U2: Great or mediocre?
I find it hard to understand why people find U2 so incredible after all these years and I hardly think that the Joshua Tree can compare to the real classics of rock and roll. Does U2 deserve to be called one of the greats?
I first got into U2 in 1983. Their first three albums, Boy, October, and War, and the live album Under A Blood Red Sky were phenomenal. They were so raw and had such tension and edge. At that time I said that if they kept on like that they would be as great as Led Zeppelin, and I've never said that about anyone else since.
But after that they seemed to lose it. I waited intensely for the fourth album. But other than Pride In The Name of Love, i didn't find it stunning. I felt that U2 wanted to leave behind the rawness and earthiness of what they had done before and move on to something different. That's not necessarily bad. I just don't think what they moved on to was that great. I find songs like "With Or Without You", " I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For", "Desire", and "Angel of Harlem" merely OK. The song "One" was truly incredible though.
I have a theory why the Joshua Tree is so highly acclaimed. You had a lot of people in the 80s who couldn't appreciate really great, heartfelt rock like Led Zep, Jethro Tull , Bruce Springsteen or Elton John. They couldn't appreciate rock that had a real attitude whether it was sentimental like Bob Seger's Night Moves or outrageous like Van Halen or Queen. They liked stuff that was great in a way but easy to digest. Stuff like Peter Gabriel, The Cars, R.E.M. etc. I think U2 is loved because it was simple and user friendly enough in an 80s way for people to appreciate it, yet deep enough emotionally for people to still remember it. Compared to Duran Duran and Whitney Houston it is inspiring music.
Also, perhaps U2 did well not to overexpose thenselves or be greedy by touring too much and burning out their name. I haven't kept track of them, but they seemed to come and go and not mock themselves like Michael Jackson has.
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: spindler ]</p>
I first got into U2 in 1983. Their first three albums, Boy, October, and War, and the live album Under A Blood Red Sky were phenomenal. They were so raw and had such tension and edge. At that time I said that if they kept on like that they would be as great as Led Zeppelin, and I've never said that about anyone else since.
But after that they seemed to lose it. I waited intensely for the fourth album. But other than Pride In The Name of Love, i didn't find it stunning. I felt that U2 wanted to leave behind the rawness and earthiness of what they had done before and move on to something different. That's not necessarily bad. I just don't think what they moved on to was that great. I find songs like "With Or Without You", " I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For", "Desire", and "Angel of Harlem" merely OK. The song "One" was truly incredible though.
I have a theory why the Joshua Tree is so highly acclaimed. You had a lot of people in the 80s who couldn't appreciate really great, heartfelt rock like Led Zep, Jethro Tull , Bruce Springsteen or Elton John. They couldn't appreciate rock that had a real attitude whether it was sentimental like Bob Seger's Night Moves or outrageous like Van Halen or Queen. They liked stuff that was great in a way but easy to digest. Stuff like Peter Gabriel, The Cars, R.E.M. etc. I think U2 is loved because it was simple and user friendly enough in an 80s way for people to appreciate it, yet deep enough emotionally for people to still remember it. Compared to Duran Duran and Whitney Houston it is inspiring music.
Also, perhaps U2 did well not to overexpose thenselves or be greedy by touring too much and burning out their name. I haven't kept track of them, but they seemed to come and go and not mock themselves like Michael Jackson has.
[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: spindler ]</p>
Comments
That, and the fact that Edge's guitar had such a unique and cool sound and style (I ended up buying "Boy" eventually, as well as "October").
I was quite a fan of them throughout the 80's, even seeing "Rattle and Hum" four times over the course of one weekend with my friend Allison.
Sometime around "Achtung Baby", either due to THEIR new direction/sound or simply my own changing tastes, I remember becoming very indifferent to them, as I was throughout all of the 90's.
I still LIKE them, and totally respect what they've done, what they represent, etc. But, like R.E.M. and other acts who started off small and unique and eventually wind up as well-known and "everywhere, all the time", I simply got tired of seeing and hearing about them. Especially when a lot of the music I was hearing from them didn't impact, or impress, me 1/10th as much as "Gloria" or "Two Hearts Beat As One" or anything off "The Unforgettable Fire" (my favorite U2 album).
