U2 question

Dublin Spur

Do you think there are a lot of U2 fans that love U2 mostly because they're Irish and not really because of their music ? (In a similar way that there's a loads of Irish football fans love Celtic.)

Being loyal to Irish acts is quite nobel I suppose but surely it should always be about the music and not where a band/artist is from.

What do you think ??

(By the way, I'm not a fan of U2 myself, I never really got into them, but I do respect what they have achieved even though they were never by cup of tea)

ADTR

People love them because they are Irish. It definitely helps them.

Karl Hungus

Well, to be entirely fair, they did have some decent albums. Wouldn't be my thing, but you can't deny that they did make some iconic songs.

nyarlothothep

They have some good songs, but yeah I believe there is an element of because they're Irish. Or even just because everyone else likes them. This would be among people that aren't really interested in music.

ShawnRaven

I don't think so much it's because they're Irish, because they didn't do anything the yanks didn't do beforehand. Achtung Baby is heralded as the ultimate alternative swing for the band, but it wasn't anything groundbreaking. Nothing Husker Du didn't do for Minnesota ten years earlier anyway.

But as far as Irish music is concerned. They were one of the very few successes in the 80s to break it worldwide. That's a contribition that will stand to them, regardless of how much crap they have produced since 1993. And i've been a fan since about 1983, but good god, the new one is utter dross. Why people are trying to pass that steaming pile of crap off as the next Achtung Baby absolutely astounds me.

So no, i honestly don't think it's because that they're Irish that people love them, they just appreciate what they did for the Irish music scene in the early to mid 80s. The problem was that several bands (Irish and other) tried to emulate them, and failed miserably (Cactus World News and Simple Minds spring to mind, and yes, I'm aware that SM broke first!). At the end of the day, it wasn't so much what they did as a band, but how they did it. They were successful where many others, that were probably better bands in their own right, failed.

buck65

I have often wondered about their appeal and how every (increasingly dodgy) album is revered and waited for like the second coming. Also the rate they sell out venues in this country is insane. To me musically they are bland I wouldn't reach for the dial on the radio but I wouldn't turn it up either but Bono does really annoy the hell out of me. They as some have said HAD some good songs and albums and as a twelve year old I liked the Unforgettable fire era stuff but apart from the odd tune here and there afterwards nothing comes to mind.
Not my cup of tea but fair play to them and to their fans.

ShawnRaven

buck65 wrote: »

Also the rate they sell out venues in this country is insane.

They are an amazing live act though. And people will travel the world to see it in it's country of origin. Hence the silly sell out times. Problem is, once you've seen them once, you've little desire to see them again unless you're a complete anorak. I saw them at the second Slane show in 2001, and to be honest. I don't think that atmosphere will be topped (especially as the ROI soccer team qualified for the world cup that day, and the entire Slane saw the second half of that match on the screens during band intervals).

That and they haven't produced any albums to support me wanting to go and see them live again.

Doctor J

Do you think there are a lot of U2 fans that love U2 mostly because they're Irish and not really because of their music ?

You know they're pretty popular outside of Ireland too? :pac:

The biggest gigs are always the ones by bands long past their prime (think of a metal band beginning with M), I see nothing unusual in U2 releasing not-great music but still shifting units and tickets. It goes unquestioned when non-Irish bands roll into town. They've worked hard to get where they are, like a lot of "legendary" artists tickets who will shift no matter how **** the latest album was. People buy into it and fair play to them, people travel a long way to see them play in their home town, I can understand that though, they're still very strongly associated with Dublin in a way few other bands are with their own home towns. Seeing a big band play the hits on their home turf... what's not to get?

ShawnRaven

Doctor J wrote: »

like a lot of "legendary" artists tickets who will shift no matter how **** the latest album was.

I actually call this Bon Jovi syndrome. I'm sure there were other bands before them that fall into this category. But i can't recall a band that have released albums of utter dirt one after the other since 1992 but yet still continue to sell out the RDS time after time as often as these guys. (well, maybe other than that band you mention beginning with M, Doc)

Doctor J

Jovitis, yes :pac:

kmick

I notice they are playing old U2 songs on the radio. Must mean their new album is crap. Even though I dont listen to their music I respect them for what they have achieved sales wise.

ShawnRaven

kmick wrote: »

I notice they are playing old U2 songs on the radio. Must mean their new album is crap. Even though I dont listen to their music I respect them for what they have achieved sales wise.

It's not so much that their new stuff is crap (although I don't particular care for it), Radios still play stuff from Snow Patrol's, final Straw, or Jovi's Slippery When Wet.

If a song is deemed a classic over time, radio stations will continue to play them, regardless if a new album comes out to cater for their primary demographic.

