U2- cool or not

tech77

OK there's a fair amount of U2-bashers out there and it's cool to say you don't like U2 (last time i checked anyway it was..).

Anyway I used to be one of these people as well who didn't really get u2 and was more into my Radiohead/Smiths/Pixies etc- that was until i listened to Achtung Baby and started to appreciate their stuff a bit more.

So i'm just wondering can anyone who has listened to Achtung Baby for example honestly say they don't like U2.
I'm talking about tracks like Zoostation, Bad, Ultraviolet, Love is blindness, Acrobat etc.

Not mad about their most recent stuff to be honest but there's something about that album specifically don't know what it is...
Anyone else feel similar.

Karl Hungus

tech77 wrote:

it's cool to say you don't like U2

Oh of course, that's why people say it. It's got nothing to do with them actually not liking the music? It's because it's "cool" obviously!

:rolleyes:

tech77

No, don't think i said/meant that.

Saying you don't like them is possibly a combination of:
1) genuinely not liking their music
and/or
2) because it's (arguably) cool not to like them.

ie not solely because it's cool not to like them (which is what you seem to be refuting).

Karl Hungus

Well I don't believe there is many (or any) people who would dislike them for the reason of it being 'cool' so even if you do say it's a combination, I'd still refute that.

tech77

Karl Hungus wrote:

Well I don't believe there is many (or any) people who would dislike them for the reason of it being 'cool' so even if you do say it's a combination, I'd still refute that.

OK, let's put it this way:
I'm sure there's a hell of a lot of people who wouldn't take the time to get into U2 stuff simply because U2 are often regarded as uncool maybe by their peers and thus they remain relatively unexposed to them.

Specifically i'd say there's a lot of people who would have written off U2 on the basis of such a perceived uncoolness without hearing their better stuff like Achtung Baby.

bubonicus

I don't like U2. I never have, Their music just bores me. If that's cool or not, that's for the cool kids to decide.

sweetie

Some of their stuff seems a tad bombastic and he massive exposure plus bono's ubiquitiousness (sic?) can put off a lot of people, me included. However, they have produced some great songs over the years and I have softened a little towards them in recent times.

loyatemu

Achtung Baby\Zooropa are the only albums of theirs that i've found even vaguely listenable, but they still wouldn't be favourites of mine.

Can you really claim to be a U2 fan if you only like the 2 albums that are least representative of their overall career?

Mossy Monk

Maybe you should ask if people like their music or not. Not U2- cool or not.

Put me in the not liking all their music category. Some stuff I like but the majority is donkey cock.

Rigsby

bubonicus wrote:

I don't like U2. I never have, Their music just bores me. If that's cool or not, that's for the cool kids to decide.

I agree 100%. Their music does absolutely nothing (except bore the pants off me ) for me, and I'm long past the age of being a "cool dude". BTW I have always held this view.

biko

I like U2's early stuff, Achtung Baby was the last great album.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_BcLjtG3eY

MrJoeSoap

I like very little of the U2 stuff that I've heard, granted that I haven't heard a great deal of the stuff they didn't release as singles. The singles I have heard haven't made me want to buy an album, put it that way.

tech77

Mossy Monk wrote:

Maybe you should ask if people like their music or not. Not U2- cool or not.

"cool" in the thread title is meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek- by equating coolness to worth (which obviously as you say are totally different).

Should've put the word cool in quotes to denote this.

What i was really asking is who here likes U2's music despite their (undoubted) perceived uncoolness.

Obviously not many people.
Fair enough.

lordgoat

tech77 wrote:

"cool" in the thread title is meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek- by equating coolness to worth (which obviously as you say are totally different).

Should've put the word cool in quotes to denote this.

What i was really asking is who here likes U2's music despite their (undoubted) perceived uncoolness.

Obviously not many people.
Fair enough.

Ah right now it's clear what you meant... right?

u2 do nothing for me. i've a good friend that haas tried to convert me but i've tried and still find them mundane at best. If they are cool or not, (sorry "cool" or not) really matters only slightly less than this thread.

NoQuarter

i think their great, good drivin/drinking music!

lordgoat

king-stew wrote:

i think their great, good drivin/drinking music!

I'm glad you think their great and you could be right, their could be great.



I know it's terribly smug but it kinda sums up u2 fans! (arrogant eh? -sorry bar)

bostonian

U2 are awesome as far as I'm concerned. After hearing their hits for so long, I've had to move into their b-sides. I bet many people who say they aren't cool would enjoy the band again if they listened to the other songs on the albums.