Of course, I watched them at the Super Bowl this year, because I knew it would be stirring and good TV.
In short, I'm kinda a lifelong, permanent fan...however, I'm not of the "rabid, pay anything to see them live" type.
I can take them or leave them, and don't get too keyed up one way or the other. But they'll probably always occupy a special place for me, and I'll always check them out to see what they're up to.
I think I'm just a lot different (and tougher to please/amaze) now than I was 15-20 years ago.
Hmm...aren't we all?
I still really liked the records. I even love the Pop album. Anyway when I first heard Beautiful Day on the radio I totally cranked it and got the record as soon as it came out. I also decided to get tickets to see them and they still put on the best arena show I've ever seen. They are the only band who can make the Garden seem like CBGB's.
So for your question, I think they're great. Not too many bands I'd rank higher, certainly not Led Zeppelin anyway, but hey it's all just personal taste.
Beautiful Day is OK.
Mysterious Ways is OK.
With or Without You is OK.
Walk on is OK.
I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For is OK.
Where the Streets Have No Name is GREAT.
Stuck in a Moment is GREAT.
I wouldn't care for them otherwise.
<strong>They're OK, but nothing special.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yep, that Blink 182 blows them away
I'm a huge U2 fan. I don't think anyone can comment unless they have seen them live recently. I saw them 3 times on the last tour (Elevation). They are simply amazing. I've gone to a hell of live shows, easily over 200. They are right in the top 5.
IMO Actung Baby is one of the best albums of all time. I think that is their best. The album has a sound and a feel to it. from the first song to the last you are engulfed in it. Crank that disc up and just listen to it all the way through.
I don't think they are mediocre or just "good" at all. I think they are right up there with the Stones. Led Zeppelin was something different and they are my favorite band. But I think a comparison to the Stones is perfect.
From "Pride In The Name Of Love" to "Walk On" they've had songs on the radio I like to listen to, which is a pretty rare thing.
I didn't get "Zooropa" at all, though.
Jeff
they have one or two semi-original sounds: the edge (I mean come on... this guy is an adult and he is called "the edge
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>I wish I could simply repost all my critisisms that I have posted about this mediocre incredibly pretentious band --I mean does every video have to be in grainy black and white with that lame leather clad bono posing like he is in existential agony--in slow motion?!?!?
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
trying to think what the last video was that fits your description.
I belive it was One way back in 92 I think.
If you're going to be critical at least make some sense
I belive it was One way back in 92 I think.
If you're going to be critical at least make some sense <hr></blockquote> well... so I havn't watched a music video in years . . . i'm sure that they havn't all of a sudden started getting whimsical and clever . . . maybe they make videos in color now . . but I'll bet a dollar that bono still prances around with a pained serious 'weight-of-the world' look on his face . . .
I might be wrong about the videos but why does my criticism not make sense? It seems pretty understandable to me... you might not agree... but that doesn't mean I'm not making sense...
I think 20 years from now, we'll look back on Rush, U2, The Police, Pearl Jam and a (very) few others as the Zeppelin and Floyd's of their day - figuratively speaking, not musically).
[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Bono was sitting reading a magazine and Edge falls down carrying condiments. It's pretty funny!
Jeff
I know Peart is supposed to be the **** and all, but at some point that type of music just goes WAY over and beyond me. I can never find the beat!
I always dug the sound and movement of Geddy's bass playing, but THAT VOICE!
:eek:
Everytime I think of Rush, I think of two things: this total blow-out I knew in high school who WORSHIPPED them. Secondly, there's a hilarious David Spade routine I heard him do one time where he's talking about smoking pot with a buddy in high school, and being joined by the buddy's mom, and she's singing along to their Rush records and thinking she "sounds just like him...check it out...".
I love U2. They are truly great.
- T.I.
[QB]
yep, that Blink 182 blows them away
/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Nah, maybe Green Day does though