peipunk Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) Out of many, many opportunites on this board to chime in on U2 bashing, I picked here (sorry Birdy, haha). But it still boils down to the music, and that's why i make the comparison... and say they suck. To each their own though. It's all subjective. If its subjective you should just say "I don't like what they do" instead of "what they do sucks". Honestly, I find it to be one of the strangest things to hear people who like music say they don't like U2. I absolutely cannot fathom what there is to dislike other than a few scattered songs over the years. They have creatively reinvented themselves SO many times(I personally find that the most fascinating thing about them), and the production level of both their albums and their live act has always been a global standard that is as awe inspiring as their amazingly well written songs and perfection in their performances. Wow, did I really just write that? Sorry to stir the pot! Edited August 3, 2009 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 If its subjective you should just say "I don't like what they do" instead of "what they do sucks". Haha... isn't it the same? I don't like what they do and think what they do sucks. Musically and environmentally. It's all just my personal opinion... still subjective. I'll admit there was a day and age where i'd lay on my bed and listen to 'One' on repeat contemplating worldly existence and all that... but those were also the days i thought Alannis Morrisette was the shit and was hooked on Bel Biv Devoe. So i'll give you the reinvention thing, but i find Bono's voice overpowering and the band boring, generic and kinda emotionally inept. Couple that with the huge hypocrisy of the band's actions in a worldly sense, and i'd say it's just not my cup of tea, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Not Bob Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 They suck. But now that i think about it, the comparison is apt. Because when it comes down to it, it's all music on a stage... whether you're playing to 1200 people or 40,000 people doesn't change the fact that you're still up there, doing your thing and making music. U2 consciously picks their venues, their stage, their corporate sponsors to fund their massive carbon footprint they call a tour. But it still boils down to the music, and that's why i make the comparison... and say they suck. To each their own though. It's all subjective. Can't believe that I am coming to the defense of a band I haven't followed in over a decade, but ... $40 million set-up cuz your band can't entertain vs. bare stage and awesomeness: You didn't state that as though it were subjective, but as fact that the reason their setup was so expensive was because they "can't entertain". Setting aside the fact that U2 were able to build up to the level of a stadium act because evidently a lot of people thought they could entertain, you are comparing their current tour to the Stop Making Sense show (which, far from being just a bare stage, had costumes, props and other visuals). If Talking Heads had ever gotten to be as big as U2, that show wouldn't have worked nearly as well in the venues that U2 has to play due to their popularity, David Byrne would have to come up with even bigger visuals and set pieces that wouldn't get dwarfed by the stadia ... which may well be one of the reasons why he broke up Talking Heads before they got that big, because he had no interest in that scale of performance. And that is why I say the comparison is not apt. Sure, these days I'd rather enjoy, say, Remain In Light or Stop Making Sense than the latest U2 CD/Tour, but you seem to be attacking them because of their success. You say they consciously pick their venues, are you seriously suggesting that at this stage of the game they go back to playing clubs and theatres? All that is going to do is upset a lot of their fans because they won't be able to get tickets. They are one of the most popular bands in the world (and are you really going to fault a band if they happen to like having a lot of fans?), that is going to end up requiring big venues and big staging. I just can't agree that all this means, by definition, that they "can't entertain". Gah, gonna go wash out my brain with "The Great Curve" now ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peipunk Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 That's a good response...I was kind of expecting New Rider and maybe a few more people come out swinging. I'll admit there was a day and age where i'd lay on my bed and listen to 'One' on repeat contemplating worldly existence and all that... but those were also the days i thought Alannis Morrisette was the shit and was hooked on Bel Biv Devoe. Ouch, I get burned on this one, I have for SURE been all hot and bothered about things that fizzled into nothing. Buuut feel a lot differently about a lot of things that people write off....the prime examples for me are Santana and Aerosmith. Sure, what they do now is absolutely sell out atrocious. BUT I don't feel that it "erases" their previous accomplishments. I don't care what anybody says, the term "Classic Rock" has a picture of Toys in the Attic beside it, and Santana has some amazing albums and is the absolute coolest shit ever in the Woodstock movie..... As far as that goes, although I don't feel like U2's newest couple albums are "trailblazing" I think most of their earlier albums were; enough to get a lifetime of respect from me. Couple that with the huge hypocrisy of the band's actions in a worldly sense, and i'd say it's just not my cup of tea, that's all. As I don't follow/trust any news stories of this type, I can't say much. If it was personal to me I could comment more I guess, as it is I can't condone or condemn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 Rob not Bob - i hear you, and my bad on the comparison. I'm completely coming from a biased stand point of just simply not liking the music they put out there... so when Thorgnor made his today and back in the day comparisons, i jumped in there with that one. Not fair, yep. My bad. Anyway, i'm not attacking them BECAUSE of their success - not at all. Rather because a, i just don't like their tunes (as mentioned above) and because Bono preaches like he's a worldly saint and then buys a crazy jet to go touring, blows 40 million on a stage that requires transport after transport rolling down the world's highways to set up and tax evades. Smart businessman, sure. And whatever, half of what i enjoy exists because of smart business people... but don't go preaching to the world like a concerned rockstar would and then do the exact opposite. Not overly cool. As for stopping it and not going over the top the U2 tour way simply because it would piss of the fans not being able to get tickets, I totally disagree. U2 doesn't seem like the kind of band that would even consider stopping it. Anyone who spends $40 million on a stage (c'mon that's excessive) obviously loves the show that money creates. It's who they are, their image and what people expect of them. They created that monster themselves. David Byrne on the other hand consciously decided when filming Stop Making Sense that he dind't want any of the special effects, tricks, etc. but rather for the cameras to focus on the musicians themselves. Different strokes for different folks. But to justify spending that kind of money because they HAVE to is wrong. They don't have to, they just do... and everybody loves a crazy light show. Santana, on the other hand, ROCKS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peipunk Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 BTW, I feel bad Birdy that you don't have any of the other U2 haters backing you up today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 I wish I had something awful to say about U2. I stopped following them some time in the late 80s, though I do remember an SNL where they came out and hit the stage like they owned the damn place, and all I could think was that their moxy was genuine. But Bill Bailey does a nice job putting their sound in context Q65iSpG1DgQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 Hahah... awesome! Thanks DEM! BTW, I feel bad Birdy that you don't have any of the other U2 haters backing you up today. No doubt!! I feel so all alone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewRider Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 Sorry I'm late. U2 sucks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Not Bob Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 And the moral of the story is, Adrian Belew = Better Than You Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peipunk Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Sorry I'm late. U2 sucks! I needed that closure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now