Larry Mullen Jnr, true legend

gizmo

Karl Hungus wrote:

I'm really having a hard time thinking of any largely successful band on the same level as U2, except for Metallica, who would get easily as much, if not more criticism than U2. So I'm just wondering if you could point out a band for me?

Creed.

They're actually rather similar. Asshole frontman that everyone hates, great musicians, decent music ruined by preachy lyrics and a fanbase whos love of the band is in most cases only equally by the irrational hatred the rest of the world have for them.

flanzer

Only back after a being away for the weekend and I can't believe the contempt I'm reading!!

Jeez, to be fair, with 120 million worldwide album sales, 120 million people can't be wrong!

Edit: That figure was taken back from 2004 by the way! It's probably up around 150m by now!

gizmo

flanzer wrote:

Jeez, to be fair, with 120 million worldwide album sales, 120 million people can't be wrong!

Edit: That figure was taken back from 2004 by the way! It's probably up around 150m by now!

A) That sales figure is for all their albums, the people who bought one album are more than likely going to have bought the others so you might want to cut that figure down abit.

Yes, yes they can.

powermac

i thought this was a rock/metal thread...............
So why are U2 being talked about ??

Should they not be in another new thread such as TOP of the Cocks, or whinge whinge whinge.

Outdated, outspoken and too fookin old.
The music stinks of sporadic kak!

Doctor J

U2 are as relevant as any other rock band discussed in here. If you don't like that please feel free go elsewhere.

powermac

Doctor J wrote:

U2 are as relevant as any other rock band discussed in here. If you don't like that please feel free go elsewhere.

oohhhh!!!... since when were you made the king of the threads then eh?, Doctor Jerkoff.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, hense the reason for these forums.
Im sure you'd be glad to help Bone-O' "suck it 'til its soft".

MrJoeSoap

powermac wrote:

oohhhh!!!... since when were you made the king of the threads then eh?, Doctor Jerkoff.

Well he is the mod... :rolleyes:

Doctor J

powermac wrote:

oohhhh!!!... since when were you made the king of the threads then eh?, Doctor Jerkoff.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, hense the reason for these forums.
Im sure you'd be glad to help Bone-O' "suck it 'til its soft".

Everyone is indeed entitled to their opinion, however the forum is better off without this kind of immature drivel, so you are banned until such a time as you can exchange such opinions without resorting to moronic profanities and ignorant name-calling.

Drummo

I've no time for U2 or their music but I thought it was a very good gesture and I'm sure the band were stoked!

Maccattack

flanzer wrote:

Jeez, to be fair, with 120 million worldwide album sales, 120 million people can't be wrong!

120 million people bought one album each?

flanzer

Maccattack wrote:

120 million people bought one album each?

OK, I stand corrected. Obviously 120m people didn't buy one each but if people repeatedly buy their albums, surely they must be good!!!

Maccattack

flanzer wrote:

OK, I stand corrected. Obviously 120m people didn't buy one each but if people repeatedly buy their albums, surely they must be good!!!

well... I took my kids to see Hi5 in concert earlier this year. Im sure each one of the kids there had multiple Hi5 products.

We also went to see Busted some time ago. They sold a lot too.

U2 did have something interesting once upon a time but that was a long time ago. Everything since maybe Achoo Baby has been pretty drab. It has certainly followed a formula anyway.

John

Pop was deadly. The newer albums were good, not earth shattering but U2 don't pretend to be harbingers of a new musical revolution. They're great at what they do, they've had lots of success, not just from mindless people buying albums like manufactured pop groups but from many other musicians and critics. If you don't like them, fair enough but you can't deny they are a good, hard working band that have made it big not through clever marketing (they're staying big through clever marketing before anyone mentions iPods) but through the quality of the their songs. Larry Mullen got on stage with a local band and played with them, how many other bands that you listen to would do that? Not many.

Closing Doors

John2 wrote:

Pop was deadly. The newer albums were good, not earth shattering but U2 don't pretend to be harbingers of a new musical revolution. They're great at what they do, they've had lots of success, not just from mindless people buying albums like manufactured pop groups but from many other musicians and critics. If you don't like them, fair enough but you can't deny they are a good, hard working band that have made it big not through clever marketing (they're staying big through clever marketing before anyone mentions iPods) but through the quality of the their songs. Larry Mullen got on stage with a local band and played with them, how many other bands that you listen to would do that? Not many.

Very very true. It's sickening the amount of people grumbling about them (while typically believing their own only-practise-at-weekends-bands capable of changing the face of music).

If he refused to play with the band, he'd be an asshole. Since he did, he was apparently looking for attention. :rolleyes:

gizmo

John2 wrote:

The newer albums were good, not earth shattering but U2 don't pretend to be harbingers of a new musical revolution.

Thats my problem with them, in many interviews Bono has been a complete tard regarding their music and the effect it has on people, talking it up and saying how important it is.

John2 wrote:

They're great at what they do, they've had lots of success, not just from mindless people buying albums like manufactured pop groups but from many other musicians and critics.

Its what they do that I don't like. And yes, I'll agree with The Edge influencing many guitarists however the rest of them, meh, they're all decent musicians but theres nothing outstanding about them.

John2 wrote:

If you don't like them, fair enough but you can't deny they are a good, hard working band that have made it big not through clever marketing (they're staying big through clever marketing before anyone mentions iPods) but through the quality of the their songs. Larry Mullen got on stage with a local band and played with them, how many other bands that you listen to would do that? Not many.

Nope, I find that many people will buy their albums yet not really like them as a band. They buy them becuase they are a big band and that automatically means they're great. Most of the people I know who bought "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" listened to it only while there was a buzz about it and then promptly moved onto the next big thing. THATS what bugs me about U2 and their ilk. They are no longer popular due to their new releases but becuase of the cult they have built around them. As has been said before, they could release the worst CD of their careers next and it would still sell like hot cakes.