Xavi6

IMO it's pretty much a fact that they are more popular in the States due to their Irishness.

mcronnymc

ShawnRaven wrote: »

I actually call this Bon Jovi syndrome. I'm sure there were other bands before them that fall into this category. But i can't recall a band that have released albums of utter dirt one after the other since 1992 but yet still continue to sell out the RDS time after time as often as these guys. (well, maybe other than that band you mention beginning with M, Doc)

Music reviews don't lie and u2 albums have been well recieved by critics, so to say that all their albums since 1992 is dirt is wrong even if you don't like them, and by the way U2 never played RDS:eek:

ShawnRaven

mcronnymc wrote: »

Music reviews don't lie and u2 albums have been well recieved by critics, so to say that all their albums since 1992 is dirt is wrong even if you don't like them, and by the way U2 never played RDS:eek:

They certainly did play the RDS at the Zoo TV tour in 1993, two dates. And i was refering to Bon Jovi with that statement, not U2.

And music reviews can lie, especially if the reviewer happens to be somewhat biased.

lord lucan

ShawnRaven wrote: »

And music reviews can lie, especially if the reviewer happens to be somewhat biased.

NEVER!!!!!!! I still remember with great fondness the un-biased KKKKK review of st. anger by kerrang magazine:p

Sterio

ShawnRaven wrote: »

They certainly did play the RDS at the Zoo TV tour in 1993, two dates. And i was refering to Bon Jovi with that statement, not U2.

And music reviews can lie, especially if the reviewer happens to be somewhat biased.

Shawn Raven is right. I actually have a pirate cd of u2 playing the RDS in 1993.

lord lucan

back on topic. i used to like them many moons ago,around the 'joshua tree' and 'rattle and hum' era but i lost all interest first time i heard 'the fly'. There is a big element of "they're irish so they're great" with them,they could put out an album of bono letting rip in the jax and some of the critics here would call it "groundbreaking" and "innovative" or even "pushing the boundaries".

Sterio

I think you're wrong. My personal opinion is that what U2 have done since the Achtung Baby has been their best stuff. Your opinion may be different than mine but if you have heard music like Kite or City of blinding lights, you cant help but admire them. I loved joshua tree but U2 have changed as much as their hair cuts. Just because they're Irish helps but I'm a fan of the boss too.

lord lucan

Sterio wrote: »

I think you're wrong. My personal opinion is that what U2 have done since the Achtung Baby has been their best stuff. Your opinion may be different than mine but if you have heard music like Kite or City of blinding lights, you cant help but admire them. I loved joshua tree but U2 have changed as much as their hair cuts. Just because they're Irish helps but I'm a fan of the boss too.

Fair play. Just not my cup of tea anymore but millions of album sales and concert tickets later mean i'm probably in the minority. Gas thing is i have an autographed copy of R&H gathering dust in my spare room somewhere,must lash it on to ebay some day for the craic and see what it gets.

bullpost

Very few bands of their vintage release music thats cutting edge. That said they have a nice back catalogue to lean back on so will probably rock on a la Rollings Stones for many years to come. Some of the stuff they did as The Passengers is quite good though.

ShawnRaven

Sterio wrote: »

I think you're wrong. My personal opinion is that what U2 have done since the Achtung Baby has been their best stuff. Your opinion may be different than mine but if you have heard music like Kite or City of blinding lights, you cant help but admire them. I loved joshua tree but U2 have changed as much as their hair cuts. Just because they're Irish helps but I'm a fan of the boss too.

Do not get me wrong, all the albums they've done since 1991 have had standout tracks, but as entire albums, in my honest opinion, they have been dire with the exception of All That You Can't Leave Behind.

Pop was absolutely dire, an experimental album and an overambitious project that fell flat on its face. Something the band acknowledged to a degree when they put new mixes of the songs on their 1990-2000 best of. And HTDAAB was just a poor carbon copy of ATYCLB. And with the exception of Magnificant, i really can't find anything that special about No Line at all.

Do i still consider myself a life long fan? Absolutely, do i have my preferences for U2 albums, of course, do i think Bono is a complete knob end, yes I do.

Do i remember that there are three other members in the band? Damn right I do.

ShawnRaven

bullpost wrote: »

Very few bands of their vintage release music thats cutting edge. That said they have a nice back catalogue to lean back on so will probably rock on a la Rollings Stones for many years to come. Some of the stuff they did as The Passengers is quite good though.

Funny you mention this. Am I the only person who prefers Bottoms over Zoo Station?!
(Edit - just copped that was a bonus track on some versions, so some may not know the song i refer to)

Sterio

lord lucan wrote: »

Fair play. Just not my cup of tea anymore but millions of album sales and concert tickets later mean i'm probably in the minority. Gas thing is i have an autographed copy of R&H gathering dust in my spare room somewhere,must lash it on to ebay some day for the craic and see what it gets.

Probably enough to buy the rest of their albums together. I got a signed copy of their autobiography and a guy offered me about €500 for it. The older they get the better they get I think. I wouldn't say you're in the minority, just since I've been released from work I've just had more time to appreciate how good they are. My own opinion

Sterio

ShawnRaven wrote: »

Do not get me wrong, all the albums they've done since 1991 have had standout tracks, but as entire albums, in my honest opinion, they have been dire with the exception of All That You Can't Leave Behind.