Saying U2 are overrated is a very "in" thing to do now... the same goes with the Beatles. It's cool to say they're overrated now also.

highlydebased

Absolutely hate the vertigo album.

What I like a bit though, are the first few albums they produced.

Rigsby

bostonian wrote:

Saying U2 are overrated is a very "in" thing to do now...

A lot of the posters who said they did n't like U2 said they always held that view and it had nothing to do with being "in" or "cool" (myself included). You either like them or not.

lordgoat

bostonian wrote:

U2 are awesome as far as I'm concerned. After hearing their hits for so long, I've had to move into their b-sides. I bet many people who say they aren't cool would enjoy the band again if they listened to the other songs on the albums.

Saying U2 are overrated is a very "in" thing to do now... the same goes with the Beatles. It's cool to say they're overrated now also.

I'm not a beatles fan either but they are miles ahead of u2 and most music fans can clearly say the were a great band regardless of if you like them. Def not over rated.

u2 started out mediocre and went downhill from there.

Here's a simple example of how great they are.

A mole livin in a hole.

Really stretched the mind for those ones eh?

Jack Sheehan

They're alright but they havn't done anything new in donkeys years.

Roxy*

u2 are for LOSERS hahahahahahahahha




LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSER

Mr Alan

the . . . mole living in a hole...thing is nonsense. name a band that if you pick one lyric in isolation, it doesn't sound ridiculous, now i aint defending the song elevation (no where near any of my favourite U2 tracks), but according to U2 themselves, the song was pretty much written as a bit of crack to open gigs with a bang, and if you listen to any gig or watch a dvd (slane), i think it was mission accomplished on their part, absolutely beltingly good live song.

As for U2 themselves, i think they are a genuinely great great great band, in the league of the Beatles, Bruce Springsteen, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, thats how highly i rate them.

Granted some of their albums have not set the world on fire, but you can guaruntee on every album, there will be a song that will remind you of just how good they are. And they are still, imo, capable of making another "classic" album

nyarlothothep

Their mid 90s era was ok, cant say I like anything else by them though

lordgoat

millersangel wrote:

the . . . mole living in a hole...thing is nonsense. name a band that if you pick one lyric in isolation, it doesn't sound ridiculous,

Elliott Smith. But i'm guessing he's way above you. I could also have said leonard cohen or neil young (and you know nothing about good music if you put u2 in the same category as neil young).

I could have chosen a lyric from any number of ****e u2 songs.

Mr Alan

lordgoat wrote:

Elliott Smith. But i'm guessing he's way above you. I could also have said leonard cohen or neil young (and you know nothing about good music if you put u2 in the same category as neil young).

I could have chosen a lyric from any number of ****e u2 songs.

Are you really that pretentious? Way above me? Based on wat-that fact that i think U2 are a great band? So you are saying i couldnt go through one of Neil Youngs many albums and find a brutal lyric?

MrJoeSoap

millersangel wrote:

the . . . mole living in a hole...thing is nonsense. name a band that if you pick one lyric in isolation, it doesn't sound ridiculous,

It sounds equally ridiculous with the rest of the lyrics around it.

A mole, digging in a hole
Digging up my soul
Now going down, excavation

To answer your question though, Bob Dylan, Rage Against The Machine and many more.

Neo#

I love a lot of U2s stuff. Even the albums that arent that great like POP or ZOOROPA have great tracks on them like staring at the sun or stay. But my tastes are all over the place. For instance I like Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Led Zeppelin, Bob marley, Muse, Arcade Fire, Led Zeppelin, Tool! Whatever! I love NEIL YOUNG too. U2 always seem to provoke a hostile response here because their HUGE and their from this country. Probably mostly because of BONO. Sometimes I cant stand the little **** either but the music is or certainly was great. I get the OPs question on U2 and coolness too being in a band myself. If I mention I like U2 in the presence of other bands at a gig (or actually my own band!) it doesnt go down well. And for the above reasons.

lordgoat

millersangel wrote:

Are you really that pretentious? Way above me? Based on wat-that fact that i think U2 are a great band? So you are saying i couldnt go through one of Neil Youngs many albums and find a brutal lyric?

Not pretentious, just pointing out that yes you couldn't go through neil youngs' catalogue of albums and find a lyric worse than whatever the drivel, mole in a hole song is called... And Elliott Smith and Leonard Cohen have not one bad lyric between them

Mr Alan

lordgoat wrote:

And Elliott Smith and Leonard Cohen have not one bad lyric between them

yet neither cohen or smith can rock a crowd like a song 'elevation' will.
great artists should have different strings to their bow, U2 have that.

NoQuarter

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!

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