I suppose I don't really hate U2 per say. However I dislike Bono, I dislike the fact that they are popular for the above reasons and I dislike the "OMFG" factor about them. That said, there rest of the lads in the band, as was expressed by the OP, seem to be sound enough blokes so good for them really. It still doesn't mean we have to like U2 though.

lodgepole

Nobody can argue the fact that U2 have sold an assload of albums.

Nobody can argue the fact that their music has a profound effect on millions of people around the world.

All you can argue is your personal opinion on the band. Good or bad, it makes no difference. Playing with a local band in a local pub when you're the drummer in the biggest band in the world is a sound thing to do.

peter1892

I met Larry once, briefly. Came across as a sound enough bloke, especially when he was having loads of people coming up to him in a busy pub!

That said, I'm not fussed on U2. They're good live & some of their albums are good (Achtung Baby is brilliant) but they're more recent material has been (IMO) absolutely dire.

Playing with a local band in a local pub when you're the drummer in the biggest band in the world is a sound thing to do.

When did Nicko do that?

No, fair play to him for doing that...

gizmo

Lodgepole wrote:

Nobody can argue the fact that their music has a profound effect on millions of people around the world.

Heh, when I read that I remembered Maddox's article from awhile back, it made me laugh anyway...

Anyway, back to Vertigo: this song sucks so much because of the unique tag-team trio of ****ty music, the forced chic of iPod ads, and its stupid fan base. I looked around on some U2 message boards to see what the fans were saying about this song and its turgid lyrics, here's what fan member "Bob" has to say:

"Vertigo actually has some seriously heavy lyric - but I bet most of mainstream radio listeners will never know what they mean - I love that! It makes me feel priviledged [sic] to know what the man has to say - there are so many invaluable messages in their albums, certainly this one will be another thought provoking and life influencing scripture."

Here's a sample of the "seriously heavy lyrics" in Vertigo:

WoooAoo! WoooAoo! WoooAoo! WoooAoo!

And who could forget this poignant verse:

Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah,
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah.

And on a more serious note, alot of people that dislike U2 do so because they can't stand Bono and his "attitude". One of my mates asked me what this "attitude" was and I pointed him to this lovely quote.

"I don't know why, but we always had this belief that there was something sacred about our music, that it was almost holy."

That's the kind of crap that can make people hate a band if they don't like them already...

Doctor J

Wow, imagine a musician believing their music to be something extraordinary :eek:

So you dislike them because of what you read, rather than the music you hear? Here's a novel idea, turn off the tv, stop reading the NME and just listen to music for what it is, rather than what some journalist tells you what it is. This doesn't apply to just U2, this is for anyone who actually likes music. Ignore the bull****. The music is what matters, not the peripheral irrelevant ****e which is printed only to fill column inches.

MrJoeSoap

Doctor J wrote:

The music is what matters

Though with U2 I sometimes wonder...

Doctor J

As I said, I'm not a fan, but they do have some excellent songs

gizmo

Doctor J wrote:

Wow, imagine a musician believing their music to be something extraordinary :eek:

Ah but theres an acceptable level surely?

Doctor J wrote:

So you dislike them because of what you read, rather than the music you hear? Here's a novel idea, turn off the tv, stop reading the NME and just listen to music for what it is, rather than what some journalist tells you what it is. This doesn't apply to just U2, this is for anyone who actually likes music. Ignore the bull****. The music is what matters, not the peripheral irrelevant ****e which is printed only to fill column inches.

As I said its not that I hate U2 per say, its just that I hate "U2!!!1111" if you know what I mean. Hell I actually really like some of their material, I wouldn't like it enough to buy their album but as you mention, I'm perfectly content with my own music.

My point is that I find that most people I know who hate U2 and I mean really hate them with that kind irattional hated you talked about do so not because of the music itself, but becuase of all the bull****e around it. As was pointed out earlier, there's not many bands that that happens to...

Doctor J

Aye, fair enough. I don't pay heed to that sort of stuff though. From their perspective, they could sell their ****e on ebay and some people wold want to buy it and that's got to skew your sense of reason, if you know what I mean. Pretty much everything they've done has succeeded, I know I'd think the milky way shone out of my arse, let alone the sun

They're just some musicians from Dublin at the end of the day and they've done pretty well so good luck to them

MrJoeSoap

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Though with U2 I sometimes wonder...

Literally within 90 minutes of posting this I was in a friends house reading an article about Bono learning the piano. He's getting lessons off his kids piano teacher and says that after every lesson he writes a new song.

The new U2 album should be ground-breaking stuff so.

Here's a link:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1533253/20060531/u2.jhtml?headlines=true

Earthhorse

And?

Just because he's been writing songs after every piano lesson doesn't mean any of them will appear on the album or, for that matter, that any of them are bad. It's a pretty natural thing for a songwriter to write songs on a new instrument when learning it.

MrJoeSoap

What I'm saying is you can expect a nice slow piano ballad incorporating the C,G and D chords.

John

MrJoeSoap wrote:

What I'm saying is you can expect a nice slow piano ballad incorporating the C,G and D chords.

And if it sounds good, it sounds good. **** what notes and chords you know, it's only about how good the song is.

flanzer

Well, last Thursday's guest appearance made the back page of the Living supplement in the Sunday Indo today with the writer of the article having the same sentiment as myself

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Crap drummer all the same!

Fair play to him though.

wouldn't say crap... he is just lazy, excellent at what he does, but doesn't do a lot.

Doctor J

He does what works in the context of the music he's playing, which is a great skill in itself.