Pop was absolutely dire, an experimental album and an overambitious project that fell flat on its face. Something the band acknowledged to a degree when they put new mixes of the songs on their 1990-2000 best of. And HTDAAB was just a poor carbon copy of ATYCLB. And with the exception of Magnificant, i really can't find anything that special about No Line at all.

Do i still consider myself a life long fan? Absolutely, do i have my preferences for U2 albums, of course, do i think Bono is a complete knob end, yes I do.

Do i remember that there are three other members in the band? Damn right I do.

I agree completely. Though i disagree with POP. Believe it or not thats my favourite album. The new Album has grown, but magnificent is brilliant. It reminds me of U2 'two hearts beat as one' 'zoo station' and a bit of their new stuff. Everybody knows Bono is a knob. The good thing about listening to a CD, you dont have to look at him.

I'm a complete fan but my opinion is completely biased.:)

Dublin Spur

lord lucan wrote: »

There is a big element of "they're irish so they're great" with them,they could put out an album of bono letting rip in the jax and some of the critics here would call it "groundbreaking" and "innovative" or even "pushing the boundaries".

Exactly, and that's what I find annoying. Too many sheep just going along with them because it's the done thing.

Just like Celtic where football is concerned. This blind following makes a bit more sense in sport (I suppose) where there is a strong competitive edge and opposition to play every week. But being finatical about a band just because they are local boys who done well is a bit silly unless you really love their music as well.

As I said before, fair play to U2, not a fan myself, but I do respect what they have acheived in their careers.

mcronnymc

Sterio wrote: »

Shawn Raven is right. I actually have a pirate cd of u2 playing the RDS in 1993.

How does it feel like to be destroying the music industry singlehandely with your pirate cds:)

lord lucan

mcronnymc wrote: »

How does it feel like to be destroying the music industry singlehandely with your pirate cds:)

SSSSSSSHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! Lars ulrich might be reading this,he'll have you arrested:P

mcronnymc

lord lucan wrote: »

SSSSSSSHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! Lars ulrich might be reading this,he'll have you arrested:P

We wouldn't want that would we:pac:

ShawnRaven

mcronnymc wrote: »

How does it feel like to be destroying the music industry singlehandely with your pirate cds:)

The music industry was destroyed before CDs were commercially available.

big b

mcronnymc wrote: »

How does it feel like to be destroying the music industry singlehandely with your pirate cds:)

Most bootleg fans, me included, only deal with stuff that isn't commercially available.
A hand-held camcorder recording of Slane wasn't going to hurt sales of the pro-shot DVD offering. It's an interesting extra, no more & no less.
I'm in a few groups where bootleg footage has been acquired by the band & put out as an extra with their new album. The bootleggers stopped trading it immediately. Floyds "Pulse" was openly traded on dvd cos it was only commercially available on VHS. As soon as the official DVD came out, trading stopped. An occassional favour for a mate still goes on, but in general the self-policing works very well.

Copying yer mate's CD was always hurting the industry more than bootleggers swapping stuff you couldn't buy.

ShawnRaven

big b wrote: »

A hand-held camcorder recording of Slane wasn't going to hurt sales of the pro-shot DVD offering. It's an interesting extra, no more & no less.

That and the fact that I believe either one or two songs were left off the actual gig for the U2 Go Home DVD. So people will go for the bootleg of that just to have those two songs, but the second the option for a much better quality picture and sound DVD comes along, despite the fact that it's missing a track or two, it'll still sell, because it's a lot more impressive to put on when your mates are around and say "Yep, i was there", rather than looking at a wonkycam 5000 version and saying "You can just about make me out there, that blurred yellow dot"

Same goes for Pro Wrestling DVD's (don't laugh!), but a lot of the older WWE stuff is very difficult to get on DVD. Some of it is re-released as of about three years ago, but there are a lot of edits made, like entrance themes, bleeps and blurs. But because the originals were only available from recordings from the TV (in their unedited form), a lot of them are sub-par video quality, because after all, we didn't really have digital in 1987! So when these events come out reissued with the picture and sound fully restored. They're going to sell. Nobody is going to pass it up in favour of their crappy copies they recorded off the TV, donkeys ago!

Take for example, the recent Pearl Jam Ten remaster, with the DVD of the Unplugged gig. Do you honestly think people are not going to buy that because they can save a couple of bucks by getting a dodgy grainy MTV recording from 1992 from VHS dubbed to DVD? Be serious! People have been waiting for years for that. And when Oasis finally do the same with their Unplugged to DVD, it will be exactly the same. Same goes for bootleg audio. People still ran out and bought Metallica's S&M despite the gig being bootlegged all over the place.

Because you get what you pay for, and you'll pay to get it. And it's that simple.

Bonavox

Personally, I'm a U2 fanatic, and can't name a song I don't like. They've probably made the most iconic songs ever, and their status to me could only be rivaled to The Beatles.

I love U2, and not because they're Irish. I'd still love U2 if they were any other nationality.

BTW, I am going to play drums at one of U2s concerts. I don't know when, and I don't know how, but I'd die happy to play the beat to City Of Blinding Lights!