make HUGE generalisations and sweeping statements when you dont know the people you are conversing with, to pull other people up on it just adds hypocrite to the list of things you seem to be.

Not really sure the relevence, but the boss said the thing about U2 last year, and Gambachini said it in in the last 5 years.

I'm aware that Salmon Rushdie wrote the lyrics to ground beneath her feet (god, aren't you so clever?!), my point remains the same, the above songs are not stadium anthems, which you claimed was all U2 could do.

Being on holidays i'd forgotten about this wonderful thread.

I wouldn't worry about eliott being above you, you or he are not alone in that category.

You also accredit alot of things to me that i did not infact say.
Never listened to u2, not being familiar with their material, if you read all of my posts you'd be aware of this
And to me u2 are a stadium rock band as they play most of their shows in front of large crowds in eh stadiums.

gustavo

I like them , wouldnt be a huge fan but they've written a lot of songs I like so cant say fairer than that

Mr Alan

lordgoat wrote:

Being on holidays i'd forgotten about this wonderful thread.

I wouldn't worry about eliott being above you, you or he are not alone in that category.

The very fact that you persist on thinking that an artist could be 'above' someone, does not bode well for the type of person you seem to be.

lordgoat

millersangel wrote:

The very fact that you persist on thinking that an artist could be 'above' someone, does not bode well for the type of person you seem to be.

I don't understand why you have such a problem with that, i can freely admit to some jazz/classical/experimental music being above me. I just don't get it. It happens. You have strange measures that you use to judge people. Which does not bode well for the type of person you seem to be!

Giblet

I think U2 are great, their latest stuff isn't really, but I mean, no-one judges Led Zeppelin on Presence now do they?

Achtung Baby is a great album, if you haven't listened to that at least all the way through, you shouldn't really comment.

And certain types of music being above or below you? You're talking through your arse! I listen to crazy ass jazz , and nice gentle pop stuff. It doesn't mean I'm above any one, or any music is above anyone. At least provide real criticism beyond "I don't like Bono, Edge uses delay and he's crap".

Nailz

U2= Shít. End of story...